snooked123: Disclaimer: I am not a Canon shooter.
While everyone is going crazy about how Canikon are **ting in their pants, look at Canon 7D II. That camera costs $1800 which is approximately equal to the proposed price of Sony A7, but it would be a miracle if a7 sales numbers are within 25% of what Canon 7DII's numbers will be.
Sony A7 while innovative doesn't offer:a- The AF speed of Canikon's enthusiast level cameras.b- The enthusiast level lenses are scarce and expensive (Nikon's f1.8 offerings are great).
Additionally, who among the fanboys can guarantee that the whimsical sony boss will not dump A series for something new in a year? Similar to what Sony has done to Alpha, SLT and now even NEX? :-D
@RaghavBaijal“No... As soon as Tracking is involved, the Sony A77II with the brand new AF Module & A6000…” I agree, very good performance but you then contradict yourself“Any E Mount camera with IBIS along with the SLT Adapter is as good as any A Mount camera.”No they aren’t. For the very reason you champion the A77II, the AF is still not up to it. Also I do not want to have to mess with or pay for an adapter. The cheaper one is £140 but does not allow AF with screw drive lenses and the one that does is £230. You second statement is an exaggeration of the real position.Sony is updating some A mount lenses to work with on-sensor AF but why would I buy a 70-300G MkII when I had to add a another £140 to the price for an adapter? If A mount dies E mount to me is as a different a mount as Nikon or Canon. They could well lose me as a customer. I bet I am not alone in that view so Sony has made a huge mistake if it thinks A mount users will follow like sheep to E mount.
JurijTurnsek: There is still room for A7 in Sony's line-up. Some people don't need IBIS and are happy with the low price and lower weight and bulk, excellent performance of the original A7. Maybe Sony will prolong its productions as it did with the RX100 series.
Everybody needs IBIS :) Some people just don't realise it.
And where is the bulk and weight here? Looks the same size as an A7 bar the grip which is clearly an ergonomic modification anyway.
It's a myth IBIS adds weight and bulk. Just look at the A series SLR's and SLT's. They are no heavier or more bulky than conventional SLR's that don't have it.
They are also no more expensive and often cheaper than comparable models in other ranges. So there isn't a price issue either.
If Sony charges a premium price for this camera IBIS isn't the reason. It is because they think they can.
Tom Caldwell: So I am quite peeved. As one of those that saw the awkwardness of the A7 series controls from day one and then watched as Sony proceeded to issue two more camera bodies with the identical control layout before finally deciding that they were not going to change anything and dong dang stupidly bought one.
This was reinforced by getting a hiding over daring to say that the camera was great but the controls needed a makeover. So many thought that the controls on the A7 series were just fine (?) I suppose they will now rush and apologise to me and confirm that my suggestions were quite correct and that Sony should listen. Well apparently they have listened to what should have been the bleeding obvious and much cheering is apparent !
But the only ones that should be cheering are those who have wisely held off buying an A7 so far. For the rest Sony has just instantly devalued your MkI shutter squeeze by a huge amount.
@Tom I am not in the market to switch mounts so was never going to buy an A7 anyway but you were right to question the things you did.
It seemed obvious to me they were first generation cameras that would be at least tweaked in a MkII so I would never have jumped for one even if I was looking for a change. I'd never buy a MkI Fuji for the same reasons.
The other thing that that they left out of the MkI was IBIS.
That was dismissed by many as they sought to justify its absence. IBIS has always been a great idea but when Sony left it out the "fan boys" suddenly decided in-lens was better or it just wasn't needed.
Now Sony has seen sense and not only that linked it to in-lens stabilization as well.
So I feel quite vindicated also, as one of the biggest downers for me on the E mount has always been the lack if IBIS.
ProfHankD: Samsung already owns much of the camera market via cell phones. It's obvious from the specs that Samsung also is trying to be a leader in serious system cameras, and the sample images show that they haven't screwed-up very much. I look forward to a teardown, which I expect will reveal that this is almost entirely made from Samsung parts and subsystems. In the near future, how will other camera companies compete against the targeted resources of arguably the world's largest tech company?
Here's hoping this is a motivating challenge to companies like Canon, and not the big, bright, thing in the sky that causes a mass extinction when it hits.
"It's not the count (quantity) that counts, but the quality. A system can be very strong with even a moderate amount of lenses - see for example Fuji X."
I have been able to assemble a lens set that suits me in Sony A mount of very high quality lenses including CZ 16-80 and 70-300G to name two but that is me.
For FF users there a gaps for Sony A mount and E mount is worse and if a manufacturer doesn't make a lens you need and your mount is not supported well by Sigma and Tamron then it doesn't matter how good the quality is of the lenses they do make.
I don't see a great deal of difference between Samsung and Sony E mount at the moment. Officially I think Samsung have 19 lenses but several are standard zooms of different specs and there is nothing over 200mm.
I certainly could not replicate my Sony A mount lens set in the NX system at this time.
This is the kind of camera I can see people buying as a compliment to a dslr outfit and then hardly ever using the dslr outfit.
There is one caveat to that though and it is that problem highlighted in the review about the single control dial. Anyone used to dual dials with exposure compensation on one and aperture the other for example (as I have my camera set up) would be driven mad by this ergonomic compromise. And that kind of thing can actually spoil your enjoyment of the using the gear.
People naturally and unconsciously gravitate to well designed easy to use kit.
On a more general point this and the RX10 are obviously intended to be great travel cameras so why no GPS?
I use it all the time on my camera and it seems an obvious feature to have on a travel camera.
AmateurSnaps: I love the idea of a bridge camera but at this price what are the advantages of this camera over a Canon/Nikon/Sony with for example the Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro?
"I discovered a very good reason! Take a handhold shot of a night scene with 600 equivalent focal lenght and 1/30s or slower with this camera and with a DSLR. Look at the pictures in detail and you´ll notice that the DSLR give vertical lines on each luminous point from the city lamps while Lumix keep the lamps as points. This is due the vertical oscilation created by the mirror shock."
Not with a Sony SLT or any of the mirrorless competition. They don't have flapping mirrors either. Some like the Sony SLT's, even have electronic first curtain shutters reducing any potential vibration even more.
Dave Oddie: One day some manufacturer will make a zoom lens on a camera like this that doesn't stop short at 70mm or 75mm equivalent.
I am sure an aperture of F2.8 at the long end of 90mm equivalent won't result in a huge lens. You could even compromise and have it at F3.5 while still be F2.8 for considerable way towards the telephoto end with the lens even longer at say 105mm equivalent.
There are 24-70 FF lenses, 16-50 aps-c lenses and now this 12-37.5 zoom and they all stop short.
What happened to the standard zoom going to 85mm equivalent, the first proper portrait focal length?
Add the 37.5mm long end to 12mp and you can't even crop that much.
I thought Sony took a step back by losing the long end of the zoom on the RX100 III. Same story with this camera for me.
Now if a MkII came out with a slower 24-105 equivalent on the front, where do I sign up?
"Most people didn't think Sony took a step back with the faster lens on the RX100III."
How do you know that? Most review sites mentioned it as at least a compromise.
I have never understood how 70mm gained any popularity. Back in the days of film I remember 35-70 being some of the first standard zooms but only because optically no one had worked out how to make lenses with a bigger range of any quality. Nikon had a 43-86 which was utter rubbish.
When Canikon went digital they did so with aps-c and had zero designed-for-aps-c lenses so people started calling 50mm lenses "portrait" lenses. They aren't yet this 70/75mm length has stuck even in FF where we see 24-70mm lenses.
We regularly see launches of 16-50 lenses on aps-c because they want F2.8 or to make them very small and the Rx100 III and the LX100 offer up a similar compromise, in my opinion, in their respective formats.
I much prefer the wider range of my 16-80.
mpgxsvcd: I wonder why they couldn’t have produced a camera like this a few years ago. I know the auto focus tech was not as good and you wouldn’t have had the 4K video. However, couldn’t they have put a 4/3s inch sensor in this size body back then?
Could they have produced this lens a few years back? Were they just waiting for the software correcting technology to catch-up with this lens design?
I have often thought along these lines. Maybe they didn't think sensors of this size offered enough to warrant it but I can't see why physically it cold not have been done.
Going the other way, to interchangeable lenses instead of fixed, it seems to have taken equally long for that to arrive in small sensor cameras. I am thinking of the Nikon 1 and Pentax small sensor cameras here.
One day some manufacturer will make a zoom lens on a camera like this that doesn't stop short at 70mm or 75mm equivalent.
aris14: Ι hate proprietary flash shoes...
The are all proprietary in some way if you want the advanced features the various cameras offer.
The real issue here is Sony changed the shoe from the old Minolta style seen on the A57/77/99 to the inferior multi-interface shoe used on newer cameras.
A completely pointless change given the new one is also a proprietary shoe anyway.
Samsung's approach to the smartphone market would not be a yardstick I would want to use as a recommendation for them as a camera maker.
They add too much unintuitive crud on the top of Android and unlike HTC who's tweaks seem to add genuine value Samsung doesn't appeal. I actually use Nexus 5 myself just so you know I am not an Apple ot HTC apologist.
As to the camera I think on paper it looks fantastic specification wise. I hope the decision to go to 28mp pushing the envelope even further doesn't back fire.
As with and SLR type camera once the camera body is deemed OK the key issue is always the lenses and unfortunately few makers can match Canikon in this department in terms of range. I suffer from this myself as a Sony A mount user (E mount is ever worse for native lenses) so I'd be wary of moving to a new system equally or even more sparse on the lens front.
ogl: It's strange for me that there are users who could be happy with new very slow zoom.
Well it''s slightly slower then my CZ 16-80 (used on a 24mp sensor, Sony A77) which is F4.5 at the long end but it is an extremely useful focal length range to have.
If this lens is as sharp as my CZ pentax users will have a nice new lens to add to the lineup.
In my case the alternatives are at stop an a bit faster at the long end at F2.8 but you lose 30mm of range to get it. I don't see much point in 16-50 F2.8's and if you really want speed you still need fast primes.
Karl Summers: No need for this when you can buy a 5TB home cloud storage unit.
Can't believe the complacent replies to Pnakotus here.
However you do it, off-site backup is a completely sensible precaution to take.
And not for just reasons like your house burning down or theft etc but to protect yourself from your own occasional idiocy where you accidentally destroy important images.
Whether Microsoft Cloud Storage would be a suitable offsite backup option is another debate.
Tonkotsu Ramen: At that price...... it will not sell well..
Well in the UK buying a phone that isn't on a contract can be much cheaper. The Nexus 5 did turn up on contract offerings but you would have been mad to go there. With a price of just over 330 quid you would have paid for it twice on the typical monthly contract.
If the 6 is priced so high then that changes things.
The price was why I bought a Nexus 5. It's a great device in my opinion and is still well specified v other phones. Not interested in a phone the size of the Nexus 6 anyway but if I was, the price if it comes to the UK at £500-£600 is an invitation to look at the competition. With the Nexus 5 that wasn't the case.
Hugo808: It's got to the point where I can't tell the difference between cameras at all. If you told me these were taken with a 1" compact I would just nod and turn the page.
That they are full frame shots makes me impressed that the field has been levelled so much. But not that I'd be better off spending a lot on a new camera, not for reasons of IQ anyway....
MG89, you may have experienced a narrower dynamic range meaning in your case if the subject was exposed correctly the sky was blown out.
don't think it follows only FF cameras can be engineered to have a wider dynamic range.
Canon seem to suffer here on FF compared to others for example so I don't think FF guarantees good DR.
Wye Photography: IF I had to choose between the G7X, RX100 Marque III and LX100 and after viewing sample images from all three, the one I think has the X Factor is the LX100.
@Cain24 "Sure, for those who like to carry cameras in pockets. But there are those of us who will use pouches or small camera bags regardless, which does in fact put all those cameras under the same umbrella of consideration."
If you want to carry a small bag as opposed to have a pocketable camera then why limit yourself to the LX100? There are several m43 cameras of similar size that let you change the lens and the lens in the LX100 is not remarkable enough in my opinion to justify being fixed (and the size of the camera doesn't benefit from it either).
It may have other features such as 4K video others do not at the moment but surely it is only going to be a short time before these features are matched on interchangeable lens m43 cameras which will render the LX100 obsolete,
Zvonimir Tosic: The new LX100 has a appeal over other Panasonic m4/3 cameras because of the influence of Leica is far more prominent in it: from the new lens, to the layout of the controls.This is indeed a collaboration of the sort they once had in the DMC-LC1 era, and I am glad they have renewed the spirit of it. And considering the LC1 which employes 2/3" sensor was priced at $1599 at its delivery in 2004, today's LX100 with all its features is a bargain.
I bet the only collaboration Leica had/have with the LX100 is sticking their own badge on their version.
Glad DPR asked this question as I posted a similar one in the comments section when the camera came out.
I think they are being a bit disingenuous though in justifying the LX100 essentially on the back of its lens. A range of 24-75 mm and F2.8 at the long end is too limiting.
My standard lens is a 16-80 CZ on an A77 and it gets used a lot at focal lengths longer than 50mm (75mm equivalent).
And no you don't have to buy super fast lenses to make a case for the GX7.
Things like 4K video (if you use it) are evolutionary and I'd expect to see it on a "GX7 II" or whatever its replacement is.
The other problem I see is these cameras are not that small. So the LX100 being about the same size as the GX7 puts them both out of the "buy because they are small" category in my book when there are smaller m43 cameras from both Pana and Oly (that don't have fixed lenses either) and cameras that really are pocketable like the Sony RX100.
For me the LX100 is obsolete already.
xiox8: So three things I am interested in understanding before making the decision to buy.
1. As I understand it the spot metering does not use the actual chosen AF point? How would that work with birds?2. I have a 400mm f5.6 lens and I noticed that some of the increased AF function in the center requires an f2.8 lens to be utilized. Is this going to neutralize the AF improvements for me?3. I have read that the sensor is a derivative of the 70D which does not have stellar noise characteristics, so I want to see a DXO review. Although I saw a Matt Granger review that sounded favorable regards noise.
Any comments on the above would be appreciated.
You would never use spot metering with birds (in flight that is).
It does what it says on the tin and meters from the centre spot of the frame.
So with a bird in flight you might miss the bird with the spot and so end up exposing for the sky.
You typically use it on more static subjects in difficult lighting situations that may fool the metering. For example a back lit portrait you can spot meter the face to determine the correct exposure for the face locking the spot reading with the AEL button then recomposing.
Or you use it to take several readings from around the scene and average them out avoiding extreme lighting (some Oly camera let you do this).
There is nothing deficient here as regards the way the spot metering works. It is doing exactly as it should, metering from the centre spot always.
It could be argued with today's sophisticated exposure metering there is less need for it (and even less again if your camera has an EVF where what you see is what you get).