SRHEdD: Really nice, but I can put a 35 or a 50 on my A6000 and save enough to pay for the trip to go someplace spectacular and shoot. I have an A7ii, and even it gets left home sometimes in favor of the A6000. I do appreciate the exercise, and hope some of this trickles down to the A7000(?) though...
As the OP has an A7II, I'm sure he realizes his A6000 is not FF. There are other reasons to choose a "lesser" camera than sensor size alone, one of which the OP cited.
Smeggypants: " NASA funding issues may prevent the space agency from providing additional moon mission scans in the foreseeable future."
Oh please!!! The single most important historical event in history and "funding issues" *may* prevent release of most images. What a load of boll-ocks!!!
****Failed to post new comment because it contains swear words****
FWIW, some (many, actually) people don't believe the moon landings happened, and to them it certainly is not the most important historical event in history. I watched the television transmission at the time, and I do believe man walked on the moon, but I'm not sure I would say it is _the_ most important event either. But it was definitely a leap for mankind.
Rooru S: quick question no.1is it an APS-C only lens or has the ability to cover a fullframe circle?quick question no.2how was the AF speed?
Well, Samsung doesn't make a full frame camera, so it's unlikely.
RedFox88: Iso 16000 looks like a water painting.
Well duh, it's ISO 16000.
What the layman will hear is "shot with a Sony A7s," and he will think that just by purchasing an A7s, they will get pro video...not realizing that quite often there's a whole lot more involved than just the camera body.
Michael Piziak: Those 5 tripods look very similar - almost as though they were made by the same company.
They're tripods with ball heads...how different can they look?
Gonini: What a coward and cheap move by Sony! So all of their cameras are overpriced? Proof that the company does not stand behind their products. Those defending the price cut (and sony) probably did not buy this camera at its overpriced original price!
Cowardly and cheap? Sony is a business. They name the price and people decide if it is worth it or not. All camera get cheaper as you own them; in five years you be able to buy an RX10 for even less. The point is, if you buy a new-to-the-market camera, you will pay more. Almost no one absolutely needs a camera, so don't chase after the state of the art, because you will always pay the "overpriced" price.
Richard Franiec: I was about to order the X-T1 but now I rather wait for the porcupine foreskin covered version. Leica's paper edition does not appeal to me anymore.
I guess that it is about time to create new segment of cameras clearly dedicated for fashion freaks, not photographers. DPR - be the first, surely, others will follow.
Not only does he drive a grey car, wears grey clothes, lives in a grey house with grey furniture, he only shoots B&W photos. :P
MarkByland: Still no legitimate, justifiable reason why camera companies are dropping the optical viewfinder. It all just sounds like cheaper, faster, more production units mojo to me.
I think camera companies could stand a few minutes behind the counter listening to customers complain for a day. Perhaps they'd see things differently. Not every one enjoys holding a camera at an obtuse parallax in relation to what the eye is seeing. People also can't stand not being able to use LCD in bright sunlight, yet another reason a finder was essential.
Don't make it sound like Canon is the only manufacturer not include a viewfinder on a compact camera. Viewfinders are NOT the norm, and most people don't care about one. If they did, they would all stop using the cell phone and buy a 'real" camera with a supposedly necessary viewfinder.
photofan1986: Impressive quality, I must say!
The photos are flat and lifeless because the lighting itself is flat and lifeless.
rrr_hhh: "and a minimum shutter speed of 1/8000 sec "
Isn't that the maximum shutter speed, being the fastest one ?
Depends on how you look at it. Shutter speed is a time value (hence Canon marking their shutter speed as Tv instead of S), and 1/8000 is less time than 1/4000, 1/2000, etc. So in that respect, it is the minimum speed.
BrianK: One of the appeals of this class of camera is the ability to shoot in crappy weather conditions, which one would think might also be associated with less than ideal lighting. Nevertheless, and as far as I know, none of these cameras offer the option to save in uncompressed RAW format which would give one the most flexibility to make corrections to color balance, etc., i.e., the kinds of corrections one might want to be able to make when shooting in less than ideal conditions.
Makes no sense to me.
I hope that when DPReview gets around to its next round-up review of this class of camera that they raise at least a bit of a stink about this omission.
The manufacturers probably figure the target market doesn't even know what RAW is.
IMO the 5-axis IS is not the news here, but the fact that RAW is offered. I do not know if the target consumer cares about RAW, but as far as I know, this is the only travel zoom to offer it.
vapentaxuser: Raising the starting price over its predecessor by $100 is a risky move on Sony's part. I guess they're operating on the assumption that any other enthusiast compacts coming out later in the Summer/Fall will still have 1/1.7" sensors. It might be worthwhile to wait a few months to see what else comes out before buying this camera.
Since the new mode is not a replacement but an addition, it is hardly a risky move. Those that want the new sensor, articulated LCD, and hot shoe can pay the $100 more, and those that don't can save $100 and buy the original.
historianx: What Oly should do is develop and release a bridge s/z similar to the Pannie FZ200 but with a 1" or 4/3 sensor and some sorta sweet 25-600 or higher constant 2.8 Zuiko Digital lens. Take that, Panny AND Leica.
Like Mario, fantasy. The sensor and lens combination you suggest would be huge, and not cheap, to the point that most would probably just buy a DSLR.
joe1512: Why so expensive? An SX260 is less than 200 bucks now. This buys you more zoom (30x), more unnecessary pixels and um... yeah I dunno. Wifi maybe?
Oh...but I can totally pay double and put that huge freaking Viewfinder on the top of my compact camera. Score!!Or maybe that freaking Flash thats bigger than the camera itself and probably drains half the battery. I hear those are really awesome on 30x zoom cameras!
You need to be able to daisy chain the peripherals so I can have a huge flash, a monster microphone AND the gigantic viewfinder all piled on top of my little camera.
FWIW, the accessory flash has its own internal power from batteries.
Sony's HX cameras have always been the most expensive travel zoom cameras.
Vinc T: Same sensor as that in the GH2? I am really disappointed.
According to the specifications, the multi-aspect ratio feature is retained.
Is that an LED chip between the flash and the lens?
Sam Carriere: That camera phones can take pretty pictures is undeniable; that does not make them cameras. This site's treatment of them as such has virtually ruined its credibility as a resource for serious photographers.I would place cell phones right up there with nuclear weapons and landmines as among the most evil inventions of the 20th century. They have destroyed effective communication between individuals (texting and tweeting are anything but effective communication) and destroyed common good manners among people.
Spoken like a true snob. LOL.