UnitedNations: Basically this is a mess up by Sony just like Nikon messed up with the faulty DF.I never felt this happy in my whole life for not buying a product. I am glad I waited for this review.
A7 is a camera with some very disappointing weaknesses.Hope the A7r is better!
"Mess up" perhaps a tad cruel. The modest DPR score of 80 may owe to the need to distinguish it a wee bit from the 83 to be assigned to the A7R. However, perhaps it has wobbly AF in low light or video too. I would rush to buy either, if the primary appeal is compatibility with old lenses I don't have. There are good cameras that are more compact, cost less, or both. Sony itself will announce alternatives too.
People ought to be happier in general about toys they don't buy: waste not, want not. Pain, more than happiness, compells a forced "love" of non-essentials we buy but shouldn't. The pain is obvious by the touchiness towards any reservations (blasphemy) about the product. Price may have something to do with it: the higher the price, the more consuming the buyer's need for affirmation.
A good thing professional reviewers get merchandise on loan, or they too would be consumed by buyer self-affirmation.
Jogger: Normally i would be very skeptical... but, Sony is using 1/2.3 sensors across their flagship phones. Its basically the same sensor as found in their superzoom compacts like the HX9, HX50, etc. These compacts have very good video quality. The one major area where they drop the ball in the Z implementation is in the poor codec choice they employ.
There are trade-offs. AVCHD is simply the least bad of choices.
How much battery consumption, sensor heat, memory card space and speed would it take to use 50mbps ProRes instead of 28mbps AVCHD2? Can ProRes burn directly to Blu-ray? Would hand-held videos of kids, bashful relatives, tourist traps, and pets look any better?
Eigenmeat: Sony/Samsung can make a cell phone do this. Yet, for example, a $1300 Sony RX10 cannot it. It just shows how much manufacturer intentionally cripple their camera line to create "product tiers".
4k / high bitrate on larger sensors entails problems with sensor heat and agravated moiré and aliasing. Higher resolution would also heighten attention to the rolling shutter problem in pan or fast action shots.
FocusPuller: Because what the world needs is YouTube videos of cats, babies, and people falling down in 4K? Thanks, Sony.
There are no YT 4k videos of cats, babies, or people falling down---yet. The only reason is lack of phones with 4k video to capture these subjects we all crave.
YouTube bitrate of 1080 HD video averages under 4mbps, which is a fraction of the native (usually 17mbps or higher). If YT employs similar degree of compression of 4k video, the video won't look much sharper than ordinary or bad 1080 video, or else require more buffering than people will endure to see those cats, babies, or people falling down.
What is the product and managerial dossier of the new CEO? Can this Ian Rawcliffe be the rugby veteran and promoter? Perhaps Hasselblad will market luxury cameras designed to feature the color and mascot of top teams, or perhaps the engraved signatures of star players.
We can presume the company was generous to the prior CEO, given all the contributions to Lunar exploration and sports car design. Such credentials will be sure door-openers in this hot shoe world of cloud.
Seriously, though, can the company be more sure of making money on a sober MF camera than on whimsical models that appeal to folks with lots to spend?
Brilliant. A phone with a "me too" 4k video feature for people without any 4k displays, and before Sony offers 4k video on any of its traditional <$1.5k consumer Handicams or Cybershots. Granted, "me too" is a sort of trump argument. But the compulsion to add new imaging capacities first to phones tells us something about the eclipse of dedicated cameras.
Wouldn't people have more use for a phone that gives readings of temperature, humidity, altitude, or heart pace, blood pressure, HDL/LDL, triglycerides, and glucose? Or are such functions too mundane or depressing?
agentul: i am surprised that no red-blooded romanian has revealed that this whole so-called "art" is sponsored by a dummy corporation funded by George Soros, Gazprom, RMGC, Chevron and Bechtel with the sole purpose of discrediting Romania and promoting shale gas fracking and cyanide gold extraction. it's pretty obvious, when you think about it.
on a serious note, it's really shameful that this article has generated such an exaggerated xenophobic reaction. this only reinforces the claims made by other xenophobes that romanians are a gang of savages that have no place in modern society. this is how you chose to represent your country in an international community? did you notice how no hungarian said anything defending the photographer in question, much less anything insulting?
Xenophobes and neo-Ceauşescuans see foreign conspiracies in everything. The "nationalist" mining and industry, for which you have so much nostalgia, was not particularly clean, safe, or efficient. Could firms you allege to finance a Hungarian propagandist have possibly done the job as bad?
Mining, energy, and financial fortunes have subsidized artists, galleries, museums, and the private art market for centuries. Are the results so bad? Or do you also pine for the days of state sponsorship? Look at it this way: take away private sponsors, the only choice is either are state art agencies (cronyism or political agendas) or the popular tastes catered so masterfully by the late T. Kinkade. A "none of the above" null option tends not to lead anywhere.
jkoch2: Mount St. Helens erupts every 300 years, more or less. It has erupted roughly 1,000 times since first appearance in "Ape Canyon." Sasquatches failed to capture pictures of the earliest events, perhaps because late Pleistocene (hand) imaging technology equated to ISO of only 0.01, and the operators perished under hot ash and pumice before completing the work. Witnesses to the next eruption in 2250 (or therabouts) may have the advantage of 480 fps plenoptic 4000k video. However, some believe that some horrific human goof-up in the interim will extinquish all knowlege, meaning that the challenge will revert to some future species using chistles or hand-daubed pigments.
There were significant forewarnings of the eruption and many of the victims were there by choice or refused to evacuate. The 1980 eruption was not the worst on record, either. The geologists who set up camp too close made a statistical wager that proved spot-on: it was a once-in-lifetime event. Had the volcano merely sputtered, might they have been less fulfilled?
Stalwart mountaineer Harry R. Truman probably figured his time had come: either go out with a firey blast, or die laughing if the experts were wrong. Either way lead to the immortality of legend.
Anyone who resides or builds in proximity to volcanoes (or large fault-lines) must accept the risks and self-insure.
In any case, whatever is inevitable must be considered with some grain of humor, or else heaven is a pretty boring or horrific place.
Mount St. Helens erupts every 300 years, more or less. It has erupted roughly 1,000 times since first appearance in "Ape Canyon." Sasquatches failed to capture pictures of the earliest events, perhaps because late Pleistocene (hand) imaging technology equated to ISO of only 0.01, and the operators perished under hot ash and pumice before completing the work. Witnesses to the next eruption in 2250 (or therabouts) may have the advantage of 480 fps plenoptic 4000k video. However, some believe that some horrific human goof-up in the interim will extinquish all knowlege, meaning that the challenge will revert to some future species using chistles or hand-daubed pigments.
RichRMA: A bit ridiculous. m4/3rds, 16mp for $2000 versus FF from Nikon or Sony for the same price. What exactly makes the Panasonic worth that kind of money? At $1000 a body, premium m4/3rd cameras were ok, not for $2000.
If Sony's FDR-AX100 4k video entré is priced at $2,000, then Panasonic will insert its 4k m4/3 in the market at the same price, and assume that buyers will ignore the cost of lenses or already have them. 12 months from now, however, the prices will fall, or there may be poor man's versions available. Canon and Nikon may take their own sweet time: live and let die. No proof, so far, that Sony, Oly, or Panasonic will turn profits on cameras, even after cutting P&S operations.
BarnET: You guys are from dpreview. Come on dig up some info of that 4k gh3.That can be the only decent scoop of CES this year.
Too boring perhaps. More fun to check up on the curved displays or video game innovations. The truth may turn out to messy as well: perhaps the company hasn't made up its mind whether to call it a GH4 or GH5, there is too much moiré in the 4k video to make an acceptable debut, and existing NLE 4k project settings don't support the codec or yield pretty resuults.
A 4K decal pasted onto a GH3. People blink or shrug, or fall asleep, but don't press Panasonic the obvious question.
Erick L: The year ain't even over yet!
Don't be a pessimist. Let's hope 2013 ends happily and, therefore, without any "prize photo" opportunities.
Black Box: Completely expected and uninteresting. Most likely the two most shocking photos - the "final embrace" and the "cut throat" - were staged by the photographers. We'll find out in a few months, after the photographer will have already spent the prizes he won. Been there, seen that with those staged Haiti photos.
The days of true photojournalism are, unfortunately, over.
Photojournalism has forever been a staged phenomenon: people or events selected and presented to have a calculated effect on an audience.
No one gets to see Taliban in shameless action without sharing a lot of confidences with them. Otherwise, the photographer or his relatives are in trouble.
ostenh: Disturbing pictures, yes. But to be honest I find some of the comments here also rather disturbing.
I imagine that if I managed to get a picture of the face of god, it would be criticized for just being a snap-shot.
Normally a lurker but couldn't hold myself back this time.
Foresake thee not the Second Commandment. But if you do, let us know whether you see a smile or a scowl.
Ben O Connor: There are killers, There is a victim (God knows for someone he is guilty, but by whose justice?)
and there is a photographer....
Now what is thazt photographer doing? - bringing the victims last memories to his family, to cry together with them ? - helps a worldwide (so called) propaganda all over the world "to scare" world? - (for him perhaps?!) sharing the reality barely with our eyes !____________________________________________________________
I protests not just this partcular photographer, but also the editor and everyone who earns their salary (to feed their own kid) on someone´s blood.
SHAME- ON - YOU !
But you looked, didn't you? If the photos had been "My Favorite Things," would you have been more pleased?
Polariser: Great holidwy reading that doesnt tax the brain cells!
I got thr RX100 Mk1 as it was discountedby 200$ here (new, unopened box) plus a free Sony original case (the nice one) versus ghe MK2. I knew i wouldnt use the hotshoe as the external viewfinder for the Mk2 costs 400$ and i rarely use a flip up screen.
The slight increase in low light abikity didnt push me into paying nore either as i knew i would be using this compact in good light,
What amazed me most was how clever the Superior Intelligent Auto setting was ,,, It gave excellent results all the time when I was with non photographer friends and didnt want to keep tgem waitung by messing around with settings.
I reckon the Mk1 is tge classic!
A clever pitch for manual controls: Impress your 'photographer friends' by messing around with buttons and levers. The photos may be bad, but those 'friends' (always one man up) would fault them anyway. Intelligent Auto will come to the rescue, assuring you get decent shots, and don't drive ordinary friends batty by delays as you messi around.
jimkh: I don't understand this vague putdown of the RX100 and the RX100II with the "unengaging experience" tag. While this is obviously a very personal reaction by the reviewer it cries out for a more detailed explanation. What is "unengaging" and how do other cameras reflect engagement?
The RX100 and RX100ii cost plenty. One could by two LX7's for the price of either. That's not a quaint personal bias, but a cold fact. If you think, the RX100 is more than twice the "value" of other cameras in the group, that is pretty hard to prove, and the advocate will probably resort to some very unengaging personal reaction.
Many great cameras appeared in 2013. Too bad camera sales have languished. Sad to say, most holiday pictures will be taken with phones. The Kodak era of "Open Me First" is gone. The only positive spin I can think of is ... maybe discount prices soon.
Stephen787: these are bought by museum right? why would anyone want to pay such money.
Why endow a museum to pay fortunes for cameras?