Fedupandenglish: Interesting to read that Park Cameras have a pre-order facility that shows a price of £2,500. Rather more than I had hoped for, but I wonder how accurate this is?
They tried to sell their latest 105 macro at £999 in the UK. It now goes for £499 or less.
Not saying that guarantees that Park Cameras price will see similar % drop but I can't see them shifting that many at £2.5K.
dlkeller: If Tamron leaves the VC off this lens as they have their 18-270 PZD for Sony mounts I am through with their company forever! Otherwise, it is definitely on my wish list.
Bjorn_L :"Until they make the in camera automatically shut itself off when it detects (or is told) about in lens, the lens makers have little choice but to ship their Sony lenses without stabilization."
Not true. I have the Sigma F2.8 105 DG HSM OS macro lens in Sony mount and the the OS is NOT disabled. It works.
Having tried it I prefer in-body IS. Maybe I wouldn't with a 600mm lens.
As to people complaining about Tamron taking it out and charging the same well my guess is they don't take it out but just disable it. Taking the lens elements out that controls the stabilization would mean they were making a different lens optically for Sony so that would increase production costs. So it will cost the same to build the Sony version as it does the others.
It does seem stupid to disable it but for me if the price is right I will by the lens because it is what it is. The fact the other versions have OS is of no interest to me as they won't fit on my camera.
Well this could be on list. I have Sony 70-300G and 500mm mirror lens and while the latter is AF it is often too slow to focus for wildlife and is only good for static shots and the G lacks the reach.
It will depend on price, focusing speed and IQ at 600mm wide open (you don't buy lenses like this for IQ at 150mm @ F8). I see a lot of long range zooms seem to tail off IQ-wise at the long end and if this lens bucks the trend I can see it selling well.
MGJA: This is silver, but Canon 70D is gold. Heh.
Really, I am ever more convinced that dpr just hands those out in order to maximize page reloads as irate fangurls battle it out in the comments. Fine, whatever puts food on their tables is a-ok with me.
It's got IBIS and it's got an EVF which makes the camera far more useful than similar cameras that lack one or the other or both yet these have aspects of them listed in the cons?
IBIS is great and the fact you don't see a stabilised image from it is just how it works and how it has worked to the best of my knowledge on all IBIS based cameras including the Oly Pen cameras and it isn't listed as a con in the el p5 review so why here?
The EVF adds bulk? Well I have seen one of these cameras in the shops and its a very small camera regardless and it gives you the option of shooting in (to my mind) a far more natural way. External EVF's cost a lot and add even more bulk.
larrytusaz: The deliberate omission of the senseless YouTube mode alone makes me want to buy it, based solely on that principle alone. Putting YouTube on an SLR totally splatters any purity it would otherwise have.
"i only wonder why you would PREFER to NOT have a feature you can just ignore."
I can via a menu setting disable the video button on my A77 and I do. To take a video I would instead have to move a dial to do so. There is good reason to disable the button and that is because you can easily press it by mistake!
That is the only impact the fact my camera is a capable video camera has on my hobby of stills photography.
However what bothers me about other "hybrid" cameras is just how much effort is put into making video work and how much menu space, dial space andbutton space gets eaten up by the video function.
By the way I am 54, I lecture in Computer Science, build my own PC's, think OVF's are outdated and am a total gadget geek but my thing is ergonomics and usability. I don't want to have to consciously ignore stuff I will never use.
image360by180: I truly find it hard to believe Nikon is going back. The digital age is now the age. Bringing out a camera that ignores all the benefits that digital can offer is like making a better old school buggy whip as cars started to replace carriages.
As noted, many seem to like this, good for you, I'm not about judgement or placing my basis on others. Hope this works for you.
For me, this is crazy stupid as Nikon has not even come close to maximizing the digital potential of their DSLR line.
Just a comment from a Nikon D800/D7100 glass invested user.
It's all about ergonomics and just because it apes a Nikon FM it doesn't mean the ergonomics are going to be bad.
What Nikon need to complete the package is aperture rings on the lenses.
I love the ergonomics of my Sony A77 which is of course very modern in that respect but I can appreciate the design of a camera like this Nikon.
The problem lies when cameras are neither one thing nor the other. If the shutter speed dial is just for retro looks and the rest of the design doesn't compliment it ergonomically then people can slag it off but those teasers suggest otherwise to me.
dark goob: Mirrorosaur
I am not sure why anyone would lay their camera on the table for day but on my recent holiday to the Isle of Sky I forgot to turn my Sony A77 off at the end of the day at least twice and it was ready to go the day after no problem.
When you don't use it, it sleeps.
In fact I never turn it off when out with it so the GPS doesn't have to re-lock onto the satellites and battery life is not an issue. One battery will last all day.
Can I also have some of whatever it is you are on if you (not the camera) are ready to take a photo after 0.2s :)
tommy leong: nikon F 501" I will be back" ( in Arnold's voice )http://youtu.be/g9dGtHdhEjE
Think it looks more like a Nikon FM or FE. Two very nice film cameras.
Have a look at this:
T3: It's really too bad that Nokia only uses Windows OS (and now is owned by Microsoft). If Nokia offered Android versions of their devices, I'd buy them. They make good hardware. I'm just not interested in Windows Phone 8 or Windows 8. And a lot of people feel the same way: like the Nokia hardware, don't like the Windows OS,
Surely you should have said "When you ask them why, they basically say it's because they already have their favourite apps on Android that don't exist (or would have to be bought again on WP8) and for many other practical reasons."
I uses Windows 7 on my home PC. I'd prefer to be able to use Linux but I have invested too much money in applications and time in learning them to switch.
Isn't it the same with phone O/S's? Once you are invested in one changing is just a total pain in the neck and a clever phone from Nokia isn't going to sway that many people to switch in my opinion.
NancyP: Don't knock "above average" and "well-rounded". Some of us don't need "the best out there", merely "the camera that can do what I need it to do".
What you say might all be true but that doesn't stop manufacturers listing all the rewards their products get but you won't ever see them put a qualification on them saying "by the way that Gold Award from DPR was subjective".
I am pretty sceptical (and always have been) of DPR's and DXO's and virtually every other popular web sites testing strategies (e.g. Imaging Resource) as I am not convinced any of them are good enough methods from a scientific point of view. They don't seem rigorous or robust enough for me.
I don't think I have ever commented on a cameras award before but this one struck me as quite out of line with the conclusions and while I myself and maybe you will ignore the award when making a decision many won't.
If Amazon (i.e.DPR Gear Shop!) wants to sell cameras and retain credability it needs a bit better editorial checking before they go to "print" to weed out anomalies like this in my opinion.
I agree. Most modern cameras are more than enough for most amateurs.
However I think when someone such as yourself who clearly likes the camera points out comments like "above average" etc it does call into question how on earth it got a Gold Award.
This would not be such an issue if it were not for the fact people can be influenced by such awards and it will sit alongside it when being promoted in shops and presumably the DPR Gear Shop will link to the review.
Rod McD: Thanks. It's a pity the drab weather has made the outdoor sample shots from both the A7r and now the A7 somewhat lacking in contrast and color. Still watching both, no decisions made.......
DPR - There's strong interest in legacy lens use on these two cameras. When you do the review, could you please also consider testing some adapted RF and DSLR lenses on both bodies? Perhaps a wide and a standard? ie Side by side tests of the same lenses at several apertures on each body? Thanks.
"We'll certainly try something along those lines."
If you do please make sure to include some A mount glass as the practicality of this is a bone on contention on the Sony forum!
Abu Mahendra: Let me see it I get this straight: Olympus wants me to pay $1399 for a camera with a Sensor smaller than APS-c? Yeah... right...
"Let me see it I get this straight: Olympus wants me to pay $1399 for a camera with a Sensor smaller than APS-c? Yeah... right..."
Why would you care if it delivers comparable performance to its aps-c competitors which it clearly does?
You can effectively choose between cameras on features and you tend to have to pay more for cameras with more features.
If "size matters" above all else just buy an entry level aps-c camera and brag about the size of its sensor.
Neloy Sinha: Sony is simply making the things knotty for any one who wants to devote himself in Sony gadgets. Starting as early as acquiring Minolta, Sony committed too many changes to capture the photography market. It was very akin to push Betamax version of video cassettes & recorders, inspite of its inherent complexity of mechanism. Not every venture succeed like 'Walkman'.Very soon consumers will be confused & fade up to pick up a Sony photo gears because of forced compatability complexity.Sony should know to make simple things in a complex and competitive world for average photo snsppers. I wish them all the success.
"In the time it took you to lecture Sony on their business, they won over at least a few hundred new customers through their innovation."
They would win even more if they had stuck with one lens mount and didn't do stupid things like change the flash hot shoe.
They would also stand a far better chance of retaining what customers they have had they done so. The A7s and their full frame e-mount are as alien to A mount users as a Nikon or a Canon and those adapters look ridiculous.
If Sony stopped supporting the a-mount I may as well evaluate every other system going as investing in the e-mount with a new set of lenses is no different to investing in a new Nikon or Canon system and a new set of lenses.
The same was true when Nex aps-c came out. The fact it wasn't A-mount based was a signal to any a-mount user wanting a compact camera to evaluate all alternatives alongside Nex as they would have to buy new lenses.
They made the same mistake again.
Sergey Borachev: Looks good and it is a great camera if you only use fairly "standard" FL lenses like 50mm, 35mm and perhaps 60mm. Once you start to use the wider or longer lenses, particularly you need more speed, the lenses are huge and unbalanced on this camera, that is assuming such lenses will become available any time soon.
Sony has this obsession of making cameras that are really small, too small for the lenses that will be put on them. The last experiment, NEX, has not taught them anything. Now, it is making the same mistake in this one, since FF lenses cannot be small except for a few around the standard FL.
Sony should remember that there is a difference in FF camera requirements and being ultra small is not the most important one, as in a compact RX100. Features, reliability, support, and also confidence are very important. Is there still confidence in Sony system, as it goes on trying one system experiment after another?
"This body maybe unbalanced with huge lens and perfectly fine with others. Huge body will be fine with huge lens and completely stupid with small ones."
It doesn't work like that though does it. There have always been pancake style lenses since the days of film that worked perfectly well on "full frame" bodies from a handling point of view.
So small lens, big body is OK as it always has been but small body huge lens is not such a great thing which has also been true in the past to a degree e.g. when Pentax had the MX and ME film cameras. They were smaller than Olympus OM1 and OM2 and those were about as small as you wanted to go for using large lenses, none of which had O/S either to make them larger.
Ergonomics is about the whole package and you sacrifice that if you obsess with small bodies when it comes to using long lenses. If you want to mimic Leica rangefinders with a set of small primes, fine.
jorden mosley: After being an NEX-6 user for a month or two in addition to this news makes me glad I picked to invest in Sony camera gear. I'm happy with my NEX-6 for now but I know its only a matter of time when I'll be picking up the A7. I'll definitely hold off until Sony makes some FE primes f/1.8 with OSS built-in like they did for the NEX system. The 55mm 1.8 not having OSS at that price doesn't really interest me.
On a side note: I really hope that A7/A7R encourages a sizable price drop in the A99.
"After being an NEX-6 user for a month or two in addition to this news makes me glad I picked to invest in Sony camera gear."
Why? The A7/R are so far removed from your Nex 6 you may as well have bought a micro 4/3 camera or any other aps-c camera.
If you buy an A7 it is the same as investing in a completely new system from Nikon or Canon.
That is the problem for Sony. If you have to invest in a new lens mount and new lenses (no, adapters are not good enough) you may as well evaluate all the options not just the e-mount A7/R.
It's great cameras in phones are improving as if it is all you have with you when a photo opportunity arises its nice to have a better quality result than you would have got in the not too distant past.
However I see no point in deliberately choosing a phone to take photos with if taking photos is what you set out to do.
Just because you can use a phone and the photos are better than the previous generation of phones delivered doesn't mean you should.
I read Richardson's to mean that you can take snapshots on an iPhone 5S. I am sure we knew that already but it does make me feel uneasy as I get the impression such articles are designed to lend more credibility to the 5S as a photographic tool than it deserves.
If you sneaked in 5S images in place of those shot when testing something like a Canon Sureshot camera in the DPR web site they would be slated for image quality and rightly so. We seemed to have lost sight of quality just because phones are clever bits of technology.
misha marinsky4: "According to Zeiss it's named Otus after a type of owl known for its excellent vision in darkness."
Then it should be f/0.95. Of course, the price would be US $10,000.
"You still live in '80s? When lens aperture was perceived as a the most important quality indicator? I think we've learnt quite a bit since than."
I think you missed the point. If it is named after an Owl with great night vision then the poster was simply saying the lens should e faster than F1.4 which is pretty normal on premium 50mm lenses these days. The original post is not linking lens speed to quality in the way you suggest.
I also agree with the notion if you are going to name it Otus for the reasons given I'd expect it to be faster. In fact it was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read that.
danijel973: This is not really impressive as I duplicated this result with a simple "sharpen" command in Gimp. Also, you can't get more information than you put in, meaning that you can't create detail from blur. You can clarify detail that's already there, but I would always prefer to do it optically to the maximum possible extent, and only then use software to try to go even further. Intentionally designing bad lenses and relying on software to make them mediocre is not a good idea.
"Also, you can't get more information than you put in, meaning that you can't create detail from blur."
That isn't what is going on here. They are using software to correct the lens's various aberrations so it doesn't record a blurred image in the first place.