Um, what's so great about the A7 except that it's smaller than this Canon?
It has washed out colour in raw, and a very very audible mechanical shutter. And with its 24MPs, it has about the high ISO performance of this 50MP Canon. It's good for video though.
And I like using EVFs in lowlight shooting, but the A7S is better for that than the A7.
You don't know about time. Oh, wait, word.
With time and fewer words, Sony may fix this.
arndsan: if we get this trouble covered, ...what about a Leica M review?
Here's the DPR hands on with the M9:
And here a few years later B. Britton with the M9-P:
What be time?
Sony has provided the proof--for some years now.
Nothing "wild" about being able to see colour change subtly detraction. Irony: Nikon, with optically weaker lenses, can do a better job than most current Sonys with excellent lenses, and that's likely because of the 14 bit raws.
Bob 1: At ~$175, or less, whats not to like? I've seen worse image quality in cameras costing 2X this amount! When I shot film, I could easily spend more than $175 for 35mm film, development and printing just on a week-end vacation :)
Perfect camera for my wife and grandchildren. Also, I like the technology of the BSI sensor... http://www.adorama.com/alc/0012961/article/FAQ-Whats-a-Backside-Illuminated-Sensor
Rght, 2009 for a Sony camera.
But BSI CCDs for astro-imaging existed years before that. Sony made some of them.
You're free not to believe me, but I'm not sharing raws.
I don't have to provide them--and I certainly wouldn't to the likes of you as a a policy.
mgrum's tiffs well proved the point, but those are a reworking of Canon 14 bit raws.
It's not simply about color accuracy.
Which pretty much explains why I've responded.
I'm not sharing my raws. I've already said that.
I don't claim to have shot thousands of raws with each of those bodies, and I've done nothing outdoors. But I've shot hundreds of raw samples with several of those bodies. And dozens with other bodies on the list.
Hundreds, like dozens, is more than a few. You really don't have a leg to stand on with the claims about raws I've shot. I remind you that first you denied that I have the raws.
I'm plenty familiar with the bodies in question, and that means I know they don't have a setting to improve color in raw.
First you say I have delusions of grandeur, now it's I feel inferior.
Suggestion: Don't project your dual nature and claim it as mine.
Max number count of what? Meaning: What thing is being counted? (I guess I can find this software and try it myself.)
I don't have a 50D to try, since it's an older model.
Elliot H: Apple, buy Leica.
$400 Swatches that have to be recharged daily, only fully functional if linked to an iPhone--but now I can see who's calling me in the theatre during a movie.
I'm not feeling "inferior" like so many others around the world, who that many would be is a mystery.
Sorry, I have all the raws that I say I have. Someone else did work on the raws from a Canon, that's not work I necessarily feel confident that I can repeat, but I don't think you apprehend the work that mgrum did. Since implicit in your comment is the idea that simply having raws, any, proves the weakness in the Sony. No, it's having raws from Sonys, Pentaxes, Canons, Panasonics, Samsungs, Fujis, Olympuses, and Nikons all shot under the same lighting that proves the point. And I have those raws.
What mgrum did was supply raws reworked and then extracted to emulate the Sony weakness. That's not what I've been doing.
As I have said before, clearly, I don't share my raws. And anyhow I wasn't shooting to test the washout color--even if washout color in the Sony raws was one of the results.
The Canon G2 is an excellent, if limited, camera, why would you think that my only digital camera? Also the G2 doesn't suffer from the washed out colour problem.
You have a funny definition of "know", just so you're clear "know" isn't the same as "suppose".
If you want to question my conclusion, fine, but the evidence isn't with you.
If you want to say I'm lying about the raws I've shot with various Sonys, then fine, but you can't actually know I'm lying, you can only suppose.
Why would you think I'd make up having raws from the A7, A7R, A7S, A7II, A99, A77II, A6000, RX10, RX1, RX100all, A5100, A77? (Oh, because it would be easier for your worldview.)
I know you can't stand the fact that I've tried these cameras, and have the raws. But it doesn't change the fact that I have.
"downgraded", right you just keep telling yourself that.
More testing would likely repeat the weakness. My raws sure do.
You saying I'm "clueless" doesn't make it so, this kind of logic has been used to launch all sorts of infamously bad policies.
I've not been calling people names, and I'm free to comment if you don't like it you can disagree, but you can't play big brother.
cdembrey: If Leica had it's own Raw format, the problem would be solved. Simple as that.
The kidz in former Eastern Block countries write the best viruses, get a team from east Germany to write a Leica Raw file. An exclusive camera deserves an exclusive Raw.
But these special Leica raws could also cause problems.
Actually it does, because the theorem doesn't well cover what happens to volume shifts within the 1/44000 second samples--and this limitation was known about in the 1970s.
I'd guess the other thing you mention is going on too. But no need to seek out higher decibels to find the problems.