Wait. You an't use the touchscreen to navigate or review images? That seems really odd.
bobbarber: I'd like to see a manufacturer offer a programmable camera, something along the lines of CHDK. Were I offered a choice between something like a Nikon D5500 or my ancient Olympus E-30 at the same price, with the former stock and the latter completely programmable, I'd choose the Olympus, despite a big giveaway in terms of dynamic range, FPS, etc.
My C7070 takes five photos at different exposures using a single remote press. My cheap Canon Sureshot fires on motion detection using CHDK. I have shot with much "better" cameras that won't do either of those things. Why? I should be able to tell MY camera what I want it to do, after I pay for it.
Custom art filters? Custom tone curves for jpegs? Leave your camera pointed at the bird feeder and have it fire on motion detect? A bold manufacturer would make a splash with a camera like that.
An extra half stop of noise at ISO 3200? Put me down in the "meh" column.
I believe it is because photographers are a very conservative lot. The industry would need a paradigm shift from digital CAMERAS (i.e. digital versions of the mechanical cameras of yesteryear) to digital IMAGING COMPUTERS. The hardware is there. The processors are almost all ARM based and several manufacturers use variations of the Linux/Android. No one is brave enough to open up the camera and no one (although Fuji comes close) is willing to release the kind of operation system upgrades we see on our tablets and phones—which run on the same instruction sets—that revamp and aim to improve the user experience on the same hardware.
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson: it´s about the lenses ... like others have said ..
Respectfully I partially disagree. At typical print/viewing sizes many, if not most, modern lenses are pretty good. Most high end lenses have passed the point of rapidly diminishing returns. Don't get me wrong I've got a few nice (and pricey) lenses which I love for very specific reasons but most people don't notice or appreciate those reasons. They like or dislike my pictures almost strictly for the composition, content, and post-processing. Also digital lens corrections have advanced to the point where what would have been crippling compromises a generation or two ago are now insignificant or irrelevant.
XQD should but more than 35% faster than CF. Just sayin'
NAwlins Contrarian: Am I alone in thinking that a 4-element, 4-group lens is likely to have mediocre performance, especially wide-open? That's what it says for the 90mm. The others are not more than 6-elements in 6 groups (35 and 50mm) and 5 elements in 5 groups (75mm). As examples, the new, inexpensive ($110) Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM has 6 elements in 5 groups, and the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 VC has 10 elements in 9 groups. I am having a really hard time figuring out why anyone would want to pay $480 to $660 (especially instead of legacy lenses) for not-too-fast, manual-focus-only prime lenses that aren't likely to perform well until stopped down.
Not necessarily. The Canon and Tamron have to compensate for a mirror box and are a stop faster (the Tamron also has VC). The Leica Summarit 90mm is only 5 elements. Does that justify the cost? That I can't answer but the number of elements is not, itself, a sign of poor quality.
Chris Yates: It's because of Sony and it's A7 mirrorless lineup. Canon still doesn't get it.Put out a FF mirrorless and see sales skyrocket. there are countless people like me waiting on the sidelines. But once I pull the plug on another system it's over.
@rrccad actually just a few months ago DPReview reported that mirrorless sales ARE increasing faster than DSLR sales are decreasing and Sony is the far away leader there. So, yes, safe assumption that Sony is now selling a good deal of mirrorless cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6223902518/sony-rides-wave-of-us-mirrorless-sales-surge
graybalanced: Canon calls it "market shrinkage," but it's really about Canon not providing a good product in the camera markets that are rapidly expanding.
depends I suppose your definition of "rapid" Sony is reporting record profits in its imaging division because of the growth in ILC market. So the market isn't getting worse for everybody...
Robgo2: I used the Zeiss Contax G 21/2.8 Distagon on my beloved Contax G2, and it was spectacular. The rear element of that lens projected far into the camera body, thus making it virtually unusable on the modern A7 cameras. I wonder if the Loxia 21 is a completely new Distagon design. It certainly does not resemble any previous Zeiss 21/2.8 that I have ever seen, whether for rangefinders or DSLRs. Does anyone know its derivation?
@dbm305 you're right.
@Robgo2 actually I believe it is based on a ZM (Zeiss M-mount) design. I too was hoping for a variation/update of the 21mm Biogon. The 35mm Biogon got my hopes up but perhaps 21mm was just too wide for that near symmetric design!
RichRMA: Well that's odd. In Exposure Latitude, The Nikon D810 is worse at +6 than the Sony but the Olympus E-M5II matches (except for some blotching) the grain of the Sony with the Sony at +6 and the Olympus at +5. I'd have expected it to be a lot wider divergence there. Shockingly, the Nikon D7200 (APS) clobbers the Sony at +5 stops.
huh? The D7200 the colors are all off. The luminance noise isn't much worse (similar pixel size so not too surprising) but I wouldn't say better and the chroma noise is awful.
I dunno. To my eye the D810 looks decidedly magenta when pushed more. So the luminance noise may be similar but the color noise (IMHO) is worse on the Nikon. Plus at +6EV you aren't taking full advantage of the A7RII's improved high-ISO amplification circuits. I agree at +3ev they are head to head, small differences but within a margin of error.
There is also more to high-ISO than noise. There's color fidelity and gradations. Noise isn't really the biggest differentiator any more.
joelR42: Thank you for showing not only that the A7RII is capable of low-light AF but that mirrorless cameras work DIFFERENTLY than most DSLRs. Not always better or worse but if you use a mirrorless (especially Sony) like a DSLR you're likely to get frustrated.
photofan1986: I'm not sure what you are referring to as "opposite". I never made any comment about the focus inconsistencies, only that focusing works differently. Although you are right, mirrorless tends to be more accurate, that was not what I was referring to.
Thank you for showing not only that the A7RII is capable of low-light AF but that mirrorless cameras work DIFFERENTLY than most DSLRs. Not always better or worse but if you use a mirrorless (especially Sony) like a DSLR you're likely to get frustrated.
Lightcapture: Tony Northrup days ago released his extensive tests and reviews of the a7rii and it's generally praised for being thorough and unbiased (he's not sponsored by any camera make). B&H a couple of days ago released a 'live' show with Colby Brown and a videographer (name eludes me atm), with the Sony America rep speaking about the a7rii. They are really pushing this camera right now. But there are concerns about the lossy RAW, and the Sony Rep seemed to hint that they are hard at work bringing out a lossless option in possibly a firmware update in the future. Tony Northrup mentioned the continuous focus of Sony a7rii under low light is still not good compared to a DSLR (one which's half the price of the a7rii, the Nikon 7200). Wonder if you'll be doing tests on low light continuous AF to comfirm this? Also, Max Yuryrev (?) claimed the 4K output is not as good as the GH4 or even the NX1, but he's not happy about the overheating issues. Hope you are testing this too in your upcoming review.
I don't think Tony is illiterate or smelly but I dislike his reviews. He is often inaccurate and passes opinion off as fact. Does he deserve to be vilified? No. But everyone has a bias. I'd rather get information from people who are clear about their biases then people who are blinded by their own biases. And who take 30 minutes to convey (often inaccurately) 10 minutes worth of information.
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.