Just another Canon shooter: Corner and edge performance is poor even on this high resolution sensor with no AA filter. 1+ vignetting at f/22? There seems to be a price to be paid for the short flange distance.
Yes, on the same sensor:http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/sony-a7r-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-the-boats
InTheMist: The first test I compared it to was the D800 (non-e) and Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art.
I'll take the Sigma.
Tests run by Roger Cicala using the Sigma on the D800, showed the FE to be both sharper in the center and corners (average) at f/2.8.
Oh and it beat the Canon 35mm f/2 IS mounted on the A7R (Metabones) too.
Scrozzy: Interesting to see he thinks Canikon making inferior mirrorless is damaging the credibility of the market. Perhaps it's a deliberate ploy to protect their DSLR sales. Maybe they're not as dim witted as people think.
Yes, Kodak showed that works. 30 billion dollars in 1997. Pause.
mvmv: Reviewer forgot importance of AF. A7r has the worst AF in FF world (- RX1). In conclusion it should had been pointed that camera is not for sport, action or low light.
"Sony has NO fast lenses available for this system f4 is the fastest aperture speed you'll get for now. "
Someone is on a mission to spread misinformation and failing miserably.
armandino: the big attraction to me for a wonderful FF mirrorless is the true advantage over an SLR: the minimum distance from the optics to the sensor. When am I going to see superwide angles that truly take advantage of this?
Nonsense. Short flange distance does not force anything. It gives more freedom of choice for lens designs. Design lenses with the same distance between sensor and rear elements (relative to a larger flange distance system) and you have none of the above issues. Nothing forced thers, just a choice of compromises.
TrojMacReady: The review says that Sony now offers 4 different adapters but the EA3 and EA4 replaced the EA1 and EA2 respectively.
The last part of your comment is true, but the new ones work just as well on APS-C (in effect they just add compatibility with FF cameras) and while still listed on the Sony website when you search for them, the Sony Store tags them as discontinued (and you can no longer buy them from there).
For current buyers of new adapters, that should remove half the confusion. ;-)
iAPX: Long viewfinder blackout timeLonger-than-average startup timesCamera 'locks up' while buffer is clearing after continuous shootingOverly sensitive eye sensor (also stays active when screen is tilted)short battery life. And even lossly compressed RAW on a 36MP camera targeting pro looking for quality (elsewhere they wont need 36MP).
So you don't see your subject while shooting, you shoot too late, your camera won't be able to shoot when necessary, display may stop working, you will not have enough autonomy and you will need to buy an optional charger and battery. Single memory card slot (no backup!)? Wifi without live view (as I have on my Panasocnic LF1/Leica C). And your raw won't be real raw?
Is it a middle-end $300 compact camera? or a toy for hipster?My first owned DSLR, Nikon D70 could do better in many areas!!!
I heart you too.
Prizeless (...), all these testosterone driven comments.
The review says that Sony now offers 4 different adapters but the EA3 and EA4 replaced the EA1 and EA2 respectively.
If you keep asking why, you're not the target market. Be happy with what you have instead of worrying why others are happy with other tools.
fabio riccardi: I have a question about lenses for full frame mirrorless cameras.I notice that pretty much all the Sony lenses for these cameras have relatively small maximum aperture. The 55mm normal lens is 1.8, vs the 1.4 we are accustomed to for normal full frames. Similarly for the rest of the line. I guess that bright lenses also mean heavier, larger, lenses, which don't quite make sense on smaller camera bodies.This kind of defeats the purpose of a full frame sensor, where you can benefit from the shallow depth of field it allows.On APS sized sensors, brighter lenses can still be fairly compact. Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus lenses are all much brighter than the new FF mirrorless Sony.Brighter lenses on APS sensors deliver equivalent DOF and look than the dimmer lenses on FF. At the end what is gained with the full frame is lost with the smaller maximum practical aperture.What do you guys think? - Fabio
Actual measured transmission values of the 55mm lens are similar to those of most f/1.4 lenses.
Also, the theory that FF offers no benefit when apertures are smaller, is limited to situations where the shutterspeed is the limiting factor. Which isn't always the case. Reminds me of the Sony R1, when people were making a similar argument about its smaller apertures compared to its smaller sensor predecessors. Until the output made them realize that the R1 still showed clear benefits in many situations.
Zeisschen: Seems like APS-C DSLR will have a hard time beating this little speed monster. Everyone paying more money for a lower overall performance and twice the bulk and weight must be insane. This can do 99% of what consumers want to do with their camera.
@brycesteiner:Again you're confusing pixelcount with the definition of resolution. A 20% increase in resolution, is a 20% increase per axis, not in pixelcount. That's the point here and a non debatable one, once you check the facts.
And as for fps, need isn't the right word for this hobby. Rarely anyone needs most of the features on their cameras. But that doesn't deny supply and demand. I see tons of people shooting at higher speeds than that with their phones already....
yabokkie: if the AF is really good, and better if good with EF lenses, many of us should be able to put m4/3" behind us.
Many people are using their Sony camera bodies as a "nice system".If you find what you need, you have it, right there.
Paul1974: It seems like DPreview is ignoring the increase in megapixel count from 16 to 24. Why? For me, upgrading from Nex-5n to Nex-6 for better handling only, was not good enough. However the prospect of 24 MP (a6000) makes it tempting.
"NEX 7 had 24mp but most people (and tests) agreed that the NEX 6 has just as good or better IQ, with the 24pm just adding more noise and pointing out flaws in your lens. "
Yes, let's ignore the fact that with most of the lenses available, it outresolves any Sony 16MP out there. Measured.
And the noise story is getting old too, usually ignoring the fact that the NEX 7 understates ISO's compared to most other cameras.
Paul1974: DPreview says both"The a6000 does not have microphone [or headphone] ports."and:"Toward the center of the photo you'll spot the 'Multi-Interface Shoe', which combines an ISO standard hot shoe with extra pins for attaching a microphone."Please clarify?
No ports for standardized mic or audio jacks.But there is the propriety connection hidden in the front of the hotshoe, which can be used with Sony external microphones or even the XLR module for balanced audio out.($$$)
Grumpyrocker: I sold my NEX-6 yesterday and have a Fujifilm X-E2 being delivered today. I was taking a risk that the NEX-6 replacement wouldn't be the camera I wanted. I was right - especially given the reduction in EVF resolution. Though my decision to change was more about the lenses on offer - the A6000 still looks like a fine camera, just not right for me.
EVF refresh rate is also related to processing power.
scotbot: though the one thing that's not available is a live view of whatever you're about to photograph.
Well who would need that when shooting from their Mac or PC?
It is available. See for example here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2f9ue2FJB4(2:54)
Actually, resolution is expressed and compared per single axis. You're comparing total pixel count.
Thorgrem: Nice camera for a nice price. But, where are the lenses? With big holes in the APS-C e-mount line up it's almost pointless to make more camera's than the entry-level (a3000, A5000).
"They're too slow!""They're too large!""My favorite focal length is missing!"
Mostly comments from people who were never interested in the first place, just looking for a stick to beat the dog and you'll always find one, as we tend to say in the Netherlands.
Fuji's faster lenses are on average larger still, so those aren't going to win the compact argument either. µ4/3 systems have small lenses because their lenses project a smaller image circle and most of the time pass less total light (not to be confused with density or light per unit area, translated into f stops) to the sensor, all else (f stop et al.) being equal. Hence they are easier to design small (for the same FL equiv. and f stop).
Every system is a compromise, so is the Sony system. If you want smaller lenses or faster lenses still, or can't find your favorite FL and can live with MF, plenty of choice. Those times size isn't an issue, the LA-EA4 adapter can do great things too (long and fast lenses, fast AF).
Right, because capturing the perfect moment of say, kids running, playing around, playing sports isn't going to be done with cameras like these and the fact that previous iterations had trouble tracking, let alone do burst and tracking, was never mentioned as a con.
Correction regarding battery life: in the table you compared 2 different measurements for battery life between the NEX 6 and A6000. The quoted 360 shots for the NEX 6 is using the LCD (270 for the EVF) and the 360 for the A6000 is when using the EVF (430 for the LCD). Which would suggest battery life has been improved by 19% (LCD) or 33% (EVF) respectively, compared to the NEX 6.