jkoch2: Brilliant. A phone with a "me too" 4k video feature for people without any 4k displays, and before Sony offers 4k video on any of its traditional <$1.5k consumer Handicams or Cybershots. Granted, "me too" is a sort of trump argument. But the compulsion to add new imaging capacities first to phones tells us something about the eclipse of dedicated cameras.
Wouldn't people have more use for a phone that gives readings of temperature, humidity, altitude, or heart pace, blood pressure, HDL/LDL, triglycerides, and glucose? Or are such functions too mundane or depressing?
Most features seen on today's cameras/sensors came to small sensors (or small sensor cameras) first. For a good reason: economies of scale (and other less obvious reasons, such as less thermal issues, shorter circuits with faster read out speeds etc).
Just a Photographer: This article sounds like Sony has asked DPReview to do damage control.
The lack of real useful lenses is of course the fault of Sony, due to which people look for alternatives in using third party and 'old' manual lenses with aperture rings.
The only thing is, and which is not really mentioned and explained in this article at all is that you fall back to full manual control by using these third party lenses.
You will loose all AF capabilities and its certainly not guaranteed that metering is correct.
Sure the A7 on paper is a real nice camera, but the lack of support from Sony themselves and their short commitment to productsupport in the past is something that will behold me of buying this system camera.
"Sony's track record on delivering on promises is poor. There is every reason to believe they will not deliver on all those lenses. "
All their previous lens announcements that included a date or year, have materialized. Quick, find some non relevant examples in an attempt to support your claim. ;)
Eigenmeat: Sony/Samsung can make a cell phone do this. Yet, for example, a $1300 Sony RX10 cannot it. It just shows how much manufacturer intentionally cripple their camera line to create "product tiers".
Dont forget that getting faster readout speeds is much easier with smaller sensors.
Morpho Hunter: Now try using those same lenses on a MFT camera. I suspect image quality, especially edge sharpness, would be considerably better.
Or you could just crop the center quarter from the full frame and enjoy the "considerably better" edge sharpness. ;)
mpgxsvcd: 4000 pixels is not always better. Especially not from a small sensor.
The Note 3 shows it can be done. Better quality video than any other phone, by a longshot. Even the 1080P benefits from the upgrade (much better downsampling vs usual line skipping).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dlXIzOzLss&feature=youtu.be
RobertSigmund: I have no doubt: this is a superlens. But the samples also show: FF cannot be replaced by 4/3. Even at F 2, a FF 85 mm lens gives blurrier backgrounds than this 42,5 mm lens at 1,2. Quite interesting!
Light gathering per unit (sensor) area, yes, total light gathering is similar to FF 85mm f/2.4 still.
RFC1925: Looks like Samsung's sensor technology is no longer behind the competition but ahead. Excellent results.
Except for shadow noise, mostly amp glow. See shadows in low light RAW scene above ISO 800 (blue/purple), which also directly affects usable DR. But I bet it won't take them too long to counter that too.
Saffron_Blaze: I am a wannabe professional, not a wannabe enthusiast retro shooter. Would someone please put the lovely sensor in a camera that supports all its capabilities?
Search the Nikon forum for bias (which it isn't, it's a dark frame....) frame and D800.
The D7100 is nowhere near in usable DR because shadow banding already gets ugly at a simple two stop push. Beyond that even Nikdfine and Topaz, top banding removers, throw in the towel. The DF and D4 sit somewherw inbetween the D800 and D7100. A lot less banding than the D7100 though.
At ISO 12,800 the D800 has serious magenta and cyan blotching problems, this is not simple noise.
And no resampling does not remove noise, it makes the photo (and the noise) smaller.
For someone who claims to own a D800, you don't seem real familiar with it. It's a plenty good camera but has significant problems above ISO 6400, in fact lower.
The D800 never seems to have the dynamic range of the D610 or D4/Df either.
Downsampling removes data and noise. No debate possible as established in math, thousands of tests and millions of practical applications every day. You'd have to be a flat earth believer to deny that. Anyone with a pair of eyes and more than a few days of processing experience should have noticed that too.
For a given size output, downsampling won't help. But to smaller sizes (or equal to lower resolution cameras) it does.
Then again, who am I trying to convince, your religious defense of the DF (well over a 50 posts in a single thread...) in here does ring alarm bells. ;)
Actually, the amp glow (cyan and purple noise) of the D800 can very effectively be dealt with using a simple dark frame at the same exposure with the lenscap on. Easy tutorial in the Nikon forum. The D800 DR is top class, never mind silly claims denying this. Try pushing D4 or DF shadows 6 stops and see the substantial difference.
And before anyone gets confused, DR is never measured anywhere else, because the highlight headroom is determined by exposure relative to middle grey (and gamma curve). Your choice, (shift) directly limited by usable shadow information.
cinemascope: The small throat of the FE mount also forces the lenses to be big, so it's not like it would make any difference if these were "native" designs.Sony itself also stated they are not "interested" in doing fast FE lenses, maybe because they would be silly monstrosities? Of course they won't admit FE is a technical nightmare, so let's just say they are "not interested"...This FE mount is a bad joke really and I hope this silly FF fad dies with it too...
And as for your comment about Sony not bringing out fast lenses, "fast" is very relative. Many would consider *sharp* f/1.8 apertures at 55mm on FF plenty fast, others might not. In the interview at Imaging Resource (13 days ago), they specifically stated that there will be a longer f/2.8 zoomlens (or lenses, that part isn't clear from the shaky English).
As the example I posted above shows, even combining bodies and lenses, for example the A7R plus 55mm, it's still shorter than a Nikon FF plus any 50mm. Not to mention width, height and more importantly, volume as a whole which is much smaller and weight being much less too. Yet the output rivals a D800E plus any 50mm out there. And let's not even mention the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, as it's nowhere near the quality in optical or build terms. What's the point of downsizing a high resolution FF system when you're going to throw tiny lenses with dodgy optical and build qualities into the mix? That would be a fad and hard to sell at that.
Both primes get raving reviews from reputable sources, the relatively cheap kitzoom is considered good for the price (<$300) and offers a nice walkaround range. The rest hasn't been subjected to much tests yet.
It's not a system for everyone. Not for speed demons, not for those who need 20 different native lenses. But there's clearly a quality market left.
And as a post scriptum, size in general has a lot to do with the compromises made regarding the optical qualities. Just look at recent releases such as the 58mm Nikon or 55mm Otus, which are both much larger than other 50's of comparable brightness.
And judging from the SLRGear review of the Sony Zeiss 55mm FE, they didn't skimp much here.
First, the Zeiss is 55mm, not 50 and while it's 17mm longer than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8, accounting for the difference in flange distance between the E and F mount, which is 28.5mm, the light path from sensor to tip of the lens is still over 11mm shorter with the Sony Zeiss. Its diameter is also quite a bit smaller, all in all not a large lens by any stretch. And as the example above shows, the shorter flange distance adds choice (of lens design and lenses used), it doesn't make the overall package larger. Au contraire.http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/carl_zeiss_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_f1_8_za/carl_zeiss_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_f1_8_za_13.jpg
ThePhilips: > Samyang T-S 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC
As far as I have understood, m43 users already given up on getting a WA TS lens... And Sony system has just got one.
It's a FF lens and there are FF E mount cameras.
The throat of the Leica M mount is smaller. How large are those lenses again?
jase: It seems such a shame that Sony didn't put a full size mount on this camera.
To add some perspective, the Leica M mount diameter is smaller (44 vs 46.1 mm).
Give me the definition of a "full size mount".Because I'm not following you here.
Alastair Norcross: Given that the Canon lens can be bought for less than the Sigma, because of the widespread availability of the Canon as a kit lens sold with several DSLRs, there would seem to be no reason for Canon users to consider the Sigma. It looks like a fine lens, but certainly not better than the Canon in any way that will show up in real world shooting.
And add that 0.5 EV benefit in transmission to my low light comment.
Sharpness between f/4 and f/5.6 at the long end (70-105mm) seems noticeably better, especially outside the center. Which means that for low light shooters on a "budget", it's worth a consideration.