thx1138: Completely outclassed by the other sensors for resolution and only leads on per pixel noise, but of course with a lot less pixels that's nothing special. Upsample it to 24MP or downsample the others to 16MP and it loses out again.
Can't see why this didn't get the D610 sensor and then it make more sense and make it more future proof.
Whether downsampling works isn't even up for debate, it's a proven fact. In science and practise. And it's not just downsampling, it's resampling to any given size, no matter which size as long as it's equal.But it's pointless debating that with those blinded by their own theories and magic eyesight.
Lanczos algorithm is best or this btw (best balance between detail retention, averaging of noise and avoidance of moiré).
At ISO 12800, the DF has about half a stop benefit in the deepest shadows, but mostly regarding chroma noise (easy to take care of) and a bit less colour shifts towards blue. Not to mention the fact that EXIF info suggests that the DF also received a third of a stop more light (overstating ISO compared to the D610). Good RAW processing helps taking care of the differences and with the resolution benefit of the D610, the noise differences shouldn't be too hard to nullify.
Volkan Ersoy: On RAW, there isn't much difference compared to D800/D610. On JPEG, Sonys shine.
Strange artifacts (on RAW), though. Check the gravure-like print on the middle-left. A7R, A7, D800 but D610 have moire-like effects on the top of the print. The wall behind the people is rendered much better with D610, while A7R and D800 are better in other details...
It can in large part be corrected in the Adobe converter, similar to the corrections done in camera to the OOC jpegs which suffer noticeable less from the purple/blue shadows. See Camera Calibration box with Shadows Tint slider.
D1N0: No real drawback from more mp in high iso. I guess that with current technology a 48mp sensor would also be usable.
Not to mention the time it takes to transfer them and do backups with floppy discs.
Fast forward back to 2013....
Polytropia: Having handled a preproduction A7, I must say, it's quite light with the kit lens. It feels no heavier than my OM-D E-M1, though I have to say, I for one won't be giving up my E-M1, even after handling the A7.
I think the A7 is fantastic, don't get me wrong. Many people will buy it and love it. I was very impressed with it!
But considering the largest print I've made was a 144"x133" off of the 10mp E-3, and it looked great, I personally do not generally need 24mp or 36mp.
But I can't imagine life without E-M1's stabilizer. Once you've had it there's really no going back.
The 35mm sensor format, about which everyone seems to obsess, does not present any substantial advantages to me; I never, ever run into ISO noise issues with E-M1, and I have no issues getting the bokeh I want.
I constantly use E-M1's in-camera RAW development capabilities, multitudinous function buttons, touch-screen to set focus points, etc., all features the A7 lacks.
Sensor size is not a trump card for me.
DXO "ISO's" do not directly reflect metering, which the results in the comparison widget above do.
jonikon: With the A7s alongside their a99 and RX1, it appears Sony is aiming to be the king of of full frame niche cameras using two different lens mounts four different lens adapters and two different flash shoe mounts . Unfortunately for Sony, it is very unlikely that these niche cameras with their pedestrian performance and image quality that can be found in the much more popular Nikon lens mount cameras will ever be sold in quantities large enough to make them profitable for them. The only question is, how long will they keep trying?
"The last thing I heard of Sony sensor was D800. And thats it. Never heard of other camera with Sony sensor anymore "
The last thing you heard was wrong. The D600 was released after the D800, as was the just announced D610. Both of those have Sony sensors.
"Sony seems to have made mistake by changing lens mount too many times."
Huh? They bought the Minolta A (AF) mount which dates back to the '80's and that's still the mount in use. No change there. They introduced the E mount alongside and haven't changed that either. So now they have 2 different mounts. Not to be confused with the 2 sensor formats and lenses covering those formats.
Nikon has 2 mounts, Canon has 3 mounts. See where I'm going? ;-)
Scottelly: Frankly, I think someone at Sony is on crack. They should have been ready at launch with a whole group of 9 or 10 lenses, including a kit zoom (like a 28-90mm f3.5-5.6), a premium zoom (like a 24-105mm f4), a long zoom (like a 100-300mm f4-5.6), a standard prime (like a 50mm f1.4), a premium wide prime (like a 35mm f1.4), a macro (like a 100mm f2.8), a portrait lens (like a 135mm f2), a premium long telephoto (like a 300mm f2.8), and a super-wide zoom (like a 15-24mm f2.8). Then they could go from there, offering a longer telephoto, like a 500mm f4 prime and a super wide prime, like a 14mm f2.8. Eventually they could make an 85mm f1.2 to compete with the Canon L flagship lens. ALL of the new lenses should be weather sealed, and they could all be very good quality and priced to beat Nikons and the Canon L lenses. You don't launch a new line of cameras with no lenses! It's not like they don't have the ability to make lenses or something! I don't think I'll ever understand Sony.
"the A-E adapter"In your previous post you claimed there are four, so which one are you referring to?To clear things up once again, there are 2 adapters and only one of those offers slower CDAF focusing or hybrid focusing. The other offers full PDAF.
Earthlight: I think Sony is on to something here. If they get the AF right they have a total winner here in A7r.
Think again, the mount fits existing legacy glass that goes to apertures as large as f/1 or larger. The only reason there isn't any native glass at these apertures, is because they prefer to keep the diameter and weight limited and thus the size of the entrance pupil as well.
Sony Australia supplies the A7R with a free Metabones (FF) adapter of your choice.
There are currently 2 different adapters in the lineup. One with SLT and built in AF motor for screw driven lenses (support back to the '80's if necessary) and a cheaper and smaller one that gives basic AF support with SAM and SSM lenses or MF. And as for sales? They seem quite popular as we speak, so let's call profit predictions like yours rather unfounded.
mosc: Great, now how many years do I have to wait for a 24mm f2.8 IS USM equivalent for ~$500??
Sure, let's argue some more about how you're still attempting to dodge your false assumptions. I'll count the words you're going to throw at the impossible. ;-)
Jogger: I would like one with the 16mp sensor from the D4/Df; 36mp is way overkill for this type of camera. For studio work or landscape work, the portability isnt really that important.. just get a D800/e.
"Except this camera does not offer Image stabilization like the Nex or any of the other Sony''s"
NEX cameras never had in body stabilization. They have it on certain lenses, just like the new FF E mount cameras.
Chris2210: Does the shorter flange back mean that zoom lenses can be significantly smaller?
If not I really fail to see the point of this camera. I do applaud the fact that Sony are innovating [all over the place, it seems] and I don't personally have anything against EVFs [I have an EM1, which is lovely]. But if you're only going to use this camera with short primes, the RX1 seems like a more compact, sensible solution.
If you are going to build a system that includes large, fast zooms [particularly at medium to long telephoto] what's the big advantage of a small/light body if it doesn't mean the overall package is significantly smaller and lighter?
Whilst I think the slow start up and unacceptable LCD/EVF switch lag may be improved in succeeding generations, doesn't the small body/large lens problem still apply?
A bit of a flawed concept IMHO - a pity.
"but they don't actively sell you adapters to non-Sony mounts."
There are countries (for example Australia) where Sony (...) includes a Metabones adapter of choice in the kit. That's quite active promotion.
I'm not making any claims as to whether there will or will not be a 24mm prime in 2014, I said there is no way you can know. No wishful thinking is part of that simple equation.
You on the other hand started with a claim including a firm timeframe ("Until 2015 at least") that there will not be. Which as displayed, is turning a guess into fact.
TrojMacReady: As posted in the other thread:There's something odd going on with the A7R files in the comparison tool.For example all the daylight RAW shots in the tool, are nosier than the actual files available for download. In the tool it looks to have more noise than the D800, when you download the files from both, they are practically identical. A difference in sharpening applied to the files?
Here's an example:http://i40.tinypic.com/2pryagl.jpg
Consider my comment as retracted, the differences are indeed so minimal that it's not worth investigating.
Ok, so to make it clear once again, there are 3 lenses on the official lens map for 2014 that could be a 24mm prime. That could change for the better or the worse and stating that you have to wait at least more than a year to see a native FF 24mm prime, would be nothing more than guessing.
"Until 2015 at least"
You know something about the 3 unknown lenses scheduled for 2014 that the rest of us do not?
I say 3, because there's a wide angle zoom and a macro lens scheduled, a prime with unknown FL (24? 85?) and 2 fully unknown lenses.
zigi_S: Winner of low light noise is Canon. Second Sony DSCR1X1. Seems as DXO is a balloon of hot air. How can anyone prefer the blue tint over solid blacks. And where is Canon 6d? It ought to be even a little better.
You just confirmed what I said.
OBI656: From what I see, Canon is fooling around with us. Their latest "innovation" white painted camera is at least a joke !
This A7r with three-four Zeiss glasses will be my choice for years to come.
They're still "bulldozing" the unsold Canon M stockpiles. ;-)
Correction in the third paragraph: *larger* aperture.
This shows you what the general consensus is worth. I have shot plenty of sharp pictures with 24MP APS-C cameras fine, without the need for a tripod. That's a considerably higher pixel density still.
The 36MP FF sensor at 50mm isn't more demanding than a 16MP APS-C camera at 50mm that many in here have been shooting with for years.
A higher shutterspeed (smaller aperture and/or higher ISO when possible), stable arms or even firm objects in your surroundings help a lot to counter unwanted movement. No rocket science involved.
And as for balance, larger lenses should be supported at the lens, just like larger lenses on a DSLR. This is where that other arm comes in handy. Or even an improvised bean bag (such as... an arm!).