tabloid: I would be interested if it was mirror-less.
In my opinion thats the future.
Yes, given the enormous size of the reflex mirror in an MF body, necessitating a cavernous mirror box, a mirrorless MF body design would result in a pretty substantial reduction in body size. There would also be a lot more flexibility with lens design since lenses would no longer have to be designed with such a large back focus.
D1N0: Lacks OVF and top lcd. Cons in my book.
@D1N0- Haha, it's you who's the one against a difference in opinion! Don't you see, Fuji has made a "different" camera than what you narrowly define ("in my "book") as acceptable, and you see this deviation as a "con". So it's you who is against Fuji's "difference of opinion" of what a camera can be. As for me, I appreciate and applaud Fuji's "difference of opinion" from the status quo. Yes, Fuji could have added *yet another* DSLR to the market, with an OVF and top LCD, and you'd be perfectly happy with them falling lock-step in line with your Putin-approved cookie-cutter "in my book" ideology of what a camera should be. Me, I'm all for variety, which means I'm all for manufacturers throwing their "difference of opinion" into the marketplace. I see these different paths as being "pros", not "cons". It's the essence of a free, diverse market, and great for innovation! Sometimes, it's great to break from the mold. That's how we got things like today's smartphones and tablets.
@hydrospanner - no, I'm just suggesting that people open their minds and eyes beyond the status quo (in this case, regarding OVF and top LCD). As I said, there are a gazillion cameras with OVF's and top LCDs. It's nice to have options that break from this mold.
I remember when the iPhone came out, and there was a cacophony of people who dissed it for not having a physical keyboard. Well, at the time, there were plenty of phones with physical keyboards. We really didn't need yet another one. Thankfully, the iPhone was a product that chose to break from the mold. Likewise, I like seeing the same thing with cameras. Some people are just too set in their ways, too narrow in their perspective, too concerned about wanting the same thing over and over again. Of course, I understand that there is a comfort in familiarity. But there's also a time and place for having something different-- for those of us who are more open minded and more open to variety.
D1N0, there are a gazillion cameras out there that have OVF's and top LCDs. Not *every* camera has to fit the same exact mold. Something tells me that D1N0 is the kind of ultra-conservative narrow-minded person who hates *anything* that deviates from his very, very, very narrow idea of what is he thinks is normal. Maybe you should open up your mind to a bit more variety in the world.
I've been an OVF user all my photographic life, but I also use mirrorless now, and I've really grown to appreciate the advantages of EVF. EVF's just do a lot of things that OVF's can't do, like showing you real-time exposure preview, focus magnification, focus peaking, in-viewfinder image review, in-viewfinder histogram, shooting video while using the viewfinder, as well as the ability to give you a very large viewfinder (like FF large) regardless of your sensor size. These days when I go back to using my DSLRs, their OVF's seem so primitive and lacking in features in comparison to EVF.
Juck: That's frankly astonishing.
LOL, Akpinxit is complaining about the artistic merits of a demo video. Yes, it's a "technical" demonstration. But I'm quite sure that once it gets into the hands of true artists, it'll produce video of artistic merit too.
aruk5: who uses 409600 iso anyway and do pros use isos above 1600 in real life situations? Its well known that lower isos give you better looking clean images than high isos. High isos are best used for some rare emergency situations where capturing a pic in low light using the quickest possible method is needed but the majority of everyday pics can be captured using low isos.
another thing which is bugging me is why do all dslr/mirrorless compact manufacturers still continue to hype the video capabilities when fact is dslrs and mirrorless compacts are designed for still photography. This thing has been going on for almost 5 years what with the 5d mk2 was released with video capability.
If selling video enabled devices is what they want to do how about just releasing affordable 'handicam' style cameras with aps-c or ff sensors. I know there are lots of expensive pro grade models but not cheap ones. Bet they wont release any till this video enabled dslr/ILCE craze dies down!
@aruk5 - as the technology continues to progress, the acceptable ISO range at which we choose to shoot at continues to expand, and as a result, the lighting conditions at which we are able to shoot in continues to expand. I remember when I first started shooting DSLR with the Canon 10D back in 2003. My usable ISO range was 100-800. I rarely ever went to ISO 1600. Now, the usable range is much greater. I now feel comfortable going from 100-6400, daily. Which means fewer images lost to subject motion, and fewer shooting limitations. With some cameras, 100-12800 is no problem. Tomorrows cameras will have even broader usable range. As I said before, a grainier image is still better than no image at all. Plus, many clients even love those grainier images, especially if they capture something special. You don't get paid for *not* shooting. You don't capture memorable moments by *not* shooting. If the choice is between going high ISO, or going home, I choose going high ISO!
@aruk5 - I don't think you get it. There really is no limit to what ISO people will use, as long as it delivers sufficient image quality. You seem really hung up on the ISO number. For the rest of us, it's really about getting the image-- even when the light is really low. There are a lot of images that we aren't getting now because we don't have sensors that are sensitive enough. We're losing images to subject motion, or we're having to resort to artificial lighting (flash) in order to deal with low light levels, or we don't even try getting the image! But as cameras keep pushing ISO performance to ever higher levels, usage of these expanded ISO levels has followed. If the choice is between getting the image at ISO 409K, versus getting *no image* at all, I'll gladly go for the ISO 409K. Go look at iconic classic photos, like from Cartier-Bresson; upon close inspection, the grain-level IQ isn't great. But the overall image itself is! A grainier image is better than no image!
Yes, pros use ISO 1600 all the time, and even more so now that ISO 1600 quality so much better than it used to be. And it's not just for "emergency situations." Everyday shots in indoor existing light, around the house, is often quite low and images shot in such indoor conditions easily benefit from high ISOs. Maybe you live in a house that has a roof comprised entirely of glass, but that's not the case with most buildings and homes, LOL. Plus, as a wedding photographer who tries to avoid the use of flash as much as possible, I can tell you that we practically live at ISO 1600 (or higher)! The image quality is certainly good enough for it these days. And natural light photography, especially for wedding photojournalism, just looks better. Plus, many churches (often dimly lit) do not allow flash photography at all. So that means we absolutely depend on high ISOs during these church ceremonies. It's not uncommon to shoot an entire ceremony at ISO 1600 or higher.
suntek101: This seems to be a wonderful camera but I like to do low and high angle shooting and I have been waiting for Pentax to incorporate an articulated LCD screen into their next camera since the K10. Hopefully the "K1" will be released in a year or two and my wish will come true. Are you listening Ricoh/Pentax? Until then, I'll just dream of the K3 while making the most of my old K10!
@Zvonimir Tosic - every generation works with the technology available, and they live with those limitations. If Capa had today's technologies and today's camera features, they would have used them. If Capa had been using a digital camera, he probably wouldn't have lost those images he shot on D-Day (all but eleven frames melted in the darkroom)!
Plus, it's rather naive and foolish to think that everyone should be "dragging their noses through the mud to make photographs" when he have technologies such as swiveling LCD screens that allow us to get low-angle shots much more easily.
Peter Read Miller of Sports Illustrated has said that he does a lot of his shooting through a Canon Right-Angle Finder (an OVF attachment) to get low-angle shots from the sidelines. I own one. But it's a pain to use because you're squinting down into a narrow tube, its angle is fixed at 90 degrees, and you can't see the full viewfinder. An articulating LCD works much better!
Denton Taylor: I don't get this. The 580EXii, to which this is compared, is a discontinued item. So you really have to compare it to the 600EX-RT. The 600EX-RT is currently selling for $550 USD, and has sold in the past for $500. So why would you even consider buying this thing with a radio control and all its failings for $400? If you insist on buying cheap sh*t, may as well buy the Yongnuo YN-E3-R controller for $130 and either buy Canon 600EX, or wait for the Yongnuo equivalents which should be out soon.
Why buy this for $400 vs a 600EX RT for $550? Because you'd be saving $150. Or multiples of $150 if you buy more than one, as many flash shooters often do. That's $150, $300, $450, etc., that you can spend on something else, or just keep in your bank account.
Nick49: What I love about some of these comments is the conception that nearly three hundred dollars buys you a better 'light'. Yes, albeit it is also a sensitive technical instrument, but one that is a light. I lost two strobes on a shoot recently as they both blew over in a gust of wind. Why would I spend 600 dollars on something that might get blown over? This sounds great!
So your logic is that you should never buy anything that might break if you drop it? Then I guess that rules out buying a camera, or lenses, etc., too. Also, if a flash is just a "light", then I guess a lens is just a tube with a bunch of glass in it. And why would you ever want to spend a few hundred dollars on a tube of glass that can break if you drop it!?
vadimraskin: What is the point in small camera that needs big lenses? Balancing it is a pain!
@ TwoMetreBill - Wrong. First of all, you have to realize that SLR cameras didn't used to be so big and bloated. They mainly became that way fairly recently in the DSLR age. Go compare the size of a Nikon Df (the world's smallest FF DSLR) to a Nikon FM2:
As you can see, cameras didn't always used to be so big. And plenty of serious photographers took plenty of great photos with these not-so-bloated cameras. Steve McCurry shot his famous "Afgan Girl" photo with an FM2. I'd certainly say that he's "serious about photography." He's certainly no 8 year old. It's about the photos, not about how big your camera is!
A year ago, I started using smaller mirrorless cameras. The end result is that I carry my camera with me a LOT more than I ever did with my larger DSLRs, and as a result I shoot a lot more. It's for people who care more about shooting than about looking macho lugging around a big camera.
km25: It has a AA filter, good for movies bad for stills. Low light king, yes until some else comes out with a FF 8mp camera. The world, grasshopper, needs balance. The Sony pendulum singes massively to the other side of FF madness. The best camera they have come with is the RX10. It does what it should well.But just think, Sony makes their next camera for stills, mostly. 18-20MP. Good low light with usable resolution. And they have more then two lens for it, with a loon bin adaptor. I am not just saying this because I am a Fuji Fan Boy. But if I take out my X-T1 I will have three things going for me enough resolution to create fine image, fine dynamatic rang, low noise and accurate color all in good balance. I will have excellent optics to use. The camera will have a good level of performance. Give me that Sony, I will think about jumping ship. Balance Grasshopper.
I think it's ridiculous that people think 12mp is an insufficient or unusable resolution. When I first switched from shooting weddings with film to shooting wedding with digital, we did it with the 6mp Canon 10D. The top wedding camera for that time was the 8mp Canon 1D MKII. When I look back at those images and albums from that time, the images still look great (at least the lower ISO ones do). Frankly, I think 10-12mp is plenty for most applications. Which is why with my Canon DSLRs, I still mostly shoot at mRAW (the medium RAW setting), which gives me a smaller file size of lower resolution (for example, on a 20mp Canon 70D, it gives you an 11mp RAW file resolution). I only switch to full RAW for the portrait and large group shots at a wedding. When you're shooting thousands of images per wedding, big file sizes really add up. And I just don't need that much resolution for my final output.
Have you actually tried it for yourself? I've handled the A7, and it balances quite nicely with its lenses. At least as nicely as most DSLRs, if not better. I actually prefer the balance of the A7 and its lenses, compared to something like a 5D MKIII (a huge body, compared to the A7) and its huge FF DSLR lenses, because the whole FF DSLR rig ends up being so much bigger and heavier than an A7 and its lenses. So in actuality, for extended use, the much larger and heavier DSLR rig is a bigger "pain" to carry and hold.
Any reduction in size, whether in the body or in the lenses, is less weight you have to lug around with you, and ultimately that results in less "pain". And as for balance, proper support of a large lens with your left hand can create "balance" with any body/lens combo. I've regularly used my big Canon 100-400L IS with even small DSLR bodies like Rebels with no "balance" problems, thanks to proper left-hand lens support.
Just a Photographer: Why buy this camera if it doesn't work out of the box as advertised?
4K video is only there when you buy additional hardware.12 MP on itself is not of these days anymore, although it will deliver good images at high ISO's (if Sony Digital Imaging doesn't screw up, like they often seem to do - Great sensors, but bad camera development).
@ bluevellet - "They can limit bitrates, framerates and what have you, but it should be able to do it in some fashion internally to be able to claim that it can do something... very basic."
That's where your vision and Sony's vision for the camera diverge. Sony doesn't want to have to limit the camera in that way.
I think people who are truly interested in 4K capability and are truly interested in this camera will understand what it is, what it can do, and what they are getting for their money. It's much ado about nothing, from people who just want to get their panties in a wad just for the heck of it. The capabilities of this camera are still very noteworthy.
Well, people have no problem buying photo camera bodies that you have to "buy additional hardware" for...i.e., lenses! Besides, serious video shooters and film makers are quite used to the idea of video cameras being modular devices that you add "additional hardware" to.
As for 12mp, I think that's plenty...especially if the lower pixel count allows for better high ISO IQ. Frankly, I'd rather have better sensitivity than more megapixels.
Siobhan A: That is a BIG lens. The body is small but it does not look comfortable to hold.
No, it's not a very big lens in real life. Almost all lenses tend to look really big when you have their hood mounted. And the body is very comfortable to hold. I now find much larger FF DSLR lenses more uncomfortable to hold, because they are so massive compared to the A7 bodies.
mikey1900: Could they cut out that EVF hump in the next iteration full frame mirrorless? It looks stupidly like an SLR which is unnecessary. I would much prefer Fujifilm's camera design.
It has a hump for the same reason that an SLR has a hump: the hump houses the viewfinder. It just happens to be that an SLR has an optical viewfinder while the Sony A7 has an electronic viewfinder. So is this camera's hump necessary? Well, if you want a center-mounted viewfinder, which a lot of people prefer, then yeah you do have to have a hump.
So whatever happened to all those yahoos who believed that the key to better high ISO performance was MORE pixels and HIGHER pixel density?
Wow, I was expecting that a flash this small would only take two AA batteries. The fact that they can pack four AA batteries into such a small body is amazing.