saeba77: i'm a Nikon fan but if i spend 5k euro i pretend the best in all....high iso, AF performance, durability, speed and of course DR.Sorry but i'm a bit disappointed
"expose properly "
One of the most long-standing myths. "Proper" in this context is fully arbitrary, when you often have to make a cut-off either at the light end, dark end or both ends.
Are you telling me that professionals shooting movies using for example Arri Alexa cameras, fully exploiting 14 EV or more, aren't "exposing properly" either? For as long as our daily life scenes can easily exceed 14 stops of dynamic range, I don't see why we should start limiting ourselves to 12 stops or less, when output media like TV's and monitors are doing the opposite (see the new OLED TV's, monitors and for example the UHD Premium standard).
And yes, those output media and formats such as jpeg are usuallya limiting factor still, but that doesn't stop us from compressing more stops using gamma curves, similar to what our brains do all the time, rather than simply throwing details away. In fact, adding fill light in your RAW converter, can be the equivalent of adding >2 stops of shadow noise.
ZAnton: I assume, lower DR is an inevitable trade-off for the better high ISO performance.D5 is 2 fat stops better than Canon 1Dx.
I think we meant the same thing. Nikon went for a trade-off but other cameras have shown there doesn't need to be one. Possibly depending on the sensor supplier for this particular camera.
The Name is Bond: "Dissappointing"?
Why? Massive DR is for landscapes etc. This camera is for sports and news. It's a good thing that it is instead optimised for low-light.
It assumes that optimization for low light (mostly limited by high ISO read noise) always has to go at a considerable cost in low ISO DR, a theory disproven by existing cameras.
And as for the "good enough" comment, that sets the bar pretty low in the current age. Following such logic, sports shooters would still be fine with not having AF too, because excellent pictures were taken without it for many years.
It's clearly a trade-off but not to this extend inevitable, seeing that the A7S has quite a bit more latitude still.
ray-ray: The Sony brand may look good on some products to which we were introduced over the years, like radios, TV's, telephones and at one time the ubiquitous Walkman, however, no matter how good the camera, the Sony moniker just doesn't have the "camera" appeal. Re-brand with Minolta and watch interest and sales pick up.
" Re-brand with Minolta and watch interest and sales pick up. "
New generations barely know that Minolta used to be one of the players in the Camera business and that knowledge diminishes further every year. Not to mention those that remember how their last efforts weren't exactly setting the market on fire (mostly due to financial issues as a result of legal battles).
fatdeeman: Looks like another highly competent body with good ergonomics and overall performance and now a sensor that's more versatile and competitive too.
It seems like possibly the best overall hybrid of live view and viewfinder technology if that's what you want, the dual pixel AF offers probably the best liveview experience of any DSLR and is close to or equal to the best mirroless bodies with OSPD.
It's a shame it doesn't have 4k, that would have really shaked things up in it's segment but Canon like many others are wary of harming sales of more expensive models.
It will be interesting to see if they keep working on that sensor tech or let it stagnate for years again.
" Sony screwed up 1080p video iq by chasing 4k."
Non sequitur. It actually allows for the best 1080p video in its class.
If nothing else it allows for much better 1080p video too, through downsampling (increased usable detail and color information, less artifacts etc) , shake reduction by shifting the image, custom cropping while keeping fullHD resolution, etc.
Even on my 1080p screen, heavily compressed youtube videos played at 4k (thus downsampled to 1080p) look much better than natively shot 1080p material.
On top of that, 4k videos offer much more usable still grabs. At times print worthy.
TrojMacReady: Interestingly, the one metric where iPhone and iPad calibration fell short the past years, is whitebalance: too cool. What's worse, the large iPad Pro actually loosened color accuracy too compared to previous (and much cheaper) siblings, which is hard to swallow considering its target audience with the Pencil and the "Pro" moniker.
In other words, they may give it a Pro name and auto WB correction, but the calibrated starting point has to be right first...
Not sure about that trend, even the current iPad Pro (12.9 inch) sits around 7300K. Never mind the ΔE2000 of 5.6, which is consumer level too (twice that of the Air 2 and the Surface Pro 4 sits at an even lower 1.3).
The iPad Air 2 recorded above 7000K, the Air around 6900K.
jacketpotato: 4GB RAM ? as larger 12inch iPad Pro?More important than others specs touted.
No site mentioned RAM : don't theses sites check.Will it take ifixit teardown to reveal RAM
Photoreader: If I understand things correctly Samsung has done this in the Galaxy S5 already with the adaptive display mode. Take a look at http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S5_ShootOut_1.htm.
Correct:"The Adapt Display Mode provides real-time adaptive processing to dynamically adjust images and videos – for some applications it will vary the White Point, Color Gamut, and Color Saturation based on the image content and the color of the surrounding ambient lighting measured by the Galaxy S5 RGB Ambient Light Sensor (which measures color in addition to brightness). The Adapt Display Mode also delivers higher color saturation, which appeals to some, and is also a better choice for high ambient light viewing conditions, which wash out the on-screen colors and contrast from the reflected light, which we examine next."
It can also be found on their tablets with AMOLED screens, such as the S and S2. That being said, the Adaptive Display mode sadly isn't as accurate as the "Basic" mode. I wish Samsung would allow a dynamic WB option in the Basic mode too.
Interestingly, the one metric where iPhone and iPad calibration fell short the past years, is whitebalance: too cool. What's worse, the large iPad Pro actually loosened color accuracy too compared to previous (and much cheaper) siblings, which is hard to swallow considering its target audience with the Pencil and the "Pro" moniker.
Thorgrem: And where are the new Sony E-mount APS-C lenses to go with this (nice) camera?Or do you really have to spend Master G money on a standard 2.8 zoom which is heavy and big?
@Pkosewski:I clearly wasn't talking about equivalents. For shorter focal lengths, you can achieve a size difference for a given real focal length on a smaller format. See Kharan's explanation below. Which is why there are APS-C and FF versions of say 35mm and 50mm lenses, but generally not around 85mm and above. Example, Sony introduced two affordable 35mm and 85mm lenses for the A mount at the same time. The latter covered both formats, the former only APS-C.
Name me an APS-C only 70-200 f/2.8 (real focal length) lens that is noticeably smaller than a FF lens with the same focal length.
Trick question and here's another hint: neither Nikon, nor Canon makes APS-C only 70-200mm lenses.
2eyesee: Is anyone else getting rather cynical about Sony's habit of keeping old cameras on the market to justify charging a premium for their new tech?
There's no way this camera should be viewed as anything other than a replacement of the A6000. Just as the RX10 II should have been a replacement of the RX10 and the RX100M4 a replacement of the RX100M3.
I remember comments about it in the supplementary papers provided with recent quarterly reports too, but these are the last numbers presented for the segment (called Professional, Devices & Solutions at the time):http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/fr/11q4_sony.pdf
From a profit to a $246 million loss and 12.6% lower sales for fiscal year 2012.
TheWhiteDog: Excellent RAW processing Dan, the cameras JPEGs definitely tend to the cool side and the camera seems to underexpose a bit. But the RAW files certainly have lots of DR to work with. I'm sure the camera will be a big hit, SONY needs to show a bit more support in the way of new lenses though(G Master FF lenses don't count.)
For some reasons we're overlooking the excellent 19mm and 30mm Sigma, 24mm Sony Z, 28mm, 35mm OS, 50mm OS, 35mm Sony Z, 32mm Z, 10-18mm, etc. All relatively compact still and 5 of those can be had under $500 each, all of them for less than $800.
Their pro video/broadcast department wasn't doing great, according to their last writeups. Which makes sense, since that whole business is struggling, apparently.