This is a camera that many affluent men will buy their wives for their birthday, or whatever. It's a lovely camera with lovely packaging and lovely accessories. Geek men on equipment forums will hate it, but this camera isn't for geek men on equipment forums. A woman who takes the care to dress impeccably from head to toe would certainly appreciate a camera like this. Most men here probably find it a chore just to match their socks. So I can easily see how many people on this forum wouldn't like this camera; it's just not aimed at you. Nothing wrong with a savvy company aiming at focused segments of the market. Just think of the car industry: you have rugged pickup trucks that can hall hay and carry toolboxes, and then you have sexy sporty luxury coup convertibles. Two very different markets, even though they are both cars.
iAPX: i am pretty sad that Leica could NOT differenciate it from competition with something else than a red dot or Luxury protections (featuring a big visible "Leica" logo).
I'd liked that Leica have taken the Panasonic DMC-LF1, simplified it's interface, removed wi-fi, adding a grip for the right hand. And I would even liked to have video modes removed too, to simplify the interface, and make it a pure photographer tool, something simple and more efficient.
"removed wi-fi, adding a grip for the right hand."
Not for this market. Wifi is a heck of a lot more valuable than a grip, when it comes to the target market for this camera. Buyers of this camera will want to be able to link with their smart phones or other devices to upload images. Besides, if Leica M rangefinders don't have grips, then why does this camera need one? A grip would merely ruin the classic Leica profile.
jhinkey: ugh! Do they really make any money doing this?
Of course they do. Probably a lot more than you think.
(unknown member): What's the point if Fujifilm is not going to use their better technology sensor?
@Basalite - no, you're just attaching your own narrow bias of what "X" means. An idealistic, narrow, exclusive idea of "X". The reality is that Fuji wants to sell cameras, needs to sell cameras, and in the "X" series of cameras they've established a certain look and style that many people find appealing, and many people even buy the "X" bodies specifically because they find this particular style, look, and aesthetic appealing in a camera body. So what's so wrong about offering a lower-priced camera body so that more people can afford it? Oh, because you *don't* want more people to be able to afford it! Is that why you feel so threatened and insecure about Fuji broadening the "X" cameras to a wider audience? Well, that's rather selfish of you, don't you think?
@Basalite - so is there a "branding discrepancy" when Canon sells a 1DX, and also sells a Rebel SL1? Is there a "branding discrepancy" when Leica sells an M9, and also a Leica D-Lux compact digicam? No, it's still the same brand, but they just sell a broader range of products in order to make enough money to stay in business. It's called diversification, and leveraging your brand to target a wider range of buyers...again, to make enough money to stay in business. Stop being so naive and idealistic.
T3: There are a lot of elitists snobs who will turn their noses up at this camera, but Fuji is doing the right thing. Like it or not, pricing is very, very important. Sure, you can have high end models at higher price points, but you also have to have lower end models that will typically sell much better thanks to their lower price point. For every Canon 1DX that Canon sells, they probably sell a couple hundred Canon Rebels, if not more. These lower-end cameras end up being the bread-and-butter cameras in a brand's product line. So if you want a company like Fuji to stay in business and keep making premium bodies, you should really not put up a stink over them introducing a lower-end body that will probably sell very well thanks to its attractive looks and low pricing. Plus, it just makes you sound like a whiny elitist who is naive to the realities of business.
@Hubertus Bigend - most every entry-level model has some compromise or another, and these are typically compromises that lower-end, price-conscious consumers are willing to accept, or are not bothered by, because they are getting a more affordable price. In the case of the X-A1, it's a mirrorless camera competing in the mirrorless segment, and there are *plenty* of mirrorless cameras without a viewfinder! They are obviously too different markets, MILC and DSLR. It's like comparing the tablet market to the laptop market, and complaining that tablets aren't as "full featured" as a laptop because it doesn't have a physical keyboard, larger storage, faster processor for more power, etc. It doesn't matter because they are two different markets, tablets and laptops. People who buy tablets compare against other tablets, people who buy laptops compare against other laptops. Likewise, you do the same with MILCs and with DSLRs. You need to compare apples to apples.
There are a lot of elitists snobs who will turn their noses up at this camera, but Fuji is doing the right thing. Like it or not, pricing is very, very important. Sure, you can have high end models at higher price points, but you also have to have lower end models that will typically sell much better thanks to their lower price point. For every Canon 1DX that Canon sells, they probably sell a couple hundred Canon Rebels, if not more. These lower-end cameras end up being the bread-and-butter cameras in a brand's product line. So if you want a company like Fuji to stay in business and keep making premium bodies, you should really not put up a stink over them introducing a lower-end body that will probably sell very well thanks to its attractive looks and low pricing. Plus, it just makes you sound like a whiny elitist who is naive to the realities of business.
Torch: Inert gas and inert mind Fuji. X camera without X-trans? Go FAIL! Who needs your cam without low light and sharpness? Prepared for price wars with Samsug and Nikon? I'll stick with EXF2 & P7700 with higher quality construction on the controls.
Sounds like you're the one with the inert mind, especially if you think that anything that doesn't have X-Trans isn't capable of good low light and sharpness. Your mind is also inert if you don't think that pricing is really important. Lower priced cameras sell better. The best selling DSLRs are typically the entry-level bodies like Canon Rebels. Why? Well, it's not because they have superior performance. It's because of pricing.
Obviously, the point is to hit a certain price point. It's amazing that people are so dismissive of how important pricing is. The latest and best technology typically costs more than the older, not-as-good technology, even if the older technology is still plenty good enough for many budget-minded buyers. But then, you get some people who simply demand the best, latest technology no matter what the cost...then they complain about the cost!
Gabriel Yeo: Holding a barrel lens in one hand and triggering it with the phone with the other hand....that's a no-no in photography.I guess that's what happens when a non-camera company like Sony designs these things.
Un-creative people who can't think out of the box or moved beyond the status quo are always afraid to break imaginary rules. That's why they are un-creative.
SpencerPhoto: I'd just get a Lumia 1020.
And be stuck using Windows Phone? No thanks.
Karroly: I hate Wifi and all that microwaves that are more and more polluting our environment... So I will never buy such a device.
Get Karroly a tin foil hat, because he's nuts.
justmeMN: Among other things, on the Sony USA web site, this camera is listed on the "Sony Alpha DSLR Cameras" web page, in spite of the fact that is not a DSLR.
It appears that Sony's sales strategy is to trick uninformed buyers into believing that a mirrorless camera is in fact a DSLR.
Is it really such a big deal? We're living in a transitional time, and this is a transitional camera. I just noticed that Amazon has the mirrorless Panasonic GH3 in their "Best Sellers in Digital SLR Cameras" list. Does it really matter? It certainly won't matter in a few years from now, as more "DSLRs" end up ditching the mirror, even though they may keep the DSLR shape. And in a few years when we look back at how some people were whining and gnashing their teeth and crying foul that this camera or that camera got lumped into the "DSLR" section on some web page, we'll probably think it's such a petty, silly concern.
Neodp: ...Stellar shake up of camera pricing, no doubt; but I will tell the truth. Until the EVF, and continuous focus, surpass the level of, now old, starter, DSLR's, then this is not a better light box, for what you can get otherwise; even if used. I think that speaks volumes, about how, to little, and too late, benefits progression, and value (especially with E-Mount currently) is currently still missing.
Could this rock an old film users world. Yes. Is it missing comparable viewfinder benefits, Yes. I mean, just stay optical; until you can build a better EVF. Please. This is where I part company; with those who say good enough (crappy), is OK, and especially, inferring that it would need to cost, so much more. It would not.
You know, I know 20Mpx can be a good thing (landscapes); but this sensor is already said to be less than comparable APS-C sensors, in low light. Translation, it comparably doesn't have the color sensitivity, and low noise, that any new camera today should have.
Neodp, you are simply talking to yourself, like a raving lunatic. Time to take your medication. You've basically become the dpreview equivalent of the crazy man standing on the street corner ranting incoherently about the end of the world while everyone avoids and ignores him. LOL. What a sad spectacle.
"Good enough (crappy), will no longer do. It's just crappier. Good enough (excellent), is the goal, and we are no where near it."
Sadly, there are a group of somewhat arrogant, self-centered people who seem to think that there are no beginning/ entry-level shooters moving up from compact digicams and P&S. And since these egotistical folks think that nothing short of *ultimate excellent* is good enough for them, than it shouldn't be good enough for *anyone*. Well, if they get off their high horse for just a moment, and step down to ground level, as opposed to having their head in the clouds like some elitist snob, they just might realize that there is a whole world of shooters for whom this camera will certainly be good enough, or even amazing.
Ignore the elitist snobs who have their heads up their butts. They think every camera has to be made for them, and no other users exist. Some of these people are just spoiled, whiny brats , looking for anything to complain about.
Francis Carver: Unfortunately, the 230K rez LCD screen means this one is for the kids only. Regarding the USB 2.0 connectivity.... I wonder if any of the Japanese camera makers today have ever heard of the "new" USB 3.0 standard that came out what, three years ago already?
First of all, Leica bodies have used 230K LCD screen. And those weren't considered "for the kids only". The Leica M-E, a stripped down version of the Leica M9, released in September 2012, has a 230K screen. But unlike the A3000, the M-E was priced at $5,450. Also, the Leica X1 and X2 premium compacts also had 230K screens.
I really don't think the screen is going to be a deal-killer for many people at the A3000's low price point.
As for USB 2.0, who the heck connects a USB to their camera anyway? The only time I ever use the USB connection is when I'm shooting tethered. USB 2.0 vs 3.0 won't be a deal killer either.
yaduck9: It is an attempt to "guide" consumers down the path toward mirrorless cameras. Its about lowering production costs by getting rid of the mechanical mirror assy. The new consumers are being mesmerized by corporate marketing into thinking that whatever crap that giant corporations produce is "better". Granted, technology marches on, and I am sure at some point mirrorless will surpass DSLR technology, but it is a bit nauseating to go through this "transition".
Someone once claimed that as human history moves forward, the amount of technological change will progressively be larger, and hence change will occur quicker. Hang ON!
"forgot that similar cameras already existed? OM-D, GH4? None of them 'ended' anything."
@Plastek - oh, so Olympus is still cranking out mirrored 4/3 DSLRs, are they? No, I think m4/3 mirrorless effectively ended the 4/3 DSLR. So your above statement is, to put it bluntly, wrong. The upcoming Olympus flagship body, the OM-D E-M1, is going to be mirrorless m4/3. Look it up.
Mirrorless _ user: I DONT UNDERSTAND. What I see is a cheap chance to get a camera that take GOOD pictures. NOT ? I start taking photographs with a used Panasonic G10, and it was at no point the best camera (distant of that) but I was fun taking my first shots of my baby and learning in the process. Now I have a G5, that is a good camera, but (like all cameras) have low points (SLOW and inaccurate continuos AF, not superb in low light or super high Iso.. just to say some) Again, it's a good camera, but I not paid a fortune for it, just $400 one month ago.I applaud SONY for give us a chance to get a cheap camera WITH A VIEWFINDER that take VERY GOOD pictures, even better than many other more expensive cameras !!!!!!!!NOT all the cameras have that it will be expensive !!!!!!SUPERB !!!!!!!!!
@Plastek - LOL, another insecure person who feels threatened by the E-mount, are you? I see nothing wrong with Sony offering both the A-mount and E-mount, and letting the consumers decide which one they want for themselves. Or do you consider that to be "E-mount BS"?
xlotus: Since NEX 3N has been on sale for $329 and NEX 5R is currently on sale for $439, would anybody still prefer to buy the A3000? and why?
For people who want a viewfinder, a flash, and a DSLR-like form factor all in one camera, ready to go, straight out of the box. Neither the NEX 3N nor the NEX 5R have a built-in viewfinder, nor built-in flash, nor DSLR-like form. Obviously, it makes sense for Sony to offer their E-mount cameras in various configurations and styles to fit the various preferences of various consumers. Some will like the NEX style of cameras, some will like the A3000 style of camera.
Neodp: The problem:
The Sony SEL35F18 35mm f/1.8 Prime is going for the lowest, *USED* price, of $400. This is the most, recommended lens, and for (wise) prime users.
So much for affordability. There are much better lenses; for much less. This, barely, incrementally smaller system size just costs too much. It's no value buy. Then there's lens selection. Now, if the E lens prices dropped....
Plus, as far as fun adapter mania, you should know, some systems use fun, high quality, inexpensive, old lenses; without needing any adapters.
"Without an optical view, isn't a higher quality EVF, a requirement?"
I think most consumers as this price point just need something sufficient to frame the image with. The A3000's VF should be sufficient for that. It's mainly at higher price points that you start attracting people who get really anal about VF quality. As a starter camera for starter shooters, it's fine. Then, as people get more advanced in their shooting, and feel that they might need a better viewfinder, them they can upgrade bodies later.
Plus, people seem to have the bizarre notion that the camera industry is massively successful right now, rolling in cash. The reality is that camera companies are't generating much profits, revenue is down, sales are down, and in the next few years we may even see some companies pull out. Yet we keep wanting them to give is more for a lot less money. All things considered, I think the A3000 is a mighty fine value, even as profits on it may be very low for Sony.