cantsin: All currently available Micro Four Thirds cameras suffer from too many/too small pixels on their sensors, resulting in worse signal-nosie-ratios and limited high ISO/dynamic range compared to its APS-C competitors. In these days, there's not even a size or cost advantage of Olympus OM-D series over Sony's, Fuji's and Samsung's mirrorless offerings.
MFT could be much more competitive if Megapixels were cut. An MFT camera with a 9 Megapixel sensor could be as good in color, dynamic range and high ISO as a Nikon D800 with its 36 Megapixels (if one considers that MFT has 25% of full frame's sensor surface).
@Marty4650: my Sony FE 35/2.8 is about the same size and weight as my Olympus 17/1.8 (35/3.6 equivalent). Guess which lens renders nicer images?
Matthewson: I really don't understand the push for mirrorless cameras. The latest installments from Olympus look like SLR's from the outside, with a "pentaprism" of sorts sitting on top. I'd vote down anything that adds cost, complexity, and battery draw. Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject. The original OM line had reflex mirrors, and were compact. The only gripe I had back then, in the 80's, was the strap lugs dug into my palms. From the look of it, they're still putting those nasty strap lugs on their cameras.
I also don't understand the push for LCD screens. CRTs do just fine.
mrdancer: "As an optics manufacturer, we know that it isn’t as simple as saying 'a bigger sensor always delivers better image quality than a smaller sensor'. It's more complicated than that. It’s a combination of multiple factors including lens resolution, sensor and image processing. "
This is kind of a slap in the face to many of the trolls here!
@Lab D. If you go on DxOMark and compare the E-M1 to the A7 (roughly the same price) you'll see that the A7 is 2 stops better at noise performance at all ISOs. If you compare the base ISOs of both cameras the difference is even more dramatic.
The biggest flaw of these Olympus cameras is that they lack ISO 25, 50 and 100 (which would be the equivalent of ISO 100, 200 and 400 on full frame). Shooting an Olympus camera is like having a camera that can't go lower than ISO 800.
Don't get me wrong, I love my E-P5, but sensor performance is not the strong point.
Daniel from Bavaria: Maybe its a bit slow for the one other thing, but therefore it is quite small and lightweight and it seems that optically it is very, very good. Therefore I do not really understand all the bashing here.
I am a Canon and Fuji X user and think that Sony is doing great for the whole camera industry - they are playing the pioneer in many areas. Only Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are also in that ballpark, but FF only comes from Sony. Canon and Nikon are still waiting with their thumbs up in their - you know what - . If you like the handling of the Sony cameras or not is just a matter of preference, but technically they are doing really well. Very interesting times for all of us!
@Dave Oddie: "Sony seems to be shying away from fast lenses for this series of camera."
What are you talking about? The Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 is coming out next month...
Akusai: Admittedly, it seems to be a very nice lens. But still - it looks a bit oversized on the a7r. And concerning the price - if I compare it to the only lens in this weight-class I could find - the Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 (nearly same field of view) - I have to admit, it seems like quite a bargain. Especially considering the Sony is for a much larger lensmount. Now, if someone (Sigma, Tamron) could provide something like the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 for Sony FE mount - that really would make my mouth water.
@Runi. I own the Olympus 17/1.8 and the Sony 35/2.8, I shoot them side by side. The Olympus is by no means a superior system. It gets the job done, but the IQ coming out of the Sony is simply two leagues higher.
For everyone who is comparing this tiny lens (the size and weight of an Olympus 17/1.8) to the Sigma 35/1.4... the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 is coming next month.
Heaven is for real: People who are complaining about the price of this awesome premium lens should find a new hobby, passion or business...
What are you guys talking about? Premium? I guess the USA is getting a bad deal here. The Sony 35/2.8 costs $550 in Japan, which is around the same price as an Olympus 17/1.8 and far less than a Fuji 24/1.4. This lens is well priced for what it delivers.
And how is it similar to the Canon 40/2.8? That Canon lens is soft and a far easier focal length to design for.
yabokkie: these new Sony lenses are quite standard performers among similar lenses, with typical characteristics that we expect from similar designs.
why the readings are higher is because a different ruler with different measurement unit was used (Roger Cicala 2013/12/15 "Sony A7R: A Rising Tide Lifts All the Boats?" and FE35/2.8 is just one boat among many).
I'd appreciate if the reviewer had stressed it in the review, that every camera is a unique measure with unique units of its own, to avoid (honest or intentional) misreadings and keep DPReview a better place.
Troll. According to the DP Review measurements, the Sony lens seems to be an incredible amount sharper than the Canon 40/2.8 and significantly sharper than the Canon 35/2 IS. Both are recent releases.
Every normal person will use a Canon lens on a Canon body and a Sony lens on a Sony body. The Sony-combo is obviously wiping the floor with the mediocre Canon setups.
RichRMA: People might wonder why others have migrated to smaller systems (the mirror-less) from more competent (for action, etc) DSLR systems. Owning and using a DSLR, you probably wouldn't be persuaded to use a mirror-less, except out of curiosity. But if you use a mirror-less for a week, it's amazing how attractive the lighter weight of the system becomes. So much so that many people learn to live with the shortcomings. I see many migrating to mirror-less from large DSLR's, but I run into few migrating back.
@Bluevellet: when I shoot my E-P5 against my D7000 I get annoyed by how slow and inaccurately the Nikon focuses. It is a total pain. And the 2x2 controls of the Olympus are unbeatable. I ended up selling my D7000 because it was too frustrating to focus with it. The Olympus nails focus instantly 100% of the time. The Nikon was slow and nailed focus perhaps 30% of the time.
When I shoot my A7 against my 6D, I notice the enormous gap in ergonomics. The Sony has 3 control dials plus an exposure comp dial. The exposure comp on the Canon is a horrible task, and you can't do it in manual. I hated the ergonomics of the Canon and I sold it. The A7 is way better.
munro harrap: Do you realize it costs as much as a Nikon D800? Have you got it figured too that the lenses are only just emerging and in size rival Nikon and Canon, and if you want to use the NEX or other lenses with an adaptor you have an awkward unfriendly and without AF (possibly), VERY expensive package on your hands. Of course, great to be able to stick your Nikkors on it, but pointless and absurd, since it is far too slow to use. This Sony takes ITs pictures- the shutter lag is so great that YOU cannot take YOUR pictures using either of these lovely new Alpha A7 and A7R machines. Yes, same problem with detail-smearing slow 5D MkII and MkIII, but if your subjects do not move you'll be OK.
They decided to make a SLOOOWW camera, so you be slow to buy it. It was their choice and they should be ashamed. Full autofocus 0.359/362 secs; manual focus lag is 0.261 secs , prefocussed lag is a scandalous 0.163 secs, down from 0.007 secs on their first mirrorless APS-C machine DSC-R1 (2005).
Funny how people need to spew trash on the internet to make then feel better about their choices....
TN Args: Came out at the right time, just as I was changing my main system for something more compact, and I nearly went for it.
Then I realized what a mistake it would be because, by the time you assemble a system, it's not compact or light at all. It's actually a mirage caused by too many photos of just the body and the new 35mm.
The various operational criticisms that followed were just the icing on the cake of non-purchase.
The 55/1.8 is the same size as the Olympus 75/1.8 and the 35/2.8 is the same size as the Olympus 17/1.8. Boohoo.
Clueless Wanderer: Had my eyes on a D800 for a while (funds not there yet) Then along came this A7r to draw my attention. It was looking like a real contender until.. The 1/160 flash sync speed is a deal killer for me.
You can take any Nikon lens and use it on the A7/R.
PerL: I think it is nice with a very compact FF and the IQ should be impressive. However, I can't see how it gets a higher rating than the Nikon Df, a much more allround capable camera with 10x the lens system. (I would equal the high res of the Sony with the low light performance of the Df)
The Df is a skinned D600 with messed up controls.
The A7/R is a revolutionary product.
Apples and oranges.
jvossphoto: Is it me or does the Olympus look the best in the low light 100 ISO.
That's just you...
Gottschalk: This makes me realise how good my OMD is! Hold up very nicely against the competition with bigger sensors. Couple that with the speed and I don't see any reason to jump ship...
This test is nonsense as each camera reports ISO differently. The OM-D's ISO 6400 is actually ISO 3200.
Nevertheless the noise performance of the OM-D is really good at high ISO. It's the dynamic range and color accuracy that takes a huge hit on this tiny sensor. I'd take more noise for better colors any day.
yabokkie: is it the top guy at Hassel loves Sony too much, or the top guy at Sony loves Hassel and Zeiss too much?
I feel sorry for those who work hard at Sony to find their children bearing rubbish names.
Isn't this the perfect camera for a troll like you?
The images of the EVF show a 4/3 ratio viewfinder display (with letterboxing), and then the size comparison shows a 3/2 ratio. Which is it?
These samples really don't look good.
Then again none of the DP Review samples look good.
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 . . .
What are you talking about? The 35mm f/2.8 is a compact prime. And I'm sure this is not the last f/2.8 prime for this system.
Spectacular. This confirms the DxO findings.
I'm happy Sony is following the OM-D route by releasing high quality primes from the start, even if they are significantly more expensive than standard Canikon offerings.
As an owner of the 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 I couldn't be happier and I've begun the process of selling all my Nikon lenses.
I cannot wait for what primes Sony/Zeiss have in store next. I've been playing with the Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZA and Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA with adapter at the camera store. Those lenses are amazing...