Scott Birch: For 'smart' read 'creepy'. It's not Apple's business who's who or where. Puke.
"much better" if you're affraid that your privacy is at risk, but 25 pictures analyzed locally on your iPhone now takes up to several minutes. Never mind hunderds or thousands... You lose cloud computing: instant.
dmanthree: Uh...what about the ignored fact that you're buying into a system, not a single camera? The Sony is nice, but not if you need fast native teles, or numerous other lens options (native, not adapted).
Plenty of A-mount options, if you don't mind one little extra ring.
FencerPTS: Most of this is not good news for camera consumers.
IP&S SALES ARE DOWN 1.7% TO 711.2 B JPY. Q4 to Q3 sales down 16%; Q4 CY to Q4 PY down 9.5%. Not good news for Sony imaging. Only good news is the restructuring charge is behind them.
SONY INCREASING PROFIT FROM IMAGING: IP&S is now the second highest ROI at 16.5%. Cheap cameras are going away (we've already seen this with the A6300 replacing the A6000).
SONY REDUCING IMAGING R&D: contracted 4.75% to 64 B JPY. Look for either less prolific or less profound updates.
"nobody said the A6000 would go away"
"cheap cameras are going away (we've already seen this with the A6300 replacing the A6000"
If the A6000 isn't going away, I'm not sure why you would use exactly that camera as an example of "cheap cameras going away".
As for your R&D comment, you most have forgotten your original claim again"look for less... updates "
Projects that never reached the market to begin with, are hard to "look for" and wouldn't be considered updates, when there wasn't anything to follow up on. Plus there are many other ways of cost cutting, other than cutting projects. In other words, there's also a good chance the consumer won't notice, contrary to your original premise of "bad news for the consumer".
@ Siobhan A:The original RX and A7 series are still in production alongside the new cameras, so no, they didn't go away either.If I was into marketing, I'd be using more than a dozen accounts like you (....). I prefer using my time in a more pleasant manner, YMOV.
"6300 not replacing 6000 is a premise I can't take seriously."
It's very similar to how they started treating the RX series and A7 series and Sony already stated that the A6000 will remain in the lineup. I can't take the claim serious that the cheaper A6000 "will go away", since it's not supported by anything.
"Regarding R&D, unless you believe in a free lunch (there are none), less money means less per project or less per year, i.e. Profound or prolific."
Again built on some kind of assumption that there is no other way to save costs, than cutting projects and it also ignores the possibility that many projects in the past, never made it to actual products. Think A mount for example. A rather simplistic view of R&D departments and cost cutting in general. And even if the only way to cut costs, was to cut projects that do reach the market, there are many P&S cameras/camera lines being discontinued, i.e., the P&S lineup has been thinning for years. That alone could explain lower R&D.
As for less R&D spending, last year they reduced their spending with 3.4% as well, yet the updates weren't exactly disappointing the market. In other words, without knowing how that reduction is achieved, there's nothing to say about how "prolific" or "profound" or not those next updates will be.
The A6300 does not replace the A6000. As with their other cameras, they add higher value cameras, while keeping the older (cheaper and with discount) models in the lineup.
JBTravel: The results are for the imaging division not the camera division, specifically. Sony currently has the momentum regarding digital sensors (consumer and industrial) and more and more companies around the world use their sensors. They also restructured in the last two years which may explain this financial exercise. That being said, it is good news for the camera division in the short and long run.
Sony sensors are part of the division "Devices" (not the Imaging division), which actually posted an operating loss.
technomad: Started reading: as soon as I came across the fatuous 'aperture equivalence' dross that DPR seems so keen to foist on the world, I gave up. Outta here.
"That's the huge issue with equivalence, though, since similar sensor technologies are actually pretty hard to find."
Not really, most of the recent sensors perform within 0.5 EV in terms of quantum efficiency (between 50-70%) and this goes especially for smaller sensors (mostly made by Sony) discussed in this article. That's a relatively small difference in light of the aperture graph presented by Dpreview where we see differences even exceeding 2 EV.
Sure there are exceptions and caveats, but it's far more useful to determine how a camera/lens combination performs than say, just the aperture value listed on the lens (i.e. manufacturer specs).
"total light captured', that is completely meaningless "
Unless you actually care about low light performance at a given shutterspeed and a state of similar sensor technology.
armandino: I really do not see being any better, but actually worse than existing cameras up to at least ISO10K. It might be better at really high iso, but not for 90% of normal use. I guess will be a great camera for Batman, it should come with his logo. The bride image at ISO 1600 is less than average (could not believe my eyes, given my camera expectations it thought I was missing a zero on the iso settings), my A7RII blows by that image, not to mention that with IBIS I could have shot it at ISO 400.
I replied to Lea5, read what he wrote and where he feels each camera tops out: he suggests the D4 and 1DX look better at ISO 25600 than the A7RII above ISO 8000.
The controlled studio tests show otherwise (less than half a stop difference in shadows at ISO 25600 compared to the D4 and 1DX, similar or better in midtones and highlights at the same ISO and display size).
The AF part I can understand, but the D4, 1DX and even the D5 look quite a bit worse at ISO 25600 than the A7RII at ISO 12800, let alone ISO 8000.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=nikon_d4&attr13_2=nikon_d5&attr13_3=canon_eos1dx&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=267&x=-0.27045179129287733&y=-0.8296285508493879
Low ISO is fine, just relatively noisy in deep shadows, compared to other modern Nikon/ Sony FF cameras. About Nikon D5000 level in that specific area.
brendon1000: MF only which means a large number of people won't be interested in that lens.
No worries :)
You may want to reread the press release...
Batis lenses do have autofocus.
Pricey, but that was expected. I do like the focal length.
ruicarv79: If only Sony could make cameras as good looking as Fuji... :)
"non-lossy" with built in smoothing throughout the ISO range. A bit of a contradiction there.
Karl Persson: "Sony emphasizes its compact and lightweight design and indeed, the lens weighs in at a svelte 186g/6.6oz." Size 60x66 mm, according to spec.
The Nikkor 50/1,8D AF is 38x63 mm and weighs 155g. And that´s a DSLR lens.The old Nikon E series 50/1,8 is smaller still.Just as the new Sony they have 6 elements i 5 groups.
No, I didn't pay over $1k. According to Cicala's test results on a test bench (equal playing field), the 55mm performs closer to an Otus than the STM. Where can we see your test results?
You're comparing lenses tested on a 50 MP sensor vs lenses on a 36 MP sensor. Apples and oranges. And still the STM can't hold a candle to the 55mm SZ regarding resolved detail when shot wide open.
cgarrard: Good job Richard, seriously. Now I've had stinging nettles once in my life and I'll never forget the experience. To think of drinking it down...wow! I know I know, they don't sting you on the inside, but just a thought.
Anywho, enjoyed the piece quite a bit. I like the simple and subdued nature of the video and think it looks good to me (but im not pro at video either), sometimes less is more!
There are places where eating stinging nettles soup is about as normal as mushroom soup.
"It's Pentax who knows how to make compact lenses"
Because of the huge flange distance to begin with. Take that into account and the distance between front element and sensor of the smallest Pentax prime (< 1cm thick), is larger than say an A7x and Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8.
There's no way to beat physics.