utomo99: Hello sony, please create sensor which work good on low light. with good Dynamic Range. Low noise. With this kind of sensor you can create many good cameras, and also did not need expensive lens, but still giving good images. and when you want better, give premium lens for better images
I did and for a given output, the're very close indeed. The extra pixels allow for more processing lattitude to close any existing gap if even visible.
HowaboutRAW: Quoting, Kimio: “Until now, there was no ‘top end’ for mirrorless cameras - now that’s the A7R.”
No that top end for mirrorless would be the Leica M (type 240). Safe to say much better lenses than the native Sony or Zeiss lenses for the A7/R.. And the Leica M9 beat the A7 to the mirrorless FF market by 4 years.
Now I guess, Kimio could mean: “Sony ignored the image quality, particularly the lenses, for the Nex system, so there wasn’t really a top end to that system; the A7R fixes that problem, but of course introduces new lenses and bodies.”
No, it takes all E mount lenses currently made. The majority of the APS-C glass will only be useful in APS-C mode, some can be cropped to formats inbetween APS-C and FF and one or two can be used in FF mode at certain focal lengths. Then there's the FF NEX glass that was just announced and all A mount glass, going back to early '80's can be attached with working AF, using the various adapters (SLT adapter, some work with the cheaper and smaller non SLT adapter).
RedFox88: 'Every six months I want to do something new'
That's the exact reason why I avoid sony products like the plague. They don't concentrate on their products long enough for them to be trusted by buyers. I want to know I'll be able to use my lenses on new cameras while sony clearly now wants to make new things, who cares about the old, right? Geez.
You can use almost any lens on the just introduced A7/A7R.Or closer to home, a 28 year old Minolta with fast AF if needed, for example.
Actually, their FF sensors are among the most efficient too and have the highest (low ISO) DR. Only high ISO DR is a tad behind some of the Canon and Nikon designs.
Maybe he was referring to AF cameras, who knows.
tjwaggoner: Why wasnt he asked if he had any info on when BSI sensors would migrate to the larger formats? This is a question that intrigues me, as I think it may be the next big leap in sensor performance over the very marginal increases you get from most modern sensors today. Just my opinion, maybe some of you are more informed on the issue?
Viking79 is correct (altough see RX100 II comments below). It compensates for losses due to wiring etc., from which larger pixels found in current APS-C and FF sensors do not suffer enough to be a factor worth countering.The largest BSI pixels in a consumer camera that I know of, are those in the RX100 II, which is the equivalent of roughly 62 MP on APS-C or 148 MP on FF. Not quite there yet. ;-)
MayaTlab0: That's exactly the problem with Sony. Doing something new for the sake of being new is of no use whatsoever. Instead, they should try to do the right thing. Right now, the only reason Sony sometimes come out with a good product is out of sheer luck - they do so many "new things" one in a million is bound not to be so bad (and many others, like the QX, are still born ideas). And their imaging division still looses money anyway.
Reviews are mixed, but so are expectations. Mostly because there is no competing product (other than the RX100, which as noted is targeted at a different market) or similar concept preceeding it.
The QX is so dead in the water that they have a hard time keeping supply up with demand. ;-)
intruder61: IS 933 comments a record?
A7 introduction had over 1500 comments.
Francis Carver: The heck is this?
The sensor is exactly two times smaller.
Snapsh0t: No remote control????Seems a strange omission for a camera with these capabilities.
I'm obviously in the target market group for this as 24-200mm equivalent will suit me perfectly - my Nikon 16-85mm is usually wide enough but often too short. I won't be shedding my Nikon gear but the RX10 looks like a perfect holiday camera for me.
IR remote can be found for less than $4 or use a smartphone which adds external viewfinder capabilities among other things.
PenGun: Has to be the same sensor, well updated perhaps, as the one on the D800. So weather sealed, medium format really, wonderful dynamic range and a grand cheaper. Poor Nikon what a brutal hit.
It's such a waste that Plastek has a daytime job spreading the gospel and convincing everyone that it is a waste of money. ;)
xiod_crlx: oh... come on!
zeiss has even links to "high res" pictures on their website (http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/otus/otus1455.html) for this lens
let's take a look!http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/sets/72157635236491881/
WAIT A SECOND!
NOT A SINGLE PICTURE WIDE OPEN @ 1.4 ???
so much words and still so shy to show anything? whoa...
The last portrait shot on the D800E is done at f/1.4.
SunnyFlorida: If it truly was a "no compromise" lens, why not make it a F/1.2? or F/.95?
Because those lenses are usually compromised too. There is a reason why the Canon 50mm f/1.2 performs worse in some areas than other 50mm lenses, including the Canon 50mm f/1.4.
Jogger: Just wondering which compact camera DPR would recommend in place of the RX100/2 .. serious question. DPR reviews are increasingly irrelevant.
And as for printing, any modern DSLR at 16 MP or above would require resampling to display an uncropped scene on your printer at a regular 4x6 print.Very few people use a variable PPI anyway (a slight crop would change it), most stick to certain predetermined values to achieve a desired quality and resample themselves or have the printing/printer software do that for them automatically.
You don't seem to understand what I just said. Only if you zoom to 100%, you can bypass scaling. Showing the full (scene of the) picture on a monitor, involves automatic scaling. So in my first mention of scaling, of course I didn't refer to zooming, because who in their right mind takes pictures to only look at 100% crops rather than the full scene. You don't either, so my comment about scaling for monitor purposes still applies.
M DeNero: Another niche model from Sony that is too expensive to generate strong sales and will contribute to Sony's financial problems. They have too many niche products.
Yes, because one camera per mount really builds a system that people would faithfully "invest" in. ;-)
What do you think happens when you print at a given (standard) size with 300 DPI? Resampling/remapping done by the print software on your computer or the printer itself. The chances of hitting exactly 300 DPI or say 150 DPI at the print size chosen with the resolution used are usually close to zero.
Same with displaying on your monitor, because I have yet to see a consumer use a monitor exactly matching the resolution of his/her modern camera. No zooming required. In fact, only if you always display your pictures by zooming to 100%, you'd bypass resampling/scaling, but in that case, you'd always end up with a tiny portion of the original scene being displayed. Not plausible.
Except that it seems to sell well, which isn't too surprising after the success of the predecessor.
It's compact cameras like these that can really set themselves apart from cellphone cameras and therefore will be able to dodge the fall of compact camera sales in general, much longer too.
gavp: It does indeed look very capable in low light. Probably far less so in bright light - a base ISO of 160 and only 1/2000th on offer will potentially be quite limiting. Something like an LX7, with ISO80, 1/4000th and built in ND filter certainly trumps it easily there.
First, there were several (non OEM) solutions for the old model that did not involve glue and yes, Sony offers its own solution for the II now (again without the need for glue).