ProfHankD: Wow! It's beating the D800 fairly easily -- didn't expect that. It also blows away the Canon 5D III (there's more detail in the A7R at 6400 than in the 5D III at 50), but that was not entirely unexpected.
It looks like Sony is retaining detail really well in JPEGs while nicely removing somewhat more sensor color noise than the competition that shows up in the raw. This might be the best JPEG engine I've seen in a camera so far.... I will admit to also wondering if the color noise isn't noise at all, but artifacting due to the lack of an AA filter? If so, congrats to the lens used, because that would mean it's well past Nyquist for a 36MP FF sensor....
PS: Look at the Jack in the comparison scene. Interesting that only the A7R doesn't make the Jack's hair go the wrong direction with artifacting....
I'm willing to bet that the A7R's apparent edge in resolution isn't entirely explained by differing default sharpening levels.
HarrieD7000: Like most android gadgets this will be shown the first week after it is bought and then life a life in a cupboard.
I think there's a reason Android-based gadgets sell well, and it's not likely their ability to consume cupboard space.
Abaregi: Semms to be a great camera for the sensor size. The pricing is a bit steep though, just a bit more and you get FF.
Stu 5, the EM5 has the edge how?
Also, grips go a long way in determining camera application (e.g., hiking around and/or using large lenses imparts a need for a substantial grip). In this sense, the A7 is, in fact, properly compared to the EM1, not the EM5 -- unless you're imaging the latter's accessory grip, which then changes both weight and cost comparisons.
ABM Barry: I could never take Sony seriously as a pro camera as their systems seem to change on the hour every hour.Whats it now, ..... 4 adapters from the last four experiments?
Canon and Nikon are reliable Systems that you can be sure that you won't get stuck with unusable lenses. NEX now dead I understand?
I can use 40 year old Nikkor lenses on the D4.
Sony still don't even have the basic standard design architecture in place.What will the next lens mount be?, ..... and the one after that?
I have often looked at Sony and thought, "Mmm thats a nice feature" But again, can we trust the system longevity? Demonstrably No!
None of my Pro colleagues would consider investing in Sony, Very few do.
Nice to hear your general opinion on life and the universe, but this is an article on the A7 -- about which you seem to have nothing particular to say.
PixelMover: I haven't actually seen one in person, but from the pics I can't help but wonder how comfortable it is to hold such a small camera with big lenses all day. Small size/weight may seem great at first, but if the lenses are still big and heavy, the balance is lost. And how are you supposed to handhold with that adapter monstrosity under your lens? I have fairly large hands and for me the D800/MB-D12 still feels a tad cramped, so I wonder if you could comfortable shoot with this A7 handheld all day?
The whole point of the E system is for those who AREN'T using "big lenses all day".
Neloy Sinha: Sony is simply making the things knotty for any one who wants to devote himself in Sony gadgets. Starting as early as acquiring Minolta, Sony committed too many changes to capture the photography market. It was very akin to push Betamax version of video cassettes & recorders, inspite of its inherent complexity of mechanism. Not every venture succeed like 'Walkman'.Very soon consumers will be confused & fade up to pick up a Sony photo gears because of forced compatability complexity.Sony should know to make simple things in a complex and competitive world for average photo snsppers. I wish them all the success.
I for one am glad you're not on the board of Sony. Hooray for the A7s.
mmcfine: Good luck to Sony. I stopped buying Sony products more then a decade ago. As a post below me mentioned, Sony changes directions way to often and I won't buy into a system that is constantly changing. I am happy with the Canon 6D full-frame. It's small and light and follows Canon's ergonomic and UI design.
Um, what? First, Sony's E-lenses haven't really changed. And the A-mount lenses have been around since the invention of the camera -- or close to it. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Second, I don't imagine the execs at Sony are up at night worrying about whether they have your business -- you, a market size of one. Strange, though, that for such an ardent Sony-hater, you bother to comment on their products.
SeeRoy: It's pretty blatant. Hardly surprising that they've been sued.
Only everyone here seems to disagree with your analysis...
epo001: Of course it is a copy and of course the legions of witless fandroids make witless comparisons with Apple, after if Samsung didn't copy Apple all their phones would look like Nokia handsets.
So people who prefer better-spec'ed, more capable but less expensive phones are "witless"? -- seems you have things backwards.
CameraLabTester: I guess space travel now belongs to Museums.
The "PIONEERING SPIRIT" or whatever you might call it, is just LOST.
Space Shuttle... Now the Nation... in SHUTDOWN mode...
Get back in your tea cave, rb59020.
Musicjohn: The G serie powershots have always been way too overpriced rubbish, are still way overpriced rubbish and always will be way overpriced rubbish. There are many other (even cheaper) cams of this format which make just as good a picture, if not better.
I am a professional photographer with 1D-mkIV and 5D-mkII and I have always had the need for a 'pocket sized' little cam which I can have with me all of the time. I have had several G-series from Canon, but always sold them again within a few weeks because I was disappointed with the image quality. About 4 years ago I even preferred a Casio Exilim to the G11.
The reason why people would buy a pocket sized cam is the need to get any picture as fast as possible onto a blog or a newspaper or news website. Considering the resolution size in which the final picture will appear (usually no larger than 600 pixels max.) one could argue that ANY compact camera would fulfill that job, even the lowest price compact cam available today.
What utter nonsense. Canon's G-series is unquestionably superior in both flexibility and, more important, image quality to just about anything similarly priced or cheaper. Maybe that's why it sells so well.
Raincheck: One of the most striking things about all these shots over at flicker is how hard it is to find pictures of hordes of fat pigs wallowing around at the circuses and fairs, dressed in tee shirts and stretch pants. With the notable exception of The Fat Lady, of course. I'm jealous of a time where you could get candid shots of Americans enjoying leisure time without filling the frame with round blobs all dressed the same. Ahhhh... the colorful gayly printed skirts and dresses blowing in the breeze...
Beam me back Scotty.
AlpCns2, what an ignorant, Tea Party-esque statement, blaming the government's health initiatives for American obesity -- instead of the private sector (Coke, Burger King, etc.) that literally fuels it. At the same time, you guys criticize the efforts of Bloomberg to combat the insidious effects of sugar in Big Gulps and the like. If you're going to spew reactionary nonsense,you could at least be consistent about it.
Dazzer8888: Great photographer, cheesy subject matter, horrible camera.....
By "cheesy", Dazzer8888 was referring to the subject matter, not the phone, and my comments followed accordingly.
Greg Henry: People whine too much.
Reduce the photos to around 6 megapixels. Adjust the levels a bit. Poof - they're better than any other phone camera on the market today.
Their biggest problem? They're taken with a camera that's attached to a Window's phone, and one that's exclusive only to AT&T at that.
Hooray for Windows phones, and any other ones that compete against the dull monopolies of Apple and Android.
Conventional to the point it may seem overdone? Sure, but that doesn't = "cheesy". Cheesy means bad, whereas this stuff is so good that it's obvious/boring to you. Hey, this scenery is amazing, and it's not its fault it's highly photographed. I can't tell if it's your analysis that's off or just your vocabulary. Either way, the comments in this section seem like an exercise of one-upsmanship in perfunctory negativity.
Roland Karlsson: Very skilful done colorings, but ... she needs to pay more attention to reflections. The red of the fire in the burning monk image should light up the ground and make it redder. The water under the mushroom cloud should be grayer etc. At least if she wants to make it look realistic. But ... I really like most of the portraits. They get more 3D.
But 1) the ground isn't lighter in the immolation, and 2) the mushroom cloud shouldn't make the water any grayer than do the regular cumulus clouds in the same photo (plus the mushroom cloud is principally over an island far in the distance and not entirely subject to water reflection). Realism in this case must be determined not by what you might EXPECT in the (redone) photos, but by what's actually IN the (source) photos.
TN Args: Despite the confidence of some comments on this article, it is impossible to spot the biased/faked reviews unless they are badly faked. You think they haven't thought of readers who ignore 1-star ratings? Think again.
I ignore them completely. Especially with regard to reliability or breakdowns: even if the reports are true, they give a completely unrepresentative and distorted view of the odds of you having a problem if you buy one.
It has even gotten to the point where the main website reviewers will mark a product down for not having some feature that a different model has -- they assume everybody wants it. Why won't they review the product (camera) for how well it does what it does, not how well it does what it doesn't??
I mainly read reviews not for the number rating, but sometimes users come up with some really interesting ownership or usage aspect that I had not thought of, or read elsewhere.
Sorry, chaos, but I ROUTINELY encounter the very sort of reviews described by TN Args.
Rod McD: Quote from the conclusion :- "Details are smudged at base ISO (though likely not an issue for target audience)"
Why is there this ongoing assumption that people who like the outdoors aren't interested in better IQ? In my experience, people who want tough, WR cameras to take to wild places greatly value where they go and the images they bring back. Perhaps the target audience who buy these cameras do so because there's simply nothing better available. It doesn't mean it isn't wanted and wouldn't sell. And no, one shouldn't have to carry a D4 in housing. We need something in-between - a modern day Nikonos with a fixed wide to standard zoom.
Surely someone could make a better small WR camera with a 1"- APSC sensor, a WA zoom, and real O-ring seals? Yes it would weigh more and cost more, but many would be prepared to pay more for a comprehensively better outdoor camera.
I agree with the OP. This needn't be an either/or(I learned this from Goldilocks). I'm quite sure a good many people would prefer something like the AW110 but with a 20% bigger sensor and a 20% bigger lens -- and pay 40% more for it without complaint. It's not as though there are any technical barriers to such a camera.
DotCom Editor: Seems they got it bass ackwards. "Pentax" has brand equity in cameras, "Ricoh" in office equipment.
Ah, but most of the brass in charge are Ricoh men, not Pentax (remember that big Ricoh bought fledgling Pentax). Let's hope their pride doesn't goeth before the fall.
Jack Simpson: Different name .... Same Great Products :) EDIT: I really can't believe some of the comments below ????
Are you telling us you can't believe some of the comments below, or asking us if you can't believe some of the comments below? (Question marks can be a dangerous thing!)