Avobanana: Fair points are made about ergonomics and speed. But the reviewer is clearly biased.
But like many others I cannot understand the persistent negative undertone and bias against the camera. One of the camera's biggest strength is the image quality in RAW mode and yet the reviewer chose to chime on and on about the JPEG quality. In the EM1 review, the reviewer praises the impressive image quality which isn't even in the same league. They cost almost the same, no?
Either Dpreview is losing its objectivity or something shady is going on.
I wasn't expecting anything else from DPR.
RichRMA: Why is it Sony and Fuji can't do AF in mirrorless as well as Olympus and Panasonic?
Because they refuse to go with tinier sensors.
naththo: More hump in middle again for mirrorless. lol! I think its good to have hump rather than nothing to make camera a hot looking.
Ahem, you completely missed the point from being unable to look past styling.
" though the a5000 seems a natural extension of the NEX-5 line."
Not really. The a5000 is a natural extension of NEX-3 line.
km25: Again, about lens CZ top line of lens are not Sonnar, they are Planar. If they were to make 50mm F1.4 Planar for the A7 cameras. It would look like you where using anyother maker of lens on the camera. This is not a camera to pre order. Wait and see.
@bamboo,No, just get 55/1.8. It appears to be a fine lens. The adapter would be a great addition for expanding functionality (sports/action photography), as a complementing camera to someone who has A-mount lenses or simply to shop A-mount lenses that are either no available or are cheaper, going back to 1985.
Sean Davey Photography: OK, I'm a long time Canon user. I want to know if I buy one of the converters out there will I be able to use my Canon EF lens full frame on the new A7R or will there be fall off on the edges?... I'd really like to know a clear and concise answer from someone who actually knows from experience... Thank you.
@ABM Berry:Sony has two mounts: A (inherited from Minolta and used in DSLT line) and E (introduced in 2010 and used in A7/7r.
"FE" is a designation to identify FF lens for E-mount. So, 55mm f/1.8 FE simply means the lens is full format, and 50mm f/1.8 E means the lens is for crop format. Canon uses EF and EF-S respectively for the same purpose (now also EF-M... make that three mounts there).
Allen Yang: These two cameras would be attractive after Sony SIGNIFICANTLY expands its lens group.
@photo nuts,Advancing digital imaging is of great interest to Sony, hence a major investment and incentive lately. Next 12 months are going to be interesting to those who want advancements and more options... depressing to those who are bound to be upset. :D
Olga Celle: I own a Nex 7 and despite the fact that it is a great little thing, I have to say that Sony never worked fast enough in providing the NEX 7 with decent, semi-pro lens. I am not picky, the NEX 7 was intended as a semi-pro camera. Firmware was never actualized to properly meet customers' wishes expressed in hundreds of blogs. As a result, Nex 7 owners were looking forward the next NEX 7 model; instead, Sony produces the A7/A7R promising a new line of full frame lenses in the near future...Considering that the NEX 7 and its lens were not cheap, this means that those NEX 7 owners who were expecting just a change in camera body are (again) let down. I'm keeping my NEX 7. I am buying a Nikon full frame.
@Olga, you do realize that the full frame lenses for A7 are the quality you wanted. Are you upset because they aren't crop sensor lenses? Here are high quality choices in the immediate future:Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 and 55/1.8Sony Zeiss 24-70/4 and 70-200/4Sony Zeiss ultra wide zoom, Sony Zeiss 85mm, Sony G macro (these three in Spring-Summer).
justmeMN: If you use the big, bulky, depicted adaptor, that defeats the purpose of buying a compact camera.
While adapter adds size and weight, it also adds functionality which can be removed when not needed. Even then, the combination is still smaller due to slimmer body.
True... this is just the beginning. The lens count from Sony is expected to grow to eight by mid 2014 (Sony Zeiss ultra wide zoom, Sony G macro and Sony Zeiss prime... possibly 85mm in mid 2014)... 10 lens line up expected over next year (15 in two years). Plus, third party lenses (Zeiss has announced lenses towards end of 2014).
tlinn: I wish there weren't trade offs (other than price) when choosing between the two bodies. Why no electronic shutter on the A7R? Why a composite body on the A7R vs magnesium for the A7? The A7 seems to have a better AF system too.
A7 also has magnesium alloy body, except for the front plate (which too is magnesium alloy on A7r).
Pakio: I would love this camera, but why so slow X-Sync with a mirrorless camera? My APSC Sigma DP can sync at 1/2000
Leaf shutter can allow for that (see Sony RX10 or RX1 for that).
Caerolle: So Sony can make a 55mm lens for its full frame system, which is an odd length, but won't make one for its crop system, for a ~85mm equivalent.
God I so don't miss Sony.
55mm is 85mm equivalent on crop frame.
Amateurbob: I have been criticized for judging dynamic range from displayed pictures. In regards to dynamic range for film the problem was blocked out shadows. For digital it is burned out highlights, which is more detrimental to the picture. Anyone can easily take their software and find all the burned out pixels in a picture, and all the blocked out pixels. When one has a picture with both blocked out and burned out pixels there is a problem. As for the pictures shown most of them did not have a contrast beyond what I have experienced my Nex C3 could not handle.
Excuses are being given for the lack of sharpness in the pictures being a result of the A7 used as a point and shoot. How does using the camera as a point and shoot degrade sharpness outside of the auto focus being affected by using the camera in that mode, which would be a problem in itself? Many of the pictures had enough light to burn out pixels. Lighting along with using the camera as a point and shoot was not the problem.
I've seen better images from the same event. So, is it DPR's incompetency/reluctance or is it the camera? I would bet on the tool being exceptionally capable.
Fred Briggs: Unfortunately these seem no better than the A7R samples in terms of applying appropriate settings to different scenes, and I have downloaded them all and looked at them carefully.
As mentioned already, in many cases way too slow shutter speeds have been used, resulting in blur, especially with moving subjects. Also poor choice of aperture for landscape and other scenes where significant depth of field is required, meaning large parts of the images are recorded as a blurry mess.
Someone else said that snapshots and simple everyday shots are the best way to get an idea of what a camera can do. I certainly agree that most of these shots are no better than snapshots, but disagree that they are in any way useful for assessing the camera - at least not if you want to differentiate between what a camera phone and a state of the art FF camera can do.
I am sure the A7 and A7R are very capable when used thoughtfully, but I think DPR are doing Sony no favours with these samples!
Steve Huff puts it well..."When shooting any lens in manual focus, even a Sony FE lens, for me it was easy to nail focus without a problem. Some have been saying the focus peaking is not accurate..well..focus peaking is more of an aid, not a sure-fire way for critically manually focusing. I think that many testing the camera now have never really used peaking much, but using it requires some practice as well as making sure to not just rely on the peaking but on the subject in the EVF as well...For every photo I posted here over the past few days using a manual lens I used peaking without magnification. I had no issues and 98% of my images were in focus. But I have used peaking quite a bit over the past few years so I am used to it and know what to expect from it and what not to."
jonmcphoto: It looks to me under close look that hardly any of these images are that sharp. As a matter of fact I rarely see an image on this site's galleries that make me go WOW! If I had relied on what I have seen here I don't think I would have purchased and camera. I love this site but images always lack edge sharpness to me. Am I alone on this?
I don't know if it is DPR's reluctance, or sheer incompetence to demonstrate the capabilities of the camera. Here is an example:
You're shooting a lady on a horse, you have 70mm and f/5.6 to play with, under limited lighting conditions. Why would you shoot at ISO 50 for 1/10s shutter speed?
CM WORKS: I'm waiting for Steve Huff's pics of the Rx10 tomorrow hopefully. This guy always bring out the best real world test images.
vapentaxuser: Low ISO shots are superb. ISO3200 looks alright but it appears Sony is applying quite a bit of noise reduction at that sensitivity to keep the JPEGS clean. Probably better to shoot RAW and apply noise reduction on your own if you want to shoot that high up the ISO scale. But of course if you don't pixel peep routinely you may never notice.
I too liked the ISO 3200 shots. However, I would be curious as to the amount of NR used in the settings. NR= Weak is always a good start and I suspect that was not the case.
Can we please start using few images covering most conditions rather than a series of snap shots without a feel for why a particular setting/scene was chosen?
Somehow DPR makes every camera look like every other.
cinemascope: Superzooms are like megapixels. Point and shooters are easily impressed by zoom ratios as a metric when buying, when probably 98%* of their photos are taken at base wide angle (think group photos, landscape, selfies). A 20-50mm equivalent would cover most point and shooters' needs while allowing for a bigger sensor within reasonable size constraints. Think Canon G1X but with less range...
* I ran a quick script parsing the EXIF info from my siblings' photo backups, who are P&Srs, and came with about 96% at base wide, 2.5% just off base, 1% normal (30-50mm)... Fair enough this is not a large sampling base but was an interesting exercise nonetheless...
I agree, to some extent. But, IMO, 28-300 is a very useful range even if most images would like be using 28-100mm equivalent. Anything beyond, is more marketing speak.