Previous news story    Next news story

Wolf in sheep's clothing? Sony A3000 First-Impressions Review

By dpreview staff on Aug 27, 2013 at 04:05 GMT
Buy on GearShop1 deal

The Sony A3000 is essentially a 20.1MP mirrorless camera that uses the same E-mount as the Sony NEX, yet which has the look and feel of a traditional SLR. Though not the first manufacturer to take this approach, Sony is the first to achieve the low starting price point of $399 for body and lens. It's a bold move, and one that is clearly intended to shift a lot of units as we move into the traditional 'buying season'. Click the link below to read our first-impressions review of the Sony A3000.

40
I own it
9
I want it
3
I had it
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony Alpha a3000

Comments

Total comments: 678
12345
demarren 123
By demarren 123 (1 week ago)

I use the A3000 for about 2 mounds now ,and the viewfinder and LCD is not so bad.
I also have the NEX6 +1650
The viewfinder could be brighter but the pixels i don,t care.
All in all a great camera ,and the lens alone cost as mush as lens + camera.
What is import end is the Images and those are better then my Nikon D90
and canon 1100D

1 upvote
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (1 week ago)

Just bought it! I wish I had a little more money to buy the A65, but... At least the sensor quality is very good. The LCD is not that bad, but I would rather prefer a 3:2 one, because I don't like 16:9 for photos.

The EVF is really really bad, but not that bad because of the resolution per se, but the eyepiece. Small opening, all plastic eyecup, short relief, and the lens quickly loses a lot of quaily if you don't look very in the center. Practically unusable for long time.

The other things (including the lens [18-55]) and qualitywise, it is exactly what to expect at this price point. Not good not bad. Acceptable and useful.

0 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (2 weeks ago)

Once, we (including DPR) wondered if a brand could launch a camera that consisted of basic features but with a big sensor and good image quality in an SLR body for people who wanted to step up but can't pay much, or simply don't need, want, or care about many features, and, well, Sony just did it!

But I understand DPR's criticism on the LCD and EVF, because 400 k LCD's and higher than 200 k EVF's were already in the market in 2010, so I guess we all were kind of not expecting anything below about 400 k in low budget DSLR's and mirroless these days.

But, there's a rumor of an A3500 coming, and its specs say it'll keep the same LCD and EVF resolution. My guess is that Sony wants to have a camera in everybody's hands but letting it clear (specially in markets in developing countries, like mine) this doesn't mess with the other cameras, because most people here wouldn't recognize the true value of a cam with a 900 k (or more) LCD and EVF over one with 400 k.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marc petzold
By marc petzold (1 month ago)

I've bought the body brand new here into a german forum for just 130 EUR,
you really can't go wrong with that, currently using my A3000 with the konica
hexanon 24/2.8 F22 prime, it's really a great & sharp lens, and was much more expensive than the whole A3000 body itself, but well worth the price.

manual focus lenses adaptors @ebay or amazon germany here are usually
about ~10 EUR incl. shipping, so it's a great deal to bring back the life into
these nice vintage lenses.

well, you know, the EVF and display is way bad (worst) in terms of quality,
but you can't judge sonys great 20 MP APS-C sensor built inside the A3000,
especially for a very low price.

i still have the hope that dpr would publish a review of the alpha 3000,
after the preview is out for aeons. ;)

0 upvotes
Aveek Bhowmik
By Aveek Bhowmik (2 months ago)

Mirror less is an emerging technology and should not be underestimated without giving it a fair chance to develop. But the way Sony has given a DSLR look is not fair. And you know in India the sellers are telling this is a DSLR....in. A horrible view finder and poor battery life is the main drawback. Store are selling this camera with lots of gifts; and people who just want to show-off with DSLR hanging on their neck are purchasing this. Not the price that are attracting people, the gifts and limited knowledge of most of the purchasers are two main keys. But even after these the market response is not good at all. In Sony India website the they have never used the word "mirror-less". Is this fair??? What do you say? It is almost a upgraded point and shoot camera. Original mirror-less cameras are far better.

0 upvotes
Halenstone
By Halenstone (4 months ago)

$313.91 after shipping and tax from Amazon. This will be perfect for shots taken at construction sites my company works on. No worries about it getting a little beat up, and plenty of light during the day. Really looking forward to playing with it and loaning it to my kido to maybe spark a little interest in creativity.

0 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (4 months ago)

I would like to offer that I in fact prefer a button to switch between evf and LCD. I became quite frustrated when my em5 thought my hand was my head and blanked the LCD just as I was going to use it.

For me. This grip makes it the first sensible nex body.

1 upvote
GradyPhilpott
By GradyPhilpott (5 months ago)

Amazon has a D3100 for sale for $426.95.

For an extra $7.00, there's hardly a comparison.

0 upvotes
plastique2
By plastique2 (5 months ago)

I own now an A3000 for some ten days. I am very satisfied with the image quality and with the shape of the camera and the ergonomics. I really don't understand the previous post by Neodp. I don't share his/her experience. And yet there is a thing that keeps nagging and annoying me more and more. This here is now intended for the engineers from SONY to read, maybe to respond, and just, just maybe to do something. I'll put it in a sarcastic form:
What is the benefit of shooting in RAW + JPEG without having the option to shoot just in RAW ? I would like to know it so I can enjoy fully the benefits of this most likely very wisely implemented restriction in the A3000 too! Please tell us! OR FIX IT!
For years now I am shooting only in RAW with all my cameras. I don't need the in-camera jpegs. Does that make me a bad person, dear SONY?!

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (5 months ago)

I'm not saying the sensor is worse than sensors; from 5 years gone by. I just don't understand why anyone would buy this; compared to a D5100, for one example.

My point is, the APS-C sensor has more noise than competitive APS-C sensors, so do not make the mistake of assuming it doesn't matter. Light gathering ability is job one. At least it should have been.

You should know, this affects your dynamic range, and color/light sensitivity, including the realistic tonal gradations; that are possible. That translates, and even into down-sampled pictures. Such as those on the web.

It's not just about more megapixels; though more can be better. It's how it does, with more, that counts.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tophtml
By tophtml (5 months ago)

Agreed. While certainly not a deal killer, I too want to know what the logic is behind the mandatory pairing of RAW+JPEG and why RAW can't be shot separately. I also shoot, almost exclusively, in RAW and this seems to make little sense. I should be taking delivery on the A3000 in the next couple of days and I'll get to find out for myself whether or not my $300 investment was worth it.

At this price point I can live with a few shortcomings as long as the final image is good.

1 upvote
terrymcke
By terrymcke (3 months ago)

just want to add (i shot in raw/jpeg) that i find most of my shot fine in jpeg with tiny edits. and for a few (extreme light/contrast) i work the jpeg.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (6 months ago)

This camera stinks; compared to Nikon DSLR's.

I tested the A3000, against a D5200, and a D3100, and the noise sucked, on the mere $400 Sony. The menus actually were not that bad, and the low res EVF, and screen, wasn't extremely bad. the menu had manual focus assist options; but I couldn't test a adapted manual lens. I went kit lens, and 55mm on them all, and into the shadows. Besides the fact the the Nikon flash blew it away, the no flash pictures are what I am talking about.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is a low noise APS-C sensor; because it can't compare. At least to better APS-C sensors.

It's a shame; because the price was good (now I know why), and the build wasn’t objectionable at all, Decent little grip. The kit lens ( that I would sell) seemed well build, and smooth. All in all, a waste of money however.

Maybe at $90, it might be a better choice than tiny sensor cams; but it's just an already outdated sensor. It's not like one can pop in another here.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (6 months ago)

Oh, and the Nikon J1 thing, you know? The one they can't hardly sell, the sensor is so stupid. Well, It beat the A3000; by a hair, noise wise.

The A3000 picked ISO 2000, odly, and that looked underexposed(hiding noise?). Yes, I went through every setting on the A3000 camera, for these tests. This is no people camera. No real world light camera.

Plus, you lose fast shot to shot, in Raw. Also, the shutter sounds very dull, and bad (clunky), if you care about that.

Hey, it did what it did, and it didn't.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (6 months ago)

Camera companies suck. They really do.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (5 months ago)

Correction, it was in fact a J3; which improved a bit on the J1. I don't recommend it; but it's pictures are not worse than the A3000, and it's not APS-C.

0 upvotes
7555CCBD202D4493B1185B0636CA1A2E

sorry can't understand this reviewer at all. this camera carries one of the best sensors on the market one only has to look at the colour depth to see that. Sony have basically stripped down their nex model cutting out the unnecessary stuff to deliver a camera and video that is exceptional and for 240 quid including a lens unbelievably good value build quality is acceptable. LCD and viewfinder maybe not top quality but utterly usable and nothing to moan about at this price point only thing below par is the on off plastic switch. excellent camera

0 upvotes
tophtml
By tophtml (6 months ago)

Nobody should expect the build quality of a high end DSLR out of a camera that retails for less than $400 with the lens. At any price point the primary consideration is the picture quality. Having great build quality and loads of bells and whistles are useless if the basic elements and systems of the camera used to produce an image are substandard. While hearing a lot of criticism, I don't believe I heard that one. At this price point a lot can be overlooked as long as the camera's systems produce decent images. Low resolution displays? There was a time, not too far back, when the display was ground glass. If the image quality is decent on this camera, at this price, you can't expect a lot more.

My guess is that this is another Sony Alpha/Beta Test (like the NEX-VG900) and they may be looking to shed the expensive mirror-prism technology in favor of mirror-less technology for their entire line of cameras. Just a thought.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
snappyBokeh
By snappyBokeh (6 months ago)

I have tested the image from this camera from day time shots to nite shots. Like what some have commented it is really a wolf in sheeps clothing.
In the hands of an Point and shoot (auto mode) user, it would just be a handicapped Nex 3 with EVF and flash. (even though its sensor is larger).

But this camera true IQ is truely revealed when in APSM mode.
The sensor can really resolve images. (its not entry level stuff) Dont worry about the FPS because the camera only need a few frames..

test it out at the showcase boutique and you will know what i mean.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
PhotoLouP
By PhotoLouP (6 months ago)

This looks remarkably like a copy of the Samsung NX-20. Only the Samsung system has better lenses. Note I have many Sonly Alphas, but this is target at small slr user formats (kind of like the original compact SLRs of the 80's.) Makes sense to me.

0 upvotes
perry rhodan
By perry rhodan (6 months ago)

So, Sony said: let's introduce a very very cheap cam that can take very very good pictures. And DPR says: oh noooo, IT is a very cheap cam. Stear clear of this One. Nice One DPR. But Ama won't like this.

3 upvotes
perry rhodan
By perry rhodan (6 months ago)

a decent sensor? seriously?
dpr lost it completely here. strange bias.
this sensor already proved to be the best apsc sensor out there.

4 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (7 months ago)

This would be great if Sony offered some <$500 18-270 that's similar in weight to the camera...

0 upvotes
Zanearn
By Zanearn (7 months ago)

Earlier this year (2013), Fujifilm announced FinePix HS50EXR, which also has a DSLR-like body with similar size and weight than this a3000, and... a 1/2' sensor, at $549.95. About the same time, Nikon announced COOLPIX P520 with a 1/2.3' sensor, for $449.

I think the editor should compare a3000 with these cameras, since they are all DSLR-like and have similar prices, targeting the same group of customers.

1 upvote
qartlo91
By qartlo91 (7 months ago)

these are absolutely different cameras for different group of costumers. Nikon p520 and Fuji hs50exr are really nice supper-zoom cameras. they give you 24-1000mm 35mm equivalent focal length in the size and weight of DSLR cameras.
1000mm lens for apsc sizer sensor... do you have any idea what it looks like?
I think best competitors for Sony A3000 are Samsung nx20 and Panasonic G series cameras. they are all dslr like Mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras.

1 upvote
Zanearn
By Zanearn (7 months ago)

“they give you 24-1000mm 35mm equivalent focal length...” no, they give you equivalent FIELD OF VIEW, which can be achieved on a APS-C simply by chopping the sensor smaller.

I know what a 1000mm lens looks like, but they are for real 1000mm perspective (for e.g., big moon background), not a 180mm perspective with chopping.

Agree with you that a3000 is actually targeting Pana G etc..
But my point is, since "a lot of people will look no further than the pricetag" and just want a cheap SLR-shaped camera, they might compare the above models together. Thus maybe dpreview should give a clear message to these people: A
Although a3000 is "low", "coarse" and "designed to ape", it have much better IQ at lower price than the above "really nice supper-zoom cameras".

0 upvotes
qartlo91
By qartlo91 (7 months ago)

As I know telephoto is mostly depends on the lens, not the sensor.
So, super-zoom camera are for super zoom and apsc cameras are for high image quality . they can't alternate each others, unfortunately. everyone has different priorities, that's why here are so many different type of cameras. so, personally, i can't see the point to compare them.

1 upvote
jsandjs
By jsandjs (7 months ago)

Anyone can try this A3000 (at 55mm) and crop to get the same FOV (or frame, picture, ...) taking with one of those superzooms (at 800 or 1000mm) from a same position. Then he will have a solid idea about which one gets a better IQ.

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (6 months ago)

I tested it. It's not the resolution (megapixies) that's the problem, it's the noise (in low light), compared to better APS-C camera.. Don't be fooled. This is not a good performer; because if you give that up, you might be better off with a pocket camera. Neither being great, nor value for what you are getting. They are the stark opposite, of future proof. They are yesterdays sensors, and sensors mater.

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (7 months ago)

How much, really, is one LCD over another? $5? $10?

1 upvote
Maddrew
By Maddrew (7 months ago)

Amazing price for an APS-C ILC.

1 upvote
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (7 months ago)

This has nothing to do with a 3000mA battery.

0 upvotes
SW Anderson
By SW Anderson (7 months ago)

The previewers' last paragraph on the first page is the most worthwhile part of this jaundiced preview. Obviously, this camera is meant to appeal to those who want to move up from an x-years-old point 'n' shoot, a phonecam or elderly superzoom that's now outfeatured even by the less-than-state-of-the-art Sony A3000. Then, there are those who'd like to give an ILC a try without spending upwards of $700.

I recall people disparaging the VW Beetle because it wasn't a V8-powered Ford, Chevy or Plymouth with power everything, lots of front and rear overhang, and able to pass everything but a gas station. Those critics just didn't get it.

I suspect most A3000 buyers won't be after a faux DSLR with which to impress others or to play let's pretend with themselves. Some like a DSLR-style design because it provides more to hold on to and controls tend to be less tiny and crowded. As for the lackluster LCD and manual EVF switch, look for fixes on a new improved A3000n in a year or two.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
budi0251
By budi0251 (7 months ago)

Now, could Nikon please do something more competitive :)
Nikon 1 isn't what I want; APS-C is almost like a tolerable minimum for IQ, while FX still considered the best for overall IQ (lens aside).
Sure there are DBMF, but it's from another consumer market league; FX & APS-C could be considered in the same consumer league.

0 upvotes
ezradja
By ezradja (7 months ago)

NEX 3 sensor with built in evf and comfortable hand grip without the extra money? Nice play Sony!

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

NEX3 sensor? Read the specs first, Dude.

2 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (7 months ago)

I wonder why is EVF ALWAYS sticking out so much from the body? Is it for people with big noses :) or what? Or is it a Japanese thing or....

0 upvotes
GerryWirth
By GerryWirth (7 months ago)

Where should the EVF stick more out? In front or on the back of the camera?

I have a big nose and own the A900 and the A99 and I couldn't find any difference between them.

0 upvotes
Biro
By Biro (7 months ago)

Wow. There's way too much hand-wringing over the A3000. Yes, it's an NEX-3 with the form factor of a compact DSLR. I find nothing wrong with this - and I'm speaking as a person with a full-on three-body Pentax DSLR kit and a three-body micro four-thirds kit.

Yes, it would be nice if the EVF had more resolution. But it's still better than any rear LCD in bright sunlight. And as far as that rear LCD goes, the 230K-dot display on my Pentax K200D was perfectly adequate - just as it is on a number of Leica digital cameras.

My take: The A3000, at $399 with stabilized kit 18-55mm zoom, is a great deal. Maybe add the Sigma 19mm and 30mm primes in E-mount for a compact package with high image and video quality that you won't be too worried about trashing. Then go out and have fun.

Don't like it? Then don't buy it. Me? I may pick one up just for jollies - and to reward Sony for thinking a bit outside of the box.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
14 upvotes
esmanhotto
By esmanhotto (7 months ago)

I agree

3 upvotes
hdr
By hdr (7 months ago)

Think I will reward Sony too.

2 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

I agree with all that too; but let's not ignore its cons, and let's see the MSRP drop, even more. Some typical benefits are missing. Perhaps Sony is leaving room for the next version. Plus, remember, this is Sony, and while this price is GREAT, don't forget to search Sony rootkit, and never forget their poor, demonstrated, character.

I really would like to see the faces of Nikon, and Canon right now, though, LOL. Wakey, wakey, or you're to late-ey. This is what happens when they do not make their best! Rght now, they are the tortoise, and Sony is the hare. Apparently Sony hates being the underdog. E $'s?

Make a better camera, or your brand is crap. This idea, of making less, and trying to hide it, will come out. Anti-competition will be exposed. The problem is not asking what photographers want, and misleading sales data. They assume everyone want cell phones; but really, we want a better, total, affordable camera. Missing that, some just use their phone. Stop making crap!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sceptical1
By sceptical1 (6 months ago)

I am not really defending Nikon (longtime user) or Canon, but Canon seems to be innovating nicely - see video / focus on the Canon 70d. The Nikon 800e is pretty awesome as well :) Further, the Nikon 7000/7100 are wonderful still camera machines.
If Sony can push them to go faster, we all benefit, but its not like you can't take fabulous pictures with a whole bunch of these Nikon and Canon cameras and that is the point. BTW - Oly, Panasonic, Pentax, and Samsung also take great pictures with great IQ.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

...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.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

You see, color sensitivity (no to mention DR), is just one important factor, for the better gathering of light. Color, is light. This is a light gathering box, and as such, should gather light better. That means better IQ. Yet, IQ; while paramount, is not the whole "picture". Speeds, value, flow(controls); they all matter. This is why I always say, we can not do, without a photographic balance of benefits, and we should STOP supporting any camera; that doesn't have a good, photographic (Light gathering "brush".) balance. No offense to this particular combo, and respecting it's great price. At least for the body/kit.

You see, it's really both. The photographer, and the box. We can handicap the box, and still create; but why do that? That's wrong. That's not better!

You can't dismiss the photographer(I know), by the way. He comes first, and nothing happens without him, or her. You just can't say, the camera doesn't matter. It does.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

Good enough (crappy), will no longer do. It's just crappier. Good enough (excellent), is the goal, and we are no where near it.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

"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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
17 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

Well, with all your attack, you did not answer to the cons, as I stated them, did you.

I said good-enough-excellent, is fine. You probably don't understand that. Good enough crappy, and while yes, "good" enough, for low quality needs (web perhaps, Lomo, instagramers) is your choice, and right, it does not speak to making better cameras, with better pictures (and it's speeds, process, etc...). Not at all. In fact, it is WORSE cameras, among today's state of the art.

So yes, celebrate the price; but not the LOW standards. Why? Because this is not about printing wall sized photos. It's about color sensitivity, dynamic range, great glass (1st; when we're discussing the "brush"), and clean shadows, in any bright light. Even at low ISO. Also, without wider apertures, you're not going to get the shutter you need to stop motion, in many real world situations (like Kids candid, and sports). Along, with that, is cleaner high ISO, and not opposed to fast lenses, but COMBINED with them....

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

Plus too, it's not flash, vs. low light. It's both. Because a lot less, faster, less battery, less power, faster refreshing flash is needed, with both clean high ISO, and the combination of fast/wide aperture lenses.

Not to mention , that primes are currently a much better value, to do this. But that my preference, I understand.

So yes, you may waste you money, on a crippled, learning camera; but it will cost you more, over time, if you progress. If you do not really learn photography, and you are quite happy, with over priced, photographically crippled cameras, then those are the photo's you will never have, and you are the cause of manufactures, refusing to make a really good camera, at the low end. We will get exactly what we ask for, and apparently, that is the problem.

What's wrong exactly, with photographic education; for the buying public?

Elitist, or ignorance. You decide.

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

To be clear, I am NOT for high prices! I am not for slow progression, and I am not for these greatest (good fine) benefits (including a good price); but then only being crippled, by the sorely missing basic, photographic needs, in unbalanced cameras.

It's up to you, dear buyers. Else, explain to me, how uneducated buyers, are not hurting the design, of AFFORDABLE cameras today. Even with the expensive ones, you typically get a boat anchor, and greater depreciation. Are they "worth it"? No! Not in any, way, shape, or form. I didn't say it wasn't your right; to be stupid.

Uneducated buyers are what is halting the progression, of combined photographic goodness, in better carry-able camera systems, at an affordable price.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

My thing is, so the manufactures then, are not even (there) trying!

So, I get that many of you are saying, this is Sony, trying more (and good for us all), and I am saying, the best "D", is still not an "A". You can't make the "D" camera better than what it is; by shooting the messenger.

If you have low photographic standards (Remember; I said good-enough -excellent is fine), then why are you paying too much; for them? Because this is currently the lowest price you can find; for just one, or a few, good, unbalanced benefits? What's missing? Oh, how our collective standards (FOR WHAT WE PAY), have been lowered, indeed.

With photography, almost everything matters! That's just the current reality folks. It's going to be the shots you NEVER get; if you disagree. It's that simple.

It's not that you can't pull-off some decent shots; by taking more, and also many long, post processing hours; but that's not better, folks.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

What about the ones you missed? Were are they?

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

Where are they?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (7 months ago)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

Hmmm. You read it. Why do you care?

You know, I hope this camera sells like hotcakes, and shakes up the over priced industry; but I will not agree, that it's cons are understandable, or justified, just due to a less expensive system price, (considering E mount lens prices).

Obviously, you work for Sony. Otherwise you'd take my view, and go make your own assessment. I'm not hearing you discuss the clear points; that I have made. Why is that?

Why not add some relevant facts, or any reasonable opinions? If you don't like my first impressions, as stated, and covering theses devilish details, then I can't help it. How narcissistic are you to imply i can't post my view?

I'll admit there's a lot to like about this camera, and at this price. There's only 2 main concerns. Sony will do things, like lock you in, to their accessories, if given a foothold. Secondly, Sony, and all manufacturers are still not putting all the state-or-the-art, photographic basics, into a balanced model....

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (7 months ago)

... What's happening is this may indeed be one of the best values; that we have seen in a long time. I get that. Do you? Did you hear me? The problem is a feeding frenzy, for what's the "best"; by some measures; when it's really just the least bad.

My whole point is there's room to do much better, and you can see it in the working benefits, of many new camera. Not the things that can't be reasonably combined, mind you; but of those that are already proved.

But hey! At least a small step, in the right direction, is a very good thing.

0 upvotes
Peter Albinger
By Peter Albinger (7 months ago)

Neodp, give it a rest. You're getting a tad tiresome. We get the point. It's a feeble one but so be it. Now more on to the next thread please.

3 upvotes
xlotus
By xlotus (8 months ago)

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?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

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.

4 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (8 months ago)

You have to make it look like an SLR with ha faux pentaprism and bulbous grip otherwise the American consumer will think its crap, its a disguise

7 upvotes
xlotus
By xlotus (8 months ago)

@T3: You are not entirely correct. NEX 3N does have a built-in flash. 5R does come with an external flash like my 5N although not seem to be mentioned anywhere . I agree that Sony need mirrorless camera in DSLR form factor but I think Sony starts this model too low on some features that it fails to appeal to a wider audience. That will limit its success.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (8 months ago)

You keep forgetting that prices you are mentioning are street prices of old cameras. $400 is MSRP price. An year later when they are clearing stocks of A3000 (like the cameras you mentioned) this will be selling for $250 and less.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

@ET2, Yes you are right; but what makes you think street prices will not change too?

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (8 months ago)

Nex-5R was launched at $700. They are clearing stocks now to make space for 5T. Thus it's on sale now (with probably little to no profit to Sony). A3000's launch price is $400. These things are not comparable. Sony thinks they can make money from A3000 with MSRP at $400 (as it's cheaper camera to make). The prices on A3000 would go down even more, especially Holiday season.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

This camera has not more and no less features than the ancient Nikon D40. And, let's not forget, it was Nikon's bestseller. I still have one, I will not sell it since it makes excellent shots and still serves me. If I had to replace it, I would go for this A3000. This camera is a see and click toy, just like some children of all ages need them when on holidays. And, it has an amazing sensor. I wait a few more models to pass by, maybe the A3100, A3200, A5000, A5100, A7000, A7100. Do I write jokes here? or do we miss something?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Zanearn
By Zanearn (7 months ago)

@xlotus There are rumors about a sony camera, E mount, SLR shaped just like a3000, which has moving sensor focus ( providing autofocus for legacy and manual lenses ). Maybe that one will be the high-end one?

0 upvotes
srados
By srados (8 months ago)

Better not to have EVF, oh wait that is Nex series camera...to me to adopt or even consider a Sony cam NEED to have optical or no viewfinder at all.I tried to focus with EVF on alpha series but my eye is drawn to actual grid on a small monitor not the object that I am trying to take picture off...that lead to blurry images.

1 upvote
BruinBlue
By BruinBlue (7 months ago)

Then Sony doesn't want your business. OVF is dead to them.

3 upvotes
yaduck9
By yaduck9 (8 months ago)

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!

3 upvotes
esmanhotto
By esmanhotto (8 months ago)

the A3000 is the future of DLSR. It's the end of the mirror.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (8 months ago)

esmanhotto - forgot that similar cameras already existed? OM-D, GH4? None of them "ended" anything. Just like FS-series didn't end anything in video market despite of dozens similar prophets people like you made for it.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

"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.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

Not today. Mirror-less can surpass mirrored reflex; but they desperately need to get on with it. That includes value, combined with an optical, beating, EVF, and faster, more accurate, AF-C tracking. We are seeing some (slow) progression (Phase detect in Nikon 1) mirorr-less; but those balances are way off. The Nikon 1 sensor is poor, and conversely, the X-Pro 1, is too slow, and way over priced.

Cameras/systems are so unbalanced today, that when one like the X100S comes along, it's way overpriced (and focal limited). Some people go ape over it, and only because it's a less-worse, balanced benefits, camera system. Our best, stinks.

It's like in school; where you best student, can be getting an F! Where's the A game?!?!?!?!?!?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (7 months ago)

you all write here with a wisdom, people, and you all act as if the VF was the picture you are supposed to shoot. I use the Sony EVF since bits of time and I do not step back. His disadvantage is his advantage, you see the noise of the sensor and by that you know what you will get. In few years, you will have OVF as exclusive yuppie accessory only, and probably only in nostalgic 10000$ bodies with some colored dots on it.

0 upvotes
Zanearn
By Zanearn (7 months ago)

Years ago, the mirror was put in there for WYSIWYG, same as Shamael wanted above.
OVF will be obsolete one day, if something else can do better on the WYSIWYG job, and for now, that seems to be EVF.

0 upvotes
B4BF6151EAE84624B08C96F86A43B5EF

I don't get this camera at all? Is it a DSLR or not? It looks like one but from the specks it sounds like a point and shoot. Interchangeable lenses for E-mount and compatible with A-mount also. One the sale page it does not state that you have to buy ano adapter for the A-mount. I have two Sony Dslr cameras and my advice to people looking to by this one is to save a little more and get a DSLR instead. I get the feeling that this camera it a point and shoot in a DSLR body. But that is just my opinion.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (8 months ago)

It's a pimp-up HX series compact.

Asking if it's a DSLR is ridiculous. It's not. In any way.

3 upvotes
esmanhotto
By esmanhotto (8 months ago)

the A3000 is the future of DLSR. It's the end of the mirror.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (8 months ago)

copy&paste poster, huh?

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (8 months ago)

I am a bit wary of that power switch / shutter combination assembly.

0 upvotes
Valen305
By Valen305 (8 months ago)

E-mount? Might as well get an NEX body that is more compact and lightweight!

Sony is likely targeting first time dslr buyers who will see this as a compelling alternative to a Canon Rebel. But we know better than that, right guys?

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

"Might as well...?" Unfortunately, to get an NEX with a built-in viewfinder and flash, you 'll have to pay quite a bit more. I mean, it's not as if Sony sells an NEX with a built-in VF and flash for the same price as an A3000, so you "might as well" get the NEX. Until Sony offers the same camera in NEX form, at the same price, it's not really a "might as well" situation.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (8 months ago)

NEX6 rings a bell?
Now make a NEX3 with EVF in a same fashion and you got it.

0 upvotes
GerryWirth
By GerryWirth (7 months ago)

The NEX 3N comes for 449$ and there is no optional viewfinder available (unlike with the NEX 5R) The NEX 5R is on sale right now (SONY) and comes for 499$ and an optional EVF for 349$.
And now the NEX 6 with integrated EVF; like you mentioned; comes for 749$.
So far is the A3000 still a good deal.

0 upvotes
Alexis D
By Alexis D (8 months ago)

This is the camera for those who just want to look the part. They want to buy a DSLR looking camera cheap. It will no doubt sell well, if the buying trend in US is any guide. They will just look at the price, OK, $400 with a zoom lens, and also look at the 20MP and they buy.

If Canon is the one making this camera, it will sell even faster. Such is the mentality of the average camera buyers. Sad but true. So, Sony said, if this is what you want, this is what we will give you.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Mirrorless _ user
By Mirrorless _ user (8 months ago)

Is simple. This is an alternative for a consumer that will spend $ 400 in a camera with a viewfinder that take GOOD pictures.
There are other cameras that cost $ 800 or more, that have more features, is OK. The people choice. Don't get angry for that.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (8 months ago)

There are other cameras that cost roughly 400$ and offer as good if not better pictures, while also offering BY FAR better autofocus...

1 upvote
Mirrorless _ user
By Mirrorless _ user (8 months ago)

Well, if you tell the true, good, tell me the model with a viewfinder. I have a G5 and it have a micro 4/3 sensor. I know that the A3000 will be better in low light and high ISO and will have Better dinamic range, so the G5 is not. It just have a good SINGLE AF. And now is in $ 400, because is an 1 year old camera. In 1 year the A3000 will sell for $ 300 / $ 325, so, neither they are comparable for the same money.

1 upvote
yudhir
By yudhir (8 months ago)

An A38(a37 successor) Slt at similar price range would have been better

2 upvotes
altis
By altis (8 months ago)

I eagerly await Jeff Keller's assertion that it's too big for a mirrorless camera.

2 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (8 months ago)

Hey guess what, for those looking for a higher resolution lcd and touch screen can check out the new Samsung NX camera. $1599 body only and 1699 with lens bundled.

2 upvotes
RicardoPhotos
By RicardoPhotos (8 months ago)

Yup. This is pretty awesome. $400 for a decent APS-C? Good ISO range. Good AF. Wide variety of good to excellent lenses available?

This is a win big time. Prepare to see Canon Rebel prices plummet.

6 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (8 months ago)

'Wide variety' is certainly a relative term referring to E-mount. Alpha would've been far preferable. You don't really even save much in terms of weight and size... Another facepalm by Sony, just like the A58.

0 upvotes
chouster
By chouster (8 months ago)

SDF, What do you know about the AF that i do not?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (8 months ago)

Good AF? Nope. Just CDAF.
This camera won't affect sales nor prices of Rebel series. Especially when it's with E mount (so it got horribly overpriced lenses, almost no 2nd hand market and no options to go f/1.4 with native glass - only adaptors).

1 upvote
limlh
By limlh (8 months ago)

What if the Fujifilm X-A1 had the same sensor as this A3000? A great prospect for those who want a budget rangefinder format APS-C camera.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (8 months ago)

I fail to see how this is any sense a bad camera. Lens makers long ago perfected the 18-55 lens, and there's an APS-C sensor, it's the Brownie Hawkeye of mirrorless cameras. Why the hate?

It would also make a great stunt cam for times when you don't want to risk your A900 and for hiking it would be wonderful.

I give up.

6 upvotes
Valen305
By Valen305 (8 months ago)

Because it has an E-mount. Might as well get an NEX that is more compact and lighter. The average consumer will be impressed by it, however.

1 upvote
Mirrorless _ user
By Mirrorless _ user (8 months ago)

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 !!!!!!!!!

10 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

I have to agree.

I don't see why so many people are so negative.

This looks like a great product that will only get cheaper with time.

6 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

"What I see is a cheap chance to get a camera that take GOOD pictures. NOT ?"

What? Get a camera to take pictures!? Sir, you've come to the wrong place. Around here, on equipment forums, people just see cameras as objects to whine, moan, and complain about. With all that whining and complaining, who has time to take pictures? Haven't you heard that people can no longer take good pictures unless they have a tilting screen, or a touchscreen, or 10fps shooting speed, etc?

Seriously though, you are absolutely correct. People who want to take good pictures should be able to get excellent results with this camera, and it should make a perfectly fine photographic tool, with a very nice APS-C sensor, with the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, for a great price.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
12 upvotes
Douglas F Watt
By Douglas F Watt (8 months ago)

Hey T3

Good summary of what happens on DP blogspace - but you left out trolling, brands wars, and general rudeness. Pictures? No time for those, too busy w/ trashing the opposition. :-)

1 upvote
Krocket
By Krocket (8 months ago)

Amen, brother, I don't think many of the whiners on DP actually spend much time daily taking shots-

0 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (8 months ago)

What's worse? 'Whining' about a camera that may be signalling a move away from Sony's Alpha mount that fails to match the SLT and SLR legacy they've already built up for many thousands of existing owners, or ignorant sheep whining about whining because they're easy to please and don't know better?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Mirrorless _ user
By Mirrorless _ user (8 months ago)

I guess this camera take good pictures, no ?
I ask respectfully, WHO is the ignorant, or by the way THE SHEEP ?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

@sensibill - Ahhh, how cute: an insecure, paranoid, bitter Sony A-mount user who feels threatened by the A3000. LOL. Change happens, and someday if the A-mount lacks the sufficient usership to continue supporting it, then Sony may very well terminate it. But I doubt that's going to happen soon. If anything, this new A3000 should bring a lot more consumers to Sony, which will be good for Sony's camera division, which will give them more money to continue supporting their users, including users of the A-mount. Anything that brings more users to Sony should be welcomed by any Sony user.

Don't hate the A3000 and blame it if Sony eventually dumped the A-mount. The biggest threat to the Alpha/SLT system is *other* DSLR brands. The "many thousands of existing [Sony Alpha] owners" is nothing compared to the "many millions of existing [Canon/Nikon] users.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (8 months ago)

T3, stop trolling with E-mount BS, please.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

@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"?

1 upvote
David zzzzzzzzzz
By David zzzzzzzzzz (8 months ago)

Buyer beware, this model will be replaced by another in 12 months. Sony has a way of making something "new" obsolete in no time at all.

2 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (8 months ago)

Isn't that even more good news though? Won't it mean this model will be even more affordable then?

This model wins.

3 upvotes
Tee1up
By Tee1up (8 months ago)

That only matters if you succumb to peer pressure or have a OCD condition that forces you to make needless upgrade purchases.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

The same can be said of other manufacturers and other products, as well. For example, the Canon Rebel T3i was introduced in March 2011. The Rebel T4i was introduced in March 2012. Canon's update cycle for the Rebels is typically 12 months, sometimes 18 months. Products are constantly being replaced by newer versions. But that doesn't necessarily make the older model "obsolete". It'll still work just as good as the day you bought it.

In the world of electronics, if people heeded your warning, no one would ever buy anything, because products are constantly being updated, and often quite quickly. How often do smart phone manufacturers introduce new phones? Constantly! Does that mean you should just never buy a smart phone? Of course not.

4 upvotes
Krocket
By Krocket (8 months ago)

"New" is what sells products in our economy, otherwise everybody would still be looking for a Brownie camera to buy-

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (8 months ago)

Whenever a camera maker comes out with a "new" model a bunch of sites will "review" it = free advertising and buzz

0 upvotes
camcom12
By camcom12 (8 months ago)

It's a superzoom cam without the superzoom lens. IQ should be excellent , however.

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (8 months ago)

I don't know why so many people are complaining about the A3000 EVF. Each pixel of the EVF shows the image captured by nearly 100 pixels of the CMOS sensor. This EVF is certainly one of the most efficient in the world!

1 upvote
ARMM
By ARMM (8 months ago)

Without getting my hands on one yet, I think this will be a great Camera for beginners and for up and coming youngsters. As a NEX user myself, I can afford this camera for my young son and allow him access to my lens's as he needs. And if the A-mount adapter works, then it opens a whole new world without breaking the bank. Cannot wait to get one in my hands to test.

4 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (8 months ago)

Good point. It's not the end though, the E-mount has the Sigma alternatives for around $200, only at f2.8 though.

But then, a refurbished Nikon d3200, body only costs $380 then add a new Nikon 35mm f1.8 for only $200.

1 upvote
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (8 months ago)

How many 35mm lenses you know have IS/VR

0 upvotes
Rad Encarnacion
By Rad Encarnacion (8 months ago)

@Neodp
That isn't a problem. Another characteristic of the target market for this camera is that they don't buy a second lens at all.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

Lenses are where you what you want to put your money into anyway. Camera bodies come and go, but lenses are what you keep. Besides, in the age of digital cameras, camera bodies come and go at a faster rate than ever! So it makes sense to not dump too much money into a camera body that you'll probably want to replace in a year or two because a newer model has been introduced.

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

Good points @Rad, and @T3.

Yet, not everyone stays with the kit lens. Kits can be OK; but they are not better. As Zod.. above said, a refurb Nikon body gets your body expense down that way too. Then we're talking about some serious lens choices.

If Sony has any balls at all, they will deep discount the E lenses; and maybe, that's the plan.

Some of you (other) guys, and shills, get me wrong; when saying, that I'm just negative for pointing out the cons. I think this new <$400 price is great, and with that sensor; but I do not think that its an entirely, benefits balanced camera body, and mount. Without an optical view, isn't a higher quality EVF, a requirement?

I'm actually agreeing, with many of you, about the camera systems combined pros. The price especially. Yet, a low price still does not justify, the crappy, core photographic cons. Some, were talking; as if it's OK to add, all these good parts, and stir in the crappy ones. Manufacture can do better, even if they haven't....

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (8 months ago)

The combined pros, do not sum up all things needed for better pictures. The cons are also not exclusive to the things that are not significant.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

"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.

0 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (8 months ago)

When criticizing the features of this $400 camera, consider how poor the screen and electronics are in a Leica M9. And people seem to muddle by with that and the lack of a tilting LCD, etc. Even the newest Leica M and X Vario do not have a state of the art EVF with a proximity sensor. And the Leica (Olympus) clip on EVF costs $100 more than this entire camera with lens.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (8 months ago)

You know you've got problems when you have to compare your camera's price to the cost per value of a Leica.

2 upvotes
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (8 months ago)

EVF has very similar dot count to the Lumix G10 : is it the same old unit or more like a downsized NEX7 one?

2 upvotes
mpetersson
By mpetersson (8 months ago)

I Think this camera will sell well. It looks like a DSLR (professional in the Eyes of amateurs) and most of the things raised by people on Dpreview won't matter to the potential customers for this camera. It's probably aimed at present superzoom-owners and the like, and they are already used to mediocre EVF:s, and this camera will give them a leap in IQ which they will probably be happy with. So while I Think they cheaped out on a few too many Points, I don't Think the potential customers will care. It will be interesting to see a thorough Review of the sensor since I guess it will show up in more (and perhaps more interesting) NEX-cameras.

1 upvote
plastique2
By plastique2 (8 months ago)

As if Sony were reading my mind: the superior NEX image quality in a NORMAL PHOTOGRAPHIC CAMERA BODY ! Finally. Unfortunately the lenses of the alpha system don't fit. Hopefully there will be a solution to that, or at least a series of really usable NEX E-mount lenses.
What I like with Sony is they are experimenting around. What I don't like: they produce something fantastic like the DSC-R1 and then completely drop the concept.

3 upvotes
ARMM
By ARMM (8 months ago)

??? Should the A-mount to E-mount adapter not work on this camera? It works fine on the NEX, so it should on this. And how did they drop the R1 concept? The technology of that camera went into many different models down the line.

1 upvote
Krocket
By Krocket (8 months ago)

That adapter should work fine-

0 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (8 months ago)

If by 'work fine' you mean the price will be halved (or bundled), have 100% compatibility with all Alpha and Min AF lenses without adding substantial weight or bulk to the camera, sign me up. Otherwise, no thanks.

0 upvotes
Sudo Nimh
By Sudo Nimh (8 months ago)

Let's see some photos. If "the most glaring miscue is that there's no infrared proximity sensor to switch between the LCD and EVF," then the camera might not be bad. A lot of great photography has been done without infrared proximity sensors.

3 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (8 months ago)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52061058

0 upvotes
Total comments: 678
12345