Retzius: I can't believe this is actually listed as a negative:
"Tools for shooting with third party lenses need improvement"
OK, lets be fair. Next time you post a Nikon review, I want to see "Tools for shooting with Canon lenses needs implementation" as a negative point.
Docking Sony for not giving you a full featured tool set for shooting with non-Sony lenses is just ludicrous and down-right biased. I don't see Nikon and Canon going out of their way to implement 3rd party hardware. To the contrary, Nikon releases firmware updates to hinder it!
Tell that to the "Sony fanboys" using their Canon and/or Nikon glass on these cameras to their satisfaction.
osv: wrt a7r jpeg image compression, a quote from imaging-resource.com:""Dave Etchells Mod• 3 months agoHi Yaj - Yes, amazingly enough, these are just in-camera JPEGs. I think by far the best in-camera processing we've seen from any camera to date. This always used to be an achilles heel for Sony, but they've really outdone themselves on the 7/7R. They made a point of this in the initial NDA briefing, pointing out that they were able to produce *very* sharp images, with no halos or "outlines" as they called them from the sharpening process. Very impressive."
I do think that the whole jpeg debate is highly opinionated (as is most in here...). Just calling jpeg engines bad or good, doesn't do the comparisons any justice.
For example, it's true that the new Sony jpeg engine seems to pull more detail out of scenes than almost any other camera, without the usual halos introduced by sharpening (hello Canon/ old Sony). Especially in terms of edge detail. On the flipside, some would say the (higher contrast) detail is emphasized too much, with an unnatural looking end result.
The NR also seems to be very effective (see for example Nikon in comparison) without sacrificing more detail than most other engines (hello Canon again, even killing low ISO detail in natural greens and browns). On the other hand it does leave more artifacts too, especially in flat surfaces (posterization like).
And so on. If you mostly focus on the positives mentioned, it's not hard to see why Imaging Resource felt so positive. And vice versa for the Dpreview conclusion.
No, there's a native fullframe E mount portrait lens already:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1018525-REG/rokinon_85m_e_85mm_f_1_4_as_if.html
PerL: So this almost prototype with a native lens line up of about 3 lenses, with 2 sec upstart, AF and frame rate suboptimal for "catching the moment" receives about the same score as the Nikon Df (81 vs 80), a much more refined, capable and mature product (and BTW is the smallest, lightest DSLR - not the D600 or 6D as the review said). And the A7 receives a "Silver Award" which the Df apparently did not deserve.
Maybe the fact that you're comparing a SUV to a sportscar costing 62% more but with subpar grip (pun intended, but who knows, it could just be an analogy for the AF and rest of the feature set compared to fast and good low light DSLR cameras in the >$2.7k price class) weighs in here.
thx1138: Sony would have done better to concentrate on it's crappy cameras they put in phone. Yes the specs all sound wonderful on paper, but the results are still second rate. Should have taken a leaf out of HTC's book. How about a 8MP sensor, 1/2.3", f/1.8 lens, and you could still shoot 4K video without any binning or line skipping. However, why even bother with 4K at this stage. Oh and if they aren't using the newer Snapdragon 805 which is specifically optimised for 4K, then even bigger waste of time.
Yeah, crappy HTC output in anything but low light, yeah that's a lesson for anyone. Shrug.
The Note 3 handles 4k fine with the Snapdragon 800.
jkoch2: Brilliant. A phone with a "me too" 4k video feature for people without any 4k displays, and before Sony offers 4k video on any of its traditional <$1.5k consumer Handicams or Cybershots. Granted, "me too" is a sort of trump argument. But the compulsion to add new imaging capacities first to phones tells us something about the eclipse of dedicated cameras.
Wouldn't people have more use for a phone that gives readings of temperature, humidity, altitude, or heart pace, blood pressure, HDL/LDL, triglycerides, and glucose? Or are such functions too mundane or depressing?
Most features seen on today's cameras/sensors came to small sensors (or small sensor cameras) first. For a good reason: economies of scale (and other less obvious reasons, such as less thermal issues, shorter circuits with faster read out speeds etc).
Just a Photographer: This article sounds like Sony has asked DPReview to do damage control.
The lack of real useful lenses is of course the fault of Sony, due to which people look for alternatives in using third party and 'old' manual lenses with aperture rings.
The only thing is, and which is not really mentioned and explained in this article at all is that you fall back to full manual control by using these third party lenses.
You will loose all AF capabilities and its certainly not guaranteed that metering is correct.
Sure the A7 on paper is a real nice camera, but the lack of support from Sony themselves and their short commitment to productsupport in the past is something that will behold me of buying this system camera.
"Sony's track record on delivering on promises is poor. There is every reason to believe they will not deliver on all those lenses. "
All their previous lens announcements that included a date or year, have materialized. Quick, find some non relevant examples in an attempt to support your claim. ;)
Eigenmeat: Sony/Samsung can make a cell phone do this. Yet, for example, a $1300 Sony RX10 cannot it. It just shows how much manufacturer intentionally cripple their camera line to create "product tiers".
Dont forget that getting faster readout speeds is much easier with smaller sensors.
Morpho Hunter: Now try using those same lenses on a MFT camera. I suspect image quality, especially edge sharpness, would be considerably better.
Or you could just crop the center quarter from the full frame and enjoy the "considerably better" edge sharpness. ;)
mpgxsvcd: 4000 pixels is not always better. Especially not from a small sensor.
The Note 3 shows it can be done. Better quality video than any other phone, by a longshot. Even the 1080P benefits from the upgrade (much better downsampling vs usual line skipping).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dlXIzOzLss&feature=youtu.be
RobertSigmund: I have no doubt: this is a superlens. But the samples also show: FF cannot be replaced by 4/3. Even at F 2, a FF 85 mm lens gives blurrier backgrounds than this 42,5 mm lens at 1,2. Quite interesting!
Light gathering per unit (sensor) area, yes, total light gathering is similar to FF 85mm f/2.4 still.
RFC1925: Looks like Samsung's sensor technology is no longer behind the competition but ahead. Excellent results.
Except for shadow noise, mostly amp glow. See shadows in low light RAW scene above ISO 800 (blue/purple), which also directly affects usable DR. But I bet it won't take them too long to counter that too.
Saffron_Blaze: I am a wannabe professional, not a wannabe enthusiast retro shooter. Would someone please put the lovely sensor in a camera that supports all its capabilities?
Search the Nikon forum for bias (which it isn't, it's a dark frame....) frame and D800.
The D7100 is nowhere near in usable DR because shadow banding already gets ugly at a simple two stop push. Beyond that even Nikdfine and Topaz, top banding removers, throw in the towel. The DF and D4 sit somewherw inbetween the D800 and D7100. A lot less banding than the D7100 though.
At ISO 12,800 the D800 has serious magenta and cyan blotching problems, this is not simple noise.
And no resampling does not remove noise, it makes the photo (and the noise) smaller.
For someone who claims to own a D800, you don't seem real familiar with it. It's a plenty good camera but has significant problems above ISO 6400, in fact lower.
The D800 never seems to have the dynamic range of the D610 or D4/Df either.
Downsampling removes data and noise. No debate possible as established in math, thousands of tests and millions of practical applications every day. You'd have to be a flat earth believer to deny that. Anyone with a pair of eyes and more than a few days of processing experience should have noticed that too.
For a given size output, downsampling won't help. But to smaller sizes (or equal to lower resolution cameras) it does.
Then again, who am I trying to convince, your religious defense of the DF (well over a 50 posts in a single thread...) in here does ring alarm bells. ;)
Actually, the amp glow (cyan and purple noise) of the D800 can very effectively be dealt with using a simple dark frame at the same exposure with the lenscap on. Easy tutorial in the Nikon forum. The D800 DR is top class, never mind silly claims denying this. Try pushing D4 or DF shadows 6 stops and see the substantial difference.
And before anyone gets confused, DR is never measured anywhere else, because the highlight headroom is determined by exposure relative to middle grey (and gamma curve). Your choice, (shift) directly limited by usable shadow information.
cinemascope: The small throat of the FE mount also forces the lenses to be big, so it's not like it would make any difference if these were "native" designs.Sony itself also stated they are not "interested" in doing fast FE lenses, maybe because they would be silly monstrosities? Of course they won't admit FE is a technical nightmare, so let's just say they are "not interested"...This FE mount is a bad joke really and I hope this silly FF fad dies with it too...
And as for your comment about Sony not bringing out fast lenses, "fast" is very relative. Many would consider *sharp* f/1.8 apertures at 55mm on FF plenty fast, others might not. In the interview at Imaging Resource (13 days ago), they specifically stated that there will be a longer f/2.8 zoomlens (or lenses, that part isn't clear from the shaky English).
As the example I posted above shows, even combining bodies and lenses, for example the A7R plus 55mm, it's still shorter than a Nikon FF plus any 50mm. Not to mention width, height and more importantly, volume as a whole which is much smaller and weight being much less too. Yet the output rivals a D800E plus any 50mm out there. And let's not even mention the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, as it's nowhere near the quality in optical or build terms. What's the point of downsizing a high resolution FF system when you're going to throw tiny lenses with dodgy optical and build qualities into the mix? That would be a fad and hard to sell at that.
Both primes get raving reviews from reputable sources, the relatively cheap kitzoom is considered good for the price (<$300) and offers a nice walkaround range. The rest hasn't been subjected to much tests yet.
It's not a system for everyone. Not for speed demons, not for those who need 20 different native lenses. But there's clearly a quality market left.
And as a post scriptum, size in general has a lot to do with the compromises made regarding the optical qualities. Just look at recent releases such as the 58mm Nikon or 55mm Otus, which are both much larger than other 50's of comparable brightness.
And judging from the SLRGear review of the Sony Zeiss 55mm FE, they didn't skimp much here.
First, the Zeiss is 55mm, not 50 and while it's 17mm longer than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8, accounting for the difference in flange distance between the E and F mount, which is 28.5mm, the light path from sensor to tip of the lens is still over 11mm shorter with the Sony Zeiss. Its diameter is also quite a bit smaller, all in all not a large lens by any stretch. And as the example above shows, the shorter flange distance adds choice (of lens design and lenses used), it doesn't make the overall package larger. Au contraire.http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/carl_zeiss_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_f1_8_za/carl_zeiss_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_f1_8_za_13.jpg
ThePhilips: > Samyang T-S 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC
As far as I have understood, m43 users already given up on getting a WA TS lens... And Sony system has just got one.
It's a FF lens and there are FF E mount cameras.