dynaxx: I have searched the specifications page carefully and the rest of the First Impressions review but you seem to have omitted any opinion on the naming of the Fuji image processor.
I found "EXR Processor II" a little dry and cryptic for my taste but the reviewer's opinion is always more credible than a humble amateur such as I.
I had assumed this would be part of every review since it was "writ large" in both the recent Sony A7 First Impressions and Final reviews that the reviewer objected to the name Bionz X.
All I crave is consistency.
I think proprietary technology is carefully named by the company's marketing dept and can be a big deal (from a marketing point of view). It might sound completely outrageous and stupid, but some people do get affected in their decisions to buy or not by the names of certain technological features of a product.
Funduro: Oh boy, locking knobs, lots of them. Watch Kai from DigitalRev go nuts with snarky remarks like he did with the Df. BTW Kai doesn't whine about knobs on very expensive Leica's though.
Kai's "reviews" are not reviews but -occasionalyl- entertaining clips about cameras.
I think DPR is right not to give the highest score on A7. There are quirks and issues to be addressed. I personally have complained about some of these. This does not detract from the fact that A7/R are groundbreaking products (save the repulsive logo at the front of the camera).
One constraint, please. Not the horrific size of Nikon's retro DSLR!
aftab: It is an excellent camera for some, but useless for most.
645D... (Sigh)... That is A camera.....
RStyga: A7 is a groundbreaking product in terms of compactness to IQ ratio. It is ideal for using very small lenses, either FE mount or other 'compact-lens' mount such as Leica M39/M.The problem is that adapters come at a rather significant IQ cost in the lens periphery due to manufacturing tolerances (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/09/30/roger-cicala-investigates-accuracy-of-lens-adapters) and compact FE lenses are not yet available (except for the 35/2). Also, when compact FE lenses become available they will probably be very expensive (so much for touting an inexpensive camera body), judging from the price of the 35/2.So, A7, as a camera, is great (save some ergonomics and construction quality issues) but, as a system, the jury is still out.
Great; I'm happy for you.
I've handled A7 and it feels cheap and hollow, it's plastic, predominantly, and it has nothing to do with 6D. A7R is metal but not A7.
A7 is made of plastic and feels hollow and flimsy.
A7 is a groundbreaking product in terms of compactness to IQ ratio. It is ideal for using very small lenses, either FE mount or other 'compact-lens' mount such as Leica M39/M.The problem is that adapters come at a rather significant IQ cost in the lens periphery due to manufacturing tolerances (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/09/30/roger-cicala-investigates-accuracy-of-lens-adapters) and compact FE lenses are not yet available (except for the 35/2). Also, when compact FE lenses become available they will probably be very expensive (so much for touting an inexpensive camera body), judging from the price of the 35/2.So, A7, as a camera, is great (save some ergonomics and construction quality issues) but, as a system, the jury is still out.
Kodak did pioneering things during the film era and continued in the digital age with some degree of the same spirit of innovation but never quite made it to establish itself. I'm not sure at all that JK is up to the task, i.e., using such an iconic brand name for mediocre profiteering. Let's hope for the best outcome, but I seriously doubt that JK can do to Kodak what Cosina has done to Voigtlander.
paulski66: Thank you, God!
Last time I checked, Sigma was not associated with the Second Coming; keep looking. :-)It is, indeed, a great lens on paper. My only reservation is the size and weight. In a time when DLSM cameras are ubiquitous and camera true portability a reality, producing a large lens detracts some from its appeal.
TN Args: Can someone in DPR please remove all posts in this thread that are about so-called 'full-frame' (44mm sensor) equivalencies?
What a monumental waste of space and repetition in 10,000 different locations. Not to mention that fact that it's trolling. You don't see this extent of trolling on 44 mm sensor articles, with people relentlessly pointing out how superior medium format or large format sensors are, and the lens/sensor equivalencies converted to 8x10-inch, and how poorly the 44 mm sensor gathers light by comparison with 8x10, over and over and over and over and.....
Once that is done, delete this post too. And I will thank DPR for their efforts.
Historically, FF is the point of reference, not MF or LF. Some people like to compare with it; so, tone down a notch your inner dictator tendencies...
Good effort, very good indeed!
My test at 42mm (84mm ff eq.) on a firm surface revealed no blur issue. A far more comprehensive test in the following link also revealed no such issue whatsoever:
I think DPR's interpretation is subjective at best.
RAW, RAW, RAW support??? WHY does one need to buy the "special" 'pro' version to do that? Marketing, marketing, marketing...
Thanks, Canon, for leaving the DSLM market to other manufacturers to profit from.
"Social photography"? Right...
The camera on IQ is as expected; good on noise control, rather mediocre on resolving power. No moire is very good. Overall, overpriced ...
RStyga: Let's us dispense with the myth that all "professional" photographers know exactly what they want or what it is required. I have seen a fair share of them not having a clue about what gear to buy, not only because they fail to follow the industry's rapid changes (understandable to a certain a extent) but also because they don't even know basic technological terminology (e.g. what is VC/IS/OIS/IS).
There is a significant difference between a person who makes money out of taking photographs, a photographer (in the artistic sense), and one who knows about photographic technology and application. Neither category implies any of the other.
I second that; I'm Greek and never heard anything in my language that could be a root to profess(ion)/al. It sure looks of Latin origin.