Sannaborjeson: Dpreview forgot to mention it's shutter sound.I own a7r and the shutter sound is just horrible. Can't believe Sony engineers managed to make it that loud without using gunpowder.
The Sony RX1 has a fixed lens and uses a leaf shutter design - actually a shutter that is built into the lens.
The ILC cameras use a focal-plane shutter, and the noise level is proportional to the mass that has to move. The bigger the sensor, the louder the noise. It is mechanical.
Making it quieter means making it slower - how about 1/1,000th, rather than 1/8,000th?
The EFC means that the first curtain does not get activated - only the second curtain has to move and this reduces the sound to half (one, rather than two, shutter movements).
Other than a shutter, there is no instantaneous way yet to stop the exposure and begin the readout of the pixels.
Perhaps an inverse sound can be created to mitigate the sound of the shutter? Or advanced dampening techniques may be discovered at some point?
Bigger body cameras have the same internal sound, but baffling and the sensor sitting deeper lower the sound perception.
Personally, I don't find the sound THAT loud, just louder ... :)
UnChatNoir: I didn't had my hands on an A7 or A7r, but I can imagine DPReview tells a few things that the fan crowd doesn't necessarily likes. The same happened for a long time with the Fuji X-series. Owning both a pro-DSLR and a X-Pro1, I can say, well, I like the MLIC lightweight and even IQ, but regarding reliability, speed and flexibility, nothing still beats a pro-line DSLR. However, having spend the money to MLIC, quite some people have problems to admit this, even more: they start believing the opposite. A DSLR is crap, outdated, for those 'not seeing the light'. Well, I'm one of those that returned from a MLIC to a full blown DSLR. And I must admit, everything falls back into its place. 55 years of Lens experience, 10 years of new models & firmware development have ironed out all the possible glitches while with a MLIC, every mission is a new challenge. And from what I read about the A7 and A7r, it's pretty much the same as with all the other MLIC: first gen stuff for the adventurers.
I believe that you are 100% correct, and also that your comment is also completely besides the main issue here, imho.
MILC cameras have (lots of) quirks, all of them. And Gen.1 cameras suffer from (designer’s) quirks – usually some decent customer feedback improves on things.
I see the main reason for the backlash of comments being that the vast majority of A7 (now experienced) users simply do not notice, experience or agree with DPreview's findings.
Either DPreview make a mountain out of a molehill, or they did not appreciate the camera in its own context, i.e. the way that users are actually using the camera. Either way, it makes you question the reviewer, for being prejudiced, inexperienced, biased, ignorant, new at this, or inconsistent.
If the review had been very much in line with other reviews, people would not react as strongly. But as written, the review does not align very well with past reviews, other than for the spec/details sections.
And that is noticeable.
HFLM: Another thread discussing it:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3599612#forum-post-52809694Forget the conspiracy against Sony. Even if it were a minor issue (and probably it is) it was s.th. the reviewers didn't find in the D610, for example, for similar testing conditions. Together with the minor quibbles and lack of system behind it a silver award is great. If you enjoy it continue to enjoy it.
@HFLM: "Nevertheless it's shocking, how close m43 is if you don't print large and use good glass. ... ?"
I partially disagree - in the Studio Comparison tool you can clearly see m43 (EM1), APS-C (Nex-6) - both at 16Mp - and the A7, all showing different results, especially at higher ISOs.
But I agree that, if you don’t print large, a smaller sensor camera may suffice. Why stop at m43? If your only output is HD (tablets, monitors, TV), even a much smaller sensor cameras will do just fine, at low ISO. They have the resolution and can produce impressive images. Consider the RX100-II? Or the RX10?
Not very shocking to me :)
Still, I believe in sensor size when it comes to low light (high ISO), cropping (resolution), lens choices (FF is much easier on older lenses), (shallow) DOF control, creative photography (shift, fisheye, wide angle), DR and color rendering. This where the A7 and your D610, as full FF cameras, deliver, and where smaller sensors cameras simply cannot keep up.
It is funny how DPreview's own interpretation of the Studio Comparison tool does not line up with the conclusion in the review:
Avobanana: I agree with many points about handling and operational speed as well as auto ISO. But the image quality part is bull crap.
I own the 5D3 and many more canon lenses. And I don't own the A7 but A7R. I have used and seen samples from the A7 though. From my experience I can objectively say that the Sony beat the Canon flat out in image quality in both RAW and JPEG and bear in mind the Canon cost twice as much.
Strange that in the review of the 5D3 there isn't any dissecting of JPEG file to check for posterization and the likes. Neither for the EM1 which has such an upbeat tone throughout the review. Image quality were simply described as great or excellent for these cameras. Why not we put those images side by side and compare? Same price, same size what's stopping them? No they have to dig up obscure problems in JPEG.
It feels as if review works were done after they have a set opinion of a camera and then go out of their way to search for evidence to prove their point.
If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger?
Works on you the same way? Per your profile, you switched from A7/r to EM1 and you have been quite negative on the Nex forum since.
Buyers remorse or purchase justification?
Whatever Sony put out there, it seems to have rattled cages, as there are many, I mean many, posts showing up from non-users, both here in the comment section as on the forum boards.
If I don't own a product, why would I care to track it in forums and comment sections? Makes you wonder, doesn't it.
Kiril may have been inconsistent - I have no clue, did not read those conversations at all - but in context of his rebuttal, I must again say that he made a valid point.
Whether the camera worked for you or not, or whether another camera works better, or not, or whether Kiril and you have been at bat in a different conversation does not change this.
Can you comment in context of his post alone, ignoring all else?
Sony made a bold move with their SLT cameras by dropping the OVF for an EVF.
This now matured into a system which is unique in comparison to DSLRs, and the benefits that the EVF delivers with focus peaking, zoom magnification, live preview and DOF and lighting effects is unparalleled for DSLR shooters.
And yet, the A7 is no A99, nor does it pretend to be. For all the things that it lost, it also puts up a new list of benefits that are significant. Losing the OVF is a winner, just read up on the Fuji users with the hybrid viewfinder - many are turning to the EVF, rather than using the OVF.
Should the A7 match Canikon's DSLR capabilities or be punished if it does not? I think that the A7 should be considered in what it does deliver - for it moved the goal-poast. I see Canikon struggling to keep up with innovation.
I don't think that the A7 is a do-all camera of sorts, but it will carve out a very nice niche for itself, and that niche will grow rapidly, as benefits become known.
Everlast66: Apart form some noticable bias in the reviewer agains the A7/r I think the problem with most DPR reviews is ULTIMATELY their camera categorisation. It has not been clearly defined and the easiest way to mark down a cmera is to include in the wrong or higher category and then slam it as much as you like comparing to the other cameras there.Sony's comeptitor to Nikon D600, Can 6D is A99 and it is clearly a completely different product comared to A7. Obviously A7 is not designed to compete with D600/6D and is not trying to do what these cameras do. Why DPR did not compare to any of the Leicas?!?This is like comparing the first gen iPad to a TV or full spec-laptop when it was first announced! If there are no competitors to certain product it should just get a Gold Award and thats it - simple.
I think that both statements are a bit of a stretch.
I am reading on the Nex forum user comments on the review, and it is not about the unfavorable rating, it is about the review not reflecting the typical professionalism that we were used to from DPR.
I sense no conspiracy here, just inadequacy.
And what camera exactly would crush the A7? That is such as stretch - heck, any P&S would crush any mirrorless camera because it is simply smaller. But that doesn't mean anything to a (would-be) user. You sound like the biased one here, not DPR.
But DPR would have done everyone a favor by recognizing the camera for what it brings,. This camera is opening a new chapter and that is something worth highlighting.
A (late) review that goes against the typical user experience deserves questioning. Users would point out quirks as well, but they would surely be more balanced about what the camera does, and does not, in a final score.
If any camera crushes, it is the A7 doing the crushing...
Hang on, Kiril makes a very valid point, and you lump it into a different context.
Read the M1 and A7 reviews again with Kiril's comment in mind - you'll see that he has a point. Your comment has not, other than an emotional outburst.
The A7 report is really overbearing and repetitive on what most users would consider a minor issue (JPG at 12,800 and above) and is slamming the camera for what many consider operator errors.
Sure, Sony may have gotten the 1/60th wrong, but any photographer would have marked this down and then use the camera the way he/she would have wanted it. Not the Sony way and then go 'but..."
Finding issues and reporting them is one thing. Weighing them uneven in different reports for different brands is another thing. Showing final judgement in which minor issues overshadow the achievements is just silly.
I know, it happened in the X100 review too, and it let to a good thing (new FW).
But ignoring all that this camera brings is a bit silly.
_P: Some people get wobble because A7 is being compared with DSLRs. Well, it has one of only handful of sensors capable of delivering high end results as far as IQ is concerned. Who cares if it has a mirror in front of it or not?
So let’s compare it with E-M1 in terms of everything else except IQ itself: ergonomics, lens lineup etc. What’s to compare???
Now, what would most people love, would be the E-M1 body/ergonomics/one-third-of-the-lens-choice-would-suffice with A7(r) sensor in it. THAT would have been a hit and a real blow into CaNikon duopoly!In such case those wobbly people would be first ones to put it in a pole position with D800 and D5m3.
Anyone reporting his/hers amazement coming from personal A7 usage exclusively focuses on the IQ, ignoring obvious design faults. This is good enough indication for me to respect review findings. DPR has a duty to report and elaborate on every area where A7 excels and disgracefully fails. That’s what they did, and should be respected for.
So, reviews matter. Also - there is another review upcoming: the A7r. It will borrow from the A7 review, as many of the specs are identical, but it will read different, for two reasons: 1. the JPG problems are not as present on the A7r (default values at high ISO) as on the A7, and 2. the camera is state-of-the-art, second to none other than the D800E. You don't go throwing mud on such a tool and maintain credibility - you have to admire something first
As to the responses to the review - I think these are rather normal. Users do not only have a pride (ownership) and seek justification (after the purchase), but they also have a true-hands on experience and will read the review differently. Had DPR's review's been timely, i.e. before the masses go their hands on the A7/r and before they could get comfortable, the response would have been fairly mild, I am sure. But now, with almost all A7/r users being 'experienced', the review is read far more critically, and errors are amplified.
Go back a few months and watch what happened when the A7/r was officially announced. It was like a bomb had gone off at all the photography forums, DPR and elsewhere. Regardless of product, discussions where about the A7/r. This had not been this pervasive before for any other product. Kudos to Sony. And in understanding the why, the reviewers would have had a perfect opportunity to write an impressive review.
The A7/r is not perfect. I don't even think that any camera is perfect - they all have pluses and minuses. But the A7/r inspires, it changes behavior, it rewards, it lets people experiment, it moves markets forward. There is a great story here, one that is very much missed in DPR's review (I almost type rant).
Kudo's to Sony for building it. But I'd pick up the Rev.1 while it is available. After such reviews there may never be a Rev.II
Many early reviews were boring - they list features and then say things like 'it works great'. Wonderful, but non-interesting. Some reviews were specific - either highlight a plus or a minus (remember Ken Rockwell's flare ghosting images?). Silly perhaps, but a bit more interesting. And many reviewers simply would not take sides (remember's Steve Huffs promise to compare Rf lenses?).
Here comes DPR's review, and they have a reputation of being thorough. A review can be 14 to 20 pages long, and follows a number of standard templates that are common in all reviews which makes it great to compare them. Then there is a user/usability section in which they typically point out things that are good AND that need to be improved. That is great - a reviewer has to be critical, otherwise they are just fanboys - and we have seen some criticism leading back to manufacturers action (remember Fujis X100 review and Fuji's response)?
And herein lies the crux imho - the reviewers completely missed what this camera has brought to the market. FF-mirrorless, enabling all FF lenses to be used at their full capacity. Mirror-less is nothing new, by now, FF lenses are nothing new, but being able to freely combine the best, or worst, from different manufacturers, and different eras, is something that could not be done until now.
Well, there is Leica. Technically, a lot could have been done with the M9 or the M240. But at their prices, why use anything other than Leica lenses. And there is no AF, no EVF, and so few of the, now-expected, in-camera features.
But, in seeing the camera as a novelty, any reviewer would have to start from there. If I, as a reviewer, use prior experience, e.g.: FF-DSLR; APS-C DSLR; mirrorless; brand, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc.; include my prior knowledge to analyze this camera, I will lose at least half the audience.
And this is where I think the review completely missed the point. Why are so many attracted to this camera? Simply because it is smaller, or even cute? I don't think so.
Many of us where afraid that the first E-mount FF-DSLR would look a lot more like the A3000 than like the A7. When it was rumored that it would not look Nex-7 like, but larger, and would borrow from RX1, the speculation was rampant that it would have IBIS, and hide inside a SLT-like body.
Luckily it did not. However, if it had, would it have mattered to so many? After all, it uses the E-mount, which means that virtually all legacy lenses can be adapted to work with this new camera.
The reviewers seem to have completely missed the evolutionary aspects of
the camera - I mean, which FF camera has as many JPG filters and other JPG applications as the A7/r? Yet, they are commonly found in P&S and Nex cameras - so they are not interesting/meaningful/important. And neither are the JPG quirks as they are indeed a bit overhyped in the review.
When the A7/r news hit however, it hit like a bomb. Even though long anticipated, its price-point startled many, and the camera definitely catered to newbees, who otherwise would have long waited to enter the FF-DSLR domain. I mean Canon-5D, Nikon-600, that is for pro's and semi-pro's, right?
The A7/r looks and feels like a toy camera, by itself. Don't get me wrong - it feels a lot more substantial than a Nex camera next too it, with a much better button feel and impressive hump, but place it next to a FF-DSLR camera and you kind of wonder - what in the world?
This carries forth in many of the technical details. I mean JPG quirks above ISO 12,800. Does that then imply that up to (including) ISO 6,400 the camera is perfect? And, if so, isn’t that a very strong plus?
I, for one, am not getting too worked about about the review, understanding Sony as a company. They simply don't care. Had this been Canikon, or even Olympus, there would have been great consternation. Sony is far more consumer oriented than all the other camera manufacturers combined, and they think in terms of 'this year's product', and not as a product-life-cycle.
The A7/r, in many respects, is evolutionary. It borrows heavily from prior products (mostly Nex and RX1, Nikon-sensors), but has improved wherever possible and reasonable (Bionz-X). I mean, you build on a good thing, and you improve on a bad thing.
Perhaps in their own analysis that is what they observed, but most users would comment that DPR simply does not understand how to use such a camera and how to interpret their findings. Granted, they wrote the review three months after the camera’s introduction, and there should have been some familiarity with the camera. They could simply have asked some A7 users simple questions.
The mere fact that DPR points out a 1/60th as a preferred (or most frequented) shutter speed makes A7, and Nex users, wonder – as this is an old problem, with many solutions. Why Sony has never changed their algorithms is a good question, but why DPR ignores all the prior wisdom around this problem is another question. No experienced Nex nor A7 user would use the camera like that, especially with a non-stabilized lens. [An A7 user commented that Sony should allow min-shutter speed settings as well as a slow (1/0.5FL) OSS, normal (1/FL) and fast (1/2FL), assuming that the camera knows the FL of the lens]
Oh, I don't know. I never comment here, but your post seems to come from someone who has not handled either product well, if at all.
The EM1 is hyped for what it does well, but it has only a fairly narrow overlap with the A7. And what it does well can in fact be covered by many more affordable camera models as well. That is, the EM1 is a different type of camera, in a different class. I don't know if your statement is true for most people.
Also, your statement on A7 usage people is very far beside the fact. Lots of users have pointed out lots of quirks - as in every camera model that has surfaced to date. DPR is not the camera police that has an exclusive on that.
What is different, a user may comment on a quirk because of prior experience, because of learning (how to, or how not to), or because a dialog has sprung about a topic. But coming from a user comments are very specific and very correct.
DPR posted findings that go against most other reviewers and user comments.
Where's the Nex-6?
A full frame sensor Nex camera that can handle UWA RF lenses properly ...