ulfie: 71 mm (2.8″) long make it a bit long for steady, low-light, hand-held shooting considering these two full-frame Sonys have no IBIS unless you're willing to pump up the ISO. The price for a "normal" lens is, IMHO, ridiculous.
All else being equal, I find physically longer lenses easier to hold stable for having more feel and control over the angle of the camera. Longer FL's/larger magnification is a different matter of course.
As a whole, it's comparable in length/depth to a DF plus 50mm f/1.8. Just a smaller diameter of the lens itself (and obviously a body that is less tall and wide):http://camerasize.com/compact/#488.395,495.353,ha,t
jhinkey: Great, but how about a compact 50/2.8 to go along with that compact A7R? The A7(r) are very attractive cameras, but when you stick a 50/1.8 Zeiss on them the body/lens combination loses it's compactness that the A7R brings.
Sometimes you need an excellent f/1.8 lens and you have to pay the price in size and weight, but for many situations f/2.8 works just as well and with the high ISO DR of today's sensors there is not that much of a price to pay.
This is the reason I have a 50/1.8G AND a 45/2.8 AI-P for my D800 - the 50G is great for low light, but it's not very compact while the 45/2.8P is super compact and gives me very very good performance and f/2.8 DOF is fine. The 45/2.8P lives on the D800 because it makes it far more portable.
I use the 20/1.7 Pany on my GX7 (roughly equivalent to my 45/2.8P on FX) because the combo is so small and the 20/1.7 is a very very good lens.
I guess there's no money to be made in compact f/2.8 (or f/4) primes for FX these days . . .
" Everyone should take a page from the Pentax book if they're talking about small sized systems. It can be done. DA70/2.4."
The distance between sensor and the tip of that DA70 is only 17mm shorter than that of A7R/A7 plus FE 55mm Zeiss. The A7R/A7 plus FE 35mm Zeiss has 18mm less distance between sensor and lenstip than the DA70 plus camera. In fact, it's within 5mm of a Pentax plus the thinnest pancake in existence (40mm f/2.8).
The wonders of flange distance.
AbrasiveReducer: I think it's unfair to compare to Canon and Nikon 50 1.8 lenses because these designs were traditionally made as cheap as possible so if the customer had any money left after buying the body, they could still afford a lens.
With the expensive Otus and the not great 58mm Nikon, this Sony seems like a deal. If you really like 50mm lenses.
You can compare it to the Canon 50 1.4 and 1.2 or the Sigma 50 in the DXO databaste.
JDThomas: Not quite the Df killer that everyone was expecting it to be, now is it?
Who's this everyone you speak of?
Seem to be completely different types of cameras to me, operating in completely different price regions too (the DF costs 62% more to begin with).
jonikon: Based on the DPR review of the A7, it is obvious that Sony has overreached with their new line of full frame mirrorless FE cameras. which can not even match the capabilities of Nikon and Canon DSLRs introduced over a year ago. If Sony still has any ambitions of taking FF market share away from Nikon and Canon after this fiasco , they will have to do a lot better than this feeble attempt of mediocre bodies and FE lens selection. Maybe Sony should instead stick with what they do best, whatever that may be.
Mirror.. mirror, it's all about mirrors these days. Here's one for you too. ;-)
Yes and a sportscar is better than a SUV. *shrug*
hc44: Not sure if already posted. There are areas where detail is mashed up into something quite different to the original.
See Queen of Spades top right, the hair fringe (compare with Sony Alpha7 R). Also the Jack of Hearts, the bird shape at the rear of the head. In both cases contiguous lines become a mess of squiggles.
EOS 6D is doing something similar, though not as bad.
The 6D hides artifacts with other artifacts: strong and thick sharpening halos around almost every contrasty edge. Dark and light extra lines. Plus it smears greens already at low ISO to oblivion.
Pick your poison.
Charrick: How this revolutionary camera can get an 80% to the D600's 87%, I have no idea. Somehow, I think that oil splashes show up on RAW files, too. Sure, maybe it was reviewed before that debacle, but then why not change the score? OK, let's instead compare the A7 to the D610. The D610 has more buttons and JPEG might be better. But the A7 is the smallest full-frame digital camera in the world, and is (along with the A7r) the only true full-frame digital "mirrorless" camera. Shouldn't that count for something? It's like if someone invents a hoverboard that only gets 1 kilometer or 1 mile per charge...so you give a much higher score to a regular skateboard. It doesn't make sense to me.
The oil issue was so overblown that they faster than ever issued an update of their FF model... in the shape of a successor. Rather than fixing existing cameras, which apparently they figured would be more costly (also in terms of marketing/brand image damage).
Roger C. from Lensrentals has the most reliable overview of the issue, also due to his access to a large amount of D600's.
Funny how many seem so forced to compare it to DSLR's, comfortably overlooking the A99 which is much more designed to operate in that market (even if it differentiates itself too).
And practically none of those seem inclined to make the A7 vs A99 comparison, possibly because their comparisons are often more led by angst than reason to begin with. The A7 is no A99 replacement or competitor, so why compare it to DSLR's and more specifically, why only based on DSLR strengths rather than the mirrorless benefits?
Patrick Murphy-Racey: I'vr been trusting DPR for years on reviews and until now, I've always found great advice, often the very first look at new products, and sound comment that usually is proven to be sage. After reading about a camera that I own, am continually amazed by, and which makes incredible images with any dang lens I want to stick on it, DPR's stock has dropped more than a few points. The A7 is a game changer. Any thoughtful photographer, or videographer for that matter, will see this is the case. I predict that the A7 will be the benchmark body that will mark the end of the Cold War that has raged between Nikon and Canon in the AF era. Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus, Hell, even Samsung are far ahead of the big two. It will be nice to see them play catch-up for a change... The D4 and 1DX don't have built-in flash, focus peaking, open lens mounts, or half the A7's weight, bulk and size. As for the review, I hope DPR will try again soon, and get it right this time... Mirror-Less is more.
And the obvious fallacy pops up again, translating quality directly to best sales. If there were no other factors at play, why aren't wel all driving Lexus (higher consumer satisfaction, lower failure rates) instead of BMW/Audi/Mercedes?
Overlooking the other obvious fact that "we" are really comparing SUV's and sportscars again.
SonyA7r: Now this conclusion is more like it to my own experience..."In terms of photo quality, the Alpha A7 is up there with DSLRs of similar resolutions, and the out-of-camera JPEGs from the Sony are arguably better than most. It's only beaten on detail by the A7r and the D800(e)."
"Yes and starting a pro-Sony A-mount site of my own and having years of relations with Sony is having an Anti-Sony AGENDA, awesome! That's simply awesome!"
Actually, as I said, you laid it out quite well in SAR with interesting language, explaining why the above is actually your main motive for being disgrunted with their current ILC's (they lack your beloved Minolta/classic DSLR DNA). Not to mention the time they closed doors on your for NDA breach et al.
(unknown member): I think the person who wrote this review was either drunk or is just looking for reasons to write the camera down the drain.
The quality of this review isn't worth the disk space it is stored on.
It is a fine camera, period
Where did they state that shutter shake does not exist? All cameras without EFC suffer from it to some extend under certain conditions, lighter cameras generally more than heavier. See also certain Leica cameras.
It's like saying Nikon should have never marketed the D800 either. Silly claims when there's plenty ways to exploit that resolution still.
dynaxx: The review template does not ( perhaps it should ) have a section in the Specification page under "Optics and Focus" to show if the camera has auto-focus tuning ( Sony call it AF Micro Adjustment ) which is quite common nowadays in good quality cameras.
I find this very useful on my camera and when I searched the A7 manual it says it can only be done when the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4 adapters for A mount lenses are in use. Can someone explain why there is this restriction ? thanks
Because contrast detection autofocus generally does not require adjustments, where as phase detection focusing (classic DSLR and LA-EA4) is inherently more prone to front- or backfocusing.
NCB: Of course the D600 and 6D are peer to the A7. They all use FF sensors, they are all essentially exchangeable lens camera, they all have a typical range of features, and they compete with each other. The fact that the A7 uses an EVF is a technical detail. It's an important detail, because some people will think that's good and some people will think it isn't; for a lot of people, though, it's not a deal breaker. Strikes me this is an honest, informed review. Whether it puts people off the camera or not depends totally on the priorities of each individual, as always. Bottom line is, the A7 breaks new ground, for which it should be applauded, and has a number of weak points. Sony can and should fix some of them (A8?). Some of them are inherent in the concept, which is why Nikon and Canon will remain stiff competition.
Just because a sports car and SUV are in the same price range, doesn't mean they operate in the same specific market.
tornwald: So far none are able to come close to the Foveon design Sigma has. I am not sure they ever will because they want the best of both worlds. Foveon is uncompromising, it has its weak points, but when used right, the output is unmatched by anything out there.
Even at low ISO it's compromised due to higher read noise (which limits DR) and color accuracy issues (reds).
"They could have designed a sensor from scratch that could have worked with an EFC in the A7r but they did not bother."
Simplistic reasoning. Unless you work in the sensor business and more specifically at Sony Semiconductors, you have no idea whether that is currently possible, especially at a point of cost that would even warrant bringing out the camera to begin with.
But let's talk about your sales statistics again. ;)
DT200: We knew this was coming. When the A7 was announce and long before anyone had tried one, these same Sony fans were creating threads in every forum about how it will be the best camera ever. Before ever holding one some were convinced it would get a Gold awards and the highest rating. The facts are different though. When compared to a year old D600, there is nothing the camera does better except that you can attach more legacy lenses to it, but you have to manually focus. Beside the D600 doing everything better, you can attach more legacy lenses that can auto-focus, something the very large majority of camera users prefer (oh and there are a few hundred manual focus legacy lenses in every shape and size that work on the D600 too). It is nice that Sony was able to remove the grip and superior focus system from a DSLR to make a camera smaller, but it adds many severe limitations. When you look at how the camera performs, clearly the A7 should be rated somewhere below the D600.
"When you look at how the camera performs, clearly the A7 should be rated somewhere below the D600"
...or you would lose sleep over it? ;)
They're not even operating in the same class, regardless of what any review says. Mirrorless cameras are generally not directly targeted as DSLR replacements.And in this case, because if you're looking for a FF camera with a good LV experience, one that fits practically any glass in existence, shoots 1080P at 60 fps, one that is lightweight and relatively small, especially with small primes, shoots up to 1/8000s as a bonus and offers a good sensor to boot, there is no substitute.
You have laid out your agenda several times with your troll accounts in SAR, Carl, no need to deny your own words and hide behind praise of a rather irrelevant type of camera (fixed lens).
jhinkey: Looking forward to the Nikon equivalent to the A7 - hopefully it won't have the A7's flaws.For whatever manufacturer that puts out a compact FX mirrorless body I think one of the missing links are compact primes. I'm not talking about a compact 50/1.8, but rather a set of compact primes something like 85/2.8, 50/2.8, 20/4, etc. that are very very good wide open. Though there are many times f/1.8 comes in handy, most of the time f/2.8 or f/4 works just fine, especially with the high ISO performance of today's FX sensors.I realize that you can't have a compact tele because of the physics or compact f/2.8 ultra-wide angle primes due to telecentricity issues, but a set of compact wide angle to short tele primes would really make FX mirrorless much more portable.
"just look up at the sales rankings. Eg. Amazon got one, and A7 is far behind the bestsellers.Besides - CIPA also is releasing global sales numbers, and mirrorless are steadily going down."
First, the A7/A7R have been listed 3 to 4 times in the top 20 of compact system camera sales the last week. And again, those are not sales numbers, local, single retailer and most importantly, too short term, non verifiable... non usable statistics to begin with.
CIPA sales statistics to date:A) do not diferentiate per modelB) hardly/do not yet include real A7/A7R sales to begin with (november is the last available)C) show both DSLR and mirrorless sales declined by a similar percentage over last year (roughly 18%) and a stronger surge of mirroless in the last month made available.
Let's stick to the facts, rather than making up silly and unsubstantiated claims.
To be fair, at 1MP, displayed "100%" (no scaling to fit the monitor resolution) on a monitor, even my 4 year old A500 can produce good looking ISO 12800 shots, which begs the question, how much more signal is really needed for such small output...