JoEick: Rishi, you need to stop being defensive and actually read what is being criticized. Everyone knows Sony exmor sensors have better low ISO DR. We knew this years before this article tried making it into something groundbreaking.
People (including myself) are taking offense to those who try to overstate the effectiveness in being able to get a shot or not, based on the low ISO DR. It's just pushing people to let their gear dictate everything for them, without any thought or skill required by the photographer.
Extra DR is nice and never hurts (except in photographer skills), but it's not really the feature that is making photos possible that were previously not possible with some basic photography skills in merging exposures.
I am aware that this is DPR, a gear praising website, where suggesting features are not needed or are overstated, is like breaking all the 10 commandments in one shot. Photographer skills are going backwards, while tech marches forwards. :(
@ rccad:You sound rather defensive of a camera, trying to brush off factually presented and well explained flaws of a machine, as user error.
It's not just about the scene presented, it's about offering extra lattitude. As soon as that scene involves movement of camera or main objects, good luck with your bracketing for example.
rnclark: The example on above (page 13, real world raw dr) is an example of differences in processing. While the Nikon does have a slight advantage, the actual difference between the two cameras is much smaller, less than a stop in dynamic range. The main reason that the nikon data look so much better out of camera is that nikon clips the low end and runs a filter on the raw data before recording the data. With the canon, there is an offset and no apparent filtering in the raw file. Nikon's raw filter is very very good. Apply similar filtering on the canon raw data (luminance filter done in the raw converter), then adjust the offsets in post processing and one can get very close to the same dynamic and look of the nikon image.
I have downloaded the above raw files and processed the canon data to properly deal with the offsets and the results between the two cameras are very close. I would post the results, but being new here I do not see a way to do that.
In the example posted by Roger, the Nikon results are actually much worse than a direct Lightroom/ACR conversion, with shadow details turned to mush and desaturated. Of course, if you add enough NR to the Canon shadows, you can smooth things out. But even in his example, the Canon ends up with much less detail in cars and grass.
Not exactly what I would call an example of good processing. More masking poor DR.
rrccad: granted looks like a massive shadow pull .. but shows that perhaps .. maybe using lighting versus post processing would turn in a much better shot - there's a lot of noise on her face and in the middle grays there.
The description says that the exposure has been lifted 2 stops and the "shadows" and "blacks" have been lifted in the Adobe converter significantly. Which means that the shadows have probably been lifted more than 3 or even 4 stops total, with a starting point that is already ISO 640. The 5 stops you refer to is at base ISO, which adds about 2.3 stops extra lattitude (if the A7 DXOmark results are anything to go by), compared to ISO 640.
tkbslc: The A7S is a great low light *camera*, but has no native lenses faster than f1.8. So it's not really a low light champion in actual use without a lens adapter and some compromises. I'd still have put a Canon in that spot due to native lenses as fast as f1.2 (And f1.0 if you can find it)
Those HAR "facts" have been debunked by countless comparisons available, not to be confused with his claimed comparisons. And it gets funnier when you realize he was one to also claim comparisons should be done at native resolutions, without down-/upsampling. At which point the A7S murders any current competition even more. But don't worry, he'll have the last word, repeating fake claims that contradict all evidence available, once more. Because repetition is truth. Or so he must think.
It's about showing how far you can or can't go with these sensors/cameras, depending on your expectations (including output size) and processing skills. And for that's it's a much more useful exercise than a perfectly lit subject that could have been shot with any camera. Which would tell us exactly nothing.Especially since real life can throw challenging conditions at us, including flash not being an option.
Think outside of this setting, translate the example to other real world scenarios instead.
kwa_photo: I keep getting tempted by the a7 series, but it's still lack of native AF lenses that hold me back. The kit zoom if "just okay" and would do in a pinch I guess....where's a 24-70 f/2.8 range? How about a 50mm f/1.4 of f/1.8 from Sony and not Zeiss? It's a nice small body, but the primes are pretty large (like the Zeiss 55). I'd be thrilled with something even like the Canon 50 f/1.8 just to keep it small, light and as a walk around lens. This system also screams out for pancake lenses as well.
As much as I admire Sony's tech, they keep pushing out bodies but not many appealing lenses (at least to me) to go with it. The IBIS is likely a way to say "use third party adapted glass"..I hope not. Come on Sony. You have a good thing going, stick with it, invest in the glass now.
The 55 is not large by any measure. It may be longer on paper, factoring in the shorter flange distance, it's still similar or shorter in length than other 50mm f/1.8 lenses but with a smaller diameter (palm of your hand sized) and thus combined with any of the E mount cameras, still limits total depth.And optically closer to the giant Otus than any of the other 50's.
Wilight: I'm curious about the shutter sound and if this one has electronic shutter (silent) like the A7s.
"many other mirrorless cameras have quieter shutters than Sony with EFCS on"
Except for Leica, none of them have a FF shutter.
Vignes: Looks like Sony spends more $$$ on their mirrorless camera rather than SLT DSLR. These is more of a threat to their own DSLR market. would they ramp down their DSLR in the near future?
"but share nothing else of value to that customer other than their Sony branding."
Correction. Flash guns, audio and video recording accessoires, A mount glass with the SLT adapter.
Terry Breedlove: I really like the instant feed back from an EVF. Now we can have that plus focus peaking and IBIS for our legacy manual focus Glass. For me personally that means I can shoot film with my Nikon AIS glass and use the same lenses on the FF Sony. Sweet deal how can you possibly hate on that.
It is confirmed and already demonstrated with legacy glass in video.
snooked123: Disclaimer: I am not a Canon shooter.
While everyone is going crazy about how Canikon are **ting in their pants, look at Canon 7D II. That camera costs $1800 which is approximately equal to the proposed price of Sony A7, but it would be a miracle if a7 sales numbers are within 25% of what Canon 7DII's numbers will be.
Sony A7 while innovative doesn't offer:a- The AF speed of Canikon's enthusiast level cameras.b- The enthusiast level lenses are scarce and expensive (Nikon's f1.8 offerings are great).
Additionally, who among the fanboys can guarantee that the whimsical sony boss will not dump A series for something new in a year? Similar to what Sony has done to Alpha, SLT and now even NEX? :-D
" Similar to what Sony has done to Alpha, SLT and now even NEX? :-D"
Typical attempt at trolling without doing the homework first.
All A and E mount still cameras have been branded "Alpha" from the start and nothing has changed there. Alpha NEX (E mount ) turned into Alpha E mount, only the NEX naming was dropped. SLT's are still here (A77II just released earlier this year, A7II shown with SLT adapter and A mount lenses).
Joseph Black: Nice camera, or promising at least (despite the fact that it suffers from having menus, controls, and ergonomics deigned by Sony, and I know that is entirely subjective so ignore if you disagree), but at what point does image stabilization become the next megapixel war or whatever other spec. war one can think of? I'm sure there are plenty of circumstances where amazing IS is useful, but if you can shoot handheld at 1 second you'd better have a statue in your sights if you want a blur free image. It's another full frame camera and that's great for competition, but I don't see anything to get all in a tizzy about.Buy a tripod ladies and gents. Seriously, it's one of the most necessary tools one can own. And if you want some serious IS right now on your camera get a monopod, too.
And the reference to fallacies was that, no one claims that IBIS *fully* replaces tripods. But there is a strong overlap area where it does in practise and an area where tripods aren't even an option. Which leaves a third area where it does not replace the tripod.
vladimir vanek: Add a nice 35/1.4 pancake and here we go.... ;) But I doubt it's possible to make pancakes for such a large sensor, isn't it?
And that's because the K mount body adds 26.5mm between sensor and lensmount, compared to the E mount. And thanks to the required extra body thickness from Pentax cameras, the distance between sensor and front of that 15m thin 40mm pancake lens, is still 6mm more than an A7 plus 35mm f/2.8 CZ.
Which directly explains why Pentax relatively has a lot of pancake lenses. Simiply because the "tubes" of those lenses are built into the lens mount instead. ;-)
whyamihere: As much as the a7 series interests me, here's what's holding me back:
The lens mount: Sigma's president put it best when he mentioned in recent interviews that a full-frame sensor needs something bigger than E-Mount, which was designed for APS-C. Essentially, Sony is fighting physics in an effort to crank out workable lens designs, especially zooms (which are all f4 or 3.5-5.6, at this point).
Battery life: This is more of an issue with mirrorless, in general, but the a7 series is among the worst. Not having to buy different batteries is nice and all, but when it works to the detriment of functionality, it's not a good thing.
That noisy shutter: The quietest mechanical shutter on any a7 is louder than the loudest DSLR or mirrorless I've ever used, and the electronic shutter is only a work around if you don't shoot objects in motion with wider apertures.
Sony has moved mirrorless forward with the a7, but they've also kneecapped themselves with silly design/engineering decisions.
The current zooms have OSS on board. A future f/2.8 version can skip on that, which removes some of the size differences.
My bet is that the rumored (first half of 2015) A9 will be larger and be the better companion for large aperture lenses and specifically zooms. Sony said their priority wasn't with those lenses, for obvious reasons (more compact lenses fitting more compact cameras first), but they added that those larger aperture lenses were planned still. Probably waiting for the right camera, among other things (such as IBIS).
The argument simply swings the other way. Joseph thinks those using IBIS don't know what they're missing out by not using tripods and other fallacies.
Fact is, they most often do and still value IBIS for many other reasons and occasions. No point trying to explain to someone who has preconceived ideas rather than extensive experience with both.
Some people still think tripods are always an option (hint: often they are not). I know, because I own tripods and a camera with IBIS.
You may think the lenses look sad, the 16-35 and 24-70 are both lighter and smaller than their Canon/Nikon f/4 counterparts.
And how a combination looks is relative anyway. A 70-400mm zoomlens or 300mm prime looks humongous on a DSLR too, but that doesn't stop people from using them. Why? Because the lens becomes the center of the combination when it comes to holding and supporting it.
The space between sensor and lens element in the lenses mentioned, is similar or smaller than with the Canon and Nikon equivalents, if you factor in the flange distance too (more than a full inch difference already). Does not support the claim that it's designed for APS-C sensors whatsoever.
HeyItsJoel: Yeah, but how much?!
Sony has about 11% IIRC, similar to their share in Tamron.
They have a good 35mm f/2.8 that is about 1 cm thicker (less if you subtract the difference in flange distance between both mounts) than say the Panasonic 20mm pancake. I don't think 1 cm is going to be worth an extra lens when there are more obvious holes in the line up.
Sony has said the E mount was designed with the option of using FF sensors from the start. Which is proven by the fact that not only it fits, the sensor has room to move too (IBIS). Your (and Sigma's) argument falls flat with the existence of current E mount lenses (the throat diameter of a f/1.8 zoomlens wouldn't have any other requirements than those of say the prime 55mm f/1.8 CZ) and the fact that practically any other existing lens (regardless of aperture) can already be fitted, without any extra issues caused by the lens mount.
The shorter flange distance, only adds design flexibility where possible. The (inner) throat diameter is larger than that of the Leicas, and not far off the Nikon F mount.
SingerNick: I suppose this release will make the 35mm 2.8 more appealing as a low light tool.
Roger Cicala tested the Canon 35mm f/2 IS on the A7R and directly compared it against the Sony Zeiss 35 f/2.8. Turns out the CZ performed better in the corners wide open at f/2.8 than the Canon at f/4. And the A7R plus CZ combo was sharper wide open than the D800E plus Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 @ F/4.
So much for having to catch up.