SonyA7r: Now this conclusion is more like it to my own experience..."In terms of photo quality, the Alpha A7 is up there with DSLRs of similar resolutions, and the out-of-camera JPEGs from the Sony are arguably better than most. It's only beaten on detail by the A7r and the D800(e)."
Good luck with the jurisdiction on that one, Carl.
JEROME NOLAS: I don't want FF any more. It's ridiculous what camera makers are putting on the table. This is a quick bang ($) from Sony. If you use Zeiss lenses you'll be fine. But hey you have four!!! lens adapters...and faint double images in A7R. Oh Lord, just scrap it and start with a clean sheet!
A standard 50mm is not made primarily for portraits.
Stu 5, yes that's true, but DT200 compared the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 to the Canon 50mm f/1.8. There IS no comparison. There's barely any comparison to be made with the 50mm f/1.2 L!
YSP: DPR calls full size DSLR cameras (the Nik D610 & Can EOS 6D) as the Sony A7's peers. What is wrong with DPR?? They're totally different beasts altogether! How can you compare a full-body/full-weight/full-frame DSLR to a compact/light-weight/full-frame digital camera? Furthermore, those "so-called peer models" (which they're not) have been around for a while (a lot more room inside as well) whereas the Sony A7 is brand spanking new and...as of currently..."one of a kind."
You can't compare them in the least bit--until the competition, brings out the same type/same class! It's like comparing vehicles such as a large Mack semi-truck to a Ford pickup truck, they both haul & transport--but size, engines & power-ratios will differ dramatically! -Here's how it would sound like: "The Mack semi hauls massive weight effortlessly whereas the Ford pickup truck has a considerable amount of trouble & strains to keep up when hauling the same size load."
*Very, very, unfair and invalid DPR!
LOL. That omission says quite a lot.
I'll take that as a no then.
I criticise Sony when I see fit. I also criticise those that have an agenda against a company because it didn't give them what they wanted.
Again, I ask you to back up the accusation you made. Can you?
Zvonimir Tosic: No new camera concept should ever deserve a straight Gold. Remember the Fujiflm X100? Wonderful potential, but lots of annoying bugs and idiosyncracies. It won a high Silver Award still, thanks to its promise. But in a next iteration, the X100S won the Gold, because the X100S is a polished up X100. It lived up to its promise.To Sony, the idea of incremental improvement on same concept is strange, as no single system camera of theirs ever got a refinement without radical technology and concept change, that has moved it into a totally different category. The A7 cameras are no different. So the Silver award was a generous gift.
Carl, get some help. It's pathetic.
That's an interesting accusation Carl - care to back that up?
I've e-mailed Gordon Laing to inform him of your comment.
Carl, the A7 is not a successor of the A99. I guess making that claim helps your dramatic changes argument, but it's simply incorrect and massively disingenuous, but that's not the first time, is it?
Sony does do progressive upgrades within each of their products lines (SLT, NEX, Cybershot), and many argue they do too many.
miked3: Any idea why the A7 has lower dynamic range than NEX-6?
It doesn't: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-versus-Sony-NEX-6___916_832
munro harrap: It is very slow, its shutter lag is dreadful (Imaging-Resource A7R)Measured pre-focussed lag is 0.163 secs, and manual focus lag (for all those legacy lenses raved about), is a staggeringly slow 0.261 secs. So no way except for still life will you ever get the picture YOU took.
My mirrorless Sony R1 from 2005 has a prefocussed shutter lag of 0.007 secs, over TWENTY_THREE TIMES FASTER.
Now, as there is no earthly reason why this should be (DSLRs full-frame ones with mirrors were managing 0.039 (1D) and 0.042-0.057 (1ds 1dsMkii, D2x D3 D3x etc ) years ago, Sony is again like so many other companies determined to make you spend and spend by upgrading, because they will sort this out, one, or two, or three models on, instead of having done it now, just as everyone held off putting in dust control , full-frame sensors etc for years and years.Its called programmed obsolescence, duh!!
So the R1 is still a better machine, and its 24-120mm lens is superb. Yours for £200!!
Munro, the A7 has less shutter lag than the A7R due to having electronic first curtain shutter.
RStyga: A7 is a groundbreaking product in terms of compactness to IQ ratio. It is ideal for using very small lenses, either FE mount or other 'compact-lens' mount such as Leica M39/M.The problem is that adapters come at a rather significant IQ cost in the lens periphery due to manufacturing tolerances (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/09/30/roger-cicala-investigates-accuracy-of-lens-adapters) and compact FE lenses are not yet available (except for the 35/2). Also, when compact FE lenses become available they will probably be very expensive (so much for touting an inexpensive camera body), judging from the price of the 35/2.So, A7, as a camera, is great (save some ergonomics and construction quality issues) but, as a system, the jury is still out.
From Sony's brochure: "It's the ideal blend of record-breaking lightness, solid reliability and steady handling, thanks to a top cover, front cover* and internal structure constructed of rigid magnesium alloy.
* Magnesium alloy on A7R only"
Only the front cover is plastic. I'm not sure from where you got the idea that the A7 is predominantly plastic. It seems there is no accounting for the inability to check facts or lack of reading comprehension.
nicolaiecostel: I see this as an interesting choice, especially regarding it's price. But the battery ? 2 to 3 hundred shots ? What's that all about ? Couldn't they give it a bigger battery ? I
I struggle to take 200-300 shots a month! It's a non-issue for me.
It's obviously not a camera for those people with a nervous twitch on their shutter release finger... or those who cannot carry a spare battery.
RichRMA: Sony, Sony, Sony; the one camera that screamed out for in-body stabilization and you didn't provide it. Why?
They killed the NEX brand *name*. THAT. IS. ALL. Just the name, nothing else. Not the cameras, not the sensors, not the lens range...
There is zero reason to believe that Sony will not release any more APS-C e-mount cameras.
Maybe we should all believe that Canon will not launch any more black DSLRs. Afterall, they just released a white DSLR, so that MUST mean that black Canon DSLRs are dead, right?!
parallaxproblem: Poor interview - all we get to know is that the guy has no prior E-mount or A-mount experience... no wonder both ranges seem to be so confused now!
Also that the guy is an intellectual butterfly wanting to 'create something new every six months'... fantastic for gaining new customers, but what about the existing customers who want to see some coherency and ongoing continuity in their product range? And new customers become existing customers as soon as they buy something..!
What does the cancellation of the 'NEX' product range name mean?
What is the future for A-mount?
Will there be future small Emount cameras like the NEX bodies were or will they all be huge monsters like the A3000 or expensive mini-DSLRs like the A7?
Will there be future low or mid-range A-mount bodies?
How are Sony going to integrate E-mount and A mount?
Yep... none of these questions and more were answered
Sorry, I'm disappointed, and I suspect many other current Sony owners are as well!
Carl, I'm wondering where you get your sense of self-importance. What qualifications do you have over others to guide Sony in the market and what leads you to believe they should listen to you personally?
Horshack: Contrast the entrepreneurial spirit Mr. Maki exemplifies vs what Nikon is about to demonstrate with their forthcoming release of the safe and overpriced DF camera. Hats off to Sony.
One Direction sell a heck of a lot more records than most other artists. Doesn't mean they are any good.
wombat661: "as they get older, get married and have babies I expect they will probably want to buy a better camera."
If you want to cater to the new parents crowd, then that better camera would not be a mirrorless. Babies moves very fast you need all the help you can get to get those candid shots. SLR with good focus tracking is very helpful here.New parents thinks their babies will sit still for them to adjust the camera. The optimal window to get the right shot with the right expression is about half a second.Told my in law to get a camera with fast focus. They looked at me like I was nuts. They though babies are so small they do not ever move. A month latter, they told me how frustrated they were with slow focus. Went out and got a SLR.
True, but your J1 has much greater DOF and much smaller and lighter glass to shift.
Tord S Eriksson: Well, I was impressed by the ease the camera handled colours in low light, and the very subdued noise, no matter what setting! The rest (choice of subjects, and so on) wasn't so impressive.
Oh, I wish you had had Steve Huff to take the photos, someone with a little imagination, outside the box. 50 pictures taken in neon light doesn't say more than a handful, but some portraits, close-ups, in short something interesting, had been appreciated!
The photos of the Jack Daniels guy going through the motions made my day, while those of our four-legged hoofed friends were the worst I've seen in a long time!
Tord (sure that's the right spelling?), a lot of people think photographers and journalists are arseholes. Congrats on reinforcing that view.
dopsgp: Busy day for toilets in Solms. Leica execs cr-pping bricks now.
The 5D Mark IIIs and D800s of this world are hardly beauty queens. Besides, would you really reject a camera based purely on looks?
ianimal: A lens roadmap is what I want to see now.85mm, 24mm primes when?