red fuji: Here is a nice camera bag for this camera
Nikon could bundle up camera and case for 9999,95$; that would be a steal! I predict good sales in Saudi Arabia...
Nick8: Just one thought, not related to this new great camera in particular…In the film era, both the ASA and DIN standards were used for the film sensitivity.100 ASA was equivalent to 21 DIN.I think DIN would have been a far more practical choice. ISO 409,600 would be equivalent to 57 DIN.Another 2 steps in sensitivity from 409,600 and the ISO will become 1,638,400 vs 63 DIN.Certainly that cannot fit on a dedicated dial :)
Actually, the ISO is exactly the old ASA scale with a fancier name. I agree that using the 1024x multiplier would simplify things from ISO 25600 on up keeping a straightforward linear scale when moving to 25k, 50k, 100k, 200k ISO instead of using the DIN log scale which only engineers can love.And to think I was very happy "pushing" my 400 ASA Tri-X film to 800 in the last century...
Just another Canon shooter: Typical Sony. A half-baked high-tech product, an alpha version at best. I have owned too many Sony products like this, the most recent one was a $3K+ Vaio.
I would find this comment a little more interesting if your gear wasn't a cell phone... I do agree, however, that Sony has more work to do with this product but I still think it is on a very good path.
Oh, and this Sony is WAY better than a Samsung cell phone, which ever way you cut it...
PerL: I think it is nice with a very compact FF and the IQ should be impressive. However, I can't see how it gets a higher rating than the Nikon Df, a much more allround capable camera with 10x the lens system. (I would equal the high res of the Sony with the low light performance of the Df)
As for the speed issue, being partly related to the initialization of the lens-camera relationship (to correct distortion, aberrations, etc.), there are 2 solutions:1) Shoot without the lens to gain a few 10ths of a second (less expensive too); or -2) wait for the firmware update that is sure to come along since this is almost certainly fixable and not hardware-related.
falconeyes: A good scientific paper about DFD and an evaluation showing that phase detect and DFD should have similiar performance can be found here:
It is 14 years old ;)
Wonder why they don't just include on-sensor phase-detection like others. Patents? Cost?
bluevellet: What I got after reading 900+ comments:
1. The world's against Sony. To make things right, it's important we all take it easy on this great innovator.
2. Reviews are for advertising products, not to inform people.
3. Reviews should include shout-outs, owner interviews & profiles.
4. All Sony's press releases should be required reading before setting out to write a review.
5. If you went investigating something, only continue if early results are positive. If they're not, stop immediately and speak of it to anyone.
6. If you are seeing something odd, don't write it down in the review. Instead, consult the Internet, ignore all places which confirm the oddity & only focus on resources which ignore it.
7. The review should be randomly peppered with words like "innovative", "revolutionary" and "full frame".
8. Limit specific mentions of competing products as much as possible. Less is better.
9. Self-censorship is a trait of a disciplined mind.
10. Shutter shock is a myth!
Did you pause to ask yourself why there are so many comments? I follow DPR since 2005 and I have seldom seen so many; perhaps this review hit a nerve?
MikeF4Black: It's truly amazing how an objective review of a photographic product from a manufacturer that used to excel at making transistor radios elicits so many heated comments. The term "fanboy" really gets new meaning here.
All very amusing; it certainly makes for an entertaining read.
You obviously didn't examine the studio shots or read the review in detail or the meat of the negative comments. Most of the criticism is based on objective evaluation (and I'm not even a Sony user) and some on real longer term experience with the camera. While there may be a dose of subjective emotion in some comments, I find your own criticism to be gratuitous, ill-advised (Sony makes some of the finest sensors used by many other camera manufacturers) and rather insulting.
68craigdale: The viewfinder is critical part of a camera, I think it is wrong to give any electronic viewfinder such a high rating especially considering their so so performance in low light.
I have worked with good optical viewfinders on my old Minolta SLRs; while they were much better that most, if not all, optical VF in today's APS-C format cameras (they are like looking at the end of a tunnel), I still prefer EVFs. My modest G3 has a very good one and the latest models are much improved. With the amount of customizable info you can add in the EVF, the 100% FOV, the instant review of the shot you have just taken, I even prefer them to the excellent OVFs on FF cameras. Add to that the size/weight advantage...
DT200: We knew this was coming. When the A7 was announce and long before anyone had tried one, these same Sony fans were creating threads in every forum about how it will be the best camera ever. Before ever holding one some were convinced it would get a Gold awards and the highest rating. The facts are different though. When compared to a year old D600, there is nothing the camera does better except that you can attach more legacy lenses to it, but you have to manually focus. Beside the D600 doing everything better, you can attach more legacy lenses that can auto-focus, something the very large majority of camera users prefer (oh and there are a few hundred manual focus legacy lenses in every shape and size that work on the D600 too). It is nice that Sony was able to remove the grip and superior focus system from a DSLR to make a camera smaller, but it adds many severe limitations. When you look at how the camera performs, clearly the A7 should be rated somewhere below the D600.
"clearly the A7 should be rated somewhere below the D600"...if it weren't for the D600's inferior IQ and lack of detail in high ISO JPEG shots. I have neither camera nor do I own any other Sony of Nikon gear; I just analyze the DPR studio shots and come to my own conclusions.
Andrew770: DP Review is a professional organization and their review of the Nikon D600 meets professional standards. It is impressive how much better the Nikon D600 camera performs than Canon and Sony's high end cameras. The D600 is clearly the winner in the DP Review comparison of these top end cameras. For me the D600's handling of ISO images sets it apart from the competition and is one reason why Nikon is the #1 camera brand.
Apparently the early production run of the Nikon D600 had some cameras whose shutter mechanism was faulty. Nikon gave an advisory in February 2013 for those affected to take their cameras to their service centers and many had their camera's shutter mechanism replaced.
Canon's top end camera also experienced a light leak issue from its early production run. Apparently providing a fix was much more involved because it was a structural problem. Apparently Canon's solution was to put a tape inside the camera to cover the light leak.
Finally, the D600 is awesome!
You seem to trust DP Review's "professional standards" so much that you forget to use your own critical sense. Look closely at the studio shots, JPEG at 100 and 3200 ISO and tell me that the Nikon is not overly soft and lacking detail compared to the Sony or Canon, especially on the playing cards.
(unknown member): I think the person who wrote this review was either drunk or is just looking for reasons to write the camera down the drain.
The quality of this review isn't worth the disk space it is stored on.
It is a fine camera, period
There is something definitely wrong with this review, I am no Sony fanboy but an engineer: facts matter. What they show on the tests just don't align with their conclusions. I used to love DPReview - still do, in a way - but this time, I think they should really do a follow-up review.
AsifR: Love the A7R. Using it with my Canon Zeiss 50mm 1.2. It seems to fit my shooting style -where every picture is deliberate. Definitely not for fast shooting environments, or for capturing sport shots. Great as a street camera since the noise level is so low even in high ISO. Check out some of my images below (all images untouched -just converted from RAW to jpeg in Lightroom)http://flic.kr/s/aHsjRbnxy8
"Canon-Zeiss"? ? ?
Hemisfear: Something seems rotten in Denmark, or at lest DPReview!There are some serious issues with this review!Either camera payola, a lack of understanding or very poor reviewing skills is in full effect on this one!Poor Jpegs? They didn't like Focus Peaking, WTF!!!!!!!!!It's my thinking that everyone is owed an apology on this one! lol
Take a closer look at the studio shots at 3200 ISO and reconsider...
NCB: Of course the D600 and 6D are peer to the A7. They all use FF sensors, they are all essentially exchangeable lens camera, they all have a typical range of features, and they compete with each other. The fact that the A7 uses an EVF is a technical detail. It's an important detail, because some people will think that's good and some people will think it isn't; for a lot of people, though, it's not a deal breaker. Strikes me this is an honest, informed review. Whether it puts people off the camera or not depends totally on the priorities of each individual, as always. Bottom line is, the A7 breaks new ground, for which it should be applauded, and has a number of weak points. Sony can and should fix some of them (A8?). Some of them are inherent in the concept, which is why Nikon and Canon will remain stiff competition.
"Strikes me this is an honest, informed review"The main problem with this review is the JPEG appraisal. Not only do the studio shots completely contradict their conclusions, but they even removed from this forum a post with a link from an A7 owner bashing their conclusions. Something's wrong here...
I am rather puzzled by your conclusion on the bad JPEG high-ISO performance of the A7 when I scrutinize the studio shots, especially zooming on the playing cards, the B&W drawings (family applauding a painting and bearded man portrait), colour portraits and bills/coins. I find the detail, contrast and lack of annoying artifacts (look at the hair of the Jack of Hearts, middle card in top right corner, with the Nikon D610) much more appealing on the A7 at high ISO (say 3200) than the Nikon D610 and even the Canon. Considering the 610 to be a clone of the D600 as far as IQ is concerned and that you piled superlatives about the D600's low noise at high ISO, either something is wrong with your studio shots or your conclusions. For myself, based on these same studio shots, I would be quite happy with the A7 and ecstatic - albeit even poorer - with the A7R!
thx1138: Sorry for this sort of money for the lens to be poor wide open is just not acceptable, especially in the easiest lens of all to design, a 50-60mm prime. When one can buy a Sigma 50 f/1.4 that is sharp wide open, has beautiful bokeh, low vignetting and only costs $500 and I'll bet the Art series version is going to be even better, then why waste money on the Nikon? The world is awash with excellent 50-55mm primes and ev en if in every other regard the Nikon is excellent, it still doesn't grab me as a sensible buy.
I tend to agree. While both the Otus and the Nikkor are in the "eye-watering" price category in which, after a while, price is no longer an object and even if the Nikkor has autofocus - albeit somewhat flawed - I think the Otus' test scores (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/11/22/lens-reviews-update-test-data-for-the-zeiss-otus-1-4-55) are simply so mind-boggling compared to the Nikkor that for that kind of money, I'd take the Otus any time. Now if DPreview could only make a "real-world" Otus x Nikkor comparison...
PS. I would also wish for a real test of the Pana-Leica 25mm F1,4 Summilux DG along with "real-world" comparison on a GH3 or E-M1 body...
Lensahand: This camera is very tempting, especially with it's silent mode compared to my GF-1 which makes such a loud noise that it's very offputting.
What's more offputting, though, is the depreciation on these m4/3 bodies. My GF-1 cost about £600 three years ago and now goes for £80, which in itself represents a bargain but for an early adopter that's dreadful.
Would I notice a huge leap in image quality from a first generation m4/3 to the latest models? Silence aside, that's the other thing that would make me consider this. Given how quickly these cameras fall in value, perhaps I need to stop myself and do the intelligent thing by waiting a year or so!
In view of the infamous "rainbow effect" so decried in this review, I have had a G3 for 2½ years (same type of sequential EVF but lower res) and never had a complaint about "rainbow effect". The only way I could ever see it is by panning rapidly but even then, not an issue. This reviewer seems to be overly sensitive to it but should have taken this into consideration. I'd welcome comments about this so-called issue from long term users of the GX7 !
VERY nice! Composition, lighting... Very eye-catching.
WhiteBeard: About pricing... A long time ago, lenses were made with a lot of metal and glass - not polycarbonate - and 70-200mm zooms (35mm eq.) were the most popular and mostly least expensive zooms available. Now, Panasonic wants to make us believe that putting an O-ring, less glass (polished by much more precise and efficient automated means than before) and putting back some aluminum instead of the usual polycarbonate is sufficient to warrant a 1500$ price tag... Anybody out there familiar about Marketing Theory and the expression "Whatever the Market can bear"?
Yes, most - not all - Panasonic lenses come with OIS which increases cost but bear in mind that their optical design is sloppy in terms of distorsiom and CA since both are controlled by the camera. This brings cost down compared to older lens/camera systems. For example, the excellent PL 25mm F1.4 has ludicrously high amounts of barrel distorsion on its own.
I don't debate that fact; indeed, it's pretty much what I was saying: all lenses were once made out of metal as a matter of fact. Now, the simple adding of a metal barrel and focusing ring brings an aura of PERCEIVED pro-quality that helps to make buyers swallow their higher price. As for the real cost behind the "pro" lenses, a lot has to do with the more intricate design cycle to make everything right and yes, to the higher cost of the machinery needed (although that cost is amortized over thousands of lenses) and material but the market price is half cost and half (3/4?) perception. Ask Leica and Hasselblad...