Thorgrem: Nice camera for a nice price. But, where are the lenses? With big holes in the APS-C e-mount line up it's almost pointless to make more camera's than the entry-level (a3000, A5000).
"They're too slow!""They're too large!""My favorite focal length is missing!"
Mostly comments from people who were never interested in the first place, just looking for a stick to beat the dog and you'll always find one, as we tend to say in the Netherlands.
Fuji's faster lenses are on average larger still, so those aren't going to win the compact argument either. µ4/3 systems have small lenses because their lenses project a smaller image circle and most of the time pass less total light (not to be confused with density or light per unit area, translated into f stops) to the sensor, all else (f stop et al.) being equal. Hence they are easier to design small (for the same FL equiv. and f stop).
Every system is a compromise, so is the Sony system. If you want smaller lenses or faster lenses still, or can't find your favorite FL and can live with MF, plenty of choice. Those times size isn't an issue, the LA-EA4 adapter can do great things too (long and fast lenses, fast AF).
Zeisschen: Seems like APS-C DSLR will have a hard time beating this little speed monster. Everyone paying more money for a lower overall performance and twice the bulk and weight must be insane. This can do 99% of what consumers want to do with their camera.
Right, because capturing the perfect moment of say, kids running, playing around, playing sports isn't going to be done with cameras like these and the fact that previous iterations had trouble tracking, let alone do burst and tracking, was never mentioned as a con.
Correction regarding battery life: in the table you compared 2 different measurements for battery life between the NEX 6 and A6000. The quoted 360 shots for the NEX 6 is using the LCD (270 for the EVF) and the 360 for the A6000 is when using the EVF (430 for the LCD). Which would suggest battery life has been improved by 19% (LCD) or 33% (EVF) respectively, compared to the NEX 6.
To be complete, the A6000 does allow for a mic and audio out, but only through hot shoe add-ons (using the proprietary connector at the front of the shoe), see for example the XLR-K1M. Which indeed is a lot more limiting regarding choice and size, but those looking to use the HDMI uncompressed out already need to invest in an external recorder. What's another "few" hundred.... ;)
Bervilat: No words on macro?
But not many are leaving their phones at home when they bring the Nikon, which means that the AW110 just adds size to the existing phone.
HappyVan: To be honest, I wouldn't depend on the phone for photos.
I would slip the Nikon AW110 into my other pocket. Its footprint is even smaller than my Sony Esperia S. It's rain and freeze proof, and comes with wifi.
You can even take semi-submerged shots of a flood. Of course, it has an optical zoom.
On a budget, there is the Nikon S32 $129.
Willing to carry a chunkier camera? There's the Nikon One cameras with PDAF and able to print a clean 18x12. The J1 kit is available for $249
But if you do't need the zoom, the Nokia is able to pull a lot more detail out of a scene than the AW110, which also lacks RAW. Plus saves you from filling up another pocket and/or switching between devices.
Horshack: Raw support in a camera phone? The bell tolls for thee, P&S manufacturers.
The point is more control. It's like wondering what the benefit of RAW is on an APS-C camera shooting at say ISO 1600 to ISO 6400. Noise/detail control, access to fully custom curves, WB, etc.
Without RAW access (had to wait for LR support back then) on my 1/2.5" sensor FZ18, output was so much worse and more limited. Like a different camera.
And before the usual mantra enters, it can be rewarding/worth it for a phone camera too, because it's often the only camera that is always with you. Not every shot might need RAW or extra processing (time). Choice is good.
Digitall: Does Sony just makes updates to products that will sell poorly? has some logic. Certainly many users are waiting months for a some light to enlighten the RX100 in some aspects? Oh no, after all, the RX100 and RX100 II sells well. No need upgrades. Sony philosophy.
It's actually the other way around. Those that have gotten updates, were usually the hotsellers. Leading to criticism that only the popular cameras get their support. And this example does not contradict that theory.
Flying Snail: No firmware update can fix a failed concept.
He said educate.
naththo: You need to watch out for vignetting at lower f stops like around F1.8 or F2 or F2.8 or so. That is very good lens I must say, very high level of sharpness but distortion is fairly significant that may be common through Sony lens even incorporated with Zeiss glass. I found that Sigma lens has a lot less distortion when combined with Nex 7 to compare to Sony fixed focal lens. Sony need to improve in manufacture over lens to have less distortion and vignetting that would be nice if they do so.
" Sigma E mount 19, 30 and 60mm have a lot less distortion than Sony normal E mount lens according to SLRGear review"
I didn't say there was no distortion, I said less than the Sigma 60mm and practically no distortion on APS-C (the Sigma's are after all APS-C lenses at best...), the latter confirmed by DXO and SLRGear.
SLRGear did not even test the 60mm and shows between 0.19 and 0.5% distortion for the 19mm and 30mm on APS-C, just 0.1% for the FE 55mm on APS-C. Vignetting of the 55mm was also tested to be lower on APS-C than both those Sigma's at SLRGear. DXOmark also shows both distortion and vignetting to be lower on the FE 55 on APS-C, than any of the 3 Sigma's.
I wonder what you're really looking at.
ulfie: 71 mm (2.8″) long make it a bit long for steady, low-light, hand-held shooting considering these two full-frame Sonys have no IBIS unless you're willing to pump up the ISO. The price for a "normal" lens is, IMHO, ridiculous.
"BTW, 55mm is an FL of oddish side. It looks like they had troubles making fair 50"
Yeah, just like they had troubles with the Otus doing the same. *shakes head*.
Measurements done by DXO and SLRGear disagree with you: very low distortion on FF, practically no distortion on APS-C.
Not sure which Sigma you're talking about, but if it's the E mount 60mm, it was measured to have more distortion.
All else being equal, I find physically longer lenses easier to hold stable for having more feel and control over the angle of the camera. Longer FL's/larger magnification is a different matter of course.
As a whole, it's comparable in length/depth to a DF plus 50mm f/1.8. Just a smaller diameter of the lens itself (and obviously a body that is less tall and wide):http://camerasize.com/compact/#488.395,495.353,ha,t
jhinkey: Great, but how about a compact 50/2.8 to go along with that compact A7R? The A7(r) are very attractive cameras, but when you stick a 50/1.8 Zeiss on them the body/lens combination loses it's compactness that the A7R brings.
Sometimes you need an excellent f/1.8 lens and you have to pay the price in size and weight, but for many situations f/2.8 works just as well and with the high ISO DR of today's sensors there is not that much of a price to pay.
This is the reason I have a 50/1.8G AND a 45/2.8 AI-P for my D800 - the 50G is great for low light, but it's not very compact while the 45/2.8P is super compact and gives me very very good performance and f/2.8 DOF is fine. The 45/2.8P lives on the D800 because it makes it far more portable.
I use the 20/1.7 Pany on my GX7 (roughly equivalent to my 45/2.8P on FX) because the combo is so small and the 20/1.7 is a very very good lens.
I guess there's no money to be made in compact f/2.8 (or f/4) primes for FX these days . . .
" Everyone should take a page from the Pentax book if they're talking about small sized systems. It can be done. DA70/2.4."
The distance between sensor and the tip of that DA70 is only 17mm shorter than that of A7R/A7 plus FE 55mm Zeiss. The A7R/A7 plus FE 35mm Zeiss has 18mm less distance between sensor and lenstip than the DA70 plus camera. In fact, it's within 5mm of a Pentax plus the thinnest pancake in existence (40mm f/2.8).
The wonders of flange distance.
AbrasiveReducer: I think it's unfair to compare to Canon and Nikon 50 1.8 lenses because these designs were traditionally made as cheap as possible so if the customer had any money left after buying the body, they could still afford a lens.
With the expensive Otus and the not great 58mm Nikon, this Sony seems like a deal. If you really like 50mm lenses.
You can compare it to the Canon 50 1.4 and 1.2 or the Sigma 50 in the DXO databaste.
JDThomas: Not quite the Df killer that everyone was expecting it to be, now is it?
Who's this everyone you speak of?
Seem to be completely different types of cameras to me, operating in completely different price regions too (the DF costs 62% more to begin with).
jonikon: Based on the DPR review of the A7, it is obvious that Sony has overreached with their new line of full frame mirrorless FE cameras. which can not even match the capabilities of Nikon and Canon DSLRs introduced over a year ago. If Sony still has any ambitions of taking FF market share away from Nikon and Canon after this fiasco , they will have to do a lot better than this feeble attempt of mediocre bodies and FE lens selection. Maybe Sony should instead stick with what they do best, whatever that may be.
Mirror.. mirror, it's all about mirrors these days. Here's one for you too. ;-)
Yes and a sportscar is better than a SUV. *shrug*
hc44: Not sure if already posted. There are areas where detail is mashed up into something quite different to the original.
See Queen of Spades top right, the hair fringe (compare with Sony Alpha7 R). Also the Jack of Hearts, the bird shape at the rear of the head. In both cases contiguous lines become a mess of squiggles.
EOS 6D is doing something similar, though not as bad.
The 6D hides artifacts with other artifacts: strong and thick sharpening halos around almost every contrasty edge. Dark and light extra lines. Plus it smears greens already at low ISO to oblivion.
Pick your poison.
Charrick: How this revolutionary camera can get an 80% to the D600's 87%, I have no idea. Somehow, I think that oil splashes show up on RAW files, too. Sure, maybe it was reviewed before that debacle, but then why not change the score? OK, let's instead compare the A7 to the D610. The D610 has more buttons and JPEG might be better. But the A7 is the smallest full-frame digital camera in the world, and is (along with the A7r) the only true full-frame digital "mirrorless" camera. Shouldn't that count for something? It's like if someone invents a hoverboard that only gets 1 kilometer or 1 mile per charge...so you give a much higher score to a regular skateboard. It doesn't make sense to me.
The oil issue was so overblown that they faster than ever issued an update of their FF model... in the shape of a successor. Rather than fixing existing cameras, which apparently they figured would be more costly (also in terms of marketing/brand image damage).
Roger C. from Lensrentals has the most reliable overview of the issue, also due to his access to a large amount of D600's.