well for that price, I actually am expecting more .. but seriously the result does not tell much in term of innovation or furthering of sensor technology. Its just an exhibit of alternative way to get better result from already known and well practiced sensor technology. Nothing really new
am really sorry about the lack of the NEX-7's Tri-Navi UI , that is in fact a very very nice UI that is well thought out and once one get used to the control layout. I have my doubt about the 24MP overall field performance vs the old 16MP ( specifically when light is not that great ). I wouldn't worry about its performance at low ISO, but then anything like ISO400 or above .. well ... the lesser EVF do not help either
Technically speaking I am not seeing this as much of a upgrade or update perhaps with the exception of the on sensor PDAF. Evolutionary update is perhaps the best to describe it, and that's pretty much the case with almost all new camera this year on ; with very little technical innovation or advance.
Wonder if we would see a real NEX-7 replacement with that Tri-Navi and if possible a nice new sensor. Despite what, there is still very much a place for a top end APS-C sensored model for the E mount and this A6000 certainly do not fit
Reportage photography and as well almost all gene of photography is a classic example of the bad coins pushing off the good coins on the market
Paul Guba: I find it interesting that there is a much bigger market for photographers buying cameras for what the camera looks like, then there is for what the images look like. Guess its easier to buy a cameras looks, then create your own look. Dance poser dance.
The fact is for most, they really can;t tell the difference, or , in a better wording, all of those cam are already good enough. So they just look for one that look best to them ...
2nd thought here , Instead of old simple workhorse FM2 styling this is looking more like being styled against the F90 ( with the top of the FE ) ...
sadly it remind me more of the cheesy 80's body like the 3030 or 5050 instead of the classic simple FM-2. I can forgive the back side clutter as this is pretty much needed, but if Nikon want to do real retro 60 or 70 styling, then by god can't they just take a look at their own. The molded grip and that dimpy control dial just ruin everything. If it would have been just flat faced and void of any control like the F3, FM2 as stated, it would at the very least styled right.
The other thing is the rounded off edges. Sorry they do not round off the edges like a molten jelly when they did FM2 or F3.
I was wanting to like the Df , but sorry, I cannot.
I must say Nikon had been blind to their own for a long time. Even eay back, Nikon's core business is with photo enthusiast. The Nikon FM series never one for consumer but more for dedicated enthusiast, hobbyist and the more discriminating amateurs.
The Sony A7 really tell how compact we can have FF, and if we just tag on that a mirror housing and the pentaprizm we pretty much can tell that even a FF DSLR can be just as compact as old days better film bodies.
This one is a throw back to the basics but leave with it all the virtue of the technological knowhow of the current. Perosnally I really like it. Its only the price that will prevent Nikon from doing a great homerun.
Well, they just miss one key factor, the old 300 DPI is for print and print have something called ink smearing. Basically that mean when printing the individual ink drop will smear, diffuse into neighboring area and thus would made the individual ink droplets disappear and merge into a continuous tone . That of course is not the case with any of todays electronic display. But Its perhaps not the individual pixel that matters nor how dense they are, its how much tonal and colormetric data that can be displayed.
Until they can get close to 100% Adobe RGB or even better ProRGB gamut, they can just about pack as much as pixel and the image would still not be good enough.
MarkJH: The biggest unknowns I'd like answered: (1) lens performance and (2) the lens roadmap.
Because . . .
* If I'm spending $1000 for a normal f/1.8 or $800 for a shallow wide f/2.8, they'd better be deeply serious optics in every possible way--sharp wide open, nil CA, flare-resistant, gorgeous microcontrast and defocus, class-leading build and mechanics. Any way you slice it, $800 is a lot to pay for a 35mm f/2.8 lens in the era of the excellent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "art" optic.
* If you photograph people, it's hard to be enthusiastic about a system that launches without a short (or any) tele prime or fast telezoom. It'd be useful to know if / when these are coming.
* Of course you could adapt A-mount optics (or others), but then we're also told this system's sensor microlenses are optimized for a short register distance. What impact does this optimization have on the performance of lenses adapted at a longer register?
Questions, questions, questions.
To me, that actually is only half of the issue, I am not into zoom so fix focal is the way, and long lens , well I am looking at those nice Alpha mount, So the real Q is what about the nominal focal range ( say under 135mm ). Right now there's only the 55 and 35. And that got me thinking ... I like the 55, but can;t really understand the 35. Its a mirrorless so why can;t Sony give us a f/2.0 so we can employ those 36 MP at base ISO ( would be very good for street shoots ).
Am also not so concern with those microlens, the farther away the rear exit pupil, the less acute the incident angle of the imaging incoming so no problem there
SDF: Wow! Based on the comments people posted here. - No touch screen AF- No in-body IS- Lens too big- Lens too slow- Lens too heavy- Only 2 lens at launch- Too expensive- Too ugly- No pop up flash- Fake penta prism- Body look cheap like a toy- EVF is garbage compare to OVF- Len adapter is too big- Sony copied OlympusThis could be the worst camera in the History. lol
To the contrary, I think this would be a great still platform ( not Video though ). All those comments are somewhat right but somewhat wrong. But after peeling off all these on the face. Just lioke any other system mirrorless or DSLR. One must find the balance and find the one right setup and this A7/A7R I do think offer a real platform for quality work. I can see using it with nice fix focals. But sorry guy, Physics prevail, you want FF, then be prepared to shoulder the weight of the optics.
Might be I am just being practical.
DPR, am sorry, but 1080/60P , 24P and AVCHD are not exactly Video enthusiast any more. Not the way Sony did it anyway. Low bitrate just do not do it these days. 4K, RAW output ( for external recorder ) and most of all proper sensor / body processing and high bitrate to something like Prores is needed.
Its a shame. Sony is tauting 4K in their F5/F55, then they are launching Smartphone that did 4K, one would guess 4K across the line for their respective top end product right, so 4K for the A7 ( better high ISO, no moire ) or A7R ( better definition color fidelity ) right, well NO ... sorry Sony, that's a lemon here
Styling wise, this must be one of the ugliest Sony did recently, but hey. its also one of the few System type camera that just look way better with its vertical grip on.
Again, the physics prevail, people keep complaining about big lens on small body, hey its what they ask for, they ask for fast zoom that covers, compact body, heyt they got it, but they forget that fast lens just are going to be big, they can't expect a f/2.8 zoom to be sized like those 3.5-5.6 kit zoom. Again that also brings up the issue, if so, why not use the fix focals, the 55 and 35 is a start, but we need the lot here.
BBking83: Even the "FF lovers" aren't happy with this.
Well, it is the first of it's kind. But it seems that no matter WHAT is released, a big baulky DSLR will always be better. Even if there was a medium format mirrorless camera, it seems that "Micro" (due to m4/3) is attached to mirrorless and means it's smaller.
Ah well, keep shooting with whatever you've got. Mirrorless is still young.
Don't know but as a FF user now, I am pretty happy with the A7R ( except for the styling, but that had nothing to do with the cam's function ). To me, the issue with any mirrorless today is still their lens, or rather lack of it. And that's a Dilemma the Mfr need to face, they can't just say they do not have the market yet to deliver, cause its with those lens that generate the market, not the other way round. They must first invest and deliver before they can get their business. And so far they are pretty slack in doing that
svuori: I'd consider buying if they had IBIS. It really makes no sense shaving off a few grams and millimeters from the body when the lenses are going to be big anyway. Olympus has shown what can be done with IBIS (the e-m1 results look incredible). Also, you can upgrade the stabilization of all of your lenses by purchasing a new body. I like that.
I guess that's for their A mount mirrorless if its still a fact instead of vaporware. You know IBIS is not just a few grams and mm. To do so for a FF, that would require a movement on all side with a range of mm , yes, but then its now a total new shutter cage that needing to cover that and a frame to hold the sensor shutter assembly, and then the body and the power etc ... it all add up. Its likely that if Sony would put IBIS in there, the cam would not be this slim and this compact. Its going to be pretty much a classic alpha sie ( well sort of like a slightly shallower and slimmed down A99 )
There's always give and take
qwertyasdf: Just curious, why are manufacturers are so obsessed with tweaking the AA filter nowadays?reviews after reviews show that the difference is minimalWell...unless it's a Foveon sensor.
Its rather simple, at this level of sensor technological knowhow, its getting very difficult to get more out of it as far as quality captures goes, and ditching the AA filter is a fool proof way to do it as well as reducing the cost ( one less item to be fashioned, build in and boned to the facet ). And packed pixel as well as smarter de mosaic also make moire less of a issue now.
AA filter always just a necessary evil, so if it can be done without, and give better capture, that will be it
Karroly: As far as I understand, it is the soft(ware) against soft(ness) war...
I wager its more than just that, I check both of those image enlarged, the deblurred image might look fine when you take it whole screen and thus downsized a lot, but when you check how well, it actually image, it show up pretty bad, and loads of artifacts and lost of definition / resolving elements.
Ultimately one cannot just get something out of thin air. the image details, must first be captured before it can be delivered. That won't change no matter how well the software goes
I recall this had been done quite a number of times, based on similar concept of mathematically calculating and calibrating the image to made a pseudo lens imaging out of simple lens ( not always just single element ) but as had been, there is multiple environmental limitation and actual world factor that cannot be simply factored in and thus it will always be limited in plenty of fashion. But I can see this applied to the like of smartphone due to the nature of the sensor size vs the lens size / focal length.
It would be more useful in medical and industrial application though. Say High Power X-Ray imaging.
Doctor_K: In my opinion the law goes too far in extending copyright. Allowing a copyright holder to own anyone else's work in a different media is too much. If the copy was in the same media then the story would be different and an infringement would have taken place. Otherwise this will infringe on my rights to depict the item in another way.
Its not the act of making a photo of the sculpture, its making use of those photo in a commercial ( and thus not fair use any more ) context. USPS is selling f\those for a profit you know
GradyPhilpott: An organization I belong to that restores former military aircraft has trademarked each one so that no one can take pictures and sell those photographs for a profit or use them in any other way without permission.
I don't know where the manufacturers come in, if in fact any of them are still in business.
What Grady mean is trademarking those specific aircraft, not the general aircraft type. This is pretty common.
Those werw made to be collector item ( limited issue stamp , first day covers etc ... and merchandise as the case already put it ). So for real USPS are just doing business, making money with this intellectual property, and rightly so they should pay for it ...