Ednaz: After renting a Sony SLR for a few days and post processing and printing some of the images, I was convinced that 11 bit raw wasn't enough and Sony wasn't on my list. It's OK for point and shoot, but that's a small fraction of my shooting.
Great. You're the 1% of photographers for whom this is an issue. Until Sony comes up with a solution their system may not be for you. Please don't be so trollish as to dismiss everyone else's work here (for whom Sony compression is not an issue) as point and shoot. It is disrespectful.
sportyaccordy: My big question is if the third party AF speed can be updated through firmware to older A7 bodies. Obviously they won't have the OSPDAF, but if they can get CDAF up to native body speed that could be a game changer.
I'm also curious about third party EF lenses through adapters... will that new Yongnuo 35/2 work? What about Sigma's zooms and primes? This can be a real gamechanger.
Getting CDAF anywhere near native speeds would be nearly impossible. The lens design is fundamentally different. I'm sure there could be some improvements with CDAF but that would depend on increasing the sensor's scanning speed. The A7Rmk2 needed a dramatically different manufacturing process to allow for that. Even still racking focus is part of CDAF and DSLR lenses just don't do that quickly.
luv4lenses: And what lenses are we going to use on it?
@luv4lenses it isn't a fact if there are options. If you think there are not enough options that is your opinion. Hence a meme.
They didn't make it A-mount because why should they? If they make it E-mount it still works with the A-mount lenses but with the option of being smaller, lighter, and without either a mirror or an empty mirror box.
really?! that old meme? The FE system has a lot of excellent options and this camera (purportedly) works even better with the A-mount lineup. So you've got a great set of native lenses to choose from.
Cautiously optimistic. Personally I would rather have seen many of these features in the 24mp model but on paper this seems like a big step forward. Not a huge difference in linear resolution, but then 50mp really isn't either if you do the math. The big question (in my mind) is how big that jump in focusing speed? Are we talking A6000?!
JacquesBalthazar: Tempting. Curious about tests of course. The 25mm in particular: optical design uses less elements than the 25mm f2 ZF2/ZE, focuses closer and is much lighter. If same or better performance, that would send yet another signal to the DSLR vs mirrorless FF debate. The 85 is not that much lighter than the 85mm f1.4 ZF2 despite the latter's old school build. The OLED idea is ingenious. The overall design is nicely contemporary. These and the Loxia make the Sony a7 range very tempting. But I still do not like the design of that Sony camera range: bland, semi-retro cues, annoying user interface, etc. Probably not for me yet, but keeping an eye on them. That system is now moving fast, and in the right direction.
I know the reasons Vadimka, that's why I said "in theory". However Zeiss also make a biogon (AKA symmetrical) design work with the Loxia and the Sony 28mm is also symmetrical. New evidence suggests that the pixel wells are less of the issue than the relatively thick sensor glass. Of course in the end optical design is complicated. Even considering the demands of digital sensors I think it stands to reason that not having a mirror box can reduce the size of wide angle lenses.
whyamihere: I think a lot of the trepidation towards these lenses comes from 3 areas: Sony-manufactured, Zeiss-branded lenses have been hit or miss in terms of build and optical quality, Zeiss-manufactured lenses (the Loxia and Touit brands) have provided dubious value (the Touit lenses regularly go on sale at steep discounts), & every other system has at least a set of financially accessible lenses (not all are of the utmost quality, for sure, but they're items people can buy without having to sell vital organs for cash).
The fact that people are balking at Zeiss' introduction of another pair of lenses that cost over $1k shouldn't be surprising. If Sony were a consistently top-tier brand, expensive lenses would be an expected side-effect. Instead, they push flawed, unintentionally hobbled cameras with aggressive pricing & expect users to buy often-flawed, expensive lenses to match.
I say this as a Sony/Zeiss owner: Lens prices must come down, or overall product quality must go up.
Ok, aside from the 2570 what lenses are "flawed"? I don't always agree with the the design trade offs that Sony makes buy I'm genuinely curious what's flawed about them?
The 25mm may finally be taking advantage of the short flange distance which means (in theory) not having to add complex retrofocal elements to the design. Compare the size/weight of Leica M vs R lenses from the same era. Normal and below the M lenses are smaller and lighter.
The short flange distance starts working against you a bit with telephoto lenses which is one reason the 85 is relatively large and heavy. If the IQ lives up to expectations though, that size and weight is impressive if you consider the addition of stabilization.
I'm a little worried because the Touit lenses were not Zeiss's strongest performers and these seem similar. Looking forward to reading reviews!
The Air is pretty close to who I thought Sony should market the QX line of cameras. Like the original NEX cameras I think the QX/Air concept is more interesting to enthusiasts than the selfie crowd.
BeaverTerror: This is why you don't leave your workflow in the hands of a corporation which also makes watches, and which is only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator: the mass consumer.
Amen. I don't know of any other company making professional software that allows you to install and run up to five simultaneous copies of their software without violating the EUA. My wife and I can both run Logic, FCPX, and Aperture simultaneously, legally, and on the same network without any issues. For me that's huge but I'm started to get frustrated...
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).