RedFox88: Meh. Only 5 lenses and only one of them is high quality.
The 105mm macro is excellent. Up there with manufacturers optics. When SLR gear tested it it came out slightly sharper then the Canon and Nikon macros.
If that isn't class leading, what is?
Shiranai: What I dislike in Sony is, that you're basically paying a huge 3.2K for a camera that will be replaced in just 1 year. Same as the R II replaced the R in roughly 1 year. That would totally annoy me if I bought a flagship which is rendered old after such short time.
With Canon, Nikon and all the others you have at least around 3 years till they replace their (flagship) models.I mean take the 5DMk2 (2009) and the 5DMk3 which came 2012, 3 years later. And we're still waiting for a Mk4.
And I think this is better, because you don't want to pay a sh*tload of money for something that ages as fast as your smartphone.
Well that depends if in a year they bring out a camera that fixes things that should not have been broken in the first place.
I'd suggest the advent of IBIS in the newer A7's is something owners of the earlier non-IBIS cameras have a right to be annoyed about.
Given Sony has had IBIS in the A-mount cameras for years I think leaving it out of the E series and A7 series was a huge mistake.
They fixed it with the new A7's but it should have been there from the start.
Going backwards (no IBIS) and then forwards again (include IBIS) is not progress. It was a mistake.
If they had got the first ones right in this respect I don't see how anyone could complain about the other advances even if it is just a year but I do have some sympathy for early A7 adopters over this given how useful IBIS is.
Maybe Sony will come out with one with a bigger battery. If they do that will also be fixing something that should have been there in the first place.
WastingTime: Studio pros won't even look at this system unless they add some modern Leaf shutter lenses to the lineup, that will make for a competitive system against Phase One. And yet they keep NOT doing that, what a shame.
"Very Large sensor = More light gathering = Shutter speed higher"
That is not true.
For a given level of illumination on the scene which for (say) ISO 100 meant you need a shutter and aperture of 1/125 and F8 that is what you will have to set if your camera is set to ISO 100 whether it's m43 or a phase 1 large format back.
The higher light gathering translates into lower noise for a given exposure, not a different exposure.
Leaf shutters are useful as they allow a faster flash sync speed so if you are balancing flash + ambient light and the ambient light level is such that to use a wider aperture you need to set 1/500, then leaf shutters will let you do that.
If you are stuck with 1/125 sec flash sync or slower, you have to stop the lens down further which may not give you the depth of field effect you are looking for.
blackcoffee17: The best way to ruin your reputation is to start posting rumors...Dpreview should stick to official news ONLY!
"Yes, i can read the official news on Samsung site but i don't want to visit every manufacturer's website daily just to see if there is a new press release.I can just open DPreview daily and be informed about the latest things from the photo industry without the need to figure out where the news section is on the manufacturer's website."
Fine if but this article is not doing that. It's discussing a RUMOUR. That isn't informing you of anything as it is devoid of hard facts.
johnvanr: I'm sorry, but isn't the point of a news site to only report when they actually have gotten the news? Why spread the rumor by writing about it before you get the truth?
I still don't see why DPR is discussing a rumour, whether its floated around for a year or not. It's a rumour not news and all DPR have done is added to the rumour!
It's like tabloid journalism where you stick a headline up but when you actually read the content there is no hard news and absolutely no quotes or facts from anyone or any company directly involved.
I liked the photos.
I visited Washington myself this year, 3rd time I have been and I always enjoy it but I think the descriptions of the metro are being a bit kind.
Brutalist-style architecture? Just looked unfinished to me and while they may have vaulted ceilings which may not make them claustrophobic I think the fact the platforms are very dimly lit makes them rather depressing places.
Compared to the London Underground (which had had a fortune spent on renovating many stations over recent years) and somewhere like the Hong Kong metro the best that can be said about it is it is functional.
I am not sure these images convey the rather gloomy reality sufficiently.
Michael Uschold: Nice blog article. I have an NEX 6, with a very annoying problem that was not mentioned in the article. Maybe all the other mirrorless models get it right?
The light is dim and I am shooting on tripod. I am using live view to get very precise focus by enlarging the view by 10x or so. BUT: at a small aperture, not enough light gets in, and the focus does not work, highly pixelated. So I have to open up the lens all the way, focus, and then close it back down again.
It is incredibly annoying and should not be necessary, there should be a setting that leaves it open the whole time, but still shoots at the smaller aperture.
"... there should be a setting that leaves it open the whole time, but still shoots at the smaller aperture."
Are you being serious?
How you want it to work is exactly how it will work with native e-mount lenses.
If you have e-mount lenses and this is what you get you have it set up wrong or there is a fault.
How you describe it works is how it would work with an old manual lens or a lens from another maker mounted via an adapter that does not couple electronically with the camera body.
So it can't do as you would like as there is no communication between the camera and lens to tell the lens what aperture to set at the time you make the exposure.
This should not be an issue with e-mount lenses so as I said if you have e-mount lenses and it works like this you have a problem.
j900: Calling this thing a lifesaver for the a-mount is a looooooooong shot. Sony has given up on attracting switchers and caters for the existing a-mounters only. But even the a-mounters are underwhelmed (and rightly so), and may skip the camera.
A-mount will have more years left if we see an A99mkII, and a metal mount one, please.
"Sony will probably bring on a better, mirrorless LA-EA4 with screwdrive PDAF someday. Then kill the A-mount for good. "
Unless they can make lenses not designed for CDAF focus as fast as they do on PDAF which I doubt they will, adapters will remain as they are now. Useless as a serious alternative to native lens support.
Who wants to mess about sticking adapters on lenses and paying for the privilege anyway?
What Sony hopes you will do is convince yourself it is a viable solution, buy into the E mount and then when you realise the adapter solution doesn't work so well, consign your a-mount lenses to the cupboard and re-kit yourself with native E-mount lenses.
Personally I'll pass. I'll continue with the A-mount until it dies and if/when it does I'll evaluate the market again as to me moving to E-mount is no different to moving to Canikon or Pentax.
It's a different mount. Period.
rsf3127: This is a niche product.
The niche is people who absolutely need a DSLR/DSLT performance on a tight budget, including lenses, that can be had for peanuts.
It's not more of a niche product than a Nikon 5500 is a niche product compared to a Nikon 7200.
Sony is doing what every other D-SLR manufacturer is doing, offering a range of cameras at different price points with different features.
There is the A58, A68 and A77II in the aps-c world.
For those who want FF I hope they come out with an A99II.
If they do that won't be a "nice product" either.
mpgxsvcd: The article is only about focus. The writer just continuously harps on the fact that the AF doesn’t work in the manner that he is accustomed to. I understand that Sony has an uphill battle converting Canikon users. However, there are so many other aspects that are important for sports shooting than just AF capabilities.
For example the low light capabilities are critical in this type of scenario especially when the photographer tended to use ISO 12,800 as often as possible. Those ISO 12K shots actually looked decent but I can’t help wondering why he didn’t use ISO 1600 and 1/250 instead? Some of the high ISO images were stationary portrait type shots.
Overall I get the impression that the writer of this article went into it thinking that the Sony couldn’t AF like he was accustomed to and he set out to prove that point no matter what it took. He proved his point but it really left me wondering whether he truly explored all of this camera’s capabilities for shooting action sports.
It's not only about focus but mentions how using an adapter with long lenses reduces the frame rate and the way the camera works.
You then have the puny battery to content with.
In any case its hardly surprising it majors on focus as these days you would expect a camera you employed to do sports to have top notch focusing ability.
Low noise but out of focus or missed shots don't sell.
String: Makes you wonder how anyone ever got award winning photos of any sporting event before the advent of AF...
I spent many a happy hour taking motor sports photos at Brands Hatch with an Olympus OM2 and a 75-150 zoom at Formula 1 Grand Prix events when they used to have them there.
Used the old pre-focus and pan technique. I didn't even have a winder or motor drive.
To use an A7 for shooting Grand Prix motor racing would have me back doing that and I don't really see that as progress.
msowsun: -5 fps, and only 3 fps with adapted glass
-Long viewfinder blackout
Why even bother trying to shoot sports?
I agree. If you read the article it's obvious it soon became clear this wasn't a suitable tool for sports work.
I'd go further and suggest the article should have been dropped once it became so obviously true this is the case.
A couple of lines comment in the review (when it eventually appears...) that it isn't suitable for sports would be enough.
I suppose there is one useful thing to come out of this and that is using A-mount lenses via an adapter is a poor compromise.
It clearly does not offer a genuine upgrade path to A mount shooters plernty of whom enjoy shooting sports, wildlife other fast moving subjects with A series SLT's.
Quite true but even then people tended not to use (say) a Leica M4 with a long lens via an adapter to shoot sports but used instead used (say) a Canon F1 with a nice Canon 300mm F2.8 lens
It's about choosing the best tools for the job regardless of the era and this article tells you if you want to shoot sports don't use an A7.
The comment about the slow focusing of the 70-400 in the A7 really made me laugh.
If you are going to buy that lens and fancy doing a bit of sports or wildlife why on earth would you be stupid enough to put it on an A7 for this purpose?
Stick it on an A77II or A99 and enjoy the experience instead!
leonche64: Outstanding interview! Well done Rishi. He asked the question, and Kenta Honjo answered. "Is Sony still committed to A-mount..." "I want to reassure all A-mount users, we are not quitting A-mount, we are still going to develop." Now I am going to head over to the A-mount forum where they will explain why this is not true.
Who is the "they" who will explain why it is not true?
It seems there are a few trolls who visit that forum to wind people up with tales of doom and gloom for the A mount.
Usually by reading what they want to read into unclear statements. Most of the regulars just point out they didn't say what was supposed.
The best line I saw was it was just Japanese politeness not wishing to be negative and the bringer of bad news that had so far stopped Sony short of just coming right out and saying the A mount was dead.
I am not sure how they will square that with ""I want to reassure all A-mount users, we are not quitting A-mount, we are still going to develop."
It's the "develop" but that is key. The doom mongers would suggest Sony was committed only so far as providing adapters goes but do develop the A mount stuff is another thing completely.
AlanG: The overall situation with Sony E mount cameras is that the lens mount is an open system and they seem encourage and even assist all parties to make lenses, adapters, and whatever to work with it. How can anyone criticize that?
The idea that I can get a Speed Booster adapter and use my Canon TSE and other Canon lenses without cropping on my tiny Nex 6 camera is amazing. And these same Canon lenses can be used with another adapter on the A7 series of FF cameras. Meanwhile, I can use small APS format lenses on either format camera too, without an adapter. Does anyone else offer this level of flexibility and usefulness?
"The overall situation with Sony E mount cameras is that the lens mount is an open system and they seem encourage and even assist all parties to make lenses, adapters, and whatever to work with it. How can anyone criticize that?"
Because all bar Canon do not AF and most don't even communicate the aperture?
Just what IS there to like about that?
It's taking photgraphy back 40 years to the days of the Zenith E where you had to focus the lens then remember to stop the aperture down manually.
It might be fun for a while using old lenses you find cheap on e-bay but the novelty will soon wear off in my opinion.
Sony is not daft. They know this. And so yes people will mount all manner of lens on an A7 but when they tire of the limitations and slower AF (if there is AF) Sony will hope they will consign these old lenses to the cupboard and buy native E mount lenses.
It's a long term marketing ploy to get you to move to Sony, not to stick with Canon.
StephenNEX6: If I had a DSLR and several $$$ worth of gear to go with it, I would imagine I would get a bit defensive with all the awesome mirrorless stuff coming out. I too would hate to think that my gear is losing value and wishing I had waited a bit and purchased mirrorless. In my personal experience I've loved photography for a very long time but could never justify buying a DSLR. I even bought a Rebel from Costco, played around with it for a week and quickly returned it because i seriously doubted I would use it often. It's SO BULKY. I was so excited Sony came out with their mirrorless line. It's what finally drove me to make a purchase. Say what you guys wanna say about them, "they're not that much smaller" "they still have bulky lenses" "they're flimsy" but it's made it so I don't find it uncomfortable to carry around and can take a lot more pictures. Let's face it, the BEST CAMERA is the one you have with you.
" I too would hate to think that my gear is losing value and wishing I had waited a bit and purchased mirrorless. "
If I had waited to purchase mirrorless I'd have had no digital camera for the last 10 years.
I also don't ever consider how much my lenses will be worth. I bought them to use, not as an investment and I have no plans to sell them. They are all excellent.
Now what would force me to sell is if my A mount camera packed in and there was no replacement available in native A-mount. I am not interested in paying £400 on top of a new camera to use my screw drive lenses or £170 for the one that works with SSM lenses.
I'd evaluate the market and most likely go Nikon or Pentax as they don't screw over their customers and instead maintain lens compatibility. The last system I'd buy into is Sony e mount. once bitten, twice shy.
Good luck with e-mount but don't be surprised if you are in the same boat in 10 years when Sony loses interest.
Paul B Jones: Really not sure what the big deal is here - mirrorless cameras can do anything just as well if not better than a DSLR ... except for wildlife, or sports, or photography in inclement weather ... or in rugged field conditions ... or anything involving telephoto work or long battery life ... or that requires long hours of looking through a VF. But otherwise - just as good or almost so. Well there is also the issue of having a full range of lenses that aren't crippled by clunky adapters.
@Roland, the adapters for Sony A-mount lenses that are screw drive, which is a lot of them, require the version of the adapter with a translucent mirror in so autofocus works. Defeats the object of mirrorless in my view. It turns them into an SLT.
@T3 this article/video was not about general pros and cons but about how you can mount other lenses on e-mount.
In my view this is a complete waste of time. Many do not AF. Many do not even communicate the aperture or stop down.
The Canon does both but is slower at AF than on a Canon body and the Sony adapters are compromised for screw drive lenses as I mentioned above.
If you want to put yourself through this rigmarole when you use your camera that is up to you by why anyone would do this out of choice in order to use a lens they use regularly on a daily basis is beyond me.
mediasorcerer: According to dpr hands on, this leica is a let down functionally and ergonomically, especially for the $.shame on you leica,
They seem to have gone out of their way to make it hard to use.
I can guarantee owners will get frustrated with it
If it's not good to use word will soon get out and its value second hand won't be great unlike what you see for Leica rangefinders.
Brian Mosley: Congratulations to the dpreview team for finally getting Sony to listen to the need for uncompressed RAW... any chance we can get support for an update to the RX100 m4 in this regard?
PhotoAcute seems like what you get with Sony's multi-frame noise reduction that is built into the camera.
OK that only works with jpegs but I'd guess for a lot people it's enough if you want to reduce noise on high ISO images without resorting to time consuming post processing.
watson076: I have given up on mirrorless and returned back to an SLR after several years bouncing around from Olympus, Sony, and Fuji. While the cameras have a lot to offer, handling is really my main issue: they are just uncomfortable and don't balance well with anything but compact primes. i don't know how to solve that issue with creating a bigger camera body.
Complaining about camera being too small is not new. The Pentax MX and ME film were not universally liked due to their diminutive size.
A Canon Ae-1 was much better in my hands then the Pentax.
Ergonomics have always been a key issue for a lot of people and aren't something people have convinced themselves of.
Well designed and ergonomic tools whatever they are tend to get used. Badly designed and difficult to use tools tend over time to get left in the cupboard and can even put you off a hobby (if you can't afford to replace them).
I currently own a Sony A77 and this is in my view an ergonomic masterpiece. Everything is in the right place, it handles well with lenses like the 70-300G.
I think the A7 series in comparison put form over function and are small for the sake of being small. Sony themselves state being compact is one of the aims of this line of cameras.
It's not just about size though it's about control placement which is easier to get right on larger body.