Photato: Dunno what is the obsession of going FF, especially with a new mount like this that requires new lenses to make sense.I hope Canon dith their EOS M and goes with one mount only for their mirrorless format, APS-H sensor seems ideal instead of running two formats like Sony is doing.APS-H makes a lot of sense due to efficient production costs when compared to FF. The price advantage.APS-H being the largest size sensor that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. Quality advantage over APS-C.
It's the same physical mount as existing NEX bodies. That means that all the existing mount adapters work already - you can use FF Leica M glass immediately, for example. I know more than one photographer who only needs to buy the body - they are already shooting Leica M glass, or Pentax K glass, on an NEX body.
What's different is that the existing E-mount glass has been designed for APS-C image circle. So Sony needs to add new E-mount lenses (well, FE mount).
dynaxx: Even for a 35mm camera body, the prices are still too high. Sony are being shrewd and mopping-up the "price is of no consequence" brigade before offering cheaper ( more plastic and less Magnesium alloy ) bodies for the people who look for value for money and are ( probably ) in the majority.
Because my roots are in the film era, I still find it ironic that getting back to the image capture area that was the norm for everyday film snappers about 40 years ago, generates the kind of wonderment that large format film ( 4" X 5" and upwards ) created at that time.
My bet is that the A7 will have the better image quality ( colours especially ) because 36.3 megapixels is too many to cram into that sensor area.
Given the truly thrilling implications of this announcement for the photography industry as a whole, the preliminary review is surprisingly unenthusiastic ( f/1.8 and f/2.8 Primes lenses are described as "somewhat slow"). To criticise the nomenclature "Bionz X" is just stupid.
Yeah, 36Mpixels is far too many in that sensor size. That must be why the D800/D800E is such a disaster. Oh, hang on...
I've been shooting a D800E for 18 months. It's a superb body, with extraordinary dynamic range. Maybe that's why it's the highest rated sensor on DxOMark.
I won't be surprised if the A7r ends up rated next to the D800E (or maybe even above it, given the absence of the AA filter).
SRT3lkt: Both are outdated lenses.
The Canon 135mm f/2L has been around a long time. The only calls for its replacement appear to be from those who want IS on it.
This was the first L prime I bought. I still use it. The other two L primes that rival it are the 85mm f/1.2L (double the price), and the 200mm f/2L (over five times the price).
I'd like to see a Sigma Art 135mm (f/1.8 would be nice), but I want it in Nikon mount for a D800E. I'll keep using the Canon 135L.
Sergi Gabriel: Very strange for me information from DXOMark that Canon lens 70-200 IS 2.8L is better then 70-200 IS 2.8L v.2. It is reason why information from DXO is only information, not more.
Canon does not make a 20-70 lens (maybe you mean 24-70?), but the 24-70 doesn't have IS. Or do you mean 70-200?
Your comment just doesn't make sense.
taotoo: No way will it be sapphire crystal. Probably just a hard plastic.
Why couldn't it be sapphire? They use sapphire crystal (in much larger pieces) on watches that cost a fraction of the price of this phone.
Absolutic: So Canon is changing the naming from USM to STM? Are STM lenses still USM, or is it a completely different technology? Are all new Canon lenses then be STM? Is USM a thing of a past?
It's not new technology, but it's new to DSLRs - there's a brief discussion of it in the 650D preview. We'll probably only see it on lenses intended for video use, though.
Still 18Mpixel - Canon does seem obsessed with that resolution (kinda like Nikon's obsession with 12 Mpixel a while back).
Disappointed they are still using USB2 - USB3 is not an expensive upgrade, and it's much much faster.
Jerry 39: Where can you download CR6.7 at. I could not find it on the Adobe web site
My copy of Photoshop CS5 updated itself to include ACR 6.7 on Saturday. I had the beta already installed to support D800E, but I was happy to see the non-beta version install itself.
skrulm8: 4k capture is great if you output to 2k, but native 4k viewing is not really useful. How close to the screen do you have to be to resolve the difference? It can't be more than 3 feet for a 24" screen with perfect eyesight. That's almost too close to watch movies. I mean, would we see the difference between a native 12 MP and a resampled 2 MP film projection at the cinema?
I think it will stop at 4k for viewing and 8k for capture and editing. Color depth and framerate will be the frontier after that. As for framerate, it will peak at 60p for viewing because that's where the emotional impact peaks. That will change only when movies go interactive, i.e. turn into video games.
2k is fine for TV, but what if you are shooting for the movie screen? It subtends a larger visual angle...
Besides, 4k gives you more scope for editing. It's like the classic arguments about megapixels.
T3: The only objection I have to this camera is price.
I don't want more than 22mp. The last thing I want to do is shoot an entire wedding in 36mp RAW. Yikes! Wedding clients aren't asking for billboard-sized enlargements of their images. 22mp is plenty. So I think the 5D MKIII is a more *practical* camera for the working photographer.
But like I said, I just wish it weren't so pricey. $2500-2700 would be great.
Oh, and I also would have preferred an on-board flash. Handy to have that on-board wireless flash controller like on the Rebels, 60D, and 7D.
It has a wireless flash controller. It's a better one than a flash, though - it's radio.
Clyde Coman: Wow 300 FPS 640X360 image suze is great. NO EFV ? I don't know how to use there cameras in the bright sunlight. Maybe others do, let me in on it.
EFV? I guess that's an Electronic Find Viewer...
Roger Knight: Well I think Mirrorless cameras and especially those without any viewfinder are a bit of a fad and really not what many entheusiasts will end up with. I think they will eventually migrate to SLR or even the new SONY system.Having said that,iIt would be in both of Nikons and Canons best interests to at least get a mirrorles camera out there that uses their lens system rather than say Panasonic, Olympus, NEX or even Samsung so that everything they sell can move towards the ultimate purchases down the timeline when they start to become serious about serious photography where only an SLR will do the job most times.
Mirrorless is no fad. The steady removal of mechanical parts from cameras is a progression.
The proponents of mirrorless touts the ability to go smaller as a big feature of mirrorless, while the opponents point to the disadvantages of smaller sensors. Isn't that missing an opportunity
I see no reason why a company (I can think of at least two...) with an existing arsenal of high quality full-frame lenses could not make a mirrorless camera using a full-frame sensor. No need to build an entire new range of lenses; customers can use their existing lenses; customers can mix/and/match mirrorless and DSLR bodies with the same lens kit and accessories. Yes, these would be heavier, larger mirrorless bodies, but they would have superior image quality due to larger sensor size. No mirror slap, no view-finder blackout, no shutter lag - they could be superior to OVF cameras in every way except phase-detect AF.