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.
babalu: The single, most important message this camera sends out, is that the era of the optical viewfinder is coming to an end. Adieu mirror. Welcome EVF, preferrably tiltable .
"On sensor phase detection AF has to become just as fast and accurate as the dedicated phase detection AF modules for both static and moving subjects and in all lighting conditions."
This problem has already been solved by Sony which has PDAF with an EVF on the SLT's.
"Isn't that the single, most important message the EM-5 sent out? The optical viewfinder is superior in most regards and isn't going anywhere."
Well I use a Sony A77 and I can tell you optical viewfinders are inferior to EVF's in most regards and the main reason why is we are talking aps-c (or for Oly 4/3) sized sensors and even the best OVF's on cameras with these sized sensors are like looking down a tunnel.
On full frame OVF's work and I doubt Canikon will be switching to EVF's anytime soon but for smaller sensor camera they simply knock spots off OVF's and that is before you consider the inherent advantages such as the fact you have a WYSIWYG representation of the photo you are about to take.
I'll never buy another OVF camera again.
kecajkerugo: yet another good (but bulky) DSLR from Canon.Taking ocasion I am trying to attract your attention to the Oly E-M1 latest machine and want you to see that the high ISO OF LATEST M4/3 SENSOR IS RIGHT ON PAIR WITH THE BEST DSLR LIKE THIS ONE.
"If the exposure value (ie the amount of light reaching the sensor) has to be twice as much as other cameras for a given ISO, then it's not really a performance but more likely that you should compare ISO 6400 from Oly to ISO 3200 of other manufacturers."
Why? The exposure value at a given ISO gives you an EV number. So for example at ISO 100, EV 13 which is a typical daylight scene, clouds but bright and no shadows should mean the camera sets an exposure of 1/125 and F8.
If that is what you get when you meter this scene with an Oly why would you NOT compare the output at this ISO with the ISO 100 output from any other camera assuming the other cameras also correctly metered the scene to mean1/125 at F8?
If the Oly set an exposure of 1/60 @ F8 @ ISO 100 for an EV 13 scene you many have a point but I bet it doesn't.
retro76: DXO is total BS, I wish someone would sue them into oblivion, all they have managed to do is turn a great hobby into a constant debate of image quality which has absolutely zero merit. I have shot with Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Olympus and can say without an ounce of doubt their tests are total garbage. I wish we could just move on, I miss the good old days when taking pictures was a gauge of image quality and not a bunch of questionable numbers..
I'd be interested to know why people think DXO tests are not BS. What are they based on? Their own made-up methodology? Has anyone put it under scientific scrutiny?
I never really followed the evolution of DXO as a web site and don't really know its origins. I always read this site when Phil Askey owned it and Imaging Resource. I often commented tests on both sites were not scientific in their rigour and I wonder if the same applies to DXO.
DPR, IR and DXO have been around for some time but just because they were fortunate to be the first in on the digital revolution doesn't mean they have the scientific rigour to be held in as high regard as they are. The fact camera companies have to pander to these sites and hope to get good reviews just shows the power of the Internet not that it contains accurate or well derived data.
I am not a Canon user and I am making a general point about all self proclaimed "expert" sites.
new boyz: EVF is the future. OVF, you can start dying now.
@Sdaniella "evf is fine for smaller sensors prevalent in video/tv cameras where dof is much deeper and thus closer to 'focus free' and far less demanding on any AF system, even CD-AF, particularly in good (tv broadcast, studio, arena, stadium, or day-) light
one could spend most of one's time panning and tracking, and less time with any AF faltering when contrast is quite high that is common to well lit scenarios already listed above
but once one ventures into low light, with much wider apertures, the dim lower contrast bogs down every video/tv system such that AF is monitored much more carefully to avoid the classic loss of focus or auto-hunting syndrome"
EVF's have nothing to do with how a camera focuses. The Sony's A series use PDAF for example. A camera's ability to focus is affected by its AF system not the fact is uses an EVF.
In low light EVF's are easier to focus manually as they gain-up and have focus peaking (also makes them easier to manual focus in good light also).
@By photo nuts "I HATE EVF. Have been using it for close to a year, so I know what I am talking about."
You mean you know what YOU prefer. Or because you have decided you think they are rubbish based in a sample of one you think that is the definitive opinion on EVF's?
What EVF based camera have you been using? There are poor EVF's and there are good EVF's just as there are poor and good OVF's.
DVT80111: Live view AF is still useless for still picture until Canon add a EVF.The screen is too small and my arm is not long enough.
By waitformee:"evf is even smaller then the screen?"
Not sure what you mean by that but an EVF on a Sony A77 gives a view as large as an OVF on a full frame d-slr and larger than the view you get from any aps-c OVF.
Looking down an OVF on and aps-c dslr after a well using a well implemented EVF such as on the A77 is like looking down a puny dark tunnel.
Some people don't like EVF's period and that is fair enough but one criticism that can't be levelled at EVF's like the A77's is small size.
I use EVF over LCD every time except when I want to use the LCD as a waist level finder or need to shoot at awkward angles.
I can't think why anyone with an EVF based camera like the A77 would use the LCD as their primary viewfinder even when doing video. On a 70D when shooting video you have no option but to use the LCD. How awkward is that!
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in the concept of a 1 inch sensor system. The quality delivered from sensors of this size is quite good.
I think Nikon's problem was the models they produced tended to fall between two stools.
For example making the V2 with its kind of mock pentaprism misses the point. I don't think there as a need to ape a different form factor and all that happens if you do is raise expectations that it's going to perform like a larger camera.
I think a fully featured rangefinder type of camera would have gone down better with enthusiasts in the same way I feel the Oly EP cameras do.
chj: All these comments about marginal differences in IQ which only pixel peepers care about. The feature set in the 70D opens up so much when it comes to TAKING PHOTOS. Fast accurate live view AND a fully articulated LCD with touchscreen focusing at 7 fps?! Do you realize how must faster and more flexible that makes shooting? You can just whip the camera around at any angle, it's not glued to your face anymore. No need to focus and recompose, just touch the screen. And you can do it in the rain. There is no other camera that offers this feature set. You'll be able to catch shots that you otherwise would have missed. Who cares about barely noticeable IQ differences if you missed the shot?
Whether Sony abandons the SLT technology or not is irrelevant to the point the existing A77 has had fast focus in live view for some time. It's also got a higher standard frame rate of 8fps and if you want it 12fps as well.
I would also say it's got many other features that mean while the new Canon is pretty innovative for Canon the A77 isn't eclipsed by it on features and remains competitive which is pretty impressive given the rate of change in technology these days.
If Sony does drop SLT technology I would imagine it will only be if it can provide an alternative at least as fast focusing-wise or that would be a step back but even if they do manage this, the current SLT cameras won't stop working overnight.
Panasonicus: For decades photographers have demanded and been given excellent viewfinders to see what the lens sees or close to with parallax devices. Then along comes the marketing teams to convince us that viewfinders are old school and everyone is better off with a LCD. The trick worked for awhile as we battled with sunlight washing out the screen or struggled with our eyesight issues that could not be corrected on camera. Then, suddenly, Panasonic began to reverse the trend and give us small DSLMs with built in viewfinders that cost no more than their sister products with a rear screen only. Now they are getting really serious by giving us a camera with a high end EVF included in the price of the camera. Give it a couple more years and the era of the rear LCD without an accompanying viewfinder will be over and we will all wonder how many of us were so easily conned. How many viewfinder-less Canon EOS-Ms have been sold?
People may get on fine with their LCD and more photos may be taken this way than with cameras with viewfinders but that doesn't mean they would not get on better with a camera with a viewfinder.
Just because you can use devices with just LCD's to take photos doesn't mean its ergonomically that good to do so.
I have just got back off my summer holidays and sure enough in the tourist spots I noticed many people waving their phones about taking photos. When it was sunny they were usually squinting and it clearly wasn't a particularly intuitive thing to be doing.
I think for many it is what you have never had you never miss but give them a small camera with a viewfinder like the GX7 and I will guarantee people will gravitate naturally to using the viewfinder when they see how much easier it is to use particularly in bright light.
The fact people use phones and cameras with just LCD's is in my opinion a case of there is little alternative not that it is an intuitive user interface.
As a Sony A77 owner I can tell you IBIS is a great addition to any camera. You can take shots in places like museums with wide angle lenses at amazingly slow shutter speeds.
I am also totally sold on high-res EVF's.
Years ago I was an Olympus OM4 shooter and I have always had a soft spot for Oly cameras as they tend to know what photographers want ergonomically but this Panasonic, which doesn't need an external EVF, seems to have the edge on the latest PEN's for that reason.
I positively hate framing photos via a rear LCD so a PEN would require me to buy the add-on EVF whereas this Panasonic has solved that issue and the pleasantly surprising addition of IBIS has also removed another objection to systems that rely only on in-lens stabilization. I would never buy a Nex for this reason and in m4/3 Oly was still my preference despite the external EVF because of IBIS.
I am quite surprised they added IBIS but I think that shows some real thought on Panasonics part.
LFLee: I guess most ppl here have no clue that there are many sudden-rich ppl in the east that have no idea about camera but as long as the camera is named Leica, or in this case Hasselblad, they will buy it without a blink. For them, is a show of status, not taking pictures.
Simply said, you are not their targeted customer. :P
I think plenty of people realise there are some very wealthy people who fling money about like confetti on blinged up versions of various products but there are also quite a few who aren't stupid enough to fall for this.
Being ostentatious is one thing. Buying a product that labels you as a fool easily parted from their money is another.
This is even worse than the Lunar. At least with that they could argue machining it from solid aluminium was expensive even if electronically and as far as imaging goes it got you nothing you could not get with the Nex 7.
This one is faced with the fact the RX100 is already a quality bit of kit with its aluminium body and you can see that they have done nothing to change that or any of the controls. It's an RX100 with a wooden grip!
The fact it doesn't look like its an RX100 II either just adds to the "why on earth bother" sentiments!