sierranvin: How interesting, Nikon. @ $400/MP, this fab D4s is equivalent to the Sony a7R being priced at $14,400! Except the a7R only costs $2,300, or $63/MP!Who's your friend?
(And thanks in advance to everybody who is about to tell me MP don't matter...)
MPs do matter, too many get in the way of decent image quality at anything but ISO 50. Perhaps you had a different meaning in mind, like more MPs are better as general rule.
Somehow, I'm sure the AF on the D4s is a good bit better and faster than on this Sony. Then there's the frame rate thing.
But hey, since I don't care about AF speed or frame rate I'll be glad when I get to see serious raws from this A7s. (Too bad about the likely raw compression.)
For those that keep their work computer of the internet.
ACR 8.4 for CS6 (Win)
Thanks for the link, though for me, this method of ACR update never works, Adobe can't validate my install of PhotoShop CS 6. So I have to update from within PhotoShop CS6.
Never matters if I'm online and even allowing all of the usually suppressed Adobe crapware to run.
"They" always think my install is invalid.
Just thought I share my failures, glad it works for some this way.
Donnie G: So far, Sony has managed to deliver 3 different cameras from one body and keep the hype alive for their full frame sensors while keeping production costs as low as possible. Seems like a formula for success. If they can come up with a 4th camera from this body, then they might actually make a profit from the camera business this year. Hope it works for them. :)
Apple has a lot of improving to do with the laptops.
They need much better color. And better sound cards.
Then really, at least on some (so breaking the one chassis mold) the battery and RAM+SSD need to be easily removable.
So right, Sony wasn't paying attention, but Apple drives away some customers with its choices.
At least the new MacPro is accessible. But the rest have a long way to come.
And it sure is easier to clear web browsing history+cookies on an Android tablet than it is on an iPad/iPhone. Kind of an important feature for a mobile device that Apple ignores.
FujLiver: Sony is leading the pack, no doubtand I say that as a Nikon shooter (although the sensor heart is Sony somewhat ;)
The "sensor heart" of your particular Nikon (say the D300 of D610) may be a Sony. But that ignores the fact that the processing engine is by another party, most likely Fuji and then Nikon doing the code.
And most importantly: Nikon uses sensor suppliers other than Sony, examples: the D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor and the D4 uses a Renesas sensor, then the 1 Series uses Aptina sensors.
mpgxsvcd: I wonder how much the Hasselbad version of this camera will cost? 1 Trillion Dollars?
Morpho Hunter: Scratches head ...who needs 4k video?
Scratches head in 25 years' time ...who needs 4k video?
Well, there's more to crop. Takes lots of processing, but my copy of Adobe Premiere can already crop normal high def video frames.
And if you want to display things on your own 70 inch monitor, 4K will help. There may of course be data flow bottle necks for years to come.
I kinda of think better colour and frame rates are more important than 4K, particularly more important that 4K displays.
Counting pro video, I'd bet Sony makes money on cameras.
TVs not so much, cell phones no, computers that was just spun off, or sold.
JamesD28: If the Nikon D3S could produce unparalleled low-light results back in 2009, and processors and sensors have come a long way in those 4½ years, then I should hope that ISO 102,400 on the A7S is very usable. And ISO 409,600 at a push, at least.
Well, ISO 50,000 is really pushing things with the Nikon D4s, and the Nikon D4 was an high ISO step back from the D3s.
So perhaps this Sony can be used really readily at ISO 100,000. More likely about 50,000--but who knows, and remember Sony doesn't have the greatest reputation for in camera processing before the raw is written. Example: the Sony A7 doesn't really keep up with the high ISO performance of the Nikon D610.
goloby: AF sensitivity down to -4eV WOOOW!!! Not even 1Dx or D4s do that!!!!
I was wrong about new boyz’s understanding in this case.
I see I was thinking (presuming) IQ, and not AF quality.
There are still some problems with the logic of this contrast AF being faster, but that’s not the mistake I thought had been made.
Jefftan: still basically same camera as TG-1, when will a true successor come? already 2 years
When Canon ships an f/2.0 tough camera, with a 1/1.7 inch sensor and not much zoom.
Why you say do I limit this idea to Canon? Because Canon jpeg only cameras can be easily hacked to shoot raw. And have manual control.
odd multiplication result there.
But since the mirror flips up, all the light goes to the image sensor once the shutter is open. This point still seems to have confused newboyz and for that matter you.
peevee1: "Sony told us that recording 4K footage internally would have meant moving away from the small footprint of the A7-series body."
Right, because you need a huge body to record 4k... oh, wait, GH4 and every new smartphone records one! Sounds like Sony A7BS to me.
Do yourself favor next time and quote me accurately. You neglected the point about ISO 3200 video and 4K smart phones.
That's too bad, if correct. That shutter noise is a sales killer for the A7/r.
They're nice cameras, can't use them in live performances and neither is particularly good at high ISOs.
Then there's that compressed raw choice Sony made to further limit the image quality from these cameras.
Exactly, newboyz seems to think that half goes to the AF sensor and half goes to the image sensor.
And this idea is completely wrong except for Sony SLT models.
On an SLR with AF, there's an AF sensor above in the prism box, and the mirror deflects as much of the incoming light as possible to this sensor. The AF computer does the AF calculation and moves the lens, then the mirror flips up and all of the light coming thru the lens hits the image sensor as soon as the shutter opens.
There is no 1/3 goes here and 2/3s go there.
webrunner5: This camera is going to be a Canon 5D, Nikon D700 on steroids. Can't wait to get one.
Think a bit more, say about a live vocal performance in a small space.
The Leica M240 is not particularly loud. M film cameras were very quiet. (The Fuji Xs are very very quiet.)
The Df and now the D4s can be set to shoot much more quietly than the Sony A7/r. The Canon 6D comes out of the box quiet.
Neither the Leica M9, nor the M8 were lowlight cameras.
And likely much more audible than either the Nikon or the Canon.
fjbyrne + TrojMacReady:
Nope, you both need to reread what new boyz wrote. The problem is that the comment refers to both the image sensor and the AF sensor(s) on it, and the antecedent of "it" here is the image sensor.
new boyz did NOT say that light used for AF systems on most DSLRS is reflected up to a different sensor and the reflection diminishes the light's intensity.
new boyz clearly thinks/thought that the light hitting the imaging sensor is diminished by the mirror in an SLR.
Jonathan F/2: Snooze. I bet the Df or D3S still beats it for low light. Next.
Though you've been corrected, I'm interested in where this myth comes from?
Any idea why you thought what you thought until disabused here?
reginalddwight: The A7S has the same ISO sensitivity range as the Nikon D4S, but in a smaller and lighter form factor....likely at a third of the cost. Well done.
If Sony can produce more native lenses for the relatively new E-mount A7 camera series, Nikon and Canon have no choice but to go all in in the mirrorless FF market.
Exciting times ahead.
I think there are a lot of places high ISO is useful without incredible AF speed. For example live indoor performances, unfortunately this A7s likely has the same incredibly loud shutter as the A7/r.
Even the Nikon D4s can be set to shoot much more quietly. Or then there's the Df or the Canon 6D.