SRHEdD: BTW... a great balance of a small camera that takes great pics? Nikon P7700. Seriously. Save some money while Sony gets up to speed in AF and image processing.
@plastek:"For 90% of people who buy this NEX - a Point&Shoot would be by far better option."
I'm in the 10% then, you think like the 90%. :D
Provia_fan: Standard ISO HotShoe is a welcome change/addition, well done Sony! There are so many brilliant flashguns we can use and I got loads :)
@Plastek:"It's proprietary Sony hotshoe."
The proprietary part comes from: connectors, not the shoe design itself which follows ISO. Simple fact, often missed by many. Canon and Nikon also use ISO hot shoe, but they also have their own connector designs.
George Veltchev: Even the little G1 X from Canon showing better image quality in comparison and even better low light performance than this mirrorless Sony ... check the test results for yourself.
The collective you've associated with, has. Naturally, you didn't argue against them, but against my response to them. But then, may be your lame point about lens has nothing to do with IQ? What exactly are lenses, and choices of lenses, are for? To count? To look at?
Plastek: Yawn... yet another NEX? Which one is this within last 24 months? 3rd? 5th? 10th?
@Plastek:"Nope, I actually shoot Sony.
And since you answered - I decided to check.It's 7th release since 24 months. Not 4th."
Then your argument is even more pathetic that it sounded the first time around. It is the fourth model number (you didn't understand that either)... like the Alpha-series which has had five: A3x, A5x, A6x, A7x and A9x). And Alpha series folks are hoping for an A8x too as a lesser version of A99. I'm sure you'd hate if Sony did that?
tbcass: This model addresses only one (eye level TTL viewfinder) of the issues that has kept me from wanting a NEX (I'm and Alpha user). The interface and lack of dedicated buttons, slow AF and the requirement to use an expensive adapter for Alpha lenses make all NEX cameras a no go for me.
So, one can't shoot action/sports with a NEX? Taken with the most basic of NEX cameras (NEX-3) on Sunday:http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8239/8591496084_3d8d6f285b_c.jpg
flangad: This NEX 6 is a really great camera, and the 16-50Pz a good lense to go with it.
Anyway, i wish Sony could add a few features, not quoted in the review:- fully articulated screen for self-portrait- live-bulb mode as the Olympus OM-D EM5- "crop zoom"available for movie shooting (without interpolate, as Pnasonic do on micro4/3 cams)- more still picture aspect ratio : 4:3, 1:1- more videos modes: Only one version PAL+NTSC and not 2 localized versions, 720p, more mp4 resolutions, slow motion VGA 120 or 240 fps.- max ISO-auto parameter
And we would get a near perfect camera on a functional point of view.maybe some of those features could be some future "apps", or firmware updates
I'm impatient to see the future "mid-tele prime E-mount lens" (many people says it will be a 85mm f/1,8). I hope it will be very compact (why not collapsible as the 16-50pz?)
Also need more accessories for the accessory socket (microphone and standard microphone plug....)
@yabokkie:I don't think it comes as a surprise that you don't like something from Sony, so stop making excuses. :D
Now, as for your issue with AF speed, why is it not better to have a larger sensor camera that does reasonably well with AF but works really well for those of us who are less into point and shoot, relying on Auto Focus and more into taking more control and manually focusing?
And trust me, NEX-system is flexible enough for those of us to go shoot indoor sports. I have done it, and plan on doing it more.
You're into Pentax, right? That might explain your frustrations. :D
But since you asked a question, I think you deserve an answer. It is the fourth model for NEX-series (3, 5, 7 and 6). Which camera line are you aware of, that has fewer offerings for models?
OVF has been dead for me, for almost a decade now. But if you want to claim your idea of better IQ is demonstrated by G1X, well, I always welcome amusement.
Canon G1X is actually bigger than NEX-6 (w/zoom kit lens attached). It is also slightly heavier (534g versus 461g).Top View: http://camerasize.com/compact/#257,375.360,ha,tFront View: http://camerasize.com/compact/#257,375.360,ha,f
As for IQ, don't place your bet on G1X.
kaiser soze: Several comments here claiming that the SL1 obviates mirrorless cameras. Very silly. WxLxH for this camera is 2x the NEX-7, which isn’t Sony’s smallest mirrorless camera. And presently at least, for this camera there is no collapsible lens of the sort that Sony and Panasonic make. Still a big, big difference in compactness. The biggest disadvantage of mirrorless is the high cost of the really good electronic viewfinders. But that changes very soon, now that Epson is in the picture. The advantages are the ability to use the viewfinder when shooting video, live view in the viewfinder, magnification in the viewfinder to aid manual focusing, brighter image in viewfinder for dark subject and/or high f-number, and access to camera menus via the viewfinder. All real advantages. The SL1 is no doubt going to be a nice camera, but it is naive to think that it obviates the advantages of mirrorless cameras.
@T3:"you keep digging yourself a deeper hole. Now you're claiming that DSLRs are just a passing fad, akin to SUV's?"
Well, you just demonstrated your ability to comprehend a response to your own ideas. You were trying to sell current sales numbers to predict continued domination. I presented facts from auto industry, sales of SUVs versus cross overs in the 1990s. The question was, what happened?
The only evolution that DSLRs are seeing are in sensor, and in many cases, maximum efforts to combine video and compacting the size. When you see DSLR technology "evolve" to have sensors that are better at on-sensor phase detection, how exactly does it make a case for the future of mirror based systems? Got a clue?
Donnie G: Some folks here have suggested that the Rebel SL1 is Canon's replacement for the EOS-M, I don't think it is. Here's why: Canon is a camera manufacturer that competes in all camera product categories from simple point & shoots through to Hollywood Cinema production equipment. The EOS-M was a 1st effort at an ILC, but not the last. Remember, Nikon had to rethink their ILC too. Whatever shows up as the EOS-M2 will be a much stronger competitor than the original. The only real question is where will Canon position the new ILC in relation to the rest of the Rebel line? My guess is right alongside the SL1 price-wise. It's all about having a product choice for every type of buyer.
I was responding to your points involving ILCs. If you didn't care about ILCs, why bother? But since you did, you invited the inconvenience.
As for your latest excuse, I am a spoilt PDAF fan too. And just as spoilt with the beauty of manual focusing too. It is why I am excited about these MILCs, and in fact, using one. At this point, the need for PDAF is being met via a mirror attached to the NEX, and when I choose to explore the other side: manual. It is great to have both.
Here's NEX-3 at work with Phase Detect AF (at 200mm, f/2.8):http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8239/8591496084_3d8d6f285b_c.jpg
And here's the same camera, same conditions, with manual focus (at 50mm f/2):http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8526/8591769496_1a4033046d_c.jpg
You see, I'm not complaining.
thxbb12: What about auto ISO ?I wish DPR would have described the auto ISO implementation. It is very important and manufacturers have no excuses in not featuring clever implementations. Nowadays, there is no reason for not using auto ISO most of the time. For instance, Pentax and Nikon implementations are the best by far IMHO: you can set min and max ISO limits and the camera chooses the shutter speed (or aperture in T mode) and ISO according to the focal length. Additionally, you can offset the sensitivity (if you're below or over average in terms of shake) by an arbitrary amount (-2,-1,0,+1,+2). All of this can all easily be implemented in the firmware.This review completely lacks information on this matter. From user reports, it seems all NEX cameras don't let you set min/max ISO. Furthermore, it looks like the shutter speed is fixed to 1/60 in A mode!? Totally ridiculous. Because of this issue alone, I'll simply never purchase any NEX cameras. It makes them totally unusable.
"there is no reason for not using auto ISO most of the time."
There is no good reason to use Auto ISO.
SRHEdD: I followed the mirrorless trend for about a year. Sold off a D7000 (which was fantastic) and bought an Oly E-P3 and E-PL2 (BOTH fine cameras and very satisfying to shoot), and fell in love with the Oly jpgs. In a moment of weakness, I fell for the hype of the NEX-6 when introduced as being possibly the perfect combination of APS-C sensor in an Oly-sized body. Even bought a used NEX-7 to go along with it. It occurred to me very quickly that I had gotten so far away from why I like photography, that I dumped it all and bought a D600. The ONLY camera I'd even consider to replace my D600 is the Oly OM-D. The system is equally as versatile for my needs (a little more work on Oly add-on flashes please), and the jpgs are just awesome. Sony gear just gets into the process of making images far too much, and the results don't justify the effort it takes. AF is a distant third to DSLRs and the OM-D. BUT, having shot the NEX-6 AND NEX-7 side-by-side, get the NEX-6 easily.
@SRHEdD:"Sony gear just gets into the process of making images far too much"
If you're someone who chooses to give control to the camera. Otherwise, no.
@cgarrard,It IS standard (ISO) Hot Shoe.
Perhaps it has to do with your predictions about Sony and Panasonic ILCs versus a DSLR offering "a familiar form factor" below. You didn't seem to care about Canon's own offering for ILC with the same form factor: EOS-M. So, it had to be logical to assume that Canon is now offering redundancy in that SAME price class (as a matter of fact).
IMO, MILC is going to be a niche market, appealing to a few who want smaller systems and a few enthusiasts who simply enjoy the pleasures of a flexible system. DSLR market is primarily run by the same perceptions that made SUVs hot sellers in the 1990s. I recall that "cross overs" were a fad, and "toys". Now, where are those SUVs, when CUVs are in fashion? What happened?
MILC market needs to overcome a few technological challenges (fast PDAF, for example) and more importantly, perceptions. It will take a few years to change that. The oldest of these systems is may be 5 years old (MFTs).
As far as SL1 is concerned, I couldn't care less about its existence. Obviously, Canon sees a point to it. My point is primarily to address the perception of how there is a camera that can now dramatically change the size aspect of a DSLR. Given what I have seen, and own, it is a laughable proposition to me.
@T3:"When I said "the Sonys", I was obviously referring to the A55/A35 Sony DSLRs that we had been discussing-- not Sony NEX. Besides, not everyone wants a mirrorless camera."
You should try to be more specific because as you may have noticed, the comparison is largely being made to mirrorless cameras (and you have been involved in those, including in this latest post of yours). Obviously, now you acknowledge that SL1 has no size advantage over mirror-less cameras. It does, over DSLRs.
Now, looking at Sony's DSLR/DSLT models, as I told you, Sony A55 was (and for me, is) a great success. However, it was criticized for a few things that revolved around its size and weight. It was deemed to small and light by many. I disagreed with them (as you might note, I disagreed with the person below about lens size versus body size). Obviously, the DSLT/DSLR form factor has its appeal. Going smaller will work if noticeably smaller, as NEX is to Sony SLT. Not by stripping features (an SL1 issue)
@T3:"I would expect the SL1 to siphon sales away from the Sonys."
Can you tell the difference?http://camerasize.com/compact/#448,375,ha,r
Perhaps you might want to attach kit lens too (and that isn't the smallest/lightest NEX):http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.377,375.360,ha,t
ironcam: Small body + big lenses. That's genius!!!
I agree with T3. I would rather shoot with a lighter system all day long than a heavier one. I see absolutely no point to adding weight to camera body, every time a larger and heavier lens is used. There is a reason why attempts are made to trim down the weight of camera bodies.
@T3:"Canon Rebel SL1 is 6% (7.6 mm) narrower and 1% (1.3 mm) shorter than Sony SLT-A55.
Canon Rebel SL1 is 18% (15.3 mm) thinner than Sony SLT-A55"And just as I said, the SL1 is barely smaller than the A55. The major difference in size comes from a lack of grip (depth) and a combination of shallower eye-cup assembly plus lack of articulating LCD in the SL1. It also eliminates stereophonic mic to save size. Is it worth it? Not to me. We're not talking about major differences here. Take a look at this top view:http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.377,238.51,ha,t
The A55 has a more protruding view finder cup, and of course articulating LCD adds to the depth, and so does the traditional DSLR-like grip that is rather flat on SL1. These are what add to the extra mm.
I'm sure Canon will find buyers. However, many complained that Sony A55 was a bit too small, so Sony bumped up the size of its replacement a little (Sony A57) while the lesser model, Sony A37 retained smaller dimensions.