Donnie G: So far, Sony has managed to deliver 3 different cameras from one body and keep the hype alive for their full frame sensors while keeping production costs as low as possible. Seems like a formula for success. If they can come up with a 4th camera from this body, then they might actually make a profit from the camera business this year. Hope it works for them. :)
Donnie is right. Yet camera business is one of the few division Sony is making a profit. Their mirrorless cameras sell very well in Asia and in some countries they have 51% market share of the whole camera business.In any case it is about time they should steal a page from Apple book. One body/chassis shared by different models. For Apple worked beautifully with laptops, tower computers, desktop and phones. If Sony had done the same with their laptop business, instead of having 10+ different chassis, they probably would have made a profit and kept that division. Same would do for TV sets and HI FI.
Chuck Lantz: Thanks for some very good info. As usual, many of the comments here are of the snarky variety that seem to always accompany any personal viewpoints expressed online.
While contrary opinions are always welcomed, ... sort of, ... the problem is that some good, though shy, shooters would never express their own opinions about the gear they use in fear of being slammed mercilessly by "others" in the comments section. That's a real shame, since it limits what we can all learn from others.
Personally, I've never heard of Chase Jarvis until today, but if he can offer good advice, I don't really care if I have heard of him, unlike some others who have commented. Part of the snarky reply problem may be due to the fact that photography is a rather private and personal undertaking, and not a "team sport." Besides that, many of us are essentially competing against each other for the same clients, which doesn't lend itself to much camaraderie among shooters.
Just my two cents worth.
I heard of him once before and looking at his work, it seems to me he is a very good professional.Although most of what I have seen on this video is very similar to what I pack ( I was expecting it to be), yet is always interesting spend a few minutes watching a different take on the subject, by someone who seems to be quite wise in his choices.
Gionni Dorelli: I saw this camera in real life a few days ago. The touch and fell and its look reminded me of a Chinese knock off of a Rolex watch you can buy in Canal Street.
I have no doubt the image quality is outstanding, yet the main reason someone should buy this camera over a D4 is the look, touch and feel. Nikon failed to provide exactly on those 3 points.The camera is a far cry from the original FM2 which it is inspired from. Also it is too big for no reason.
I saw this camera in real life a few days ago. The touch and fell and its look reminded me of a Chinese knock off of a Rolex watch you can buy in Canal Street.
As many pointed out, you could spend many great hours lurking around at their Manhattan store, only to go buy at B&H or Adorama at better price.Sure it was an enjoyable experience at Calumet, but it could have cost you few hundred extras and at the end of the year... make it a few thousands.It is an old way of making sales that does not work anymore.
Complete waste of time. With these lenses the final look is very boring.In my view this kind of exercise is worth only with lenses that have a distinct character. Some old Zeiss, medium format Pentax, Contax or Leica. Just to give an example.
I mean.... a Vivitar from the 80ies??? Nikon 50mm are been proven dogs historically. An old Konika... OMG!
Joachim Gerstl: Anyone still using Photoshop?
I'm sorry to give you this new Joachim, but high end pro retouchers use only photoshop.
tesch: These cameras are going to make Canon the next Blackberry!
@HowaboutRAW"and right now it’s having image quality problems. The Fuji XE1, Olympus EM1 and Samsung NX300 all have better image quality–as too of course the Nikon D800, D610,+D4 (plus the old D3, D3s)."How you can state anything like that?Fuji XE1, Olympus EM1 and Samsung NX300 they do not come even close to image detail and cleanness at any iso compared to the a7s. Colors of course is a subjective matters, yet Sony colors are more than fine.As for the Nikon D800, which is a wonderful camera, looking at the comparison charts on this site, it is barely a match and not quite for the a7r at any iso.I know that comparison charts they do not say the whole truth, yet in my real life experience I have found that they say about 95% of the truth, especially if they are made with current DPReview method.For what I can see on the current comparison charts of this site, if we take the Phase one out of the equation, the A7r is head and shoulders above anything else you can compare it with.
estarkey: Let's be honest. Sony got balls the size of Texas. Ok with that out off the way there is a major problem: Canon's 6D has a max ISO of 102k and this is only 25k? A deal breaker for me.
I LOVE uncompressed video out feature, but what about max ISO in video mode? That is the reason I went back to Canon instead of getting the alpha 77, because ISO 1600 just won't cut it.
Just switch on that bloody light!
CFynn: I hope this inspires Nikon to make a full frame camera the size of the FM.
I dumped all my Nikon in 2002 and all my Canon in 2008.Went with Sony and Phase 1 and so far never looked back.
Francis Carver: Wow, based on the product photos, these two have gotta to be two of the butt-ugliest cameras ever coked-up by man/woman.... only matched in sheer ugliness by their matching ugly-duckling stripped-down lenses.
Depending whether you want a low-pass filter or not, you have to buy one or the other -- or both. I guess Sony have not been following product development news from Pentax -- they managed to put a switch on their K-3 for the user to make this decision on the spot. Oh yeah, and Pentax had managed to put image stabilization/hake reduction right inside the camera's body, where it should be. Revolutionary concept, I know.
An E-mount lens in a camera priced this high? No, thank you, Sony-san. BTW, I saw nothing here on the actual camera review about the PRICES of these cameras, only about the lens pricing. Suspicious....
You cannot say butt-ugly to any other brand of cameras, while you brag about Pentax.Pentax wins the Pulitzer for ugliness every year.
DP Review, please give me a call when you get moire....I may have to wait for a while though. In my experience, at above 30mp you may get it once every few thousands shots.
Joe Ogiba: Since all of the DSLRs from Canon and Nikon that came out in the last year like the full frame 6D and D600 along with APS-C 70D and D7100 only have SD/SDHC/SDXC slots the amount of cameras with CF slots will continue to shrink.
The Lexar Professional 600x 256GB SDXC UHS-I Flash Memory Card has been out for a year and with UHS-II SD cards coming out next month with up to 260MB/s speed (312MB/s max) more and more DSLRs will move from CF to SD cards.
Some motion cameras will adopt this new CF standard.The not released yet, ARRI Amira, will take this kind of cards.I think this more a card for motion picture rather than still photography.
Sony is actually on the making of cameras that will move the sensor in order to focus.Apparently it will focus also with almost any brand of lenses and with manual focus lenses.
SHood: Who would pay $5k for a pin head sensor (1/2.3").
first is not 5k but 4500$. they will sell truck loads of these cameras to rentals houses around the world.
the small sensor is not for me, but there are plenty of videographers who need as much DOF as they can get, for their kind of worksome commercial shooting in studio environment needs a lot of DOF, with a small sensor you can get it at wide apertures that do not not require a lot of lighting.try of working at f16 with a dslr in studio or interior. with a dslr and the bill of lighting rental will easily get in the thousands instead of few hundreds that you would need for working at 5.6 with a small sensor.
Kiwiboy: Where did I say that I'd used the camera shake function??Regarding my car, yes I do lease it as it make financial sense in my situation. So nobody subscribes to sky or any other pay TV? Why's that OK?
Well.... it is. If you have been using it professionally for more than 15 years, you know all the alternatives are a joke.During the 90ies Adobe bought the only other competitive option which was Aldus Photostyler.Don't tell me you would even touch Corel software....
Gionni Dorelli: They will crack this baby too. Do not worry.It would be interesting to see how many long time paying customers (as i am) are happy to swallow a 75/100% price increase from what they were paying their perpetual licence upgrades.I'm not happy for sure.
Sure Gabor, I have paid for it for about 15 years and I will keep doing for the same reason you mention and because they are pocket money. yet the pricing is not fair to old long term customers.Some amateurs that were happy with paying 199 each upgrade every 24 months or thereabout, will not be happy with paying 480$ on the same period and not owning the SW.those customers may "crack" under the pressure....
What they should do, it is to allow users to keep the SW running without having to pay the subscription after 24 months worth of payments.
They will crack this baby too. Do not worry.It would be interesting to see how many long time paying customers (as i am) are happy to swallow a 75/100% price increase from what they were paying their perpetual licence upgrades.I'm not happy for sure.