deanfuller: Why do we have to say "price point"? Why can't we just leave off the corporate-speak, and just say "price"?
because the "price" will change over time whereas the "price point" implies an anchor—what market segment, or perceived value, the manufacturer is aiming at.
Mark B UK: I know the number of CD-AF focus points (25) is relatively low, but is it yet known what proportion of the frame they cover? Is it a central diamond, such as the E-M1, or pretty much the whole frame, as with the a6000?
I think you're confusing contrast with phase detection AF. Both the Oly and Sony models cover almost the entire frame with contrast points. The Oly model only has PDAF point in the center diamond. The Sony A7 sensor is a square covering ~2/3 of the sensor (that's the 117 AF points).
JordanAT: Nobody tell these guys about the LG G3. If they know you could put over 6 million pixels in a 3.2" touch screen it would totally deflate them. That's 914 ppi the way they are calculating it (as separate r, g, and b pixels), and 538 ppi if you count r,g, and b as a single pixel the way the rest of the world (outside of camera viewfinders) does.
Now, if LG's 31" IPS panel makes it way into sub $500 monitors...I'm interested!
"ppi" is "pixels per inch" so not the same even by their calculations. By camera specs the G3 would be ~914dpi or "dots per inch". The issue is that camera makers don't use pixels in the specs they use dots or sub pixels.
Edgar_in_Indy: It's *long* past time for cameras to have high resolution screens. It's kind of hard to precisely focus 1920x1080 video on a low-resolution screen.
I would also love to see them get away from this "dot" measurement since it seems to be abused to make the resolution seem much more impressive by counting red, green, and blue "dots". Just give us the damn resolution!
I would agree except that this new whitemagic technology adds something not reflected in just resolution numbers. I think camera companies are holding off because the "dot" specs sound a lot more impressive than they are. As soon as one starts doing it they will have to quickly switch. Thanks to smartphones more consumers aware of what resolution numbers mean.
G1Houston: I am a long time Nikon user and have incorporated m4/3 into my system for its good IQ and compact size. However to photograph my kids, I am now mostly using the almost 3 year old D7100 which is just a blast to use — it is fast, with excellent IQ, and its focus tracking is outstanding. Now Nikon has put a state-of-the-art FF sensor in a body that is even lighter than the D7100 with even better AF and metering system, all for just a little bit over $2,000. I thus wonder what is the advantage of the mirrorless system that dpreview and others seem to promote it as the future of photography? Take A7 as an example, you can make the camera only that small before handling becomes a real problem and its lenses are not substantially smaller than those of Nikon/Canon, and are certainly very expensive. What is the advantage of the mirrorless — why does IT have to be the future?
@kardardr may seem soft to you but I personally don't feel it is just a manufacturing push. While I've used both I prefer the flexibility, size, and weight of mirror less. The fact that IQ is equal is no small thing. It means you have to want a mirror. I can see the appeal but it isn't for me. The next generation of photographers will be coming from smart phones. An OVF will feel backwards because you can't see the exposure in real time any more. I think that's a big reason (and one of many reasons) they are the "future". There will still be SLRs for years. Just like there are still digital rangefinders. But they will become increasing more niche IMHO.
I've thoguht for years that Sony was missing an opportunity by not using this tech in their mirror less cameras. Seems like Fuji beat them to the punch.
midimid: Wait - 'there's no real portrait prime' on E-mount? Isn't there a 50mm 1.8 from the original lineup? And a 55mm 1.8 on FE?
@Carnex, actuality the reviewer listed the lack of a "portrait prime" compared to the competition as a fault. So, no the reviewer did not mention Fuji by name but the competition would be Fuji, Oly, and Panasonic—none of which have 85/90mm lenses. They have "equivalent" focal lengths BUT Sony does too. Of course a 85/90mm fast prime would be great but it was a silly false statement.
steelhead3: I guess the reviewer was not familiar with the Sony lens line up "(there's no real portrait prime"; what is the 50 1.8? The ZA Emont 55 1.8 is also available.
@ambercool Fuji nor Oly have an 85/90mm prime. They both have "equivalent" focal length lenses—as does Sony. Annoyed that DPReview is perpetuating the Sony doesn't have lenses meme with falsehood. Not to say that there aren't holes in their lineup but 55mm is a GREAT portrait prime on the A6000. The 50mm is a bit wide but has amazing value.
Albert Ang: Andy Westlake / Admin,In page 1 you mentioned the weight is 665 g but on second page it's 815g. Which one is correct? Thanks
But it's not really 2/3 stops slower. Your review states T1.7 vs T1.8.
forpetessake: There are good questions as to why the lens is so big and heavy, weighing as much as Sony FE 55/1.8 with the camera. I haven't seen good answers though. It's not because of the flange distance, it's a normal lens for Pete's sake! There are plenty of normal lenses, sigma included, which are a lot smaller and lighter. And it's not because this lens is much brighter -- it's practically the same as Sony, i.e. measured T/1.7 for Sigma and T/1.8 for Sony.It's because the lens has a retrofocal design, c.1950. It's a well known fact that retrofocus lenses require more and larger glass elements with bigger light loss. Therefore manufacturers avoid retrofocal designs unless necessary (wide angle lenses). The moment Sigma decided to make a ormal lens retrofocus it had a FAIL written all over it.
Actually it IS the flange distance—well related to it. The Otus and the ART designers (and probably the FE55mm) realized the traditional fast 50mm design was reaching a point of diminishing returns. All three lenses use non-traditional designs for a "normal" prime. The FE55 has the advantage of a short flange distance so it can use tele-centric (Sonnar) design without the need for retrofocal corrections. Because of the mirror box the Otus and ART require a lot more corrections & glass and therefore size & weight.
I believe it would be impossible to use the FE55 design on a camera with a longer flange distance (unless the focal length of the lens exceeds the flange distance by a good margin AKA the SAL85f2.8 which uses a similar Sonnar design).
Interesting. Wish the lens was wider but seems much more interesting with a 5MP "flat" image. Would be even cooler if there was a way to shoot video with this thing.
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: It has the same rubber grip I see as the NEX-7 which just cost me €140 to get replaced by Sony.
Maybe, Maybe not. It looks more like the A7 which is much better attached.
joao 43: How does it compare to Zeiss 55mm FE? Since Sony users can use this lens it would be useful to know. The 55mm was according to DXO the best 50mm after the Otus, what's you opinion Andy Westlake?
Plus the FE 55mm is smaller, lighter, and native. NOT to say that the Sigma is not an amazing lens but I don't really see the point in using this instead of the FE 55mm (unless you also have an SLR and want to share lenses)
No 4K internally is disappointing but 1080p is all I really need for now. Hopefully it isn't still mini-HDMI (not a very stable port for using an external recorder). Still, shows a lot of promise.
Now if only they would update Aperture...
Chris2210: Does the shorter flange back mean that zoom lenses can be significantly smaller?
If not I really fail to see the point of this camera. I do applaud the fact that Sony are innovating [all over the place, it seems] and I don't personally have anything against EVFs [I have an EM1, which is lovely]. But if you're only going to use this camera with short primes, the RX1 seems like a more compact, sensible solution.
If you are going to build a system that includes large, fast zooms [particularly at medium to long telephoto] what's the big advantage of a small/light body if it doesn't mean the overall package is significantly smaller and lighter?
Whilst I think the slow start up and unacceptable LCD/EVF switch lag may be improved in succeeding generations, doesn't the small body/large lens problem still apply?
A bit of a flawed concept IMHO - a pity.
This camera is really the size of most pre digital SLRs. We've just become accustomed to monstrous DSLR which were necessary for years because of the size of the electrical components. Now that a mirror box & separate AF system are not necessary we can start scaling back. Yes the 55mm is a bit large for a 50mm (although still smaller than the Nikon 58mm and much smaller than the Otus) that is because it is a classic Sonnar design. Sony/Zeiss could have gone for a Planar but the Sonnar gives better bokeh and sharpness while staying very light. That 55mm lens can really handle all 36mp wide open. Says a lot.
peegee: What about acoustic NOISE?! These cameras are both very *loud* in use. (I tried one) - that is important to people, and should be clearly mentioned in any review. The discreet street shooter might think this is the perfect stealth camera, but it most certainly is not!
Yes, I know it is Focal Plane shutter, not leaf, but it is one of the loudest Focal Plane shutters out there. And there is no 'Quiet Mode' in the menu. (there should be, Sony...). Its a real shame they have not acoustically damped this like others do/have.
loud compared to what? Compared to an RX1 or APS-C mirror less? Yes. The A7R is even a tad louder than a Leica but neither one is louder than a DSLR except *maybe* the quiet mode that you enable in a few of them.
Eskilsson: Top notch photos overall. Most repect to the photographers. Let`s see how many comments this will bring. Comments on "why GX7 only gets silver award" is now a couple of hundreds. Really hope this is bringing in more, so there will be some hope about that pictures are more important than gear...
To be fair I think the photos say it all.
iOS started out as a totally closed ecosystem (before I get flamed, yes, it is still considered "closed" to android's "openness") but later opened the devices up to third party developers with Apple's careful review process. Honestly, while that process has been far from perfect, it makes me feel better about buying a third-party app and developers like it because it helps them make money--which is one big reason why iOS is still the beating Android in development.
I hope Sony is just keeping this to themselves while they work out the kinks. The NEX cameras run a version of Linux anyway so presumably it wouldn't be hard to create a set of android-like API's that make porting apps to the Sony world easy for developers. Sony, like Apple, will then be a gatekeeper. I know many people here would disagree but I like that arrangement better. Apps are cool but I want my camera to work. Period. Disclosure: I doubt I would ever buy/use more than a small handful of apps in any case.
DStudio: At first glance the images don't look any better than the Pentax DA40, and definitely can't compete with the (admittedly more expensive) Pentax FA43. The FA43 is often classified as a pancake lens as well - especially without the lens hood. In fact, the FA43 is exactly the same length as the Canon (27mm) according to the specs.
But it's good to see Canon creating this lens, and dpreview reviewing it right away. The fact that it has STM is certainly impressive, and the price is so reasonable.
Actually the DA40 works on Pentax's "full-frame" film cameras since it is actually an updated version of the old KA manual focus pancake lens. So, yes, this lens is remarkable like the Pentax lens only a little bigger. I've never used the FA43 but it was designed for a FF (AKA film) camera so I have trouble believing it would be a "disaster".