"From a design standpoint, the biggest changes are the grip - which is larger - and the addition of a front dial."
The A7 always had a front dial. It has just been moved.
D1N0: Great Job Canon. Now stick in a Sony sensor.
Terrible? Examples please, BeaniePic.
Lab D: First I read this and then I saw the new Samsung. I don't know anyone who buys Samsung, but it seems to beat the 7D in every spec.For example 10 FPS is not exciting when others are offering 11,12 and 15 FPS. "Full HD" video is boring when other shoot 4K.I just hope the 7D does use the same technology in this new sensor as found in the Rebel T2i.
Karl, they are already competing. Nokia used to be a big gun... so were Kodak.
The Davinator: Another body? Lenses...how about the lenses?
Your comment is 2 years late. Try to keep up.
Reilly Diefenbach: I guess I just don't get the point of an expensive, heavy, bulky 1.4 lens if the bokeh is as hideous as what I'm seeing on these DPR sample shots. The chap with the bridge behind him is a truly ugly, discombobulated looking shot, to single out one.
"Just some lenses are generally better for bokeh (nikon 58/1.4, canon 50/1.2)".
I don't get the Canon 50/1.2. It isn't sharp and its bokeh is pretty ugly in many situations - especially that nasty swirly stuff.
RuneStenseth: Would it not be better to test those kind of lenses on a Nikon D800e rather than a 22mp Canon? More resolution, dynamic range and no diffusor in front of the bayer array?
That would be a problem with many FF cameras on the market.
Perhaps you can elaborate on the "bit more than that".
I've never been unable to use my A7 - perhaps you photograph libraries?
You'd think the net would be awash with evidence of the poor colour reproduction of the A7(R), but I just can't find it.
They're not really that loud. The A7R has a double shutter sound, which may add to the overall volume, but I find the A7 quite satisfying actually.
Got any links showing this "not great" colour?
Well I haven't personally seen any problems with the RAWs in real world shooting, so I'm not sure how much that alone will be impacting sales.
What A7 shutter noise problem are you referring to? The A7R has apparent issues with shutter shock in certain conditions and circumstances, but the A7 is unaffected as it has electronic first curtain.
"@The Otus Eater"
I see what you did there.
Sharpness is of course not the only important quality, but the FE 55 is no slouch in other areas either.
reginalddwight: Congratulations to Sigma for hitting another home run with this latest addition to the Art series.
For me, I cannot justify the price of the Zeiss Otus 55mm/1.4, which has superb optics reportedly matched or even surpassed by the Sigma 50mm/1.4.
I can't wait to get my hands on a copy.
Coudet, I tend to find that those claiming the Sony FE 55/1.8 is overpriced have not actually used it.
With regards to Sigma releasing Nikon mount versions for testing, I wonder if Sigma are worried that it is not as much as an Otus killer as has been hyped.
The Sony Zeiss FE 55/1.8 is incredibly sharp, and results were off the charts when tested on the A7R. I wonder if the Sigma can even compete with that lens, never mind the Otus.
The Lotus Eater: Assuming I have done the maths correctly (and I am very average at maths), this camera offers DOF at least as shallow as the Sony E 16-50mm lens on NEX/Axxxx cameras.
Moreover, as the RX100 III's lens is faster then the 16-50mm by 2 stops, that should compensate for any ISO performance disadvantages against APS-C sensors.
Am I missing something? This seems almost too good to be true.
Looking a bit deeper at DXO, the RX100 III may not be far off the A7/28-70 combo when it comes to light gathering ability. Its sensor's ISO performance is just over 2 stops worse, but its lens is 2 stops faster. It's pretty stunning when you think about it.
Are you sure it's that bad, Daniel?
If you trust DXO's measurements, the SNR is much higher on the RX100 II at ISO 400 than the A6000 at ISO3200 (32.5dB vs 27.3dB). That is also higher than the A6000 at ISO 1600 (30.3dB). The difference is significantly less than 2 stops.
With the RX100 III's lens being 2 stops faster, would it not be at an advantage? That was the point I was trying to make.
Assuming I have done the maths correctly (and I am very average at maths), this camera offers DOF at least as shallow as the Sony E 16-50mm lens on NEX/Axxxx cameras.
Rocker44: Sharpest wide-angle lens under a grand?Good for the landscapers with the smaller A7/r body.
A good landscape composition does not necessarily require you to get the entire landscape in the frame!
KL Matt: Razor-sharp wide open. Wow.
"Unfortunately you can't with those Sony A7 lenses. At least not those short - dreamy - DOF's that people really like."
Sure, I guess some people need ultra-thin DOF to disguise their sh*tty compositions.
Robert Garcia NYC: hmm, no image stabilization?
...and the body bigger.
dynaxx: " dubbed Bionz X for reasons that presumably made sense to someone" ; is there an echo in here ?
Readers with a photographic [gag intended ] memory will recall that this moronic comment has been lifted from the fourth-rate DPR Sony A7 review that was pilloried from pillar to post. Either the reviewers don't partake of this valuable and occasionally constructive feedback or they consider themselves above criticism.
Japanophobia ( just looked it up - the fear of the Japanese culture that gave rise to the Bionz-X processor name ) is a strange affliction for someone in a profession that requires constant contact with products from that nation.
Another copy and paste. DPR are good at that. Lazy.
It's interesting that Imaging Resource found the new EVF better than the one in the NEX-6 (better colour accuracy and detail is easier to discern), but DPR see it as a noticeable step down. I'm wondering, did DPR actually compare them side-by-side or did they simply look at the spec sheet?