maxnimo: The first thing I noticed is that this sensor is really struggling to capture fine detail, like vegetation, even at low ISO. I believe they crammed too many pixels in it.
That's all based on an assumption, because you haven't seen the same shots taken with less megapixels through the same lens.
Even if there isn't more direct detail visible (there clearly is, at least in the center), there is more color information, because we're talking Bayer here (interpolated).
forpetessake: Nothing really new here, pictures still look like from any other P&S camera with a small sensor: poor in low light, looking flat because of deep DOF, blown highlights and noisy shadows, overbearing noise reduction ... -- all that is not surprising, what is surprising is the price one has pay. For that money one would be in a better shape buying A7 with any cheap manual lens -- though they won't be able to take all the pictures due to FL restriction, those they will take will be light years ahead.
Exactly, why buy a small city car when an old Porsche 944 S2 costs the same.
Photato: Not impressed.Tiny 20 megapixels crammed in a 1" sensor is definitely consumerish and it shows. Too bad because that spoils what is otherwise a really nice camera.Sony, let me know when you put 8MP in 1". Like the one you make for Industrial Applications.....You know like the serious stuff for grown ups.
"What is even more comical then is the fact that for basically the same exact camera, the price of the Mark II is $500 higher than the price of the Mark I. Don't you agree?"
No. It has a much better viewfinder than the mark I (better OLED panel, better optics, better coatings), adds S-Log functions etc, but the stacked sensor plus built on DRAW allows:- faster framerates- silent shutter with less artifacts and no image noise penalty- better EVF quality due to faster sensor read out- faster focusing and tracking- faster shutterspeeds - better buffering- better shadow recovery and a hair less shadow noise in low light (short in the blue spectrum)- 4k video at full sensor readout- much less rolling shutter artifacts- more and better slow motion options
Thomas Richter: Problem is, Sony does not have a single decent standard zoom for any of their mirrorless systems.
TN ARgs wrote: "TrojMacReady, which part of my post saying f/2.8 and one kilogram did you think refers to the f/4 lens? LOLOL what a joke."
Which part of *mirrorless systems* in the post you replied to did you find hard to grasp?The lens you keep talking about, is for bodies with mirrors. Get a clue.
jonathanj: Surprise surprise ... Sony make really great cameras but poor systems, they just don't seem to realize that some people want to buy into a system and stick with it.Canon in contrast make a great system but mediocre cameras. The fact they're doing better than Sony indicates that most people don't want or need the latest technology, but they don't necessary want everything they buy to be worthless 5 years later when the system is dumped for something else.
More proven lies. You claim to quote Sony, but you're making it up as you go, as usual.
Operator: Last exit to get the break even, otherwise it's "Game Over" for Sonys camera business.
Not a big deal, the sensors department is still doing a excellent job and will survive ...
Care to quote that non existent phrase from Sony?
You're probably confused with the article already linked, which surfaced this year and does not mention Imaging.
Last year, this was presented:http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201402/14-019E/index.html"In the imaging, game and mobile businesses that Sony identified as the three core businesses that would drive the growth of its electronics business, Sony has made significant progress in executing this strategy."
They mentioned selling the PC business and reforming the Mobile and TV business. Imaging was already profitable last year.
Any more FUD shots to fire?
And the contradiction is followed by a fallacy.
Comparing different formats plus different lenses, cannot give you any usable feedback about your theory that more megapixels can lead to less detail.
Ever heard of "all else being equal (ceteris paribus)"? In the real world, less megapixels usually leads to less detail, all else being equal. In other cases it leads to the same amount of detail, but never less detail that can be extracted from a sensor (not to be confused with different jpeg engines turning the extra pixels into more mush).
Megapixels don't struggle with detail, AA and (type of) color filters and/or lenses and/or jpeg engines (demosaicing algorithms) may.
Actually, the original article doesn't state anything like that and the CEO has already specifically said Sony Imaging is here to stay on several recent occasions, which also fits the strategy as presented:http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/info/strategy/
Based on what exactly? From interviews and presentations, Sony says both contribute, while collapsing lower- and mid end compact cameras plus camcorder sales are taking away from those profits.
Double digit operating profits for the Imaging division as we speak (sames goes for the other division called Devices, which includes sensors). I think you need to update that theory. ;-)
Financial reports from both companies, just released and the percentages from last year's IDC reports and this year's Sony report.
RedDog Steve: I suspect the only way to truly "target current full-frame camera users" would be to equip the camera with either a Canon or Nikon full-frame lens mount.
By Just a Photographer:"You clearly have never used the 85mm f1.2. So are some other lenses that can not be used or are incompatible."
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. On their website, Metabones specifically states they tested the 85mm f/1.2 with success.
Your sole purpose here seems to spread FUD and misinform people with proven nonsense. Talk about agendas indeed.
tietheknot: This is hardly news for anyone who follows Sony. Sony's focus has been on full frame since the first A7(r) was released. It's not to say they got rid of their APS-C bodies altogether.
As a user of an APS-C E-mount body, am I concerned about their shift in focus? Not really, other than that it means my current APS-C lenses lose much more resale value than I would've liked.
Does it mean that there are fewer lenses to for me to use? NO. Remember (especially to those moaning about lenses) that FE lenses can still be used on APS-C bodies. And they work great. Love my newly acquired FE 28 and FE 70-200 on my NEX 5R.
Why are people so negative? Have no clue. Misinformed fanboys maybe?
Tele lens designs (roughly from about 70mm up) are similar in size for APS-C and FF bodies in general due to physics. That's the reason why you won't see many (if any) of those made for APS-C only if the mount circle covers both formats, regardless of mount brand (see also Canon and Nikon). There's simply no point in limiting it that way.
The NEXR is made from magnesium alloy btw.
Again false, there are no lens elements in the way using the correct adapter.
"The difference is that Canon an Nikon outsell Sony by 7 to 8 times when it comes down to numbers"
A) Looking at imaging as a whole, the difference between Canon and Sony is a factor 2 in terms of sales value.B) Looking at ILC's, the difference is less than a factor 4 (11% share for Sony, Canon 38-40%).
I was talking about the trend in the numbers, which tells us something about the current market shift too.
Just a Photographer: Sony Sensor production as an OEM component manufacturer.Sony Camera production is part of their Imaging Division and which is part of their Consumer Product line.
Two different companies.
Both are subsidiaries of the same company.
TriezeA72: With Canon's EVF'less junk, and this nice but limited in reach expensive RX10ii, it really makes the FZ1000 stand out as the best value for money in this category of cameras, you get reasonable reach, 4k, sharp lens, great AF and an EVF for $600/700
You're right, I was mistakingly thinking it was the field sequential EVF.
Better is relative. Canon sees its camera sales and profits shrinking (at a double digit pace), Sony sees the opposite.
"lenses sized for the sensor"
Like those CaNikon FF 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 zooms used on crop bodies for example?
ogl: It seems to me only sensor business helps SONY to live.
Like I said, read the report.
Last year, the quarter ending june 30 showed a 10.6% operating profit for the *Imaging division*, this year that's 12.5% (21.3 billion yen operating income on 170.4 sales+revenues).
The division Devices (largest contributor being Imaging Sensors), showed a 12.7% operating profit for the same period at 30.3 billion yen.