tkbslc: This has so few serious updates, it's a good time to take advantage of the discounts on the original E-M10.
I think that a much better EVF, 5-axis IBIS, improved video (although not 4K) and what looks like a better control layout, adds up to a rather serious update.
Sony did announce a new 16 MP 4/3" sensor at the same time as the 20 MP one. I wonder if the improved noise performance mentioned in the review means that it's a new sensor, after all?
FrankS009: Is this camera as good as a Panasonic G7? The latter is not mentioned in the review. Not a "peer" like the Sony or Fuji mirrorless cameras mentioned? Same price.F.
Read the review again more carefully. The G7 is mentioned in a couple of places.
Just a Photographer: Afters this many Sony promotion posts. I am now certain that DPReview gets paid for these Sony advertorials...
Nothing in these articles suggests that, especially not sentences like "We think this Raw compression is particularly a shame[...]", or the mention of "unpleasant artifacts".
The articles are the result of on-going testing of the camera, and DPR has chosen to give us the results piece by piece, rather than everything at once.
marc petzold: The Sony A7R II: A nearly perfect Camera - minus the (current) issue with the compressed RAW 11+7bits Delta Sigma Compression and also Compression Artefacts. C'mon Sony - i won't buy another A7 Series someday 'til you give me 14bit uncompressed RAW for my now 1.5 Year "old" Sony A7. The same goes for all other A7 Series DSLM - i would be feel bad to invest (if i'd have) 3200$ for a A7R II, and have to life with this RAW lossy compression flaw.
It can't be that hard to release a Firmware Update with true 14bit RAW, as the A7 Series should be & have been announced with that feature.
It's a known and well-documented issue, so why the incredulity? Most people may not consider it to be a problem, but some do.
In any case, what's wrong with having the option of working with higher quality data?
D 503: Still not enough for the price.
It's not a case of either/or. An investment is an expense that is expected to generate income in the future. Most expenses are just expenses, and nothing more.
If you buy a car to be able to earn money, I'd certainly call it an investment, if it's intended to perform its duty over a number of years. Gas and oil, those are only expenses, as are any other consumables.But if you buy a new car (or camera) every year, then I'd agree that it's not much of an investment, because it's treated like a consumable item.
If you pay for something in the hope that it will earn you more money in the future than you paid for it, then it's an investment. Bank accounts or an education certainly are investments, but so are the tools that the professional rely upon to earn a living. If you buy a camera that you expect to use for several years, for the purpose of earning money, how is that not an investment?
JanMatthys: Woudn't you "satisfy the cstomer" by shippng it when you promised them to?
You misrepresented Vanitas' point there. Of course everyone would prefer quality products delivered on time, but given that a problem has been discovered, wouldn't you prefer a delay in order to fix it, rather than a defective product delivered on time?
belle100: "satisfy the customer"
They must have produced something NOT satisfying the customer and made the last minute "precall". What the hell are they thinking.
Well, cost-cutting is one way to remain (temporarily) profitable in a shrinking market, and maybe we're seeing the consequences of that?
Just a Photographer: How much did Sony pay Amazon and or DPreview to get another advertorial published as an article?
This comes up every time a camera is covered in more than one article, and every time DPR apparently has received money from the manufacturer. This accusation was directed against them when the Canon XC10 was the subject of an opinion piece, when the Olympus E-M5 II got treated to a couple of articles, and so on. So either these accusations are completely unfounded, or DPR is taking money from every major manufacturer out there, whichever is more reasonable.
tbcass: I've never seen such hate for a camera and a company. It appears the fanboys are intimidated.
Such "hate" can be seen here practically every time Canon announces a new product, not to mention Leica.
J Parker: Actually...Sony's been a leader in low light autofocus for over 10 years. As far back as 2002, Sony's F707/717 could nail focus in utter complete pitch black darkness. And it allowed you to choose between 2 focusing systems to accomplish this (1.a laser holograph focus assist light and 2. an infrared focus assist light). Amazing -- this is cutting edge stuff in 2015 -- let alone 2002. Combine this with a really state of the art Zeiss lens that started at F2.0 and could maintain F2.4 at almost 200mm.
Numerous dslrs and mirrorless cameras later, it remains the only camera that I use for shooting floral, macro and street photography in total darkness.
As if that wasn't impressive enough, with the simple addition of an infrared filter and a neutral density filter it's easily converted to an infrared camera (yet remains perfectly usable as a normal camera).
Sony has a pretty good track record for making cameras that are ahead of their time.
Street photography in total darkness? Just curious, where do you live?
"What the hell are they thinking."
Whatever problem they are having, I'm pretty sure it wasn't planned.
robertbrockmann: Video capabilities should not be taken into account when reviewing Fujifilm cameras. I know of no Fuji shooter who bought a Fuji camera to shoot video. Fujis are for taking photographs. Period. The video buttons on my 3 Fujis (the first one bough in 2010) are virgin.
The X30 does use the X-Trans array, so it may not be a better choice for video.
As for the OP's suggestion that video capabilities should be disregarded in reviews of Fuji cameras, I think that's absurd. Not many people might buy a Fuji to shoot video, but the feature is there, so some people will want to use it once in a while. And if Fuji cameras were great for shooting video, then of course a lot of people would buy them for that purpose.
HowaboutRAW: A score of 4 out of 10 is too low for a $3000+ camera body.
This camera is capable enough that people are going to use it for some years--not simply 2 and then replace.
There is no such thing as a correct price. It's not an objective, intrinsic property of a product. Rather, a product is worth as much as you're prepared to pay for it. So the success (or not) in the marketplace will show if $3200 is an optimistic price or not.
rrccad: so that's a weather-resistant magnesium alloy body eh?
Sony claims that the camera has "top, front, and rear covers all made of strong, rigid magnesium alloy." They make no claim at all about weather resistance, not even "dust and moisture resistance", which are the words they used to describe the original model. At least I can't find any such claim on Sony's product page.
3dit0r: Interesting article, thank you!
For the life of me, I cannot think why Sony persist in not offering lossless 14-bit raw files for those who want them. This is now firmly a pro-priced body and this is, really, the only thing stopping it having pro level performance.
I've held back from buying due to this, and a friend of mine who's a very good landscape pro has said he'd love to ditch his D810 and move over, but just can't until this is fixed, as the ability to shoot stars and recover shadow areas without penalty is so much a part of his work.
If Sony really are serious about becoming Number 1, this should be their Number 1 priority. It should take about a day's work, if that, for some of the super-bright engineers at Sony to implement that, shouldn't it?
"It should take about a day's work, if that, for some of the super-bright engineers at Sony to implement that, shouldn't it?"
Well, Sony has stated that they are working on a solution, suggesting that it's a little bit more complicated than that. I have no idea what the problem could be, though, considering that other manufacturers offer lossless compression, or no compression at all.
IvanM: Well I wish Sony well with this camera, its seems to be the bomb! The sales figures will tell if its necessary for Canikon to follow or bring out something to compete with...
Unfortunately Sony withdrew completely in my country with only playstation and cellphones remaining...so from a professional pov it is a non starter. Sony used to be the leader around here but now LG and Samsung leads in consumer electronics. Canon (and Nikon far behind) obviously dominates but there seems to be a strong following for Fuji and to lesser extend Olympus and limited Panasonic offerings....so as good as this Sony is we just dont have the option of trying or even buying...
Warranty is a potential problem with grey market, self-imported items. Nikon, for example, refuses to repair products that were intended for sale in a different region. Don't know about Sony's policy, though.
tom1234567: where is the Fuji X-T1 AWARD??????????
No worries, it won an award last year. :)
PhotoKhan: Relax folks...These are the guys that have actually already given awards to cameras that were not even on the market yet, so it's "credibility" written just that way, with a lower case "c".
While previews are usually based on such pre-production units, proper reviews based on testing should always be based on production units. And such units are often made available to the press before the product goes on sale, so that reviews may appear in time for the release on the market. I have never heard of a company deciding to not release a product after having sent out production units for review.