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

[ptortora]

I've been a Canon loyalist for many years and I currently shoot a portion of my work with a 1DX and a 5DIII.  Although I'm very pleased with both of those bodies, I do feel Canon needs to step up their game.  Seems to me that they are falling behind more and more (sensors, dynamic range, slow development of other formats such as  mirroless, etc...).  I've used D800's, Hasselblad H4's and Phase One in addition to my Canons.  When you get a taste of the extended dynamic range,  the magic of their tonality (especially from the medium format sensors) and the ability to crop, you get spoiled by what those products have to offer (in my opinion).   As stated in this post by so many other Canon users, I too will be ordering a Sony A7R as I feel it will bring mirrorless a large leap forward  and I like Sony's comprehensive commitment to the format  (15 lenses by 2015, etc) and their aggressiveness.    I wish it was Canon offering such a product but once again, it appears that they are at the tail end so for me, the days of product loyalty are becoming less and less important.  Naturally, it's all about the image first, the technology is just the means to the end, but it sure was convenient during the days of old when you could lean on one of the major brands to get there.    At this point, it's too early to tell if Sony's new announcements will live up to the hype but if it does, Sony should up their market share amongst serious enthusiasts and professionals.  Hats off to Sony!

[SiliconVoid]

Sad so many people today think every new model has to have the latest gadget in order to be functional - and then base superiority on whether another manufacturer has the same gadgets in their new model.
It really does not matter what some 3rd party service says about sensor performance, especially when the measurement data is taken out of the camera before it is processed and does not represent the data the user would ever have access to. The reality is that in the field it is function, ergonomics and experience that allow you to get the image - not one more stop of DR or more MP.. To that end you still see more Canon equipment in the field than any other manufacturer.

In reading comments here and other forums regarding the new Sony body, I do not think people realize how crappy AF performance is going to be using other lenses than the new Sony lenses.. That realization along with the plethora of older 3rd party lenses will mean - manual focusing - which is even crappier using an EVF.. Mirrorless bodies are neat and all, certainly a means of access to more lenses than any one manufacturer ever dreamed of, but it is of limited benefit and not a functional substitute for an OVF and dedicated AF sensor.

As for the excitement over body size... all any manufacturer needs to do is drop pop-up flashes, drop 3.x" displays, drop the gadgetry that provides no benefit to actual photography (GPS, WiFi, etc) and maybe even ditch video recording (though that does not effect camera size other than another button, but is less than ideal with a ~2" lcd) and there would be plenty of room to shrink the body size around a FF sensor, mirror, and OVF.

In reality it is the average consumer today wanting any gadget they think will take the photo for them and tell everyone else they were there that prevents manufacturers from producing small foot print DSLRs - - NOT the current technology.

[sandymandy]

Canon plz we are waiting omg omg omg omg omg omg

[J.R.]

Canon plz we are waiting omg omg omg omg omg omg

Haha ... I though am not too keen on the A7R. This MP monster will need the best of the best lenses and exceptionally good shooting technique. A tripod may also be necessary which makes the smaller form factor irrelevant. It could very well end up like the D-800E with users as frustrated and emotional as the lady in your photograph 

I'm not too sure you'll be able to extract the best out of the A7R with lenses that are used with adapters. The use of an adapter will deteriorate lens performance which, even if very slight, will result in a hit on the IQ. Unless Sony matches these cameras with exceptional native lenses, I don't see the A7R going anywhere.

[J.R.]

Canon plz we are waiting omg omg omg omg omg omg

Haha ... I though am not too keen on the A7R. This MP monster will need the best of the best lenses and exceptionally good shooting technique. A tripod may also be necessary which makes the smaller form factor irrelevant. It could very well end up like the D-800E with users as frustrated and emotional as the lady in your photograph 

I'm not too sure you'll be able to extract the best out of the A7R with lenses that are used with adapters. The use of an adapter will deteriorate lens performance which, even if very slight, will result in a hit on the IQ. Unless Sony matches these cameras with exceptional native lenses, I don't see the A7R going anywhere.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_a7r_hands_on.shtml

One of the best lenses ever, Tamron SP90 manual had adapters for Nikon,Canon Minolta, Pentax and it worked just fine

Try a Summicron 50mm, Canon 17mm TSE , Nikon 200/2 and se what kind of results you get together with A7R.
Probably the camera who can make 17mm TSE sing real loud

I much rather believe Roger's take on that -

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

In the examples above, though, center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it’s only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image.

Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera.

 

[CarlTN]

I am very underwhelmed by this new Sony full frame mirrorless camera announcement.  Agree with others who wonder if you could make use of the 36 MP on such a camera. 

Frankly only committed landscape photographers can make full use of high resolution images, where the entire frame is sharp.  Certainly there's no "crop advantage" to higher resolution sensors, unless that is the kind of photography you're doing.  Otherwise your DOF is not deep enough...only part of the image is making full use of the resolution (if even that).  This means a heavy tripod always being used, cable release or some kind of remote delay, etc.  How many of the above Sony enthusiats who are so lady gaga over this new Sony, are going to shoot that way?  I say very few.  As for the DR of the sensor...I get plenty with my Canon.  If I need more, there's always multi-shot HDR.  But my Canon's sensor does something only perhaps the D4's sensor does...deliver very low noise in the highly desired ISO range between 1000 and 10,000.  The D800's sensor can't begin to do that, not at the pixel level anyway.  Downsampling doesn't count because if you do that, suddenly that high rez sensor isn't so high rez anymore.

Not saying Canon shouldn't strive for sensor improvement, but to eagerly pine over an overpriced toy like this Sony mirrorless camera, is folly.  It's a halo product meant to empty the pockets of those who have deep ones, just like the RX1.  Currently the price has come down to the $2400 range at B&H.  YAWN..... 

[J.R.]

It's a halo product meant to empty the pockets of those who have deep ones, just like the RX1.  Currently the price has come down to the $2400 range at B&H.  YAWN.....

NO! B&H is citing the price as $ 2,798. This is without any OVF or EVF which cost $598 and $448 respectively ... So basically, the price at which you get the RX1 + OVF is $3,396 = OUCH!

BTW, I have no clue as to why the EVF is cheaper when it is alleged to be WAAAAAY better than the OVF!

[Pi]

There is crop advantage of high resolution sensors. It is less than many believe, but it is there. In limited reach situations, macro included, it is real. This is what crop cameras are used for, after all. Heavy tripods, etc., are no more needed that they are for crop cameras.

[CarlTN]

It's a halo product meant to empty the pockets of those who have deep ones, just like the RX1.  Currently the price has come down to the $2400 range at B&H.  YAWN.....

NO! B&H is citing the price as $ 2,798. This is without any OVF or EVF which cost $598 and $448 respectively ... So basically, the price at which you get the RX1 + OVF is $3,396 = OUCH!

BTW, I have no clue as to why the EVF is cheaper when it is alleged to be WAAAAAY better than the OVF!

That was the price that came up in my google search...

[CarlTN]

There is crop advantage of high resolution sensors. It is less than many believe, but it is there. In limited reach situations, macro included, it is real. This is what crop cameras are used for, after all. Heavy tripods, etc., are no more needed that they are for crop cameras.

But a crop camera only uses the middle, where the lens is sharpest.  If reach advantage is all you want, certainly use a crop camera.  The "crop flexibility" is what I was talking about...of having 36 MP on full frame.  How many of your wildlife telephoto shots are going to use the resolution down to the pixel level of the sensor...outside of the center of the image, on a full frame camera?  I say none.  Show me one if you disagree.  Make it a D800E image done with a telephoto lens longer than 200mm, where post sharpening of half pixel radius (and a value under 35 to 40) actually adds detail rather than noisy scribbly artifacts...to that image in the outer periphery outside the 1.5x crop image area.

As for macro shots...the only way to get a truly sharp macro shot, from corner to corner of the image, is with focus stacking...which is cheating.

[sdsr]

After using their A77 and the 6D, I'd gladly buy your camera for the right price.  Only problem might be is I don't know where you are.  I'm here in Malaysia as an expat. 

I'm not sure what you didn't like about the A77, but a huge problem with Sony's fixed translucent mirror cameras, such as the A77 and the FF A99, is that less light reaches the sensor, which presumably explains in large part why the resulting images are so noisy.  One reason why I was interested in the A7, before I learned that unlike all previous Sony A cameras it would have no IBIS, was the prospect of trying some highly regarded Minolta lenses and I decided to stick my toe in the water a couple of days ago by buying the entry level A58 (it nevertheless gets rave reviews in some quarters) and a Minolta 50mm prime, but was so appalled by the noise (even at ISO 400 you wouldn't want to crop much) that I returned it the next day (noise is a problem with the A99 too, I understand, though obviously to a lesser extent).  The A77 is doubtless a better camera in other ways, but it was a huge relief to return to my Olympus OM-D, 6D and 5DIII (and not just because of the image quality).  Whatever other flaws the A7 may have, presumably such noise isn't one of them.

[sdsr]

Don't care what it's called as long as i get more background blur and more main subject pop at a certain focal length and aperture, distance lens to attractive subject and distance subject to obnoxious, ugly background. Which means i'd rather drop dead than buying another aps-c camera or even worse a thumbnail sized micro thirds camera. Now, when there are finally 36 delivious millions of pixels available in a small package.

And if more dof is needed, i'm going to close down the aperture all the way to f/11 on a full- bore sensored- camera  rather than being limited to f/5.6 on a quarter-sized sensor for fear of  freakin' diffraction.

So much for dof in my shooting. :-)

While it may be true that it's easier to blur out backgrounds using a FF camera, many seem to underestimate what you can achieve with said "thumbnail" M43 sensors.  Here are a couple of photos (JPEGs unaltered, aside from size, from the camera; haven't had time to process the raw files yet) I took walking home from work a couple of days ago with my Olympus OM-D E-M5 + Olympus 75mm.  The beet colored mass is a row of large coleus plants growing in planters along a narrow busy street in the middle of Philadelphia, the green in the background is from trees lining the street a block away, the grays are a department store, the circles are streetlights, traffic, etc.  But you might not immediately know from the first one, shot at 1.8.  You can see a bit more easily in the second photo, shot at 2.8.   And if you go here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47234858@N00/sets/72157636955871633/

you'll see some photos I took with the same camera and the Olympus 45mm 1.8 lens in a liquor store a couple of months ago while waiting for the other half to finish shopping.  Not the ultimate in blur, perhaps, but not bad for a thumbnail....

[Pi]

While it may be true that it's easier to blur out backgrounds using a FF camera, many seem to underestimate what you can achieve with said "thumbnail" M43 sensors.

You can get background blur with a cellphone camera as well, if you focus real close.

[CarlTN]

While it may be true that it's easier to blur out backgrounds using a FF camera, many seem to underestimate what you can achieve with said "thumbnail" M43 sensors.

You can get background blur with a cellphone camera as well, if you focus real close.

I once commented to my friend that I liked the bokeh of one of his shots, and he laughed and said "you like the bokeh of the iPhone"?  I said, "yes...I should sell all my camera gear now!"

[l_d_allan]

Roger Cicala at LensRentals wrote an interesting article about:
"There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters"
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

Overall, he notes that any adapter will detract from image quality. He was writing about non-optical adapters that are hollow.

In the subsequent blog comments, the question came up about Sony adapters for the A7 series. My reading is that you could count of some image quality degradation.

How much? The article wasn't encouraging, but it depends on your expectations. It certainly put a damper on this Canon owner's interest with a significant investment in FF EF L lenses. YMMV.

I couldn't tell if the Sony adapters were optical (with one or more lenses) or hollow, and functioning as a "pass-thru" for electrical signals. Maybe I didn't read the article closely enough.