Grumpyrocker: I sold my NEX-6 yesterday and have a Fujifilm X-E2 being delivered today. I was taking a risk that the NEX-6 replacement wouldn't be the camera I wanted. I was right - especially given the reduction in EVF resolution. Though my decision to change was more about the lenses on offer - the A6000 still looks like a fine camera, just not right for me.
@ZeisschenWhere is trolling?
plasnu: imaging-resource.com says that the A6000's EVF is the clear winner as it produces much more accurate colors and easy to discern details, compare to NEX 6. hmm...
@ZeisschenThe new lowres VF is also smaller. And this is even more painful than resolution decrease.BTW, what "Zeiss" your nickname refers to? Sony zeiss? Then you should rename yourself to "sonychen", because germans did nothing with ZA's and crappy 24/1.8
@pew pewHigher refresh rate relates to sensor readout speed"Better IQ" relates mostly to processing. Sony could improve older cameras too via FW update if they would care about their customers.And, it is smaller: obvious downgrade.
EricoftheNorth: I am simply stunned by the praise the NEX 6 and 7 EVF gets. They far and away have the worst VF optics outside of $350 super zooms. Compared to pretty much any other EVF, pulling a the NEX EVF to your eye is disorienting and unnatural. The a65 and a77 are stunning, the NEX are blurry and finicky. If your eye is a few degrees off center, it's a blurry mess. Forget leaving the huge eyecup off to make it easier to get in a smaller bag, it's almost impossible to get the frame focused without it.
I manage a camera shop and watch people flip out about the alphas or the OMD series, but look through the NEX with almost zero reaction. Which means in my decade of sales experience, that it simply sucks, and they think they don't know what they're doing.
So I gladly welcome a smaller EVF if it will actually be functional without 100% perfect eye alignment.
No touchscreen though? FAIL.
@ZhanMInG12You must be blind, there's a big difference.But, on the other hand, the size of NEX evf is barely enough. Even smaller one makes no sense.
Sergey Borachev: Looks great, but still not sure as DXO is involved in the lens testing. I will wait for Lenstip and Photozone to be sure.
Correction. These are DXO's test results, not DPR's.
@chadwadsGood thing you put this link here. Add another one useless "testing" site to my list. Any testing is only usable when it provides some basis for comparison. The slrgear is obviously not.The same lens on larger sensor with larger amount of pixels always has higher resolution in terms of LW/PH, this is straight consequence from testing procedure. The testing procedure itself is a generalization of the way people shooting. And in this SLR gear graph FE 55 on NEX-7 has better graph than on D800 even at areas that refers to the same area of lens coverage.So, people, think next time before to suggest these crappies (photozone, lenstip, slrgear) as viable alternative to dxomark lens testing. They are not even close to purity and adequacy of dxo methodics.
ulfie: 71 mm (2.8″) long make it a bit long for steady, low-light, hand-held shooting considering these two full-frame Sonys have no IBIS unless you're willing to pump up the ISO. The price for a "normal" lens is, IMHO, ridiculous.
> Yeah, just like they had troubles with the Otus doing the same. *shakes head*.
My thoughts exactly :) Same problems, same cheat solution.
So, took a look about lenstip procedures. Their results are certainly interesting but useless, because they don't seem to take cameras into account.
Photozone guy is a pure joke. Telling you cannot compare resolutions between different system is a BS. Resolution is ABSOLUTE value and was invented for such comparisons. Although its technical data is OK. But its rating is far more awful than one of DxO. Just a sample: Pentax 31Ltd on K10 has higher rating than 31Ltd on K-5, although this lens has higher resolution with K-5. This guy seems to measure lens greatness based on its uniformity, which is always relative scale and thus cannot be compared. In other words, that guy has problems in general understanding and knowledge.I didn't read about lenstip testing procedure though, so cannot comment it.
The didn't test APO-Summicron, and, based on its MTF from Leica site, Cron is better (must be for this price). And it is not the second best performer for sure: take a look at NEX-7 chart, it's uniformly acceptable, even in the center, where it should be good or very good.BTW, 55mm is an FL of oddish side. It looks like they had troubles making fair 50.
Emacs23: More careful observation of results should dump down initial enthusiasm. In fact this lens is only great on FF. It is quite mediocre on APS-C and there's something in optical design or coatings which spoils color reproduction with filters (at least UV).
> I don't think you understand the term 'mediocre'.
I do, and you not. See the screenshot above: Otus is close to excellent. If the center part of FE 55 was about as good as Otus I would call it very good. But, it is not. And it is even worse than SEL 50. FF glass needs less sharpness to be very good and it is the case: FE 55 has flat field of view and quite good resolution WO, which makes it a very good performer for FF. But, its resolution is not enough for APS-C, where it loses in practice to even SEL 50, not to mention the Otus, which is in its own league. So, switching from MF to A7r+FE 55 is not the best ever idea. On the other hand, switching from MF to A7r+Otus is quite reasonable (more reasonable than to D800+Otus IMO, thanks to EVF and much better LV implementation).
shaocaholica: Sharpness is overrated for the casual photographer.
@TimbuktoThen, the cropability of A7r+FE 55 is overrated too. Just check how it works with NEX-7. Not an Otus level anyway. Well, IMO it is even arguably worse than SEL 50.
@EthanP99, there is no Otus for A-mount: somehow Sony and Zeiss agreed they (zeiss) will leave A-mount for fake Sony "zeisses"
This way: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12196364/gallery/different/fe55isnotthatgreat.pngYou can check it for yourself: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-E-50mm-F18-OSS-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-NEX-7-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-STAR-Otus-55mm-F14-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D3200___745_0_1252_736_1242_801
As you can check, this FE doesn't seem better than SEL 50. In fact, I would prefer to have better central sharpness and not quite good edges to mediocre everything of FE 55 (on APS-C).
More careful observation of results should dump down initial enthusiasm. In fact this lens is only great on FF. It is quite mediocre on APS-C and there's something in optical design or coatings which spoils color reproduction with filters (at least UV).
Zeisschen: It's quite sad to see that many readers here have obviously no idea of what quality Zeiss lenses are in the past and today. I don't know how Zeiss got the reputation for so people to sell (summarized) "fugly overprized German crap", when pretty much the opposite is the truth. These comments can only come from people who never used ANY Zeiss product.I for myself chose the Sony Alpha System ONLY for the ability to use Zeiss autofocus lenses! I'm aware that non of their lenses are "cheap", but for the performance I get I'm always satisfied and I never felt I had been tricked by them and paid too much. All of their lenses are designed to be used wide open and to deliver outstanding contrast and color, not seen in any other lenses you can buy for money today. Every single lens they make has that state of the art performance that we are always asking for, unbelievable how people ignore can ignore that by just looking at a product picture and some numbers.
Sony ZA lenses are hardly real zeisses. In fact, it is only zeiss badge, nothing over that.
plevyadophy: This is a stupid move for a medium format cam maker. Whilst CMOS sensors offer higher ISO settings, CCD sensors are BY FAR superior in image quality at low to moderate ISO settings and medium format should be about quality and NOT bragging rights on a spec sheet.
Hassy would have been better employed commissioning Sony to use their talents to design an improved CCD sensor.
First Hassy buy discontinued Sony cams and pimp them up and sell them at silly prices and now this CMOS thing. It's really sad to see what Hassy is becoming .................. a shadow of its former self.
I hope Phase One ignore this spec sheet CMOS bragging rights nonsense and stick to CCD sensors
Another BS story teller. I wonder how can you live while being so stupid, dude. Now, facts only:1) There are filters that passes only a part of photons. They are responsible for color accuracy.2) Photons are converted into energy once reached a pixel. The quality of this conversion is very well described with SNR value. The more is this value, the better the quality.And now facts:1) Sony A900 with CMOS sensor trounces all MF cameras produced today in color separation.2) CMOS SNR value per area is higher than one of CCDs.
Ben O Connor: As a Romanian house wife said to me back in 2004;
When it was communist, We had evertyhing but no freedom. Nowadays we have freedom but nothing else.
Hopefully things has been changed for Romania & Romanians in the meantime....
They got worse after joining the EU. Bad communism!
Emacs23: Same size as Canon 85/f1.8 and slightly smaller than equivalent Nikon. About the same low light performance (FF vs APS-C), more than twice expensive (three times more expensive than Canon). And the performance will be worse than those full framers, because to be better it should be better than Otus 55 (which is about on par with Nikon 85/1.8G at equivalent apertures mounted on D600, Otus mounted on Nikon D7100).
@topstuffIt is about lens price. The Nikkor is better performer and 2.5 times cheaper.
Sure, Samuel. I see bunch of photogs taking the Nobel prize after being more experienced ;)
> So f/1.2 is a half stop faster than f/1.8, then?LOL? Where did you take this "half stop"?FF Nikon sensor is more than a stop better than APS-C, no matter what color mosaic it uses. The difference in light transmission between f1.2 and f1.8 is full stop, and both have the same DOF. The only difference Nikon 85/1.8G is much sharper than 56/1.2 on APS-C :)