PORTRAIT: But,wait a sec., so the A3000 Sony is an "E" Mount system cam,same Nex series lenses right? Now what about "A" Mount ?? Can this cam carry the "A" mount?? or not? Or will Sony make another cam specific for "A" mount"..? I'm puzzled..
The camera shown above is marked Alpha 3000, not A3000.
One is a Greek letter, the other is a Latin letter.
plevyadophy: SILLY NAMING CONVENTION
Until now, Alpha stood for interchangeable lenses on the Alpha mount.
This is an Alpha branded camera with a NEX mount. Daft.
There is no upgrade path between this cam and the existing Alpha cams; if you buy this cam and decide to upgrade later to a bigger Alpha cam, you will then have to re-buy all your lenses.
If the idea was to produce a better handling camera for NEX, then they could easily have done that without changing the name to Alpha.
I don't even get the Alpha connection. What is it; just because it looks like an SLR?
But that aside, it seems like a very good entry level camera at a stupidly good price; Christmas shopping in camera stores is gonna be interesting.
The mount is the A mount, not the Alpha mount. A for Autofocus, I believe.
All NEX cameras are Alpha cameras - they come from Sony's Alpha division.
tesilab: I hope Mr Molyneux will read these comments. There is NO contradiction between touch screen operation and the EVF. Touch-shutter is a critical tool for a certain style of photography. It simultaneously establishes both when to shoot and where to focus. It is also criticalyl for discreet street photography.
But many of us require an EVF for all those occasions where the LCD simply won't work, when we either need a steadier hold on the camera, or the LCD is unreadable in bright sun.
I agree. It is absurd to think that a user buys an expensive camera for only one type of photography. Many people will want to use the EVF in some situations (for instance sports) and the touch screen in others (such as macro).
The popup panels are quite annoying, and the popup EXIF data destroys the composition of any image you are looking at.
The larger size type is easier to read than the old. Blue on black is the worst possible colour combination for type, because of the low blue resolution of the eye.
Generally, it is all too jumpy and distracting, like a fairground.
I suggest you cut out all the features you are most proud of.
Will you be testing just one copy of each design, or a representative sample?
One of the biggest problems for a buyer is to know which lenses are consistently good and which vary from excellent to bad.
Jens_G: I wish Sony would make one with a fixed, 35mm (even 40mm) equivalent fov lens, with even larger physical aperture. Imagine the IQ!
That would be practically the Sigma DP2M.
ashwins: Very clear and informative article.
I agree. A good clear summary, especially for beginners.
Camediadude: Thank you for the well illustrated article. I definitely appreciate the concepts of various "compositional aids" and arrangements, but it's just the act of calling them "rules" that has always irked me some! I mean not to minimise the effectiveness of it all, for I recognise that these "guidelines" (a name which I prefer!) have long been used to devastating effects by the giants of photography, for decades and by painter legends for centuries before that. Perhaps it is just semantics.. (Rules, at least those which do Not pertain to the keeping of some from harming others, often tend to rub me the wrong way! But that is personality-based mainly, from what I can tell.)
The photographic equivalent of the rules of grammar is not composition, but focussing, exposure and white balance.
If you want a literary equivalent of composition, it would be the pacing and contrast of scenes in a story. For example, the famous scene of the porter in Macbeth, where the comedy acts as a contrast to the prevailing darkness.
The "Rules of Composition" are starting points, not constraints like the rules of a sport.
Elaka Farmor: Is the resoultion 46MP or 14.6MP? Must be 14.6 because the final size is 4,800×3,200....hmmm.
It is 14.6MP, but a Bayer sensor that claims 15MP is really at best 5MP.
So if you are going to multiply one by three, you should multiply the other.
VadymA: There are better alternatives than this camera for 99.999% of photographers.
From which it follows that there are many thousands of photographers for whom this is the best alternative.
slncezgsi: Interesting to be honest. The optical quality of the previous DP models was very good and now with a new sensor it sounds interesting. I do not see a provision for clip-on EVF what is becoming a standard on this type of cameras. IS would have been nice. Also - nothing for movie makers :)
But what interests me personally most is performance at low ISO - colors and dynamic range. Detail should be very good - curios how it will compare to GXR M-module which has no AA.
Let's see about the price ...
Built in flash is really only useful as a fill light in bright sunlight. With a standard hot shoe, these new DP cameras should work fine with studio flash setups or with a hammerhead flash on a bracket.
Keith Lommel: It's obvious they're using the 19/2.8 and 30/2.8 which they're also marketing for m43 and NEX.
Looking at the dimensions, it doesn't seem the lenses are very deeply integrated into the body... Seems they could have engineered some kind of lens mount so you could swap one for the other without increasing size that much. That might have made for a much more exciting product, rather than forcing foveon fans to pick one and only one focal length, or buy two (likely very expensive) cameras.
Or better yet, put a NEX mount on there. I'm sure a lot more people would try such a camera if they could add it to an existing system and feel like their lenses could be reused on future bodies...
I would buy a DP camera with a NEX mount in a flash.