Very good video. This video proves a great point: that mirrorless can, indeed, handle the day-to-day shooting needs that many people still erroneously think only a DSLR can handle. People need to be informed and educated about the current performance levels of mirrorless cameras. There are a lot of people out there who still think that you *have to* have a DSLR to do this kind of shooting, or that a mirrorless camera can only handle shooting stationary objects in very good light. Of course, there are a lot of people who *hate* this kind of video, because it sheds more light on what mirrrorless cameras are capable of, using real-world demonstrations, because they want to perpetuate the myth that mirrorless cameras are so inferior to DSLRs.
jaxson: There is actually very little between DSLR's and mirrorless cameras, especially when you switch to live view mode on a DSLR.
Mirrorless tends to be packing way more smarts into their devices, and on sensor auto focussing, across the whole frame, is surely where we're headed. I can't see a reason why this couldn't be added to a DSLR for the best of both worlds, for those who want to remain in DSLR land.
Clearly any notions of 'it's lighter and smaller' is irrelevant when you go and slap a big lens on the front of it, and they often don't have particularly comfortable grips either. The tech (wifi, flipscreens, touchscreens, upload to facebook/email etc) and the predictive tracking focussing is surely where the main benefits lie.
Videos like this are great to say that mirrorless is a viable option, and over time surely the tech and EVF's will only get better. We're in quite a cool time for this sort of gadget :-)
"Clearly any notions of 'it's lighter and smaller' is irrelevant when you go and slap a big lens on the front of it"
I totally disagree. Less weight is still less weight. A Canon 7D MKII weighs 910g, a Sony A6000 weighs 344g. No matter what size lens you're using, that's still a half a kg of weight you're not having to carry around. And when you're using a large lens, it's mainly the lens you're holding. The camera is just along for the ride. So I don't think you need a huge grip if you're using a huge lens.
And it's still a nice benefit when you have a camera body that takes up a fraction of the amount of space as a DSLR body. So smaller camera size is still a benefit even when you're using a larger lens. I'd rather be able to pack two mirrorless bodies rather than just one big DSLR body (or even worse, two big DSLR bodies). I believe in always having a back-up, which is a lot easier to do with A6000 bodies. It also helps that an A6000 is less than $550.
mosc: Now if you could just get fuji to give up on bodies and only make e-mount lenses for sony bodies and get sony to give up on lenses we'd have ourselves quite a beast.
@BPD7 - Sony bodies certainly do have their advantages. And Fuji bodies aren't without their own faults and weaknesses. So I would love it if Fuji made lenses for Sony bodies! That way, people who liked Fuji bodies could continue to use Fuji bodies, and those that liked Sony bodies could continue to use Sony bodies but with Fuji lenses.
PeaceKeeper: That 16mm f/1.4 is enormous. 67mm filter thread? Egad. O.o
I know this Fuji has autofocus, but the old Olympus OM 24mm f/2 I own is tiny in comparison. And by the looks of the elements compared to body size they "padded" the outside of this lens quite heavily. There is no way the autofocus internals take that much space...
This would be a dream lens for me by the numbers, but it looks like it will hang off the front of an XT-1 like a brick. It's as big as the 56mm f/1.2(if not bigger).
I can only hope that the "WR" on this lens is not "provisional" as it is on the 35mm f/2, and they did some serious work to make it bulletproof, accounting for the portly nature of the lens.
First of all, autofocus internals to take up a lot more room than manual lens internals. Plus, today's modern lenses have electronic components and circuit boards inside the lens that simply don't exist in manual lenses. Even relatively simple lenses, like the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm m4/3 pancakes, are packed with circuit boards and electronics:
Secondly, there's a big difference between an f/1.4 lens and an f/2 lens, not to mention the difference between 16mm and 24mm.
I think it's a big naive to think that lens manufacturers are simply padding the outside of the lens un-necessarily.
slippedcurve623: Haha "sony 4d tracking gives the top of the line dslr a run of their money"Wow so many sonyfanboyism on the Internet, assuming its the same technology as the one found in the a6000, my nearly 8 year old 1d mark iii is in a whole diffrent league regarding af performance (accuracy/speed) compared to my a6000, despite all the press that the 1d iii has af problems, and dn't get me started on my 7d mark ii/1dx......there is an reason pro sports photographers use dslr on major sporting events.
Yes, pro sports photographers will continue to use DSLRs, definitely. But for so many other kinds of shooting, lugging around a big DSLR is simply no longer a requirement. Mirrorless cameras like the A6000 pack a lot of technology, performance, and image quality into a much smaller package.
AlanVia: What could Sony have possibly been thinking to put this boat anchor on their nice mirrorless body?
@AlanVia - a lot of us have already been hitting a form of gym: it's called carrying around FF DSLR gear! LOL.
But seriously, though, a macro lens like the 90/2.8 OSS isn't really a walk-around lens anyways. It's not really a lens you're going to pack for travel photography. It's really a special purpose lens, not something that every A7 user is going to want to have in their bag. People will buy it for portraits and macro, not to climb the Himalayas with.
AKH: Sounds like marketing fluff to me. The last 3 iterations of the OMD has about the same sensor IQ and now they try to stuff the cameras with all kinds of gimmicks.
@HowaboutRAW - the point is, everything has to start somewhere. You can't just write everything off as a "gimmick".
BTW, the rate of technological progression happens much faster today than it did back in the early 1980's, three decades ago. That's what happens when computing power has been doubling every two years (Moore's Law).
AbrasiveReducer: Was he even born when they developed the OM film cameras?
It's probably for the better young blood is good for a company. They usually bring fresh, innovative ideas, rather than just wanting to stick with the status quo. I think that's one of the issues with Canon. Old and aging leadership that has become too set in their ways and too conservative. Just look at Canon's Masaya Maeda compare to Oly's Setsuya Kataoka: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7079726133/photokina-2014-canon-interview-mirrorless-in-the-very-near-future
Look how old, up-tight, buttoned-up, and conservative Maeda looks compare to Kataoka. Maeda looks like he works in a funeral parlor, or will soon be laying in one.
Maybe you should learn proper handholding technique. Just look at the hands-on photos in the dpreview article to see how to properly hold a camera when a large lens is mounted. Support the lens with your left hand underneath the lens. This is no different from when we have large lenses mounted on our DSLRs. I guess you're holding an A7 in the way someone might hold a compact point-and-shoot: with each hand on each side of the camera body with nothing supporting the lens. That's fine for a light p&s, but not appropriate for a larger ILC with larger lenses.
No one should be dissuaded from using a lens simply because it's large or heavy, and lens designers shouldn't be dissuaded from making them. If you can't stand using a lens simply because it happens to be large or heavy, them don't. On the other hand, many of us understand that lenses are tools, and sometimes these tools can vary in size greatly.
fmian: So... Don't buy the MKII cause something better is coming soon...I see...
...which can be said about practically digital every camera ever. Lol.
nerd2: Most thing he says are a terrible, downright lies.
"OM-D E-M5 ll High Res Shot system has a number of advantages over high resolution full frame camera systems. He said that users of sensors with a similar number of pixels to 40 million had to use a tripod all the time to make their images look sharp, but that OM-D users could switch between using a tripod and not, according to the resolution mode set on the camera."
It's a TOTAL LIE. 40MP FF camera paired with 100mm lens requires the same amount of shutter speed 10MP m43 camera paired with 100mm lens requires to be sharp at pixel level. I am fine with 1/250 at 10MP body with 200mm effective focal length, and that's what I need for 40MP FF to be sharp with 100mm lens. And 1/250 sec shutter speed is totally achievable in many conditions.
On the other hand, OMD user will ALWAYS need tripod and totally stationary subject as the whole process takes ONE SECOND.
"On the other hand, OMD user will ALWAYS need tripod and totally stationary subject as the whole process takes ONE SECOND."
So is it still going to be "ALWAYS", even when the process takes far less time than "ONE SECOND"? LOL. Did you even read what he said about where the technology is headed? Future OMD users will be able to do this process in fractions of a second.
Every new technology that has ever been added to cameras has, at one time or another, been dismissed as a "gimmick". Auto exposure metering, auto focus, image stabilization, etc., we're all labeled as "gimmicks" by people very much like yourself at the time.
tkbslc: If it's going to be the size of a D750 with the lenses included, then just get the D750!
@villagranvicent- if we all cared so much about the proportions of our lenses to our camera bodies (ie. the "looks"), none of us would be using 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 lenses on anything smaller than 1Dx or D4 FF bodies. And even on these large bodies, big lenses like the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS or 100-400L IS still look big and disproportionate on these big camera bodies! But the reality is that there are plenty of people who use these lenses on smaller DSLR bodies: huge lenses on small bodies. It's not an issue for those of us who aren't so stuck on "looks".
villagranvicent: The Sony A7 with these lenses look almost as grotesque as an iPhone with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX30 attached.
@villagranvicent - I think you're a little too much into cameras as fashion accessories, LOL. Do you also try to match your camera to your outfit that you're wearing that day? BTW, I don't think lugging around a bulky FF DSLR body is any less ugly or any more attractive. Big FF DSLRs stick out like a sore thumb.
Echolinked73: They should have waited if this is true.
No, it's better to get technology into the market, then iterated and improve it over time. Think of the first autofocus lenses! They were very slow to focus. But there are always going to be early adopters who will give the technology a chance, giving it the support it needs in the marketplace, giving it time (and money) to mature.
Think of the first iPhone. When it was introduced, it had no third party apps, no app store, and didn't even have cut/copy/paste. These things were added later. Should Apple have waited? No, they got it into the market, and iterated as they went along. It certainly didn't hurt the popularity of the iPhone. And the rest is history.
Marty4650: Well, he's right about one thing. No one buys into a small and light system, then wants to carry a tripod around with them.
Once they get the High Resolution mode to work handheld, then they really have undermined one of the main reasons for buying a FF camera. You will be able to get high resolution results with the same little camera you carry around with you every day.
In the meantime, the EM5 II is still a very desirable camera, because it does some things my EM5 cannot do.
You don't necessarily need to bring a full-on tripod for these high res shots. A Gorillapod would work great for many situations.
Yeah, well then I guess my 70-200/2.8 for my DSLR is also a "monstrosity." The reality is that sometimes you need to use lenses that are bigger than you'd prefer they be. So what? It's not as if the 90/2.8 macro is going to be your full time walk-around lens! LOL. It's a lens designed for a specific purpose, and that's when you'll use it. You mount it when you need it, unmount it when you don't need it. BTW, rather than it being a "monstrosity", I think it's rather beautiful in a classic old-school way.
Nice to see that some companies are still innovating.
I'm not sure if you know this, but the lens is removable. You can easily mount other lenses.
@tkbslc - have you held an A7 or A7II body in your hand and compared it to a D750? The difference is significant! Even with lenses mounted. And I suggest you look at the frontal view of the camera size comparison you linked to, not just the top view! Very big difference!
@villagranvicent - As for the issue of "balance", we in the DSLR world have long been able to balance large lenses on DSLR bodies. We all have large 70-200/2.8 lenses that we've all somehow had no problem "balancing". How? It's simply a matter of putting your left hand underneath the lens (as shown in the hands-on photos from CP+)! When you do that, it's no longer such an issue of "balance". Just learn to use your left hand properly to support the camera/lens combo. It's a non-issue.
I no longer travel with DSLRs at all. For me, traveling with mirrorless is so much more comfortable. If you enjoy lugging around a FF DSLR everywhere, knock yourself out.