Chaitanya S: I would love to see some video samples shot from this camera. Since it is a medium format camera, DOF is going to be super thin compared to a 35mm camera. Great job by pentax on bringing this monster to the market.
Actually, no. The crop from 44*33 to 135 is about 1.25x. This camera gains less than a stop of thin DOF compared to a FF body. The 75mm f2.8 is in fact a 55mm f2.2 on FF, which isn't all that impressive considering that there are 135 standard lenses well below f1.
Garth Wood: Maybe I've missed it somewhere in the review, but can anyone tell me definitively what the raw image bit-depth is? Discussion around the Intertubes seems to waver between 12-bit (which I expected) and 14-bit (a surprise), with at least one commenter claiming to have heard directly from Sony that it's 14-bit depth.
I own this little gem, and it's wonderful. But I don't have a solid idea of how much post-processing I can do before the image starts to break down or posterize; and the manual that came with the camera (and other official docs from Sony) is/are strangely silent on image bit-depth.
I wouldn't worry about it. I own two A7s and pushes my photos in post a LOT.
I have not noticed a difference in any of my photos comparing the A7 and the D800's loseless mode, judging from the dynamic range I get from the cameras. Whatever Sony removes from the 14-bit standard, it must either be useless or they've done a great job extrapolating it back with the data they kept.
The straps are way too weak. If you load that backpack with a heavier DSLR kit and laptop and walk for a bit, you'll feel the strap dig painfully into your shoulders.
Much as I like Lowepro's design they don't pay attention to details like these.
RichRMA: For anyone who thinks a Nikon D800 matches a medium format camera, take a look at the output from the reference camera used in the studio tests on this site.
That is not because MFDB images are unique in any way, but because people who tend to used MFDBs are unique in their superior post processing skill and photography insight.
Though I've never owned one, my experience with Hasselblad and the Pentax 645D is extensive both in the field and in studios. Apart from the marginal advantage in resolution, there is NOTHING these cameras can produce that a D800E cannot. In fact, the D800E can create many images that CCD backs with inferior high iso performance could never hope to make.
If you use a D800E with the typical MFDB user's lighting setup, and post process the image on a well-calibrated high gamut display with enough care, you will get images that are indistinguishable from a H4D or IQ back's output.
*MFDB still has a rather huge advantage in the availability of leaf shutter lenses. But that is a system advantage, not a image quality one.
km25: Now if only the A7R had the A7 focusing and it's sutter. The camera is too small vs lens. It is the same sensor as the D800E. If you are backpacking or need a small camera, ok. But why not just get the D800E. It does not work with any of the RF lens wider then 35mm. The advantage of owning the A7R vs D800E is what? A few hundred dollars and size. Handling vs MP. The 82 and gold is just for 36MP, not a great camera, a good sensor.
It works fine with a number of wide RF lenses. The Leica WATE works fine, so does the 21 and 24mm Summilux and M-hexanon 28mm. If you're into exotic lenses, there is the Konica 21-35mm f3.4-4.
If you are into adapting M lenses, just get the A7 and 90% of the problems will disappear. The A7r is meant for those who want both absolute image quality and access to all kinds of lenses. Using the 24mm TS-E on an A7 is a much better experience compared to using a tilt-shift on any DSLR, and Sony has some very unique options in a-mount, such as the 135mm STF and 600mm f4
plasnu: " the a7R has the unique ability to adapt to nearly every 35mm lens ever made thanks to a wide array of available adapters, most of them limiting these lenses to manual focus."
Not true at all. Most of non-telecentric rangefinder wide angle lens below 35mm is almost unusable with A7r.
You can still USE them. The effect is another question.
I don't know anyone with a biogon or early super-angulon that is eager to use them on any digital body. Not to mention that many of such lenses actually will damage the curtain with their protruding rear elements. They are however a minority. Over 90% of all rangefinder lenses I can think of will work smoothly on the A7r.
iAPX: Long viewfinder blackout timeLonger-than-average startup timesCamera 'locks up' while buffer is clearing after continuous shootingOverly sensitive eye sensor (also stays active when screen is tilted)short battery life. And even lossly compressed RAW on a 36MP camera targeting pro looking for quality (elsewhere they wont need 36MP).
So you don't see your subject while shooting, you shoot too late, your camera won't be able to shoot when necessary, display may stop working, you will not have enough autonomy and you will need to buy an optional charger and battery. Single memory card slot (no backup!)? Wifi without live view (as I have on my Panasocnic LF1/Leica C). And your raw won't be real raw?
Is it a middle-end $300 compact camera? or a toy for hipster?My first owned DSLR, Nikon D70 could do better in many areas!!!
No. The compression artifacts are invisible unless you look at b&w pictures with only one channel open.
VF blackout is significantly reduced on the normal A7.
All of my bodies lock up or enter a slow mode when buffer fills, including Canon, Nikon and Fujifilm bodies.
RStyga: I'm not sure what DPR is reporting but based on -at least- the test scene, the moire A7 and especially A7R produce is very much present and catastrophic. The RAW images are so ruined by moire that you must be either blind or biased to ignore it.
A7 user with two bodies. Shoot in studio with Insanely sharp lenses (Leica 35mm Summilux ASPH) stopped down to f5.6. Never seen any moire.
I did see plenty of moire with the same lens on the M type 240.
fengchun: "The camera has a total of 25 focus points to work with, and from our experiences, its focusing performance is on-par with DSLRs in good light, and a bit slower than the best mirrorless models."
Here i believe the "on-par" is with DSLRs' Live view auto-focus performance?
No. All FF DSLRs have live-view focus that is far, far slower than the A7r. The A7r is slightly slower than the 5d mk3 in normal phase mode, though.
Thorgrem: Nice camera for a nice price. But, where are the lenses? With big holes in the APS-C e-mount line up it's almost pointless to make more camera's than the entry-level (a3000, A5000).
Because these are consumer cameras. Consumers don't buy super-teles or very fast zooms. Pros won't buy super-teles or fast zooms for APS-C - they might pick up the A7 or A7r, though.
I think all of these lenses will come in a FE variant. But don't expect there to be dedicated APS-C version. Canon has a even more extensive APS-C lineup, but they do not have a single APS-C prime, nor do they have APS-C super-teles.
pwmoree: I am no engineer, but can they not make a body that fits both the E and A lenses without having to use an adapter?
No, they can't. Unless they invent some kind of sensor shift mechanism. Sony actually has a patent on that, but I'm not sure if we'll ever see such a camera.
An a-e hybrid will be as big and heavy as an SLT, but without the SLT advantages. Frankly I don't know why anybody would want such a design over the adapter approach, and am quite happy with my NEX-7 and LA-EA2
I just watched a video of the 11fps AF tracking and it is AMAZING. From what I'm seeing this camera is better than both the D300S and 7d (which I own) in terms of AF tracking ability.
If it had a grip, I'd buy one to shoot sports with.
EricoftheNorth: I am simply stunned by the praise the NEX 6 and 7 EVF gets. They far and away have the worst VF optics outside of $350 super zooms. Compared to pretty much any other EVF, pulling a the NEX EVF to your eye is disorienting and unnatural. The a65 and a77 are stunning, the NEX are blurry and finicky. If your eye is a few degrees off center, it's a blurry mess. Forget leaving the huge eyecup off to make it easier to get in a smaller bag, it's almost impossible to get the frame focused without it.
I manage a camera shop and watch people flip out about the alphas or the OMD series, but look through the NEX with almost zero reaction. Which means in my decade of sales experience, that it simply sucks, and they think they don't know what they're doing.
So I gladly welcome a smaller EVF if it will actually be functional without 100% perfect eye alignment.
No touchscreen though? FAIL.
I don't know what camera you have, but you don't have a NEX-7.
I've used one for two years, both with and without the eyepiece, for use with/without glasses. There is no difference in quality between the NEX7's evf and the one from the A77, both were the best on the market then, and still great performers today.
eddie_cam: Who buys that overpriced cr*p?
Mr. David Beckham has reportedly purchased a Hassy Lunar.
If this answers your question...
wherearemyshorts: Vignetting is kept pretty well under control, at 1.6 stops wide open, which is perfectly respectable for a fast prime.
So when is a 1.8 lens a fast prime?
When is it not a fast prime?
For the vast majority of photographic history a f2.8 50mm is "fast" and a f2 50mm prime is "very fast"
Zeisschen: I see this more as a competition to the Sony A7 than to Olympus EM-1. And simply for the reason that the resulting pictures of Fuji with it's excellent fast lenses and the FF A7 are in a complete different class of images that NO m43 camera can ever achieve due to the sensor size. I'm not talking about ISO and dynamic range but the rendering. Fuji and Sony did it right. Time for ALL OTHERS to take the next step unless they don't want to play a role in professionals mirrorless cameras future.
But why is APS-C "good enough" and M43 "not good enough"?
If you look at it from the other direction, the X-T1 is neither as fast nor has the lens ecosystem of the EM-1, and lags behind in sensor performance compared to the A7. I say this being an X-E1 owner - Fuji needs to set itself apart from the competition, and this camera isn't doing that.
Make the X-T1 go at 11fps for 50 RAW shots and put in a vastly better PDAF system, add a second card slot, full electronic curtain and you've got something truly special. Now it's a competitor to both the A7 and the E-M1, and a competitor to neither.
Hmmm...I'm not particularly impressed by the 0.77x EVF. After using EVILs for three years, I have found that larger viewfinder magnifications rates make it more difficult to get a correct framing, since one's eyes are strained when looking at them...I see that the magnification rate is selectable, but won't that be throwing away pixels on the EVF's OLED?
8fps sounds good, but Fuji needs much faster and longer teles if they want to win over the birding or sports crowd...
DVT80111: $1300, same price range as Sony A7, hmm what choice I have to make?
@matz03. Actually the A7 retails at below $1300 for quite a few countries. Due to the crazy yen rates it's actuall a $1100 camera in Japan. I paid $1250 for my second A7 body in Beijing from an authorized dealer.
On a more practical note, DigiRev sells the A7 for $1500 with warranty and shipping to the US. Fuji's pricing policy is more or less biased towards the US, so they are priced similarly. Sony is just expensive in the US.
jonny1976: ccd is twhy a medium format is unbeleiveble even compared to any ff camera at base iso...im sure the mformata will lose this magic and resemble a d800 with just more pixel.stupid move
CCDs respond in a more non-linear pattern compared to CMOS sensors. This does not mean that they are better.
I've worked with a number of bodies, CCDs such as the M9 and 645D have NO ADVANTAGE over bodies such as the M type 240 and D800 in terms of dynamic range or color depth. The very best CCD DMFs have more depth simply by virtue of their huge pixels.
If you want to push your files around at all, a CMOS camera is the way to go.
68craigdale: If you use one of these backs for your living you do so because you know it is way better than any FF. Period, as they say in the US of A.
The 645D and H3D are no better in many regards compared to, say, a D800E. You get slightly more resolution and marginal color depth advantages at base iso, but once you go over 400 the D800E floors every CCD back on the market. Not to mention that the 645D files actually look dirtier compared to the D800E, because of the CCD's shadow noise.
I expect this back to change the situation, but I know quite a few photographers working with "budget" 645 systems that switched to 135 in the past year or two.