Thorgrem: Only the 28 f/2.0 has a normal size and price. To bad it's not wider than a normal kit-lens. The rest is to big and to expensive. If I wanted to go FF, Sony wouldn't be an option anymore. To big and to expensive, can get the same size at a cheaper price at CaNikon.
Point me to a smaller FF package (key, lens is just one part of the total package) from Canon or Nikon. Measured from sensor to front lens element, an A7 with that 35 f/1.4 ZA is shorter still than any DSLR plus AF 35mm f/1.4 on the market. Same goes for the 35mm f/2.8 btw, even if we include APS-C DSLR's and the smallest AF pancake (40mm f/2.8) from Pentax.
D1N0: Sony should bring out a compact 18mm super wide, which kan make optimal use of the short flange (but it is probably difficult due to angular vignetting) A FF mirrorless should problay have a somewhat wider flange distance, like 35mm.
What's the benefit of a longer flange distance? Now you have choice to add length to lens designs, if you add that extra length/depth to the body, it's always going to be there.
Martin Datzinger: ZA 35/1.4: 79x112mm / 630g / €1600ZM 35/1.4: 63x65mm / 381g / €2000ZF 35/1.4: 78x120mm / 900g / €1650Sigma 35/1.4: 77x94mm / 665g / €700Nikon 35/1.4: 83x89.5mm / 600g / €1500
The 55 ZA mounted on an A7 is still smaller (slightly less depth) than a D810 plus 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, in part because of the distance between sensor plane and front lens element still being shorter (by little over a cm).This holds true for a Nikon or Sigma 35mm f/1.4 mounted on a D810 vs A7 plus 35mm f/1.4 ZA too.
cgarrard: Might be nice to see a few budget primes for this lineup too, get people into the system with less outlay.
An aggressive announcement regardless, and showing strength for the FE system.
@Babka08 :Pentax has a huge flange distance (read distance from sensor to mount). The smallest Pentax prime (40mm f/2.8 Limited) still requires more room between front element and sensor plane, than an A7 plus 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss.In other words, there's nothing special to those Pentax pancakes, the extra depth sits in the bodies instead.
viking79: Now that is a good looking phone! I will take the Edge please. :)
Ouch...., thanks for the update though!
Menneisyys: No OIS? That's bad...
They said there was no room for it with the new sensor. Whether true or not...
Hi Lars, early rumors suggested a "pro mode" that allows for more manual control (shutterspeed, WB, etc.) but also the inclusion of a RAW option, basically supporting the Lollipop Camera2 API.The former I have seen confirmed ("pro mode"), but I haven't seen any mention of RAW. Have you seen that option somewhere in the menus?
Thanks in advance.
Menneisyys: Pretty mediocre as a smartphone camera. (Not to mention as a phone, particularly with the unsettling news of Sony's probably selling off their entire smartphone business, meaning a definite end of any official future firmware upgrades. Not that previous Sony models received that many upgrades...)
In addition to the usual stuff (bad oversharpening, watercoloring via the, at least in broad daylight, unnecessarily strong noise reduction), Sony really should improve their sweep pano mode. Heck, even Samsung's implementation is way better, which, in turn, can't hold a candle to that of Apple. And the decentered lens and bad front camera (the latter being particularly important in dual-camera modes (here: "Face In"), which I *love* on the Note4 and use a LOT for social shots)....
This is another direct comparison where the Note 4 wins:http://www.phonearena.com/reviews/Camera-comparison-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-4-vs-iPhone-6-iPhone-6-Plus-Sony-Xperia-Z3-LG-G3-Galaxy-S5-Galaxy-Note-3_id3822/page/5Notice the paintery watercolor effect in the iPhone pano (similar to its regular pictures) and less usable detail. Similarly low in stitching errors.
And here's some iPhone 6 panto's with clear stitching errors both on the left (brick wall) and right side (frames around glass):http://i.imgur.com/WsDmr.jpgOr this, even at this small size there are tons of errors visible in the metal fences, etc.:https://www.flickr.com/photos/rt425/15218947890/sizes/k/
"It exposes the usual problems with the Note4 panos (apart from the watercoloring and oversharpening, in which, as you've also admitted, the iPhone is better):"
That's not a comparison, that's a singled out example. I can post iPhone 6 (plus) panos too with stitching errors and faults. That tells us exactly nothing in relative terms. And I didn't admit that the iPhone does better at the things mentioned at all, that would be a fallacy or bad reading on your end. I specifically stated that the Note 4 oversharpens and the iPhone 6 understharpens. But I also said that the iPhone still comes with more artifacts, which becomes apparent when you do add sharpening. The watercolor effect is actually much more prominent in iPhone samples of the same size, which in part explains the above problems when you start sharpening.
Judging by the shadows, these were shot at the same time too and with no clouds in the sky, there's nothing left to be proven really (besides, why would we want to look at tablet output anyway, this is about phones and this is the current top model from Apple):http://i57.tinypic.com/2qweno7.jpg
Leading to the conclusion that "can't hold a candle to the Apple pano's" is a wild exaggeration.
Now granted, one is oversharpened and the other needs more sharpening, but once you start adding sharpening to the iPhone 6 Plus pano, it falls apart long before it reaches similar levels of detail of the same objects, despite the slightly longer FL of the lens.
It's hard arguing what was presented by GSMArena, where the Note 4 pano's show more detail except for shadows for the same scene and similar amounts of errors (very few). Ignoring the usual yellow veil covering all iPhone 6 (plus) photos and videos.Your findings aren't going to magically change that.
" which, in turn, can't hold a candle to that of Apple"
Not so sure of that. GSMArena compared the Note 4 and iPhone 6 plus in this regard and the Note 4 came out with better detail (also higher total MP count) and more accurate colors, similar amount of stitching errors (very little for both), the iPhone 6 plus has slightly better dynamic lighting control over a wide scene.
All in all pretty comparable, with benefits either way, depending on your demands.
gozima: Lets be real here. The only reason Sony is still "committed" to their imaging division is because of Apple. If Apple ever decides to develop their own sensor tech or buy cellphone sensors from someone else, Sony's imaging division will cease to exist.
Samsung buys more Sony camera modules than Apple does...
Rooru S: BCN rankings has been published for last year results.
SLR salesCanon 54.7%Nikon 39.1%Ricoh (Pentax) 4.5%-------------------------54.7+39.1+4.5 = 98.3%
Guess Sony only managed to get 1.7% of A-mount equipment... Maybe the next thing in the spin off crazyness is Sony A-mount.
EDIT: Actually that's a great Idea. Sony should sell A-mount and let another company keep developing lenses and bodies.
Lots of assumptions but the only model specific worldwide sales statistics that surfaced a few years ago, showed that the first SLT outsold all A mount DSLR's by a large margin, despite being available for just over a year at that point (second was the A700 which had been available for almost 4 years).
The main problem for the A mount is lack of marketing budget (shallow pockets means spending where it pays off most) and a shrinking market as a whole. There may be less bodies, but the latest (A77II) offers bucket loads of quality, speed and features for well under $1k (for a while even including $299 vertical grip). No one knows about it though.
uflux: The reaction on this forum is just bizarre. Sony's image division is making a sh*t load of money. They camera division is also doing very well, with A7 sales well above expectations. The idea that Sony is in trouble is a joke. They are one of the only Camera manufactures making good money....It is like you guys don't even read...
Sony is the only one from the "big" 5 that is showing an imaging division with relatively flat sales and growing profits in a rapidly shrinking total market. Canon and especially Nikon are seeing both sales and profits decline. Sony's mirrorless market share (and value per camera) is still growing too in a relatively flat mirrorless market in terms of units. Same goes for high value compact cameras (increasing sales).
To think Sony's imaging division is therefore going to be closed too, is either wishful thinking from haters or just irrational thoughts. Especially the E mount (and thus A mount lens base through adapters) isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The same may not be true for low/medium value compacts and camcorders, the bleeding markets (as a whole).
justmeMN: Every camera company announces that they want to sell more "high value-added" cameras.
In the mean time, on AmazonUSA, the best selling interchangeable lens cameras are usually old models, in the $400-$600 range.
But for mirrorless cameras, there are usually several A7 versions in the top 10 (3 as I'm typing this, the A7II taking 3rd and 4th alone).
Thorgrem: Nice camera! Something Sony surly has mastered I think. To bad they don't develop any lenses for this camera anymore. Only FF E-mount is in development that means that if you have a APS-C sensor you will have to buy bigger and heavier lenses than necessary. Only a few APS-C Sony E-mount lenses are worth mentioning, most is mediocre at best.
It's similar in size and weight to both the Canon and Nikon versions (Canon is slightly shorter and lighter, Nikon is longer and heavier). But you still have the benefit of the short flange distance (26mm difference compared to Canon, helps limit total depth) and lightweight bodies. Defeats the point? No, those small bodies can still be small with small lenses (the DSLR cannot compete here) and total weight is still several hundred grams lower than a 7DmkII or D7100 plust 70-200.
" you will have to buy bigger and heavier lenses than necessary."
You keep repeating this myth and I will tell you again, longer FL lenses would be of similar/same size, had they just covered the APS-C circle. That 70-200 used in the video is a good example of a new lens that quite a few APS-C users seem to enjoy.
For the same reason, neither Canon nor Nikon develops APS-C 70-200 lenses, or other longer FL lenses in general.
As for good lenses for APS-C E mount cameras:- 24mm CZ- 35mm OSS- 50mm OSS- 10-18mm OSS- 16-70mm CZ OSS - 18-105mm OSS- 18-200mm OSS- 55-210mm OSS- 70-200mm OSS
Never mind all the excellent Sigma, CZ and Samyang lenses.
aftab: I am sure this is a very capable camera and your video is testament to that. I would have loved to see how it performed with smaller moving subjects such as BIF. I was in Galapagos few months ago and was shooting with FZ1000 and 5DIII. I did much better for BIF with both of my cameras than my friend did with a6000. I don't mean to say that my experience is the final word on these cameras. May not be relevant here, but I find it interesting that Sony market share in Japan for mirrorless has fallen from over 40% to less than 30% in 2014.
Smartphone share has fallen in Japan too, at the cost of flip/clamshell phones.
Hardly representative market.