Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

[pedro]

Why does anyone think these are 'back up' cameras?

From a Canonite's point of view I can imagine, that these bodies cover just a certain area: more MP, better DR and less weight, therefore the use of this term. But: one has to deal with two different systems as well.

I am looking forward to how these announcements will affect Canon's next moves. Hopefully they slow down the insane price tag increases of late. Anyway, the 5D3 is way enough camera for me as an amateur.

ISO 51200, this past Monday:

Z96A6810bdEFKleinBWMaster by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

[sanj]

Awesome photo Pedro

[JoeDavid]

If reviews show the 36MP model to have as good a dynamic range as the Nikon D800/E I'll probably buy one and an adaptor for EOS lens.  For most landscape photography manual focus is fine.  I'm tired of waiting on Canon to deliver a truely impressive sensor update.  They appear to be doing nothing to address noise or dynamic range.  I shoot RAW so I really don't care what the latest DIGIC <fill in the blank> chip can do to give the appearence of a decent sensor in JPEG images...

[jd7]

These new FF mirrorless cameras are certainly interested, but I'm with the crowd who is yet to be convinced.  The main thing which attracts me - and most other people I think - to mirrorless is having a lighter and somewhat smaller camera.  All the excitement about the Sony's got me interested in their weights so I came up with this comparison:

Sony a7   475g v Canon 6D 800g  (with battery and memory card)

Sony + 35 f/2.8  595g  v  6D + Canon 35 f/2 IS 1135g   (Sony weighs 52.42%; 540g lighter)
Sony + 35 f/2.8 595  v  6D + Canon 40 f/2.8 930     (Sony 63.98%; 335 lighter)
Sony + 55 f/1.8 755  v  6D + Canon 50 f/1.8 930     (Sony 81.18%; 175 lighter)
Sony + 24-70 f/4 OSS 905  v  6D + Canon 24-70 f/4 IS 1400   (Sony 64.64%; 495 lighter)
Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS  1315  v  6D + Canon 70-200 f/4 IS 1560  (Sony 84.29%; 245 lighter)
Sony 70-200 f/2.8 SSM 1975  v  6D + Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS  2290   (Sony 86.24%; 315 lighter)

So, the Sony a7 saves up to 500g (50%) at the shorter FL, dropping to around 300g or less (15%) at the longer FL.  The a7 kit ranges from 600g to about 2kg, while the 6D kit ranges from 1kg to over 2kg.

For the weight savings of the Sony, I have to give up an OVF (I guess some may saying I'd be gaining an EVF, but that's not how I see it), and I expect some  battery life (I'm assuming that because of the OVF).  And I would currently have a very limited "native" lens selection (will have to see how well adapters work to enable use of other lenses).  And is there anything else I'd be giving up too?  Ergonomics?  AF?  I guess we'll have to wait until people have the Sony's in there hands and we get some "real world" info.  (And yes, I'm well aware the 6D's AF has it's limitations!  But still, the question remains how the Sony's AF will compare.)

Like I said, the a7 and a7r are interesting.  I'm looking forward to hearing more once people have had time to shoot with them for a while.  But I remain to be convinced!

And for further comparison:

Olympus OM-D EM-5 430g v Canon 6D   800g

EM-5 + Olympus 17 f/1.8 550  v  6D + Canon 35 f/2 IS  1135  (EM-5 48.46%; 585g lighter)
EM-5 + Panasonic 25 f/1.4 630  v  6D + Canon 50 f/1.8  930  (EM-5 67.74%; 300 lighter)
EM-5 + Olympus 12-40 f/2.8   812  v  6D + Canon 24-70 f/4 IS 1400   (EM-5 58.00%; 588 lighter)
EM-5 + Olympus 40-150 4-5.6 620  v  6D + Canon 70-200 f/4 IS 1560  (EM-5 39.74%; 940 lighter)
EM-5 + Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 790  v  6D + Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS 2290  (EM-5 34.50%; 1500 lighter)

So, the EM-5 saves generally saves at least 500g (close to 50%) at the shorter FL, increasing to around 1.5kg (65%!) at the longer FL at f/2.8.  Or if you prefer, EM-5 kit ranges from 550g to 800g while the 6D kit ranges from about 1kg up to well over 2kg.  Sure, the EM-5 has a smaller sensor which will give up some IQ under some conditions but still, if weight (and I assume size) is your concern, the EM-5 offers a substantial gain to offset whatever else you lose.

I think if I could afford it, I'd have a 5DIII and an EM-5 ... but for now I think I'll just be sticking with my 6D (and my old 7D).

[Apop]

I hope the Metabones smart adapter will support af ( even if it's slow )
I wonder if the camera store was using smart adapter or speed booster

The idea of using canon glass on a 36 mp sensor without aa filter sounds pretty good.
20 frames at 4fps for the a7r if i remember correctly , is also pretty good imo

[Pi]

EM-5 + Olympus 40-150 4-5.6 620  v  6D + Canon 70-200 f/4 IS 1560  (EM-5 39.74%; 940 lighter)
EM-5 + Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 790  v  6D + Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS 2290  (EM-5 34.50%; 1500 lighter)

You should compare the  35-100 f/2.8  to the 70-200 f/4 IS (the latter is even faster) or to the 70-300 non L.

[JoeDavid]

I'm also interested in the RX-10 all-in-one as a travel camera when photography is not the primary reason I'm traveling (i.e., business or family travel).  It uses the 1" sensor but, with a Carl Zeiss 24-200mm equivalent lens and constant f2.8 aperture, I might pick one up if it has a good review.

[Dylan777]

Why does anyone think these are 'back up' cameras?

+1...I don't get it either. Especially "I don't need new Zeiss FE lenses beccause they over priced". Better yet "I already have huge collection of L lenses"

[Rienzphotoz]

ISO 51200, this past Monday:

Z96A6810bdEFKleinBWMaster by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

Superb!

[Ricku]

ISO 51200, this past Monday:

Z96A6810bdEFKleinBWMaster by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

That is a very nice image Pedro, but it doesn't bring anything to this discussion. It only demonstrates what we already know. The 5D3 is an excellent camera for low light shooting. If you like high ISO stuff and want to use your camera as some kind of "military night vision device", then the 5D3 is truly great.

It's resolution and the low ISO performance I am pissed about, especially since I take 90% if my shots below ISO 400.

There haven't been any real improvements in these areas since the 5D2, and even those improvements were kinda incremental. 

[JEL]

I've followed these forums and this site for a while (lots of good info, thanks ) but I had to register when I saw a post about a Sony mirrorless camera...

I've had one...

Worst piece of **** ever!

Change lens 1 time and dust has already settled on the sensor.
That, in my opinion, is an absolute reason for NOT considering a mirrorless camera if you're serious about your photo-quality.

I'm talking from experience. Mirrorless is not worth a damn thing. You might as well get a pocket-cam then.

I don't work for Canon (or Nikon or Sony or any other cam-manufacturer), but I do have experience with both DSLRs, SLRs and Sony's mirrorless, so I hope nobody will get offended by my 2 cents worth here.

Happy shooting
(don't get a mirrorless, you'll regret it (even if it's from Canon, should they ever decide to produce such ****, which I hope they never do)

[Albi86]

I've followed these forums and this site for a while (lots of good info, thanks ) but I had to register when I saw a post about a Sony mirrorless camera...

I've had one...

Worst piece of **** ever!

Change lens 1 time and dust has already settled on the sensor.
That, in my opinion, is an absolute reason for NOT considering a mirrorless camera if you're serious about your photo-quality.

I'm talking from experience. Mirrorless is not worth a damn thing. You might as well get a pocket-cam then.

I don't work for Canon (or Nikon or Sony or any other cam-manufacturer), but I do have experience with both DSLRs, SLRs and Sony's mirrorless, so I hope nobody will get offended by my 2 cents worth here.

Happy shooting
(don't get a mirrorless, you'll regret it (even if it's from Canon, should they ever decide to produce such ****, which I hope they never do)

Sooooo... dust gets on the sensor while you change lens and you blame the camera? 
And you registered for the urge to say this? 

[Ricku]

I've followed these forums and this site for a while (lots of good info, thanks ) but I had to register when I saw a post about a Sony mirrorless camera...

I've had one...

Worst piece of **** ever!

Change lens 1 time and dust has already settled on the sensor.
That, in my opinion, is an absolute reason for NOT considering a mirrorless camera if you're serious about your photo-quality.

I'm talking from experience. Mirrorless is not worth a damn thing. You might as well get a pocket-cam then.

I don't work for Canon (or Nikon or Sony or any other cam-manufacturer), but I do have experience with both DSLRs, SLRs and Sony's mirrorless, so I hope nobody will get offended by my 2 cents worth here.

Happy shooting
(don't get a mirrorless, you'll regret it (even if it's from Canon, should they ever decide to produce such ****, which I hope they never do)

Hmm. I'm getting this strange kind of feeling that you don't really like mirrorless cameras.

[torger]

(don't get a mirrorless, you'll regret it (even if it's from Canon, should they ever decide to produce such ****, which I hope they never do)

Unfortunately(?) the DSLR concept is as dead as CRTs (you know those big fat TVs and computer screens) was in the early 2000s, but they don't know it yet. DSLRs will hang on for as long EVFs and on-sensor focusing is not as good for the photojournalists and action photographers, but then they will disappear in favor of mirrorless.

It will be interesting to see who will be leading this unavoidable shift in technology. Currently it seems like Sony has the lead.

[JEL]

Sooooo... dust gets on the sensor while you change lens and you blame the camera? 
And you registered for the urge to say this? 

Yes, sorry if I stepped on your toe or something, but without the mirror the sensor is wide open and that's just not a clever design. Like I said, I'm talking from experience here. Don't be a fool and fall for this 'fancy smartness' just because I did. DSLRs work. They're tried equipment with a good and stable track-record. I don't care if you go ahead and blow your money on a mirrorless, but I felt a warning was in order. Take it or leave it. Peace out dude!

Hmm. I'm getting this strange kind of feeling that you don't really like mirrorless cameras.

You're like a psychic
You're right. Mirrorless is a consumer-trick. It sounds really cool, but they never mention the side-effects.

Unfortunately(?) the DSLR concept is as dead as CRTs (you know those big fat TVs and computer screens) was in the early 2000s, but they don't know it yet. DSLRs will hang on for as long EVFs and on-sensor focusing is not as good for the photojournalists and action photographers, but then they will disappear in favor of mirrorless.

It will be interesting to see who will be leading this unavoidable shift in technology. Currently it seems like Sony has the lead.

There might be a group of people who will switch to, or start with, mirrorless. Each to his/her own.
Fact is mirrorless has this major side-effect which WILL ruin your photos.
The choice is obviously your own
But mirrorless is not a clever design.