magneto shot: FF and we'll talk. Not because apsc quality is lacking, but because there is nothing negligible about crop factor in focal lengths. Mirrorless is crowded now but FF mirrorless is pretty much just sony
I wonder if Stats are available that'll show the number of people who go FF after wishing for FF. I want an Audi too but I'm very happy with my Nissan.
justinwonnacott: so tired of non existent kickstarter ideas . . . show me the one you have wrapped and ready to go or get off my doorstep.
my hardware store sells a similar item at its checkout counter for $5. And I can use it on my bike. I heard today that somebody paid a few thousand dollars for a bag of air from a Kanye west concert. I guess one can raise 10,000 $1's on the internet.
the Comments range from the naive to the ignorant, with a few wise, learned ones thrown in to tease me into reading further down. It's too bad that the price of entry into this forum is just an email address.
looks like a more-rounded NEX camera to me. Reinventing the wheel.
dodgebaena: I'm getting a boner with this one…. the IS seals the deal for me. Basically, I want a mirrorless version of the a99, and with the IS, my dream is fulfilled.
I'm the only one in my circle of wedding photographers here in TO who uses the Sony a99. Now it looks like I'l be using the A72 next year.
vesa1tahti: No time lapse, no bulb = useless
Bulb is for exposures longer than the 30sec "minimum". DPR's review may be incorrect if they say there is no Bulb setting. Bulb is a must-have.
I'm getting a boner with this one…. the IS seals the deal for me. Basically, I want a mirrorless version of the a99, and with the IS, my dream is fulfilled.
when the howling mob takes over the presidential palace, this will be one of the items found
(unknown member): The RX10 (which I have owned for several months) is a very, very good video camera. The still images are good but the video is great and the ability to have a lens that's par focal (that doesn't change focus as you zoom) and constant aperture (doesn't change aperture as you zoom) means that you can use this camera for serious video production.
It's different than all those cameras listed below because it doesn't do line skipping in video it reads out the whole frame. This makes its final video output much sharper and more detailed than any of those. It's worth the cash IF you do video with it. Zebras, focus peaking, audio control. It's just a nearly perfect budget video machine. That's why people buy it.
Hi Kirk,Your opinion seals the deal for me: I will be getting the RX10. The video from my a99 is a you say, "mush" and it's a pain esp when I am combining it with clips from my Sony NX30.
anytime a company goes public, it begs the question: if the going is very good, why don't you keep it all to yourself? or to a select group of venture capitalists? what keeps a Sony or a Samsung with a varied product line coming in and saturating the market with what is clearly a niche product for the big players.
thanks to focus peaking, I am quite comfortable shooting my Bower (a Samyang lens) 85f1.4 on my a99. This will be a nice walk-around lens for my NEX-6.
If it were affordable, I'd get one. I still have my Nikon primes, plus a few other exotic ones like a Medical Nikkor. One of my sharpest lenses is a Nikkor 28f3.5. I'm a Sony (a99) user now but I'd get the chrome Df in a heartbeat if it fell below $1500.
Jimmy jang Boo: DSLRs are going the way of the dodo bird.
"Not for Pros"??? My wedding and event photography colleagues envy my Sony a99 and if not for their huge investment in L lenses, they would switch from their 5D3 to the Sony/Zeiss system.
georgehudetz: On the surface, I love the concept - a FF camera nearly 400 grams lighter than a D610. Fantastic! But am I the only one that thinks this is a bit of a shell game? With a CIPA battery life of only 340 shots, vs. the Nikon's 900, I'd be investing in a battery grip for the Sony just to keep the battery swapping down. Then you'd still want one or two more batteries on hand in addition to the two in the camera for a full day's shooting. It looks like most of the weight advantage goes away. Same issue applies when comparing a D7100 to a OMD-EM1 (although of course the lenses are a different issue in that comparison).
But I suppose if you didn't mind swapping and went without the grip you'd still have a significant weight advantage. Bravo to Sony for innovating! I love my D7000 but Nikon needs to pay attention here!
I agree with Najinsky. The batteries on my a99 is rated for less than 500 but when I shoot weddings, using a grip, I can get approx 2600 shots out of 3 batteries. Using a grip allows me to deplete a battery down to 0%. I use 2 sec auto review and I use the screen over 50% of the time to compose my shots. I don't chimp too much and I onl yturn on the camera when I'm ready to shoot.
ThomasSwitzerland: If you rent SW you lose control forever. Take online access for surfing only, reading news, simple mail; and keep your files hooked off. Convert your pictures with excellent camera vendor’s SW into TIFFs. Afterwards there are many “out of the box” choices.
The internet as we know it today will be dead in a couple of years. Adobe per now does not belong to this new road - just confirming old fashioned greed and corporate incompetence. Gets kicked out.
I agree with ThomasSwitzerland. Somebody very soon will figure out a way to monetize the use of the internet.
continued from below:... heck, I do it all the time, tying my pro-bono work for publicity generated by the goodwill, not to mention attracting potential clients. It's a win-win situation (instead of a tax break, I get good vibes and free publicity) but I don't go around with a halo on my head (okay, perhaps other people are installing the hallo around you) and saying it's all for the poor people, because using an iPhone to shoot a wedding is a huge disservice to any client, paying or otherwise.Look, the perception may be, may be not, different from the reality, and as long as the poor people are happy, where's the problem? But we know, the Connect readers know, and sometimes, the intent is everything. And misrepresenting it is everything.
Kevin,It would have been a different story if you had done it this way:"Out of the goodness of my heart, and my desire to share my talent and expertise with others less fortunate, I will undertake this project, using the best affordable equipment (read: anything other than a any smartphone) to do justice to the significance o this event. In addition, just like so many other nameless people and organizations, I will do this without publicizing it, keeping in mind that this good deed is a reward in itself."Instead, you go ahead and use equipment totally not suited for a wedding, any wedding, and while you profess helplessness in the uncontrollable publicity machine, you can't be really seen as putting a stop to it. Your passive-aggressive, sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude is what is generating this firestorm. It is not the event itself that is drawing criticism. Look, I admire what you do, warts and all, and I most likely would do the same thing ...to be continued
Mike Walters: Don't know what all the fuss is about. Mobile photography has been around for years. My DSLR is mobile, compact cameras are mobile, phones with cameras are mobile.
It would take courage if the photographer was not a big name photographer, was not published and was trying to make a business out of wedding photography.
Its all about using the right tools for the job. Nothing wrong with using a phone if thats what you decide is the right tool for the job. I am pretty sure that 99.9% of wedding photographers wouldnt take the chance of using a mobile phone as their only tool to photograph a wedding, which just about says it all I think.
So true.... when the 35mm Leica came out, it was looked down on as not as good as the square format... and it was "mobile", relatively speaking.
topstuff: Nice camera. Lovely image quality. Loads of lenses available.
In many ways it is a "no brainer" and an obviously safe purchase.
But here's the thing - and I know this is unusual here on DPR, but these days I prefer using an EVF. I prefer the EVF because I don't chimp after the image, but instead get it right before I shoot.
For ME at least, I don't think I am likely to buy another traditional mirrored DSLR again.
I would personally welcome seeing more FF cameras with EVF's.
An unusual opinion maybe, but some of us prefer the road less travelled.
I switched from the 5D/5D2 to the Sony SLTsparticularly for both the EVF and the hinge monitor. My mouth waters when I see the specs on the current ful frames from both Canon and Nikon, esp since the autofocus is a huge improv over the 5D2. But I need that EVF.