Max Savin: Sigma f1.4 for Nikon: 23.46 oz (1.466 pounds)
A7r camera: 14.36 oz35mm Sony FE f2.8: 4.23 oz.
Backpacking 20-30 miles on rough trails and overland. Which would you carry?
ok, you can carry weight, but you'll travel slower, make shorter distances, and it will be harder to walk/climb on difficult terrain!
and every mile you make the heavier it feels, and more energy you'll spend and more water youll have to carry...
weight always matter, unless you photograph at home!
AmirhosainD90: As you can see, it's obvious that all of these shots are extremely manipulated. So this is CG challenge, not photography challenge!I'm hero, if I could take a super shot by proper selection of subject, frame, exposure, speed, Angle, ... right on the scene and submit my shot SOOC. Everyone can sit behind his laptop and render an artificial design better than these by "3D Max", "Photoshop", "Corel", ... even without a camera.At last, photographers should separate their ways from graphistes!
by your standards Ansel Adams didn't make photography either right? he was the king of "Photoshop" of its time, but that doesn't make him less photographer, does it?
Gregm61: All THREE lenses of the system. Wow.....what a "committment" ;)
Sony A7r also disagree with you ;)
srados: "Adobe", what a person should do if his/hers computer IS NOT 24/7 connected to internet?I have my workhorse AWAY from viruses and other garbage. Keeping me disconnected saves me money in antivirus software...By the way I am boycotting subscription based software.Still happy with my CS 5...and yes when I can not install it on my new version of operating system software I will look up Corell line of products.
virus?? just stay away from porn sites, illegal downloads, suspicious sites, don't click on every link that you get in a email, and keep your software updated.
there's plenty of good free anti-virus, you even have "microsoft security essencials", that do a very good job
so get out of the 90's, there's no reason for you to keep the internet off
liquid stereo: Deck chairs on the titanic...
Oly/Pana/Fuji/Sony: Here are different/better offerings — ergo, sensor size, solution size, high ISO performance, etc. — at a lower price.
Nikon: Here's one of our cams — same features, in an angled body — for the same (high) price.
Canon: What's all this then?
"Sony? Those guys who failed to make anything wider than 18mm (27mm FF) for their NEX-system for years."
are you ignorante or just trying to look like one?
Sony has lenses wider then 18mm since they released the first NEX... 16mm 2.8, and they have a very good 10-18mm f4 also, that also looks to be wider than 18mm... oh the ignorance...
looks like a Sony A850 reborn...
retro lookfull frame SLRSame 24mpx sensor of the Nikon D3Xdont have vídeorelease price in 2009: under $2000...
Martos164: Congratulations to Sony on this bold move with the A7 &A7r. Its a mile stone in digital technology. I"m impressed . It looks retro,with features you saw in old film cameras from yester year. Also it looks like it has all the features from Canon & Nikon full frame cameras,except its in a little package. Some people might quip,and whinge about its looks. I couldn't care less what they think. If the cameras can do,as what Sony says they can do ,then i want one.The cameras,look as if they have been designed by someone,who like simple,robust,tough,well designed features in a camera.
Give it time,and i think Sony will rule. Sony must've spent a small fortune on R&D. I hope people,will take to these cameras,like ducks to water. If they do,the prices will drop. Sony can see the future in digital technology,and its heading in the right direction.
My only beef is the lens price. If Sony,can reduce the lens prices, to match the other camera,giants,then they will win the camera war
i think you're a little bit confused, NEX mount is not dead, their mount (E-mount) lives on, NEX is just a camera model, but A7, A7r, Nex-7, Nex-6, Nex-5r, Nex-3N, VG900, FS700... etc... they all use E-mount, but some have a bigger sensor, just like Nikons DX and FX
Sad Joe: Bring it on ! I still have my FM from 1979...and whilst your at it how about a FF rangefinder camera ? Oh sorry Sony already have one.....
it´s not propaganda, its a clarification, it seems that there is alot of confused people out there...
and you have to do your math again... do you know how many lenses released Sony in 2012/13? hint: more then Canon and Nikon ;)
and by the way, Nikon has another mount you forgot, you cant forget to split the CX mount in 2, CX and CX-AW, cause you only have a waterproof body if you have waterproof lenses.
and just to finish, i'm not doing blind propaganda, Sony has released a great line of mirroless APS-C cameras and lenses, and now it steped up and made it full frame to, it made the smallest/cheapest/lightest fullframe camera ever, with excellent Zeiss optics, and thas a good thing in my book ;), just dont know why it bothers you!
3 diferent mounts? afaik Sony has 2 mounts, A-mount and E-mount, and each of them has 2 formats, APS-C and Full Frame
the same goes with any other brand, Canon and Nikon also have 2 mounts, one for SLR and other for mirrorless, the BIG diference is that Sony has a FF mirrorless and canikon dont ;)
and yes, there arent very lenses available, but the FF mirrorless system is one week old, so its not that bad, in 2014 there will be 10 lenses available. Can you tell me how many lenses have the EOS-M and CX mounts?
Yxa: Sony has gone the Olympus wayOlympus dumped the 4/3 for the m4/3To cater for the 4/3 lenses they introduced an adapter to mount the 4/3 lenses on m4/3 cameras=A-mount to E-mountI'm glad I didn't choose the 4/3 or the A-mountI have a Nikon FF that have backwards compatibility of lenses to at least 1972
@ Henry M. Hertz, it does to me, i travel alot and do alot of hiking, so a camera that weight alot less then a tipical FF SLR is a gem!! i shoot alot of landscapes and i cant see any advantage of an SLR over this camera in this tipe of photography!
yabokkie: Sony E20/2.8 is equivalent to about 31mm f/4.3 on 35mm format. Sony E24/1.8 is about 37mm f/2.8, Canon M22/2 is about 35mm f/3.2, and Pana G20/1.7 is about 39mm f/3.3.
compared to the last three, E20/2.8 is wider and darker. all these lenses are very easy and very cheap to make, and I think they are all quite handy to use, even for indoor if you don't mind IQ.
what image? have you seen any?
i judje the IQ by looking at photos, not some numbers on the lens barrel and made up equivalencies.
what the hell are you talking about?
i have this lens 20mm f2.8 @ 2.8 on my Nex-5 at ISO 100
I have a Minolta 20mm f2.8 @ 2.8 on my A900 at ISO 100
isnt the exposure time the same?
what mambo jambo are you talking about?
why is it equivalent to an f4.3? it says 2.8 on the lens
if its because of DOF... well, who cares, it's a 20mm APS-C lens, shallow deptf of field its never gonna be relevant...
what matter is the light that hit the sensor, but i dont see anybody talking about T-stops, only about silly equivalences!
zinedi: Why this slooow expensive dummy again? Wouldn't it be better to make a true piece of glass for fair price? But Sony is obviously not capable - good optics is out of reach of their apprehension.
yes, its better to invest in Canon's wonderfull mirrorless system that the only has 2 crappy lens and the only body its worst then a 3 year old nex body or the fabulous Nikon 1 series with their "gigantic" sensor!
have you haver seen a Nex-6?
zinedi: Why OVF. EVF is a cheap fake of optical viewfinder. It cannot even far-off simulate analogue natural look and feeling of OVF - feeling of nature.EVF is harmful for human health - the eye was made by nature for natural analogue-fluent light. The flickering LED light is harmful - not only for eye.EVF is cheaply constructed to be able even simulate OVF. When there is 6000x4000pix/250Hz 32million colours viewfinder I shall see if it is comparable with OVF and harmless and maybe.. .EVF is and for long time still will be lagging after on-line reality - so it is difficult to do sport with this. And the picture not beeing fluent in panoraming e.g. is also rough and harmful for human health.I have 20 years old SLR with pentaprism OVF - still functional. Do you believe that these small electronic dummy viewfinders will work at least 5 years?
"EVF is harmful for human health"
try to frame the sun in a photo with an OVF
or pass a all day shooting surf with a tele with the sun reflecting in the water
it wont take long for you to have irreversal eye damege
gl2k: Is the glass half full or half empty ?
This could be the perfect AFFORDABLE FF sports camera. Up to 10 fps in crop mode is exactly what many non-pro sports shooters would die for. But then ... Sony spoils it. The still lagging/stuttering EVF combined with an AF that is good but not excellent kills the A99 as a sports cam. What a pity. Even more sad since Canikon obviously don't care about high fps in their "below $6k" cameras.
Other than that I think the A99 is a strong competitor. Unfortunately though the D800 has reached such a low price point that it's a no-brainer to buy.
lagging EVF?? what are you talking about? i shoot mainly sports with my A77 and dont have any lag... are you moving the camera like a mad man?
try a good EVF first (A99 or A77), and i dont mean in a store...
MarkByland: Curious why they spent so much time and money developing a translucent mirror system when they could have knocked it out of the park with a pentaprism system. This, alone, would have swawyed the leary thinkers such as myself long ago instead of trying to sell viewfinder-lovers the headache-inducing EVF version of a finder. They may have made a great machine here but I just will never be able to get over having to turn it on to see through the finder and the ever-present flicker ...
dpLarry: Rich man's toy.It'll be sold out. All 500 of them.
what to do? when you buy a fixed lens camera you know what you are buying, right? when you buy a Rolleiflex 2.8FX , a Bessa III or a X100 what do you do??
if you buy a fixed lens camera and then want to change the lens.... well... you must be an _________. (fill the blanks)
aardvark7: I find the start of the conclusion a little 'odd'. Hard to put into words, but it sounds like positively raving over normality: "it matches or exceeds the pixel count of every other full-frame system camera." (in italics to make sure we noticed the stress!) which makes it seem like there are thousands of rivals on the market!Also, it praises the 'flexibility' as though being so much more than anything else, whereas it just sounds to me what might be expected in a camera of this price. I don't want to be to 'extreme', but I could almost imagine they were on the verge of saying " and it has a viewfinder too and a lovely strap!"Come on DPReview! I wouldn't for a second think this is not a spectacularly good camera (it is, after all, the latet technology and thousands of dollars), but can we have a more rounded and balanced conclusion, please?
Only usable at ISO 400?? Its better than any current APS-C in the market at high iso, or tou gonna say now that a D7000 or 7d are not usable too?
People really like to talk about what they dont know...
Its not the least expensive full frame ever released, that was the Sony A850, that shared the same sensor with the Nikon D3X and A900