mm1975: For a camera that was reviewed based on default settings, it is amazing how the review was ever done - I am pretty sure the default setting for the power button is OFF.
I doubt the default setting to be OFF, but the default location for the battery is within the packaging and not in the camera.
jonny1976: cxall a doctor for sony a7r and the other user...they are getting sick..
Ok, so what are you doing here then?
MikeF4Black: The problem with Sony is they know how to make a good sensor (and a good transistor radio), but have no clue as to what makes a good camera.
Well, it's not really a problem, as there are sufficient camera makers around.
I'll make an exception for the RX1, which is nice, if only it had a viewfinder.
I don't feel the urge to dive in the menu at all. And the ergonomics of the camera hasn't prevented me a single time from getting the shot... since the camera was set up.
It's the same process for every new device. It's like getting to know your car, your laptop, pretty much everything new.The camera customisable to a very large extent and you can make it work the way you want it.
Here's what I did - quite straightforward:
-Enable flight mode (pretty much doubles battery life)-Enable raw (or disable NR)-Clear out the fn Menu-Configure your buttons and remove ISO from the dial-Dial in A or M with auto ISO-Disable image review-Remove the clutter from the display windows on LCD and EVF-Enable peaking and configure it (mine:high yellow)-Set display to EVF only or Auto (now it's a pain you can't configure the LCD for reviewing)-Swich to M mode whenever light gets low-Start shooting
Ever since, I haven't dug in the menu a single time.
Handling or handler?
68craigdale: The viewfinder is critical part of a camera, I think it is wrong to give any electronic viewfinder such a high rating especially considering their so so performance in low light.
...Such as the viewfinder of my 5DII you mean?The EVF of the A7 is about the same size and is a lot better for manual focussing. Only a SLR from the 70s offers better MF, such as my Canon A-E1 and T-70.
An EVF gives you accurate live-view, correct DOF and overlaid information. Where can you find an OVF which sports this (not counting the Fuji X-Pro1 - that is not TTL).
bartolyni: Does it really need to get 10 gold stars just because its Sony? I guess reviewers should be let free to point out their findings regardless of the fear factor of big brand. Being one of the fist mirrorless full frame cameras does not necessarily translate into the best..........Those who bought into sony need to be realistic as ergonomics, IQ and Jpeg engine is not sony's strength!!
I believe I won't tell you any news saying that Leica M series are rangefinder cameras (M stands for Messer - and so they hid the mirror in the M-logo and in the rangefinder:-)).So no, it doesn't have a mirror, but as it is manual focussing camera, you can hardly call it "mirrorless", do you? It doesn't have a built-in viewfinder as well.
It's a different class of camera altogether.
Judging by these comments, I would go and see a doctor.
I do agree the viewfinder is a critical part of the camera.In that respect, it has not disappointed me whatsoever. In fact, I've always hated the low quality of EVFs, but this is the first one I greatly appreciate.
It performs very well under low light conditions, at least when paired with a fast lens. With a slow lens, the frame rate decreases, but that's actually a helpful indicator the shutter speed is getting too low for capturing subjects.
I definitely prefer it over an optical viewfinder for manual focussing.
The A7 and A7R are definitely the best full frame mirrorless cameras :-)IQ is on a very high level, especially when shooting RAW. For the exceptions not shooting RAW, JPG is quite good.
Ergonomics are quite good once you have adjusted the camera to your likings.Actually it's quite snappy as well.
MikeF4Black: It's truly amazing how an objective review of a photographic product from a manufacturer that used to excel at making transistor radios elicits so many heated comments. The term "fanboy" really gets new meaning here.
All very amusing; it certainly makes for an entertaining read.
btw, I have never been a fan of Sony; quite the opposite in fact.
But I picked up the camera because of its strong appeal towards me: FF in compact clothing. That's what it is.And having it for 2 months now, I must say it has not disappointed me.
The beginnings were a bit hesitant though. A firmware upgrade would sort out the majority of glitches.
Interesting."A photographic product from a manufacturer that used to excel at making transistor radios"
First, there is clear bias in your statement. Secondly, did you ever consider what makes a digital camera?
A digital camera is an optical instrument which allows its user to create an image of an object and store it in a way it can be reproduced later.
So there are 3 factors here:
1- Optics2- Recording and storage3 -User interfacing
For the optics, the company's own expertise was extended by partnering with a company which does optics almost exclusively, and that for quite some time.
In a digital camera, recording and storing an image happens exclusively by electronics, mostly transistors.It helps to have been an expert in that respect.
The interfacing is largely around bundling ergonomics and software.While not perfect, the expertise learned by having produced millions of all sorts of devices is also of help here.
So, objectively, Sony has some starting ground, not?
garyknrd: Well they forgot about the birders for sure. With this it pretty much kills my hopes for a new high end crop sensor. I WILL NEVER BUY THE MK III period. I am going back to Pentax if they come up with a good new crop body. I kept my Sigma 500mm f4.5 lens and 300mm f2.8. Look's like and I cannot believe I am saying this. Canon 500 and 300 will be shelved until they come out with something.
Typo, my sitmake!
I'm not convinced of the so called tele-advantage of an APS-C sensor. I transitioned from a 7D to 5DII quite a while ago to never go back. Full frame does simply offer you another kind of image. The shallower depth of field enables you to isolate your subject a lot better from the background, the SNR is a lot better and there is still plenty of detail. While your lenses have no "built-in" 1,6 TC, you have more exposure headroom (slower shutter speeds due to the "shorter" lenses and images with less noise). You can still crop while post-processing.On APS-C, the sensor challenges the lenses in resolution anyway. At the center, the px spread is better on FF.
Not to mention,The 7D(a lemon?) I owned had a severe banding issue, with artefacts visible in shadows even at base ISO when pulling up the exposure in ACR. While I had noticed this before, I didn't bother too much, but as my current camera does not have this problem at all, it just hit me how much better the SNR is on a FF sensor.
Breen: It is quite nice update from Canon, however.. The company became a copycat.
HDR, multi noise reduction, handheld night scene.. all copied from Sony's DSLR. Sony has HDR's since 2009, MNR, HNS also for about 2-3 years..
And now, another Canon's "breakthrough" in photography.
Ehem... What company became a copycat?
As far as I know, Canon came up with translucent mirror technology as early as 1965 with the Canon Pellix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Pellix), but stepped away from it in the early nineties. A semi-translucent mirror has lots of advantages, but is very prone to dirt and you lose a 1/3 stop of light.
It's quite common that technologies found from competing products are adapted, modified and eventually implemented in a new format. It occured with CCD and CMOS sensors, TTL, AF and other technologies.