It's something to consider if my K-01 or EOS-M ever bite the bullet but given they are built like tanks and have survived me this long it may be quite awhile.
Regarding sharpness; I think it's easy to be sharp at 16mp. I wonder how well the lenses would fair with a decent modern high resolution sensor. (My old NEX was fairly decent at 16mp but my newer sony 20+mp alpha produces a lot of mush, not extra detail with the same lenses).
"ave essentially closed the gap between DSLR and mirrorless focus performance for all but the most demanding applications. "
This is fairly untrue unless you conser "inside" or "cloudy day" most demanding.
My A6000 is fairly quick to drop the PDAF in anything less than perfect lighting, forget about "most demanding"
Perhaps the ultra high end is better but acording to your own coverage they are still fairly lacking versus the high end DSLRs.
doesn't google photos already do this?
noflashplease: The plastic mount is downright scary to contemplate. Overall, this camera looks like a corporate cost-cutters dream, a parts bin special of A58 and A77 bits, including that absolutely tiny 2.7" rear screen, which is no longer full articulated. The plastic mount is the absolute deal killer. The only reason anyone would still buy an A-mount camera is to support a pre-existing collection of quality Maxxum/A-mount lenses, but who in their right mind would hang a big, heavy, professional lens from that plastic mount? Just how much did Sony save by using plastic instead of metal? 5 cents? 10 cents? It seems that the A-mount isn't fading away gracefully, it's being nickeled and dimed to death.
I'd wager more than a few would use it with the famous beercan ($100ish old minolta AF F4 70-200 zoom) That thing is a friken tank. It's probably OK but I'd find the pastic mount worrisome with legacy minolta glass.
In this day and age how does a camera with 8X zoom quailify as a "long zoom"?
With such a low bar for "long" there's a slew of pocket cameras that should be on the list Canon PowerShot ELPH135, (8x zoom) ELPH 500 (10x) nikon cool pixes, sonys such as the WB800 etc
dog house riley: I'm quite satisfied with my D3300 and its under $500.00 price tag. I enjoy its compact size and great IQ. Just my 2 cents. Even its not on the list! maybe it should be?
HowaboutRAW that's the historical amazon price a respectable source that makes returns and full refunds easy.
Xoden: Shouldn't this list be named something like 'Some entry-level mirrorless body-only cameras'?It will definitely match the contents better.
". It should be pretty clear from the title which segment of the market"
The specially crafted segment you can declare sony a winner? Because that's what it's looking like. Put mirrorless in the title and you come off looking just a little better but you are still ignoring the miserable quality of the kits zoom.
Jorginho: From what I have seen the Sony does not have the best allround AF at all. It hesitates on low light where the Panasonic does not. Also EPL7 is the only one here that lets you put a EVF on it. Also Nikon J5 and the m43 cams are considerably smaller once you add lenses. But we all see it coming, don't we.
But it is all clear to me: this years winners will be Sony, Sony, Sony, Sony. Dpreview lately is mostly all about Sony. Understandable partly, Sony no doubt deserves a lot of credit for what they did with their A7 system. But dpreview is a bit too much into that brand for my taste.
"impressive image quality. "
Really? Have you actually used or tested the kit zoom?
It's a total PITA as it starts at an almost unusable 16mm (bad res bad "big nose" perspective distortion) slows the startup, sucks the battery and gives really meh images.
It's been under 550 for the last year and 500 for the last 6 months. It currently sells for $450, $100 less than some of the cameras in the roundup.
Title says ILC not mirrorless so where are the cheap DSLRs?
Also wow, total shutout of the whole M43 system?
All the cameras have 3" screens but you fail to mention the movie optimized 16:9 aspect ratio of the A5100 screen which is horrible for viewing pictures. The actual screen size for picture/live view is more like 2.5" and it feels incredibly small compared to the competitions 3:2 aspect ratio screen.s
One plus for the A5100 not mentioned over the A6000 is that you can actually control the power zoom from the body. I have no idea why the A6000 is totally braindead regarding the power zoom. You can't control it from the body, so you always need two hands instead of one when zooming
Neither body will let you set a starting focal length so you always start at 16mm where the lens is weakest.
babart: Apparently it's easy to get rid of the extra import screen, courtesy of a DPR respondent in France: "I turned off the 'Show "Add Photos" screen' option in Edit -> Preferences and everything seems to be back to normal."
I can't verify that as I went back to LR 6.1.1, and I also can't verify if that fixes any of the other problems with the 6.2 update.
Thanks for this. It's not the same at all but it's much closer to the old interface.
I'm using the new import for the first time today and all I can say is "wow".
For such a huge change in a .x update to software key to many pro workflows it's kind of incredible how much they changed the import.
Luckily I learned through discussions here that there is an option to turn off "add photos" and it gets you to something a little more similar to what we are used to. But still it's not there yet. For example what's with the huge check mark preventing you from seeing what photos are being imported?
It's a bit worrisome that adobe would so casually make such huge changes to the frontend without something to smooth the experience; for example an easy switch to put it back to the exactly the old way while you learn (or complain about) the new methods.
The more I look at the pictures the more I don't feel I need to upgrade my 5s.
Is anyone else a bit disappointed that other than resolution there has not been much progress?
jimrpdx: 'tis a shame that Pentax' pixel shift and AA simulation were not enough for an innovation nod. The NX1 has some excellent and unique features though.
Pentax's approach to turn on/off an AA filter is different/revolutionary:
According to IR: "Bottom line. It's not often that we label an imaging technology "revolutionary", but if ever one deserved to be called such, Pentax's selectable anti-aliasing filter technology is it. It's a fundamentally different approach to anti-aliasing, and one that appears to have surprisingly few downsides associated with it. For the first time ever, there's a camera on the market that lets the end-user decide when they want a low-pass filter, and when they don't, with little apparent penalty regardless of their choice. And it was Pentax that brought it to us."
I hate this that it bugs me but what does she gain by having a crooked/slanted horizon in this pict? At first I thought it was due to the slope of the beach but then there would be less sky on the left not more.
Is she straigtening the kids that may be leaning because they are pulling on the net? I have no idea but when I see that I want to hit R and use the alignment tool to fix the horizon.
Hard to justify over an RX100.
dpreview extensive coverage is puzzling given iphone addons are nothing new and none of them so far have been all that successful.
In all fairness it IS a slow news day. I'd rather see something here (even coverage of an update on a niche product no one cares about) than nothing.
keeponkeepingon: It's really odd that almost all pictures are with the kit lens or UWA zoom. The only pictures taken with a prime lens (the 22mm F2.0) are at 3200 ISO and above.
Please post a few picts with the 22mm under normal conditions at reasonable ISO. That lens is really popular with the EOS-M crowd, and shots with it would be most helpful for folks considering upgrading.
And while you are at it throw in a few picts with decent EF or EF-S canon glass using the adapter?
LoL. Sorry but you made me laugh as I almost put "upgrade" in quotes but wanted the post to be constructive and not tinder for the ongoing anti-M flamewar.
It's really odd that almost all pictures are with the kit lens or UWA zoom. The only pictures taken with a prime lens (the 22mm F2.0) are at 3200 ISO and above.
Hurricain711: yawn. My a6000 kicks its ass
For some things the A6000 is a real snail. Part of it may be the power zoom but perforamnce wise it can be slow as nails. Slow to power on. Slow to do basic functions such as zooming etc.
Touch screen on the M is wonderful. Touch to click the shutter is great. Very iphoneish, tremendous WAF and if you hand your camera to a stranger you have a decent chance of getting a good picture.
I have both the original EOS-M and the A6000.
Surprisingly for some things I like the EOS-M much better. I tend to gravitate towards it as my carry around camera and the A6000 gets hauled out for sports.
The A6000 IS a nice camera but gosh it's so frustrating at times.
For example with the EOS-M I can take a picture while the cameras is in video mode (not taking a movie).
Push the shutter with the mode dial on video in the A6000 and you get an error message that you can't take a picture. Then you need to switch modes then take the picture but hey the moment is gone too bad you are using an A6000.
Now during a video you want to take a picture? On the EOS-M and almost every other modern camera it's no problem, sure you can take a picture while taking a video. But on Sony's latest and greatest? No way.....
Screen on the A6000 is smaller. Yes smaller. Specs may say the same size but the aspect ratio on the EOS-M matches a picture while on the A6000 you always have wasted space.