Yeah, screw the a6000. Sony quit building APS-C mirrorless, right DPR?
Say what you will about the ridiculousness of it, but you've got to admit that when it comes to gold and fishskin covered cameras this one looks pretty good.
autochrome: I hope someone updates the standards, because it's going to be problematic setting your ISO soon. ISO 819200, 3276800, 26214400, ...
I really wish they'd just set ISO 200 to a standard of 1 and then go logarithmically from there. ISO 409600 becomes gain of 11, for instance, ISO 1600 a gain of 4, etc. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than dealing with the ridiculous numbers we're already dealing with.
mpgxsvcd: I used a 1.3 Megapixel camera in 1999 and loved it. I could definitely still do ok with a less than 2 megapixel camera today if it could see in the dark.
You don't need a 1.3mp sensor to see in the dark, the a7s is a credit card away :)
mpgxsvcd: According to Canon "They have a better sensor than this".
Yeah, and according to my uncle he's got a better mousetrap. Turns out he's full of it but it makes him sound great at the time.
bgbs: The question is when will it be in DSLR's?
Never. Have you been paying attention to Sony?!
rrccad: didn't canon have a high density sensor demo a few years ago?
That's not fair. They recently acquired a patent on something they call the "status quo".
graybalanced: That sensor is so sensitive, you have to be careful what you say around it.
I loved your post. a7s owner, that "blushing" is inherent to the sensor and your post rings of truth and humor. Well done, sir.
Stigg: no matter what they try it will never equal film
I hope so
spatz: The images are not awful, but they certainly don't show the camera in a good light. As has been identified previously, a compact camera (even one with a sensor as large as that in the G1X II) requires a different workflow compared to a large sensor camera. For landscape shots, compact cameras have greater DOF, but they are also diffraction limited at smaller apertures, with image quality degrading rapidly beyond f/8. The Canon sensor also has very limited dynamic range, meaning that RAW files don't have nearly as much headroom as those from more modern and / or larger sensors.
Ironically, using the same camera, a typical amateur who is experienced with these limits might have come up with better shots than a professional who is used to full frame or medium format cameras. The scenes and composition are indeed nice, but from a technical standpoint, most of the images are poor.
I find no fault in not being easily pleased.
Truer words were never spoken.
snapa: Who Cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Zeisschen: Thank you Sony for letting us A7 users know what to expect! Keep on coming those FE lenses!
I misread your initial post. Sorry bout that. I'll admit when I mess up :)
jimrpdx: It continues to stun me that FF 36×24 and E-mount are in the same sentence, while the A-mount is shunned like a sick dog. That's impressive, as I thought Sony could no longer stun me with anything...
You're right, but FF and "E-mount *stills*" is both recent on the scene and the main draw, albeit with much better blending of the two with the a7s.
Marcelobtp: The A7 was a marketing strategy to say we have the smallest FF, no one will do it smaller then ours. But the small and light will not balance well with fast af lenses for a FF sensor. Oh god, theres a gap between a7 and a77 size. if sony don't do it quickly someone will. Please small lenses sony this system is faded to fail in its purpose.
From everything he's said, Marcelobtp has never held an a7 body and might be stoned. They are substantial. I own the sony a850, the nex7, and the a7s. No comparison between any of them. The a850 is heavy and holds well in the hand with the 70-400g attached. The nex7 is light and holds very precariously with the same. The a7s is a little heavier than the nex7 and still holds very nicely with the 70-400 attached via adapter.
This whole "doesn't balance well" thing is bs. When I see a DSLR shooter one-handing a lens that can't be one-handed on the a7 series I'll change my tune.
Has no one heard of the word "leverage"?! Removing weight at the fulcrum does NOT make a lens heavier. For chrissakes this is 9th grade physics!
AlexK-12: That 24-240 is exactly what I was waiting for for my a7! I know you'll think me strange to say, but that may just be whats going to keep me with full frame e-mount. Right now all I'm using are MF primes and having a walkaround zoom with AF would be a nice thing to have. Just need to wait until February :(
Same here. From nex7. Have had FF 24mp and 12mp makes 24 look like technical wizardry is required :)
Cry me a river. You've got plenty of lenses at your disposal. The FF emount needs lenses, it's brand new. Arguing that focusing for a bit on a new line of lenses that will keep Sony alive and well and able to support the A mount (which I also use) is nothing but reasonless cynicism. Maybe if you were complaining about the loss of screwdrive lenses I'd give your post half a bit of credit.
It's what I want for the "rides in the car" lens for my a7s as well. I'm certainly not judging you here. Forgiving sensor in every way and massive zoom range? Yes, please.
TN Args: If they don't mention the approx size and weight, nobody knows if they are something new and different that allows smaller, lighter old-frame ownership. OR.....NOT!
Leave it to just another canon shooter to state the absolutely obvious: A large sensor with a decent-aperture telephoto takes glass. Well done.
The only thing left is to state the entirely too repeated bs phrase "THIS SYSTEM MAKES NO SENSE! SMALLER MAKES NO SENSE!"
Is DPR your sole info site?
I can't think of a worse choice.