This is the beginning of the real payout of mirrorless cameras, the cost and IQ hammer on the dslr. A dslr line does not want to get into a price war with this thing, or its future relatives, because this has got to be so much cheaper to make. This, and all of its future relatives, can offer better image quality at far lower cost of manufacture than dslrs. My guess would be that we will see the low end of the dslr price range drift upwards over the next several years as the other makers realize that the handwriting is on the wall and they can only fight this new class of camera with mirrorless cameras that are cheaper to make. I suspect if you take the Nex to EOS-M time gap and subtract a few months you will find Canon and Nikon versions of this in the market replacing their low end dlsrs.
jimr: I think Dpreview has it totally wrong. Excellent sensor. MSRP $399 with kit lens. The A3000 will fly off the shelves no matter what the LCD/EVF resolution. The fact that it has both is an asset!
Yes the tone of the dpr article is all wrong. However dpr, like photographic equipment collectors who live on this site, does not deeply like change, and this is a big change. If you look at the dpr story on the first Nex cameras (3&5) and compare that to the first story on the 5N, you will see that the biggest change was not the cameras but merely the fact that dpr writers had become accustomed to the idea of the Nex. They hated the first and loved the second more than any change in the cameras would possibly justify.
Lee Jay: So, the main reason is, because you don't shoot a lot of shots in difficult conditions, like the Spitfire shot. Fine for you. I shoot about 80% of my shots in conditions in which none of the cameras mentioned would have any chance of getting the shot.
True there are a few people who shoot mostly in situations in which a dslr is better. I think however that the situations in which it is worse than the alternatives are far more common, the kind which are noted in the story. We are faced with a situation in which dslrs will go the way of view cameras, specialty products necessary and superior for a small set of situations and worse for most.
Abaregi: EOS M has touch, 6D does not. What is the price difference there?
As a manual shooter I have never used it on my 5R but i guess it would be nice for AF. I have never used that though (Legacy shooter)
If i start with AF lenses then i might appreciate the touch on my 5R but so far i have never used or missed it.
No it certainly does not require hand off grip. I use the touch shutter with my thumb. Right thumb for landscape and left for portrait. The 5R is so small, it isn't even a stretch. One common alternative when you lack touch shutter does involve moving the camera, to choose a focus point in the scene, half press to lock, and reframe. That is less stable and much slower.
S.A.: heh so many negative comments as usual.... I've owned all Nikon and Sony. Nikon DSLRs and Sony whatevers... And this NEX 6 is the closest I've come to a do it all camera. As with all mirrorless, the autofocus leaves something to be diesired, but otherwise it's a swiss army knife of cameras. First thing I did was sell the lens. Would rather use primes and already had the 18-55.Crying about the menus is pointless. The quick navi and the fn button take care of that. Hardly any need to go into menus. Love that I an use my triggers with the hot shoe. Love the wireless. I shoot in my little studio and just hit send to computer. Love it. WONDERFUL CAMERA! Touchscreen lol. Use your cell phone then. No real advantage imho. Actually it seems a handicap if you ask me. Turned it off on the 5n after a few weeks. However, I can see no reason why they couldn't have included it for the gadget crowd. So ok, minus half a percentage point.
It is not possible to rationally justify the lack of touch screen unless it is based on manufacturer's cost savings.
The camera switches dynamically from lcd to viewfinder and turns off the touchscreen instantly as it does so. There is no possibility of accidental touching when using the viewfinder.
The emotional issue here about touch screen is that it is new. Things that are new are thought by old photographers to be "not serious" but what this really reflects is a desire for group approval among the stodgy, by disparaging that which was not present on old cameras.The fact is that under some circumstances touch is very good for manual focus enlargement centering, for subject selection and shutter in one action, and, sometimes, for menu handling. It is never bad to have it available. In photography anything that is good sometimes is good period, because conditions always vary.
starwolfy: Is it sharper than a Leica M11 at Iso 12800 ?
Leica has nothing to do with photography or photographic image quality. Leica is only about the image of the person carrying it.
I find the touch shutter to be an excellent feature. I use it all the time for shooting fast moving children in groups. The reason is that with a single action you get to place the focus and release the shutter. It is the fastest way to accomplish that in one step. I think most opposition to it is because most photographers here are old and don't like to change.
OutOfFocus student: Using primes on all NEXs is still a big pain since you don't have AutoISO in Manual mode . In general there is no significant AutoISO control as one would expect on a modern enthusiast camera.This is really a major drawback of using any NEX camera with NEX primes, and the reason I've not upgraded to NEX-6 from 5N.I'm surprised this was not mentioned by in the dpreview ... do you guys only shoot the crappy kit lens?
This has absolutely nothing to do with primes, and he is just conflating different subjects. If op meaant old manual primes, Shutter priority does what he wants. With the typical manual prime, since the aperture can't be set by the camera, setting the camera to Shutter leaves the aperture control on the lens ring and the camera manages the ISO automatically ergo manual with auto iso.
Most of the negative comments here are completely clueless.
A few facts. It is perfectly possible to hand-hold these cameras and get shake free photos at under ISO 400, full zoom, and 250th on a deeply overcast day. This means full zoom is perfectly practical in pretty much any outdoor shooting conditions without pushing the ISO into a zone in which this sensor has noise problems.
Second, shooting birds with this class of camera, waterfowl in particular, is a completely better and nicer experience than shooting with APS-C or larger format gear, unless you like hauling equipment.
For whatever size you choose you can get better photos with yet bigger gear. For APS-C, FF is better. For FF, midsize is better. Endless, but you must have the gear with you. As soon as you get above roughly this size sensor, the lens sizes, inconvenience and costs immediately dwarf the size, convenience and cost of this class of cameras.
forpetessake: I'm not sure the lens on the long end is usable at all, it's equivalent to 1056mm f/40 in FF format. With such a dim lens even in best sunny day one has to use high ISO, slow shutter and will get a lot of noise and smeared action.
Presuming that this camera is competitive with the Canon SX-50, which goes to 1200mm, the lens is very usable at low iso even on overcast days. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about here.
Dodi73: mmmthe longer the sillier... they can stabilize everything, simply put is the user the weakest point... Heck, with a reflex I have problems pointing anything longer than 300/400mm, go figure a 1000mm... It's like giving a super sniper rifle to not even a sunday luna park shooter...
Imho, they (whatever brand "they" means) should make much shorter zoom and increase sensor sizes. Even a 20x (20/400) or 25-300 would be much more appealing with better sensor specs. Actually, at least for me, even a 25-250 would be enough, given a superior performance. A camera must not be useful only at noon or in full day, a truly versatile camera must give you good result whatever the light. THIS is the key point.
You might consider knowing something about these cameras before you say such things. I've shot with the 1200mm Canon HX-50 and it works very well, is easily held and operates at low iso on overcast days. This probably does also.Secondly your opinion about "a versatile camera" is old thinking. I use a camera phone for maximum portability, an APS-C camera for indoor low light people shots and some landscape, and a superzoom for birding. Why would I want one camera instead of that lineup? No one camera can do what that set can do.
mpgxsvcd: 1200mm F6.3. That is what every novice user needs. It appears that Sony thinks the bigger they make the camera the better people will think it is. Apparently uninformed consumers think that as well since these slow super zooms seem to be all the rage.
1200mm is actually very nice for wildlife and bird photography in open areas. There is no reason to suppose this is aimed soley at novice users. Anyone who doesn't want to fool around with suitcase size glass costing 10x, and hauling a tripod, might be interested.
It will be interesting to see how the image quality and handling of the HX-300 compares to the Canon SX-50. Both are 1200mm max. I tested the SX-50 vs. the HX-100 and the SX-50 had an IQ advantage but also had some handling disadvantages in burst mode that were serious problems for me.
mpgxsvcd: You don't need 1200mm in something you carry around every day. You can't effectively hand hold that.
You certainly can hand hold it. There is no problem hand holding the HX-100 at 810mm equv and no problem hand holding the Canon SX50 at 1200mm. Given that it would be extremely surprising if you couldn't hand hold this new one. Based on lots of handheld 810mm shots with the HX-100 I'll guess you can hand hold this at 1200mm at 125th.
rfsIII: It's ironic that you have to remind people they'll need a tripod if they shoot at the 1200mm equivalent. If you were shooting with a DSLR at that focal length you'd be using thousands of dollars worth of heads, gimbals, tripods, gyroscopic stablizers, bedrock-anchored concrete footings, and sandbags filled with ununoctium.
As I noted in a separate post, I found the same thing. It is in fact very practical to shoot with this at 1200mm equiv at low iso in daylight handheld, no tripod.
"While having all that telephoto power sounds appealing, keep in mind that you'll need to either use a tripod or crank up the ISO a bit in order to get a sharp photo at full telephoto"
This statement in the conclusion is deeply misleading. I bought this camera, (and returned it for some handling issues), but this is mostly false based on my experience with it. I could post plenty of handheld full telephoto shots at low enough ISO (<=400) taken outdoors in moderate daylight. Not a problem. Indoors or low light, yes this is probably true, but for example for wildlife photo buffs shooting in normal daylight, this is not true. The IS is fantastic on this camera.Not noted in the review is that the high speed burst mode (13 fps) is completely blind. All displays (viewfinder/lcd) are black during this. This is why I didn't keep the camera, but I found IQ, as the review notes, and IS to be very good.
This idea, an Android or other open platform camera, is THE BIGGEST POTENTIAL of existing technology that is unexploited by existing cameras. It should be married with a universal software/electronic lens mounting capability supported the manufacturer. (Don't tell me it is impossible or illegal. It has all be done, but piecemeal.) That would be a takeover move by an Apple class competitor. The end of the camera business as we have known it. (Polaroid on the other hand has been a joke. No one even knows who owns the name.)
The existing camera companies are too timid and backward in their thinking to do it until they are faced with the need to chase another company's lead.
Sony, who has great electronics technology, seems to have done a typical Sony "toe in the water" job with loadable apps on the Nex 5R and 6, but those is the typical stupid proprietary stuff like "memory stick" and ADCMP, or whatever it was instead of mp3.
drwho9437: My camera is a mirrorless full frame camera similar to a EM5.
It however has a fully electronic pixel mask-able shutter. This allows all sorts of DOF reconstructions and high dynamic range methods to be employed.
To take a simple example, if you place it in HDR mode at 1/250 it will take 3 photos one at 1/1000, one at 1/250 and one at 1/60 in just over 1/60 of a second. This extends the DR of the image by 4 stops without blurring artifacts. Because the shutter is electronic there is no delay to cause blur between the images that would cause alignment issues. The data is integrated into a 3 channel RAW file.
Or equally the camera could sample at the shutter speed many times to integrate to saturation. This would eliminate well depth as a DR limitation on the sensors and provide true tone mappable images even into the darkest shows and brightest skies.
These are the kind of techniques that will be coming and will cause the top of the line cameras to become mirrorless. Integrating across time will open up a lot of new possibilities but mirror-flopping will be incompatible with the full range of them. Essentially at whatever instant you want to call "the photograph" there is a ton of useful image information in adjacent short blocks of time before and after. DR is just one use.
The negative comments here about the SX-50 are extreme. I'm sure they are full of incorrect assumptions such as "use it only in bright daylight" "need a tripod" "tiny sensor" etc. CNET Asia notes the following about 1200mm use of the SX-50: "reasonably sharp images even when focused on a subject in dimly lit interiors" Although I suspect you don't want to push the iso above 600, if they have the IS done right, which the few hands on we have suggest that they do, it should be useable in medium light handheld at full zoom. Sensor matches most compacts.
In a larger sense the negative comments reflect poorly on the writers. This class of camera is very handy for a wide range of uses. Here it is merely a kind of secret society that knows that superzoom bashing is a door opener to the sanctum. So I want to go on record that I like superzooms and phone cams, not exclusively, but I think they make the photo world much richer with more possibilities for capturing interesting shots.
This looks very good. The faster focus and the wifi are welcome additions. I hope the high iso performance remains as good as it has been with the 5N and probably it will be.
Most of the negative comments here are just a deep disgruntlement at the notion that new is better than old, new technology, newer camera brands, but often it is, and looks to be here.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review