RebleXT: I had share of Samsung. My S3 ist the first and the last of that brand unless they:
a: get rid of that annoying manual puschbuttonb: get rid of touchWizc: offer stock Android (offer that here in Europe)d: get rid of those dark und unreadible (in the sun) Amoled Screens
If you don't want to root, you can practically turn all Samsung added apps off (in the dedicated apps list from the settings menu ). Without root you won't gain card space, but you will regain memory and speed. I turned off the ones I don't use, saves me battery juice too.
IEBA1: I didn't expect to be impressed, but even after seeing the impressive HDR video mode, the fingerprint scanner, photo access from the lock screen (FINALLY), able to take a splashing, (No not underwater like the S4 Active- but maybe an S5 Active is on the way?) and that low power mode? Amazing!And the multi-homing (able to connect to two internet sources simultaneously) is usually a feature reserved for a $200 router. Not that I'll ever use it for that, it's just damm impressive.
Make me want to hand in my Galaxy Note II for a S5 now.
Since the Galaxy S2 (after JB update), all Galaxy phones allow you to add a camera shortcut to the lockscreen, similar to the one on the S5. I have had it on my stock S2 for about a year.
No need to root and install a custom ROM, even a third party launcher (simple app) can replace Touchwiz. Plenty of choice. Same for point c, where you have launchers that completely overhaul the look to mimic stock Android.
Michael Ma: I'm loving that HDR video feature. You may even be able to take video outdoors on a sunny day and not have crushed blacks and blown highlights in a single frame!
Download booster...that's one expensive feature to use considering a gig is about $10, and you'd only be using this feature to speed up a massive download, trying to save a few minutes at most.
Many have unlimited plans and don't pay per GB, so then it can be helpful. But I agree that for those who pay per GB or only have a few GB limit, it's not really useful.
Spectro: Improve IQ, maybe the raw engine is recoded. I always thought my D600 raw had tad better noise then the my A7 and I use the same lenses on both. Both are the same sony 24mp sensor, except the a7 maybe has turned some of the sensor area into phase detection af. The E mount or what I like to say alpha mount should have been bigger or just have been an a mount in the first place.
As for the light leak rumor technie photographer like to bring up:I have no light leak on the A7 and I did this with the 24-70 kit lens at 30 sec at 25600 iso (hypothetically a setting I never use).
Only when I put my nikon to nex adapter do I see light leak. Since it is not a sony official adapter it isn't a sony problem on mine.
And that's where you make another set of assumptions and thinking errors.First, the A900 offered uncompressed RAW, which nullifies the compressed RAW argumentSecond, the D3X used a newer and adjusted version of the same sensor (it came out half a year after the A900 and offered 14 bit RAW, which the A850/A900 did not, 2.7 to 4 times the price had to pay off somewhere...).Third, the A900 was mostly lagging in RAW performance because the Adobe demosaicing for Sony ARW's was horrible until the release of LR3. Plenty of threads about that back then to back that up. After that and with RAW NR set to zero, the differences became much smaller.
Which indeed points at sub par processing, mostly on behalf of the RAW converter, rather than the camera.
The "problem" that you might only encounter in very particular conditions (extreme contrasty transitions), while pushing RAW files several stops and while pixel peeping. Yeah, such a problem that barely anyone knew it existed on all Sony cameras released since the A900/A850.
The OP was talking about noise, which the A7 has more than the D600/D610 mostly due to OSPDAF and different CFA's (for better colour separation). The A7R does not have OSPDAF, hence why it measures within measuring error of a D800.
No idea why you're starting to confuse things by throwing in more factors such as SLT (wich takes half a stop by itself). And the noise factors mentioned above have little to do with Bionz, which is mostly taking care of jpeg processing.... OSPDAF and CFA's, that's all one needs to know to explain 90% of the difference.
The A900/A850 were the last to offer uncompressed RAW next to the currently used cRAW. Even back then people had trouble finding a difference.
Has very little to do with processors, much more with OSPDAF (hence why the A7R and D800e are so close) and CFA's.
geesbert: Where is tethering by cable?Where is display switching by function button?Where is the option to single press for live view enlargement?Where is the uncompressed RAW option?
it really is a shame how Sony ignores the possibility of making that the ultimate studio camera.
but smooth reflection seems to be high on everey user's wishlist.
Nikon lossy compressed NEFs throw away data too, just in a way less "friendly" to the hardware (which was obviously the goal of the compressed ARW algorithm).
All Sony cameras since the A900/A850 (which still offered the choice between compressed and uncompressed), have only offered compressed ARW's.
Would be nice if they bring back the choice though.
@ rrccad:Could you explain how Nikon compresses its RAW files to avoid the "kludge" and still get similarly sized files? Details are welcome.
Tethering through cable is already possible:http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/49848-tethering-a7-r.html
DYpic: i returned mine due to the suffocating delay starting time, i hope they have a fix for the lightleak issue as well
Here's a good comparison of the issue, next to other high end cameras from Nikon and Canon:http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/03/07/do-concerns-about-sony-a7-light-leaks-hold-water
An illuminating outcome indeed.
TrojMacReady: Nice camera but I feel one flaw that was only mentioned on the "noise" page (not on the conclusion page), is actually magnified by another. Like most of the X series cameras, ISO's are overstated up to 2/3 EV (1 stop difference compared to many other cameras). But in RAW, the camera also tops out at an indicated ISO 6400. Which means that if you want to shoot RAW, compared to many other cameras, the top sensitivity is actually comparable to ISO 3200. Not exactly high in the current age, where a lot of crop cameras are already used at even higher ISO's.
And while I acknowledge that users can push RAW files further themselves, choice is removed and it does affect the LV experience.
It's not that there are no work arounds, the point is that simple choice was removed for unknown reasons.
In A and S mode, the viewfinder will still go dark if you want to go past ISO 6400 (equiv. of about 3200...) in RAW.
Nice camera but I feel one flaw that was only mentioned on the "noise" page (not on the conclusion page), is actually magnified by another. Like most of the X series cameras, ISO's are overstated up to 2/3 EV (1 stop difference compared to many other cameras). But in RAW, the camera also tops out at an indicated ISO 6400. Which means that if you want to shoot RAW, compared to many other cameras, the top sensitivity is actually comparable to ISO 3200. Not exactly high in the current age, where a lot of crop cameras are already used at even higher ISO's.
HappyVan: What a strange conclusion?
Sensor size is 58% of FF. Resolution (19mp) is 53% of D800. So, small improvement over D800 is expected. NO big deal.
The real deal breaker is the price and weight (5 lb).
I don't think anyone in here implied that the amount of light collected does not matter. In fact, I'd be the first to say sensor size matters, hence my first reply in this thread.
DXO scores do not quantify visible impact of type of noise, patterns in particular. That being said, patterns aren't tied to pixeldensities or format size either, but rather technology used. The other important factor.
In practise (key) there is little to no correlation between pixel density and for example shot noise at a given sensor size.
That's for example why an A7R performs as well or better in low light than the A7 (both shot noise and read noise actually).
On the other hand, ceteris paribus there does seem to be a small correlation between pixel density and colour sensitivity at low ISO (with the higher density positively affecting colour sensitivity).
Why would you expect a small improvement based on a marginally lower pixel pitch on a sensor that is almost half a the size?
Must... shoot... potholes now. Then again, trying to find one here is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
Combatmedic870: This really does look like a great phone. All of the latest and greatest.
Gotta wonder if the screen is IPS or not though.
IPS according to specs.
munro harrap: Very uneven resolution, at the borders scarcely ever lifting above 1500lpm- This is LESS than an 8MP sensor. OK, at f5.6 in the middle its OK, but as the sensor resolves 4000lpm, and this is an f2.8 lens it is a disappointing one. Compare to Samyang 35/f1.4...We buy wides to get more in at closer distances and to grasp situations. Now, I don't know about you, but if I had to display prints from an A7R I would be very unhappy to with this lens, since only the central area will be sharp until at least F8. Not only that, but the step down into mush at wider apertures outside the central area renders it useless as a wide-angle prime. It is under-designed- it should be equally sharp allover at this stage in optical history- it is a 78rpm in the age of Blu-ray, and there are many sharper consumer f3.5-4.5-5.6 zooms at a fraction of the price.And check the Sigma 35mm f1.4
Correction, the corners are only slightly behind the Samyang at f/2.8 and f/5.6, centers a tad better and the corner gap narrows as you close down further. Point stands, if you'd be unhappy with these 35mm results (especially considering the lens is >6 times smaller and >5 times lighter), its hard to imagine you being happy with marginally better corner performance at some apertures. Unless you're that easily swayed from happy to unhappy of course. ;)
Cool story, but according to DXOmark, the FE 35mm outresolves the Samyang fitted on a 36MP sensor from f/2.8 to f/22. The corners are usually better, never worse, the center is better. Most tests shows its similar to or even better than the Sigma throughout it's apertures, which is the benchmark right now.
Which means that if you'd be unhappy with the results this lens would give you, what's your reference really? Because there would be little to no improvement to be found elsewhere.