nicolaiecostel: The 7D mk2 is an action camera. With 10 fps and class leading auto focus, the camera is forgiven for low DR and not that good high ISO performance.
In contrast, a camera like the D800E or D810 is a slow, high megapixel camera with great image quality made especially for applications where a great image with lots of detail is required.
What canon has done is it has made a D810 style camera with the upscaled 7Dmk2 sensor.
And this just doesn't make any sense.
I see some used A7S bodies go for more than what some have paid for them new (during discount periods). Meaning, if the A7RII does offer a compelling combination of different strengths from several previous A7 versions (great video, great resolution, great DR) and add a few unique tricks (faster AF and PDAF with many types of lenses, better viewfinder, in body 4K, IBIS) there's a good chance it will hold value as well as the A7S.
oselimg: Once again the self righteous gear lovers are in the business wishing Canon vanished from the face of the earth. First of all camera buying people aren't aware that you exist. Secondly if canon or Nikon were go out of business you would pay double the amount of what you pay your favourite camera. Thirdly EF lenses would double in value so you lose again. Be careful what you wish for.
If by "until recently" you mean more than 5 years ago. Yes current usable DR approaches that of some APS-C cameras released over 5 years ago (NEX 5 etc). And that's ignoring noise patterns in low ISO shadows, which would still favor the Exmor too.
QuarryCat: I have done tests with EOS 5DSR - Sony has a lot to do, to deliver such a good low noise performance and such an incredible sharpness... we will see what reality brings. Canon's ISO 6400 is realistic and even Alpha 7s is at 6400 ISO just 1 1/2 Steps finer at 12 MP compared to 51 MP.You can use 51 MP at 1600 ISO with best sharpness on the market and very low noise. Even 3200 is realy good and surpasses EOS 5D3 or Nikon D810.But for now, the EOS 5DSR is the king of the crowd - by far!
... to compete for a very small niche market (most of the lenses you mentioned) in a niche market (FF).
Market success will hardly depend on those parameters, your personal satisfaction may.
Wild Light: Lossy compression is going to spoil the party unless Sony fix it as a top priority. It's a total deal breaker.
"What we know today is that Sony is already planning to fork camera business."
Except that they just specifically said they won't, pointing out the FUD there. Also, their camera business has made losses in the past and it hasn't stopped them. It's making money now.
People still fail to realize that great low ISO DR also means the option to retain more highlight information in low light where you would otherwise use high ISO (same physical exposure, only the ISO differs, visible exposure equalized in post).
kamituel: I'd love the interviewer to ask Sony about their lens roadmap. The info about them working on 2.8 zooms and large aperture primes is nice, but why not post a full roadmap, like Fuji does?
DXO has measured MTF graphs for all the relevant focal lengths and apertures and shows the Sony to have similar sharpness with slightly worse uniformity at 24mm (both at f/4), slightly better uniformity at 35mm, similar at 50mm, a bit worse sharpness at 70mm. The Canon is about 50% larger in volume, weighs about twice as much and price is $1899 vs $892. Not much more?
eno2: If 'the customer’s voice is the most important data for me' (him), where is the most wanted uncompressed Sony RAW format, all Sony users scream after it for several years now!
It's not 11 bit, it's 11+7(delta) bit. The last Sony camera to offer both options was the A900/A850 and to put things in perspective, most couldn't spot the difference, even in blind comparisons.
Which doesn't negate the fact that lossless compression would be a welcome option, but it does highlight the hyperbole.
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.
It's not 11bit, its 11+7(delta) bit, a wholly different thing. A theoretical difference of several visible stops between shadows and highlights in terms of DR that both can cover. The A7R for example is already measured to have more usable DR than 11bits could cover.
"of questionable quality" The Sony 24-70 is similar in optical performance to the Canon equivalent while being smaller in volume and more lightweight. The Sony 70-200 performs similar to the Canon f/4 equivalent too, same goes for the 16-35.
Comparing to the much larger and much more expensive (currently more than twice the price of the Sony f/4 at Amazon... ) Canon 24-70 II f/2.8 is a bit pointless. If you need that larger aperture now, then yes, obviously a no brainer.
DesmondD: I still haven't found an optical viewfinder that doesn't give me motion sickness. I recently looked through a Sony 7S and had to stop looking through it after 10 seconds. Looking TTG "Through The Glass" is still the best for me.I know not everyone is like that but I'm thankful it's still an option.
True, backlit scenes or sunsets are much easier on and safer for the retina with an EVF.
AndyGM: The Mirrorless vs DSLR debate really comes down to viewfinders.
I think we are now at a point where even die hard DSLR fans will say that entry level EVFs are a better experience than entry level OVFs, and even mid range EVFs are a better experience than mid range OVFs.
That just leaves the high end, full frame DSLR OVFs as an example of the best of viewfinder tech.
Someone mentioned they like OVFs because they have full dynamic range. Well I would have thought that was a DISADVANTAGE. The DR of your eyes is over 20 stops, whereas even the best camera are more like 15 stops. So the camera will "see" less than you will, you just don't get a representative idea of the exposure through an OVF.
Plus EVFs can show some much additional information. And an SLR OVF is just dead weight if/when you shoot video.
OVFs (the top end, good ones) have just 2 advantages left AFAICS. No lag. And they are solar powered so save on your batteries!
I only shoot RAW and still value the benefit of seeing the WB (can be calibrated/adjusted for just the EVF too), which will be my starting point in Lightroom. Nothing will eventually stop an EVF from showing shadow information that your eyes see. Besides that, I fail to see practical value to that argument to begin with, since you still have a naked eye too. For example a backlit distant blackbird isn't an issue with a good EVF today, let alone in the future.
A good OLED display can easily cover 8 stops or more but more (blackpoint cutoff is more crucial here, sensor readout too) importantly, it can compress a much larger range the same way we do that in our pictures in RAW or our cameras through DRO etc. Don't forget that our actual output rarely exceeds 7 to 8 stops to begin with. It's about the range of the original scene that you can initially catch and if desired compress. Current Sony cameras already allow DRO effects in the viewfinder, even in RAW when I last checked. The last EVF implentations added 1 to 2 stops due to better (faster, more pixels being read) sensor read out too.
Lassoni: Mirrorless doesn't give size savings if the objective is big. I guess it works well with pancake objectives, but even stuff like 50 or 85 prime start struggling on a mirrorless body that is small. There's also the problem if you happen to attach a heavy objectibe on a small light body, the weight balance will be off. DSLRs require special tripods to balance the use of 400+ prime teles, whilst I think a small body mirrorless might already start running into troubles trying to balance a 1kg prime/zoom.
Who? The person I replied to."DSLRs require special tripods to balance the use of 400+ prime teles"
Not really, since the tripod will support the lens with larger lenses such as the one you mention. The body will be "hanging" on to that lens, just like with a DSLR.
It's all relative anyway. An A7 with 70-200 lens may look unbalanced to some, so does a DSLR with a 300mm bright prime.
nicoboston: Canon PowerShot G3X: $1000Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV: $950Fujifilm X-T10 + 16-50 Lens: $800
... DxO One : $600 😂
Sigh. Ite, missa est.
Ending march this year,iOS had 36,5% market share of newly shipped devices, Android 58.1% share in the USA.http://telecoms.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/05/Kantar-smartphone-Q1-2015.jpg
Photato: I find interesting that Samsung is using a 16:9 Aspect Ratio sensor to better match today's Smartphone, Computer and TV screens. The images at full display actually show Full Screen, no pillar bars or crops and is great for multiple person wide angle shots as well.I hope Apple abandon for good that pesky 4:3 sensor AR of the 90's Webcams and finally put a 3:2 Sensor which in my opinion is a better compromise for the 21st century screens.
Wait, why compromise? give us Multi Aspect Ratio sensors already for heavens sake.
Uh, multi-aspect ratio sensors do exist and have existed for quite a while (see Panasonic for example). Oversized sensor gives several aspect ratio's while keeping the same FL.
Joseph Black: Despite Sony's ILC growth, the market as a whole is unimpressive. http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/13102/camera-sales-april-2015-data-triumth-of-hermaphroditesSony is king of a flat, growthless market, and once they take 100% of that market share they'll be the proud owners of simply treading water.I think the truth of the matter is that a camera with a mirror has a long reputation of being what serious photographers use and even the cheap ones have impressive and proven AF tech. ILC cameras are far more capable than they used to be, but the only markets where people upgrade cameras often enough and to whatever the newest trend happens to be is Asia...which stands to reason since it's almost all made there and they have different cultural and economic motivations than Americans and Europeans. Asian markets still don't own enough camera sales to tip the scales on ILC sales.
And the theory that they can only really expand when tapping into the professional market is fatally flawed when you realize that the professional market is a very small niche in the niche called ILC. Even the halo effect is heavily overstated and has more to do with brsnd name than type of camera. But if you insist, cameras like the A7RII have already grabbed the attention of professionals for their convergence capabilities (something the A7S did to a lesser extend).
Again it's a misinterpretation because you automatically assume that because a market is stagnant, a part of that market will not be able to exceed it, even when it's clear that certain products in that market set themselves apart (FF, different price category too) and have not been and are not stagnant. Just because they are lumped together in these statistics, it doesn't directly mean the market limitations of other MILC will hold back growth of the FF MILC. It's quite clear that these cameras tap into different waters too, attracting a whole new group of mirrorless users. Thus Sony isn't limited to the current size of the market, it can extend it over time.
Valen305: Basically, the way I see it is A7r II + FE 55mm = ~ $4,200 and 1.5lbs. vs 810 + Otus 55mm = $7,000 and 4lbs for pretty much the same quality, minus IBIS, 4K, silent shutter, etc.
The Sony 70-400 has similar sharpness (a bit more uniform at the long end), even though it covers a slightly larger range and is a tad brighter (especially in measured T stops throughout the whole range). See both measured at DXOmark on 24MP sensors from the same generation (A99 vs D600).
This is based on the assumption that the mirrorless market is limited in growth due the nature of the concept rather than what Sony's fellow ILC makers have to offer. I see no reason to believe that Sony's growth would stop once they would reach 100% of the *current* market size in the future. A clear case of misinterpretation of statistics.