D 503: This is the end for the camera industry. Soon you will be buying cameras with drm and with half the features missing at release. You can of course purchase upgrades at £100 a pop.
I think you're being a little dramatic. Arguably, any electronic device sold can be improved upon, and it's up to the manufacturer to put a monetary value on those improvements. I'd take a $100 upgrade that significantly expands on the capabilities of my camera than, traditionally, being told to buy a whole brand new camera.
Also, being well-versed in DRM and its affects on media, I don't see how it applies to this situation at all.
Mike FL: That's good as it may push SONY to release a7000 even if the M3 has the same IQ and same AF performance as a6000, but without build in EVF.
M3's lens is cheaper than SONYs especially the UWA zoom, but I wish Canon can release a std WA zoom starting with 24mm equivalent.
But if M3 has bad IQ and bad AF performance comparing to a6000, SONY may just wait, and enjoy that a6000 is still more less the #1 bestseller.
Mike FL: That chart has absolutely no context whatsoever, and, therefore, means precisely nothing without it. Second, if this is sales of just cameras in Japan, then what about the rest of the world?
I'll continue to discount Canon's mirrorless prowess so long as they continue to push a 3-year-old system that only has 4 native lenses while simultaneously stating they're finally 'serious' about mirrorless cameras.
Mike FL: Your comment assumes that the M3 hasn't already been on sale for months elsewhere in the world, where mirrorless cameras sell at higher rates than here in the US.
The IQ between the M3 and the A6000 is about the same, and the AF and burst on the Sony is superior to the Canon.
The Canon UWA zoom is cheap because it's a variable aperture lens. At least Sony will sell you a constant f/4 UWA lens.
Releasing this product in the US will do nothing to push Sony. As has been the case over the last several years, they'll release the A6000 successor whenever it's ready and not because Canon tried blundering their way back into the US mirrorless market again.
Mike Sandman: As a practical matter, the ability to push images 4 or 5 stops without much penalty (except for the artifacts at high-contrast boundaries) means that most of the time, we won't have to mess with combining shots using HDR software. This could make it a lot easier to get very good images in high dynamic range situations without a tripod.
With regard to the lossy compression and the effect at high-contrast boundaries, I agree with dPreview that this is a strange choice on Sony's part. If you keep pestering them, perhaps they will issue a firmware update to fix this. However, the size of the files may be 80MB or more, which may be a problem for ay computer with less than 8GB of memory. Is it also reasonable to think that loss-less RAW would slow down the save process in the camera?
In any case, interesting report,and please keep pestering Sony about lossy RAW.
I'd like to hope that anybody who has US$3200 to spend on a camera body likely also spent money on a computer that has more than 8GB of RAM in it.
Also, after reading the article DPR posted last week of the A7RII teardown, it would suffice to say that a 4GB buffer would certainly fill up much quicker with lossless 14-bit files from a 42MP sensor.
probert500: I shoot the a7r and used to shoot the canon 5d2. I had more high contrast edge artifacts on the canon. Don't know what this means but lossless compression isn't the silver bullet.
The IQ from the sony is leaps and bounds beyond the canon - magnificant. It looks like this sensor is even better.
still - yeah - you should have the choice.
The 5D Mark II and the A7R have about 5 years worth of technology development between them, so it should be no surprise that an issue like contrast edge artifacts was alleviated in that time, if not outright resolved.
As DPR keeps pointing out, many have already clearly demonstrated that Sony uses RAW file compression techniques which cause these artifacts. You can also clearly see that the Nikon D800 series, using the same sensor as the A7R, produce better RAW files regardless of compression. I can also personally confirm that Sony's compression techniques are not restricted to the A7 series - my D7000 files always looked better than my NEX-5T files (similar sensor), and the same goes for a D3100 vs a SLT-A33 (same sensor, but with a bonus 1/3 stop light difference because of the transparent mirror).
I like Sony, but the lack of choice for compression is weird. (Especially when you realize that sometimes Sony's OOC JPG files are larger than their RAW files.)
fotoph: why take shots of a moving band at 1/13 and 1/10th of a second?
Sometimes photos of a moving band with some motion blur in them looks way cooler than a completely static image of a moving band.
Tape5: "Fujifilm is aiming it at hobbyist and a younger generation of creatives: essentially those who might not be able to afford (or don't want to spend more than $1000 on) the X-T1, but still want the same image quality it offers."
Isn't not being to afford sort of similar to not wanting to spend more?
One is a logistical financial roadblock.
The other is a self-imposed personal choice.
I find the level of cynicism of most of the comments to be simultaneously unsurprising and utterly infuriating.
Nowhere else can you find a group of people who are completely defeatist about a production team taking a photography and film tool that the majority of people have on their person at any given time and making a full-length feature.
I'll gladly argue against the use of a 'real camera'. I'm fed up with footage from 'real cameras' being post-processed into appearing as amateur handheld video. This is the real deal, which lends to the character and authenticity of the movie.
For all the concerns about the footage quality, I can't say that I've read a single review of the film thus far complaining of how the film looks. Your average audience member doesn't care about IQ unless it adds or completely distracts from the story being told. It looks like an interesting movie, which means I'll probably take it over the countless beautifully-shot yet otherwise-garbage films out there.
vesa1tahti: Real photographers don't take videos. So, clearly Gold Award in still photography. Cheers.
'Real photographers don't take videos' is the sentiment of a person who doesn't understand video is photography, just with a faster frame rate and more post-processing work.
Opposite to your claim, pro photographers are increasingly *more* inclined to produce video for their clients:
(This is one among many articles that I've read in the last 6 months alone.)
And, rather than investing in separate cinema equipment, it's probably easier and more financially feasible to expect your DSLR to perform the task - especially with the likes of Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony, proving that 4k in a tiny package isn't difficult.
But, if you insist that photographers don't take videos, I'll be sure to let the people I know who do both for a living that they have to pick one or the other, and not both, just to make you happy. I'm sure they'll want to meet you to extract the money their business lost.
ProfHankD: These look clearly designed for Sony FE bodies, and even the OLED display makes sense for that (the info was digitally available, so I bet this doesn't cost any more than the usual focus/DoF scales). A big step for Zeiss... a giant endorsement for Sony.
Not an opinion, just pointing out that you're pointing out the obvious. (Or just read Eric Hensel's reply, which was aimed at me, but aptly describes yours.)
There's nothing informative about your comment, and this isn't a 'bold move' for Zeiss or Sony. Sony thew Zeiss some money, along with an engineer or two, and told them to hit a certain price point. Zeiss made an optical design, tested a few prototypes, and had their partners in Japan (aka: Cosina) crank out production copies. It's not terribly different than how the 'Zeiss' lenses made by Sony are produced, or how the Touit lenses are produced. (I wouldn't be surprised if the Loxia line was also made in a similar fashion.)
This isn't new territory for Zeiss or Sony at all. You just think it is because they have the Zeiss badge on the side without there also being the name Sony being visible somewhere else.
Peiasdf: Fast prime + IBIS + FF = dream combo for 2015. Wish this tech is available in 2010.
It was available in 2010. Actually, it was available in 2008.
EcoR1: Excellent. It seems that E-mount is becoming very fast the de facto mount for professionals and enthusiasts who wants to have best possible image quality in smallest possible form and with all modern camera- and lens-desing benefits.
Personally I think I'll go for a 25mm lens, it has a very short minimum focusing distance and I can finally give up my 24mm A-mount lens. Also weight is not bad.
I don't know if you've looked at the lens specs closely, but the Batis 85mm f/1.8 is not only larger than Nikon's 85mm f/1.8G (81mm x 92mm, vs 78mm x 73mm), it's also heavier by a good 125 grams (475g vs 350g). If you believe DXO Mark, Nikon's lens is also among the sharpest 85mm full-frame lenses out there that doesn't have the word 'Otus' in its brand name.
As far as E-mount becoming the de facto for anything, there's no evidence at all to support such a claim. Global mirrorless sales are down for the quarter and have been generally flat for the last year, according to CIPA sales figures. If Sony is seeing any gains, it's at the expense of other mirrorless camera manufacturers, and not from people leaving DSLRs for Sony E-mount cameras. (DSLR sales are just way down, and it's because consumers are leaving the market, altogether.)
Essentially, you're making stuff up, and I have no idea what you're prattling on about.
I think a lot of the trepidation towards these lenses comes from 3 areas: Sony-manufactured, Zeiss-branded lenses have been hit or miss in terms of build and optical quality, Zeiss-manufactured lenses (the Loxia and Touit brands) have provided dubious value (the Touit lenses regularly go on sale at steep discounts), & every other system has at least a set of financially accessible lenses (not all are of the utmost quality, for sure, but they're items people can buy without having to sell vital organs for cash).
The fact that people are balking at Zeiss' introduction of another pair of lenses that cost over $1k shouldn't be surprising. If Sony were a consistently top-tier brand, expensive lenses would be an expected side-effect. Instead, they push flawed, unintentionally hobbled cameras with aggressive pricing & expect users to buy often-flawed, expensive lenses to match.
I say this as a Sony/Zeiss owner: Lens prices must come down, or overall product quality must go up.
Your powers of observation are astounding, considering the blurb above mentions that these are FE lenses, and that Zeiss and Sony have been in a partnership since 1996...
Fearless Spiff: It really is a joke. I am more than pi**ed.
...Why? It's a free photo editing app that's going to be included with every Mac. I'm not sure what your expectations were.
BeaverTerror: When Aperture's discontinuation was announced a year ago, certain individuals on theses forums attempted to defend Apple's decision with the old "don't bash something that hasn't even been released".
Now that the Photos App has turned out to be just as much of an abomination as we all predicted, it's time to eat your socks.
There, there, cranky commentator, we all knew Photos wasn't going to replace Aperture. Everyone experiences a bout of denial from time to time.
jhinkey: "All the size/weight advantages of not having a mirror mechanism are negated the second you try to squeeze an IBIS system inside the body."
Hardly. It's still smaller and lighter than the D750.
Who is the editor of these articles?
I would imagine that the author(s) are referring to the fact that the A7II weighs roughly the same as a mid-range DSLR. It's not far off in weight from a D7100, for example. It's not a precise apples-to-apples comparison, in terms of overall specs, but it's something certain customers might concern themselves with.
Thank you, DPR crew, for another excellent write-up. I think the conclusion page properly sums up a number of concerns I have with the A7 series, which has prevented me from investing in the system.
First, I know there's only so much that can be done about shutter noise, but there has to be a way of dampening the focal plane shutter mechanism used. For all the 'flappy mirror' nonsense of mirrorless fanboys, the A7 series has the loudest shutter I've ever heard.
Secondly - and this is only briefly addressed - is the lack of accessible lenses. I speak not so much to the lack of a native line-up, but rather the costliness. You can tell me all day long that the 35mm and 55mm primes are sharp as sharp can be, they're still both $800+, which is inhibitive. Nobody would pay $800 for a 35mm f/2.8 for a DSLR without being laughed at.
Lastly, as is well documented, the raw files. Just... why? I mean, I have my theories, but none of them make practical sense. This just needs fixing.
ecube: I'm highly satisfied with my Samsung Tab.For REAL computing, my MacBookPro has everything I need and more. Best thing with this combo, I don't have to worry about virus and both system are very stable.
My bigger problem with the OP is the insinuation that Android is stable and virus-free. Now *that* is laughable.
Hi, I'm an educated Mac [and Windows, as well as Linux] user. Mac OS generally requires someone with admin access to willfully install software in order to become infected with anything, and the HowToGeek article basically says as much. The people who have done so are, unsurprisingly, a rather narrow spectrum of users, especially now that Apple has the AppStore.
There are few instances where a flaw in the OS lead to any worrisome compromise for the user [e.g.: HeartBleed], but these exploits also affected much larger, public-facing devices which would prove more problematic [in the case of HeartBleed, public servers for Gmail and FaceBook were also compromised].
Statistically, there are much fewer viruses and malware variants for Mac OS. Apple also tends to issue security updates to address exploits far more frequently than Microsoft does. Given the choice of Mac OS X and Windows for my personal systems, I choose Mac every time.