munro harrap: An interesting review, but one that is unfortunately predictable in the sense that with Sony, this tends to be all you get. The extremely slow prefocussed shutter lag has been left out, but the analysis of the jpeg situation speaks volumes. Sony as others also need to write files as fast as they shoot them: nobody now should be waiting these times for the buffer to clear. My gut reaction based on 7100 use is its horrid not to be able to reverse that huge screen, facing into and flush with the body when not in use. It will get scratched to bits quickly. This is not made for us, its made to be quickly replaced. The cost of the lenses too are a joke in bad taste, and the f5.6 standard zoom is good, -it is a good lens, but it is too slow, and despite this too big. The lenses destroy the bodies size advantage (they could be Leica M size primes), and the body itself isn't exactly comfortable to hold and to use, and with water dripping everywhere in the rain?? Nah, I'll pass on this one
Regrettably, it isn't possible for a modern AF/IS/Auto diaphragm lens to equal a Leica M prime in size, however much I'd wish for smaller lenses.
UnitedNations: I AM SO GLAD I DID NOT BUY THE SONY A7!
If you cannot avoid blurry photos with 1/60 in the A7... just imagine how blurry the A7r would be.
Unfortunately, I get blurry hand-held pictures all the time with non-stabilised lenses, be they on my film cameras or digital. It isn't the camera, it's my inability to hold it steady.
I'm acutely aware of this, so always try and shoot at 1/125 or faster, or use some form of support, be it a tripod or wall. I don't lambast my Leica film cameras because of my own shortcoming.
bartjeej: This may have been noted already, but I'm quite sure the camera has no built in flash, despite what the review says in the key features list.
And neither does it have a 1.23m dot LCD. According to Sony's own spec it is 921,600.
I just wonder how many who are posting here actually own the camera and therefore have first hand experience of it, or are they merely repeating what they've read and in doing so have formed their own, unsubstantiated opinion?For the record I own it and whilst it is not perfect, which camera is, its blend of features and performance make it a solid performer. No issues with its jpegs, but its RAW is superior.
Pixel peeping is helpful only in looking at how a camera performs at the extreme, and seeing how another camera performs under the same shooting conditions, but it otherwise has no meaning for everyday shooting.
And for those intrigued by the lossless 14/12 bit RAW argument, I was intrigued too, so have a look here and make up your own mind:
bonejure: Comparing captors using different lenses is useless. The Nikon captor tests were done using a Nikkor f1.8G 85mm and the Sony tests were shot using a Zeiss 85mm f1.4. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how a Nikon lens ususally fares against a top rung Zeiss. I've used both and the Zeiss will resolve much more. I'd like to see how the Nikon D800E compares with the Sony 7R with the same lens mounted on both cameras. That would give us some real indicators......otherwise it's not a valid test at all.
This is interesting. Thanks for the update.
guyfawkes: In an earlier post, I pointed out issues I was having with converting the Sony RAW files and it wasn't until I downloaded the, admittedly, very limited converter software from Sony that I began to appreciate the image quality from my A7.
Well, for anyone interested, here is the proof of the pudding where an Adobe conversion (which has had to be reveresed engineered) compares very unfavourably with the same file converted using the Sony software.
I hope, Brandon, that you will allow this link as it is very useful for anyone wishing to get the best conversion from A7/A7R RAW files.
I was under the impression that Sony hasn't released full details of its RAW specs. Or have I got this wrong?
It has its target market, and with this is mind, providing its pricing is OK, it could do quite well.
What I was not expecting to see was someone copying Sony in the add-on lens for your phone market.
guyfawkes: Part 2. I was beginning to think I'd made a mistake in buying the A7 as it wasn't my intention to splash out on additional expensive primes, but to use the best of what I had. Things changed, though, when I downloaded Image Data Converter and I was amazed at just how much of a difference this made to the RAW conversions. It isn't a particularly well featured programme, it won't permit layers or batch conversion, for example, but the twelve or so adjustments are more than enough to produce the goods.
Hopefully Sony will release full details of their RAW file so we don't have to rely on reverse engineering which is not quite up to the task.
@Skytalker.Well, I don't see anywhere in my post where I said or even intimated that others were forced to agree with me. As I clearly pointed out, my experience was personal. It is left to others to determine if their experiences match mine or not.
I note earlier in one of your posts, and I quote "I have no interest in this camera". Does this mean you don't own or have used it enough to form your own personal opinion about it? Or are you simply trolling and making up your mind from what others have said?
I don't quite see what "facts" you talk about are missing. The "facts" are as I reported about my, and let me reiterate, my PERSONAL experiences I initially had when using the camera.
We won'd always agree with what photographers posting here say, but we all have a right to express an opinion, so long as that itself is based on fact. Using the camera and commenting upon it does, to me, constitute a fact, doesn't it?
If you don't like it or agree, well that is your problem.
In an earlier post, I pointed out issues I was having with converting the Sony RAW files and it wasn't until I downloaded the, admittedly, very limited converter software from Sony that I began to appreciate the image quality from my A7.
I agree. For a truly valid comparison there needs to be as few variables as possible, and comparing a Nikkor lens on a Nikon body with a Zeiss on a Sony doesn't really tell us much except that one combination may be better than the other, but is this the lens or sensor/processor?
Both lenses need to be compared on both bodies. But this type of comparison will only be valid if the lenses are truly interchangeable. I don't know if the Nikkor or Zeiss are fully interchangeble with the bodies. It is possible to attach a Nikkor to the Sony, but only via a manual adapter, I believe, so the Nikkor isn't fully compatible.
However, things could be different if the Zeiss lens was available natively in a Nikon mount. Is it? I don't know.
I find your comment quite offensive and rude.
You presuppose I shoot in jpeg. You haven't the slightest notion of what I shoot in, so why such inane comments? In fact, I shoot in RAW for about 90% of the time. Jpeg is used as a back-up.
And as far as I can find out, no commercially available RAW converter is up to the task of converting the latest version of Sony's ARW file. Adobe is not up to the job, as I understand that they are obliged to reverse engineer it, not exactly adequate, IMHO. Wouldn't you agree?
And it isn't necessary for me to post a portfolio to be in a position to comment on my PERSONAL experience of this great camera.
I think you ought to get a life.
Part 2. I was beginning to think I'd made a mistake in buying the A7 as it wasn't my intention to splash out on additional expensive primes, but to use the best of what I had. Things changed, though, when I downloaded Image Data Converter and I was amazed at just how much of a difference this made to the RAW conversions. It isn't a particularly well featured programme, it won't permit layers or batch conversion, for example, but the twelve or so adjustments are more than enough to produce the goods.
Part 1. After some deliberation I ended up buying the A7 as possibly the best overall version for me.
I've had it for just a week and initially I was somewhat underwhelmed by the jpeg and even the RAW images didn't come up to what I had anticipated. RAW conversion was being carried out in Zoner Photo Studio Pro 16 where I was surprised to find it opened the RAW files. But I am convinced this isn't optimised for Sony RAW images so I converted to DNG, with which I know Zoner works very well. Still not quite what I had hoped. I preferred the images from my Nex 5N and using the same optics. So something was amiss.
Optics used are not the latest super duper Leica or Zeiss models, although I do have some R lenses. I primarily shot with an Olympus f1.2/55 and Minolta f1.4/50 which I know from experience are particularly fine samples of these lenses.
CameraLabTester: There is a big difference between voting with a button click and voting with the wallet.
What DPR should do is to review the results of this survey to ACTUAL SALES of the same period.
Now THAT would be a very interesting article to digest.
Good DPR assignment too.
Regardless, this survey is fun exercise for DPR viewers.
And interesting comparison table. I've just bought the A7, so the score goes to 126. lol. Already the A7 is in 4th place, and it has only recently gone on sale. So perhaps another comparison table could be to track sales volume in the period following a camera's release.
BennoFG: Voting "Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera" for Category of the Year.
And I wouldn't mind betting that the bulk of the votes goes to cameras in this catergory.
Everyone posting here will have his/her favourite, and so the choice of "Best of 2013" is a bit of a misnomer.
But when I think about it, none of this year's great cameras has been particularly innovative apart from one make. We've been side-tracked with nostalgia with designs appealing to the "good old days" of 35mm film, but inside we see the same technology based around APS-C or micro 4/3rds sensors, albeit with improved performance.
But for me, only Sony stands out with, first, a FF fixed lens model and, now, with the release of two FF models and both in the ILC mirrorless category, the Alpha 7 and 7R. With these two innovative models Sony really has caught the big boys napping. True, they won't compete fully with the really top end end Canon or Nikon FF dslr's, but I wouldn't mind betting that they will give them a real run for the money.
Why can't camera manufacturers get it right first time by putting out a camera that actually works, instead of fleecing photographers again with an "updated" model that merely corrects a flaw in the original?
Couscousdelight: About sharpness, this is what the K3 is capable of :http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,193673.msg4265953.html#msg4265953
It's a well lit studio shot, but it does show what one can and should expect from this new Pentax. Crystal sharp, and shot with a zoom lens. dpreview's sample images really have done no justice to what the this Pentax can do. Begs the question, how did the sample images get past the Editor?
davids8560: I dunno. The X100s' 35mm lens reminds me of the year 1935, when, as everyone knows, the great T.E. Lawrence of "Lawrence of Arabia" fame died in a motorcycle accident in the English countryside. It's kind of a deal breaker for me.
I'd much prefer a 64mm lens, because 1964 was the year the animated cartoon series "Speed Racer" made its television debut.
I don't know whether you are one of the world's great thinkers, or simply weird. lol.
Is it just me, but none of the images in these samples really looks that impressive, which comes as a surprise. And I'm viewing on a full HD screen.
Any thoughts? Is it the sensor or in-camera processing?