quezra: I've always felt the "enjoyability" factor was a way to slip in a whole lot of subjective bias. And I still think this is the case after reading this, even though Richard seems to be leaning toward the positive. It's striking that this turn of opinion did not come into the A7 or A7R reviews, which have much more of these "features" Richard appears to be discovering for the first time in the A6000, including a much better dial setup. It's suspicious that the main thing happening between these cameras and the A6000 was in fact the A7S announcement and how seriously that camera was being taken by the film world... suddenly the mirrorless Alphas had to be taken seriously and it needed a shift in official line from DPR that justified it.
What is most interesting is this is the first review of a Sony camera where, on reading the negatives, I didn't immediately think WTF? so at least they are starting to avoid raising pointless quibbles.
I contributed some work towards the review but was not the primary reviewer, nor the writer of the shooting experience section (which is a personal perspective).
ryan92084: It should be noted, since a decent deal is made about it, that once in Flexible spot mode it only takes 1 press to move the spot again. This is dependent on you not having Lock On AF or something similar permanently assigned to the center button.
My main reason for pointing this out is a member came to the forums assuming it always took two presses every time you wanted to move the spot.
That's a good point. I'll amend the phrasing.
Underdog 3000: I enjoyed the back handed compliments - as much as any non Sony fan but I digress, we all know your love of the XT-1 so what camera is out there that you have toyed with has bearable video? Enough video capability to suffice but still makes you happy to shoot stills?
Actually, I'm not as sold on the X-T1 as Andy is. I like it, I admire it, but the ISO dial and a couple of other changes make it feel like backwards steps have been taken since the X-E2.
But I too digress. That's a tricky question. I think if you want video as well as stills, this might be the best balance, at least until Olympus gets its act together on the video side of things.
This is the personal perspective of the reviewer (me, in this case).
I didn't review the a7 or a7r, so didn't write about my experiences of using them.
JJLMD: When you say on screen level gauge is gone, is it gone only on LCD screen or is it gone from viewfinder too? I really like that feature on my NEX-6
It's entirely absent from the a6000, so far as I can tell.
Timbukto: Confused how every single review outlet has declined to make substantial impressions on its AF...its like every one of them signed a NDA in regards to what they can say about its AF. This includes Tony Northrup and TheCameraStore, etc...*every* official reviewer seems to have not given detailed impressions on its AF...either every reviewer has exactly the same thought process, or there seems to be some NDA in place...that makes it so true test of AF comes after pre-orders perhaps?
The silence speaks louder than words perhaps....
@Timbuktoo - no one said we were off work - we're out testing and taking photos for galleries when the sun's out (though you'll probably find most of the images in the samples gallery were shot on Saturdays and Sundays).
Boerseuntjie: Wow Richard Butler actually enjoy using a Sony camera? did not see that comming
@Camley - we haven't 'kept writing' it, in the sense that we're not going out of our way to repeat ourselves. I wrote it once in this preview and that text got re-used in the A7/7r preview that we needed to publish that same night. The A7/7r preview was then split into two separate reviews.
It shouldn't appear in so many places, though - I'll re-work it when I get a moment.
marc petzold: The wide angle (24mm) onto the 16-50mm/3.5-5.6 PZ Lens was never good, check out the older lens review of that particular lens at photozone:http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556ossPhotozone has given the SEL-1650 only 1.5 Stars (!) in terms of optical (lens) quality - that speaks for itself, without the in-body corrections on many NEX/Alphas, it's garbage.
The A6000 should be ideally matched with the SEL-1670Z, which is theZeiss 16-70mm/F4 Lens.
I'm using both lenses, at the moment.
I think the 16-50mm gains in convenience what it loses in IQ. It's a kit lens: it's a bit wonky in some respects, but that's not uncommon. It offers a good range and a lot of convenience, which is part of the battle won.
bluevellet: This shooting experience article suggests a silver award in the final review.
The final paragraph says it all. Never seen so many words used just to say "the camera's not bad".
@ryan92084 - the scores don't factor-in how much the reviewer enjoyed the camera (which is why some NEX cameras got great scores but silver awards).
Also, I didn't review either of those cameras.
I must stress that the reason we haven't tested it yet has been the lack of time, not the weather. The reason I'm not testing it *currently* is that the weather's middling.
@AbrasiveReducer - we used a pre-production camera for the original preview. We now have a production model - all experiences and images (and subsequent AF testing) will be based on this.
There's no NDA in place. We only ever sign NDAs about announcement dates, **never** about not discussing or testing aspects of a camera.
We've just not had a chance to test it yet. As soon as the weather improves a bit here in Seattle, we plan to.
Class A: The X-T1 is said to have better performance than the Pentax K-3 (can easily be seen when turning on the "Compare" mode for the subscores).
Yet, the K-3 manages 720 shots per charge vs the 350 of the Fuji X-T1.
The K-3 also has a higher frame rate (8.9 vs 8.2) and a deeper JPG buffer (68 vs 40).
So the X-T1's AF must be sensational to compensate the above performance disadvantages. Unfortunately, the X-T1 has not been subjected to the AF-C test the K-3 went through. Why not?
Finally, how can you claim that the X-T1's focus accuracy (& metering) is better than that of the Pentax K-3, if you haven't looked at the AF accuracy of the K-3 in a systematic manner at all (this was one of the aspects you dropped)?
BTW, the X-T1's electronic viewfinder may be very good compared to other EVFs, but to rate it better as the optical pentaprism of the K-3??? For sure, in terms of "performance" again, the K-3 will do much better in a pan when burst shooting.
@waxwine - when you say 'Not "convenient" to apply the bicycle guy AF test on Fujis' how does that relate to the AF test on page 10, which was shot alongside the K-3?
Edymagno: Andy, what about the Nikon D800e? Couldn't borrow one? Just asking.The 5DIII is a mid res camera these days. Or about to be.
Sigma tends to produce lenses in Canon mount first, with Nikon following a few months later. As such, there are only Canon versions available, at present (so far as we know).
Elaka Farmor: How can RX100 (with its much smaller sensor and more megapixels) have better dynamic range and color depth, and a two years old olympus with a smaller sensor (E-PM2) have much better low light ISO??http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-PowerShot-G1-X-Mark-II-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-II-versus-Olympus-PEN-E-PM2___941_896_840
@kadardr - DxO does not test or show whether ISOs are over- or under-rated - just how the ISO marked on the camera relates to the normalized reference point that they use for their tests.
Coincidentally, the RX100 II is around 1/3rd EV under-sensitive, but that's not what DxO is showing.
Graham Meale: Typo: "optical 'custom grip'" presumably should be "optional 'custom grip'"
munro harrap: In the UK its list price is £800 roughly. For £880 you get the Sony RX10. You get , similar sensor size, 24-200mm f2.8 Zeiss zoom.
But right now for £730 with £100 casnback from Nikon you get the Nikon D7100 body. Hmmmm 24MP APS-C. For about £100 you can pick up an 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor (AFS metal mount.)
That's a 105mm f4.5 lens on an APS-C sensor, which means folks, as good a zoom as 200mm f2.8 on a crummy little digicam sensor (both a very noisy at base ISO- check out imaging-resources tests and compare)
The RX10 is infinitely superior to the Canon and does good video. But neither competes with APS-C. Noise degrades these smaller sensors images-however good, the noise is greater than the detail- so all textures, skin, wood, cloth, metal, LOOK THE SAME. Only the graphic and your brain says otherwise.
The Nikon shutter lag is easily good enough.
But a 300D 6MP Canon will give better pictures than this. Cost now with a lens? Less than £100.
[Here's a comparison that includes both the RX10 and G1 X Mark II](http://www.dpreview.com/files/articles/6489685206/EnthusiastAperture0314.png), in terms of lens range and '*equivalent*' aperture (that takes the 2x sensor size difference between the two into account).
The RX10 is also a lot larger than the G1 X II. The D7100 is larger still, and including a second-hand 18-70mm only makes it bigger and gives you a 27-105mm, F5.25-6.75 equivalent lens.
There are some people for whom an APS-C DSLR makes sense, but it's not a blanket truth that it will be *better* than this. 'The best camera is the one you have with you' and all that.
Donnie G: Alright, who's the comedian who came up with the term "mirrorless" cameras? Who the heck walks into a Costco, Walmart or Best Buy and says "Hey, can I buy a mirrorless camera? Or, Hey, can I buy a stepless ladder?" Sounds like something important has been left out of the product, doesn't it? I mean I understand what those folks are trying to say: "Mirrors! We don't need no stinking mirrors." I get it. But they need to come up with a new product description or catch phrase to help sell these cameras they claim to love so much. And please no, don't use E.V.I.L. either, unless you want to continue to have warehouses full of "marketless, SLRless" cameras for sale. :)
We conducted a poll several years ago, shortly after the Panasonic G1 was launched and Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera was by far the winner.
I think everyone acknowledges that it's imperfect (not least because it defines a camera by what it isn't), but no one then or since has presented a strong case for an alternative.
Some places use 'Compact System Camera' but I'm not sure that 'system camera' has that much market resonance, and many modern mirrorless camera's aren't that compact.
Unless you are going to make a suggestion what they should be called instead, could you please stop making this same comment on multiple stories?
Shield3: I'll hang onto my Panasonic LX-7 for now. It was under $250 ("used" warehouse Amazon (was BNIB), has a slightly smaller sensor (1/1.7") but a brighter lens (F/1.4 @ 24mm) and shoots 1080p @ 60FPS and 720p @ 120FPS.Why Canon chose to leave off at least 1080p60 on a $800 camera is mind-boggling.
@Trensamiro - just to be clear, the G1 X II never uses all 18.7 x 14mm of its sensor. The largest area is can use is nearer 17.9 x 13.4mm (240mm^2). But yes, still much larger - much more than can be compensated for by the Panasonic's brighter lens.