eno2: If 'the customer’s voice is the most important data for me' (him), where is the most wanted uncompressed Sony RAW format, all Sony users scream after it for several years now!
It's not 11 bit, it's 11+7(delta) bit. The last Sony camera to offer both options was the A900/A850 and to put things in perspective, most couldn't spot the difference, even in blind comparisons.
Which doesn't negate the fact that lossless compression would be a welcome option, but it does highlight the hyperbole.
Ednaz: After renting a Sony SLR for a few days and post processing and printing some of the images, I was convinced that 11 bit raw wasn't enough and Sony wasn't on my list. It's OK for point and shoot, but that's a small fraction of my shooting.
It's not 11bit, its 11+7(delta) bit, a wholly different thing. A theoretical difference of several visible stops between shadows and highlights in terms of DR that both can cover. The A7R for example is already measured to have more usable DR than 11bits could cover.
kamituel: I'd love the interviewer to ask Sony about their lens roadmap. The info about them working on 2.8 zooms and large aperture primes is nice, but why not post a full roadmap, like Fuji does?
"of questionable quality" The Sony 24-70 is similar in optical performance to the Canon equivalent while being smaller in volume and more lightweight. The Sony 70-200 performs similar to the Canon f/4 equivalent too, same goes for the 16-35.
Comparing to the much larger and much more expensive (currently more than twice the price of the Sony f/4 at Amazon... ) Canon 24-70 II f/2.8 is a bit pointless. If you need that larger aperture now, then yes, obviously a no brainer.
DesmondD: I still haven't found an optical viewfinder that doesn't give me motion sickness. I recently looked through a Sony 7S and had to stop looking through it after 10 seconds. Looking TTG "Through The Glass" is still the best for me.I know not everyone is like that but I'm thankful it's still an option.
True, backlit scenes or sunsets are much easier on and safer for the retina with an EVF.
AndyGM: The Mirrorless vs DSLR debate really comes down to viewfinders.
I think we are now at a point where even die hard DSLR fans will say that entry level EVFs are a better experience than entry level OVFs, and even mid range EVFs are a better experience than mid range OVFs.
That just leaves the high end, full frame DSLR OVFs as an example of the best of viewfinder tech.
Someone mentioned they like OVFs because they have full dynamic range. Well I would have thought that was a DISADVANTAGE. The DR of your eyes is over 20 stops, whereas even the best camera are more like 15 stops. So the camera will "see" less than you will, you just don't get a representative idea of the exposure through an OVF.
Plus EVFs can show some much additional information. And an SLR OVF is just dead weight if/when you shoot video.
OVFs (the top end, good ones) have just 2 advantages left AFAICS. No lag. And they are solar powered so save on your batteries!
I only shoot RAW and still value the benefit of seeing the WB (can be calibrated/adjusted for just the EVF too), which will be my starting point in Lightroom. Nothing will eventually stop an EVF from showing shadow information that your eyes see. Besides that, I fail to see practical value to that argument to begin with, since you still have a naked eye too. For example a backlit distant blackbird isn't an issue with a good EVF today, let alone in the future.
A good OLED display can easily cover 8 stops or more but more (blackpoint cutoff is more crucial here, sensor readout too) importantly, it can compress a much larger range the same way we do that in our pictures in RAW or our cameras through DRO etc. Don't forget that our actual output rarely exceeds 7 to 8 stops to begin with. It's about the range of the original scene that you can initially catch and if desired compress. Current Sony cameras already allow DRO effects in the viewfinder, even in RAW when I last checked. The last EVF implentations added 1 to 2 stops due to better (faster, more pixels being read) sensor read out too.
Lassoni: Mirrorless doesn't give size savings if the objective is big. I guess it works well with pancake objectives, but even stuff like 50 or 85 prime start struggling on a mirrorless body that is small. There's also the problem if you happen to attach a heavy objectibe on a small light body, the weight balance will be off. DSLRs require special tripods to balance the use of 400+ prime teles, whilst I think a small body mirrorless might already start running into troubles trying to balance a 1kg prime/zoom.
Who? The person I replied to."DSLRs require special tripods to balance the use of 400+ prime teles"
Not really, since the tripod will support the lens with larger lenses such as the one you mention. The body will be "hanging" on to that lens, just like with a DSLR.
It's all relative anyway. An A7 with 70-200 lens may look unbalanced to some, so does a DSLR with a 300mm bright prime.
nicoboston: Canon PowerShot G3X: $1000Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV: $950Fujifilm X-T10 + 16-50 Lens: $800
... DxO One : $600 😂
Sigh. Ite, missa est.
Ending march this year,iOS had 36,5% market share of newly shipped devices, Android 58.1% share in the USA.http://telecoms.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/05/Kantar-smartphone-Q1-2015.jpg
Photato: I find interesting that Samsung is using a 16:9 Aspect Ratio sensor to better match today's Smartphone, Computer and TV screens. The images at full display actually show Full Screen, no pillar bars or crops and is great for multiple person wide angle shots as well.I hope Apple abandon for good that pesky 4:3 sensor AR of the 90's Webcams and finally put a 3:2 Sensor which in my opinion is a better compromise for the 21st century screens.
Wait, why compromise? give us Multi Aspect Ratio sensors already for heavens sake.
Uh, multi-aspect ratio sensors do exist and have existed for quite a while (see Panasonic for example). Oversized sensor gives several aspect ratio's while keeping the same FL.
Joseph Black: Despite Sony's ILC growth, the market as a whole is unimpressive. http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/13102/camera-sales-april-2015-data-triumth-of-hermaphroditesSony is king of a flat, growthless market, and once they take 100% of that market share they'll be the proud owners of simply treading water.I think the truth of the matter is that a camera with a mirror has a long reputation of being what serious photographers use and even the cheap ones have impressive and proven AF tech. ILC cameras are far more capable than they used to be, but the only markets where people upgrade cameras often enough and to whatever the newest trend happens to be is Asia...which stands to reason since it's almost all made there and they have different cultural and economic motivations than Americans and Europeans. Asian markets still don't own enough camera sales to tip the scales on ILC sales.
And the theory that they can only really expand when tapping into the professional market is fatally flawed when you realize that the professional market is a very small niche in the niche called ILC. Even the halo effect is heavily overstated and has more to do with brsnd name than type of camera. But if you insist, cameras like the A7RII have already grabbed the attention of professionals for their convergence capabilities (something the A7S did to a lesser extend).
Again it's a misinterpretation because you automatically assume that because a market is stagnant, a part of that market will not be able to exceed it, even when it's clear that certain products in that market set themselves apart (FF, different price category too) and have not been and are not stagnant. Just because they are lumped together in these statistics, it doesn't directly mean the market limitations of other MILC will hold back growth of the FF MILC. It's quite clear that these cameras tap into different waters too, attracting a whole new group of mirrorless users. Thus Sony isn't limited to the current size of the market, it can extend it over time.
Valen305: Basically, the way I see it is A7r II + FE 55mm = ~ $4,200 and 1.5lbs. vs 810 + Otus 55mm = $7,000 and 4lbs for pretty much the same quality, minus IBIS, 4K, silent shutter, etc.
The Sony 70-400 has similar sharpness (a bit more uniform at the long end), even though it covers a slightly larger range and is a tad brighter (especially in measured T stops throughout the whole range). See both measured at DXOmark on 24MP sensors from the same generation (A99 vs D600).
This is based on the assumption that the mirrorless market is limited in growth due the nature of the concept rather than what Sony's fellow ILC makers have to offer. I see no reason to believe that Sony's growth would stop once they would reach 100% of the *current* market size in the future. A clear case of misinterpretation of statistics.
Zoron: why is Sony holding back A9 ?....
Anecdotal stuff that works both ways or neither really. Shrug.
DuxX: Fantastic camera but I can't shoot without OVF. Sorry Sony.
It depends a whole lot on the lens used. An F1.4 lens gives you 4 times more light than an F2.8 lens, which directly affects what you see in your EVF in low light. With an F1.4 lens, I see more through the EVF than the naked eye, unless the eye gets to adapt up to 20 mins to full night vision. But until that time, or when night vision gets ruined by a simple light source (such as checking that LCD on the back after taking a shot...), the EVF wins in anything but a completely dark environment. And the latter isn't the typical low light scene, it's a very small niche.
Couscousdelight: The best sensor coupled to the worst image compression.This is stupid, this is Sony.
"When Pentax announce Iso 100, it's mesured around 100 iso by DXo, not around 160-200 like Sony or Nikon"
Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Their ISO measurement has nothing to do with metering (as in visible output) ISO's. It's their way of standardizing measurement, but it does not take into account metadata or calibration in the RAW converter and jpeg engines. Meaning, shooting a scene and comparing scene brightness at the same shutterspeed and F stop from the 3 cameras from those 3 manufacturers can (and usually does) lead to a fully different outcome. Those DXO ISO numbers don't tell you who's better/more honest at calibrating, at best it tells you how much headroom they leave in RAW (at the cost of noise).
I think he meant in the context of Sony (mirrorless). They're not skyrocketing either, but on a steady double digit rise in a stagnating mirrorless (and shrinking DSLR) market.
ripleysbaby: Just how many lenses out there can cope with all those Sony megapixels anyway.I could possibly raise the cash to buy the camera, but nothing would be left for quality glass. that means for the first time for me the Leica looks worth the money
Yes, Adobe Bridge makes even more of a mess out of it.
I repeat, the specifications and EXIF have always listed 14 bit RAW for these cameras (and 12 bit for the others). That's why some are upset it's really 11+7(delta) bits.
"Also at lower ISOs the A7R doesn't have the washed out colour problems of other Sony A7 cameras"
"And I've never done low ISO shooting with it."