NEW - Sony FF mirrorless cameras + new lenses to support

[Albi86]

For me the real deal with these cameras is the possibility to mount M-lenses using the focus peaking in the EVF. God knows how much I would like to play with those Voigtländer 35/1.2 and 50/1.1 with actual good results. On top of that Sony has the perk of Zeiss primes and zooms with AF.

Interesting timing for such a release too: Canikon has no mirrorless system worth noticing, Fuji seems very deep into their APS-C system, and Panasonic/Olympus/etc are very much into their MFT systems.

Sony is indeed way ahead of the competition.

 

[bchernicoff]

My Fuji X-E1 35mm 1.4 combo convinced me that these cameras can actually be phenomenally good in a small package.
I'm anxious to read reviews of the Sony and see how large the body and lenses are.

 

[Dylan777]

My Fuji X-E1 35mm 1.4 combo convinced me that these cameras can actually be phenomenally good in a small package.
I'm anxious to read reviews of the Sony and see how large the body and lenses are.

X-E2 + Fuji 14mm for landscape is one sexy combo. I love the retro looks of Fuji

 

[bchernicoff]

X-E2 + Fuji 14mm for landscape is one sexy combo. I love the retro looks of Fuji

I've got the 18-55mm and the 60mm macro too. My EF mount Samyang 14mm works great on the fuji with an adapter.

 

[sdsr]

As a past user of the Olympus 4/3 cameras (4/3, not micro 4/3), I have been stung by having bought into a dead-end system..... With no warning the system ended.... no more new bodies, no more lenses, nothing said by Olympus.... just silence... This is why I would only consider Canon or Nikon as a system now... and I went with Canon because of the glass...

Have you read any of the hoopla re the new Olympus OM-D E-M1? With an adapter (which is, via rebates, free if you buy it with the camera body) it provides full-functionality for Olympus 4/3 lenses, while the camera is better than any of Olympus's 4/3 bodies. It's evidently meant to be the continuation of that line of cameras as well as their best Micro 4/3. Looks appealing to me, at any rate.

But so do the new FF mirrorless Sonys. The appeal isn't so much the size (it might be a nice upgrade from the Micro 4/3 equipment I have, but it's so good that I'm not sure how important that is) but the fact that they're mirrorless, with all the advantages that come with that. New, small lenses would be nice, but I'm as interested in trying some of the highly regarded Minolta lenses, which might be a bit awkward to use on a tiny body. As for Canon, I would be happy enough if they made a 6D- or even 5DIII- size body so I could continue using the EF lenses I like; I don't need a new line of tiny toys, though I guess such things are more likely to sell.

(And speaking of tiny toys, Panasonic is about to launch a tiny M43 camera with a 24-60mm equiv. zoom lens that looks no more than 1/4 inch thick when attached to the camera and not in use. Toss in the new sensor technology that Fuji and Panasonic are supposedly working on - which may render FF obsolete - and it all becomes simultaneously confusing, interesting and enticing....)

 

[Woody]

But so do the new FF mirrorless Sonys. The appeal isn't so much the size (it might be a nice upgrade from the Micro 4/3 equipment I have, but it's so good that I'm not sure how important that is) but the fact that they're mirrorless, with all the advantages that come with that. New, small lenses would be nice, but I'm as interested in trying some of the highly regarded Minolta lenses, which might be a bit awkward to use on a tiny body...

Toss in the new sensor technology that Fuji and Panasonic are supposedly working on - which may render FF obsolete - and it all becomes simultaneously confusing, interesting and enticing....)

Since Sony is rumored to release the following lenses: 35 f/2.8, 55 f/1.8 and 24-70 f/4 (all without stabilization), I am curious how their weights will compare against Canon's equivalent offerings, 35 f/2 IS, 50 f/1.4 and 24-70 f/4 IS. If they are similar to Canon's offerings, then I really do NOT see any advantage to Sony's concept.

Having used the EM5 for a year, I find that I intensely dislike mirrorless cameras for 2 reasons: (i) EVF (color and brightness never the same as OVF, no matter how fast and high resolving they are) (ii) poor handling, difficult to grip. Since Canon has demonstrated what they can achieve with weight reduction in the 100D, I am hopeful they can produce low weight DSLRs bodies in future.

FF can never be made obsolete, just like medium format never really goes away. Larger sensors will always have shallower depth of field and better resolution.

I am not a die-hard DSLR fan. I am willing to try out mirrorless stuff too, but at the moment, they simply cannot match my DSLR experience. I plan to use my 6D and 70D until 2020. Hopefully, some breathtaking technological breakthroughs happen by then.

 

[verysimplejason]

But so do the new FF mirrorless Sonys. The appeal isn't so much the size (it might be a nice upgrade from the Micro 4/3 equipment I have, but it's so good that I'm not sure how important that is) but the fact that they're mirrorless, with all the advantages that come with that. New, small lenses would be nice, but I'm as interested in trying some of the highly regarded Minolta lenses, which might be a bit awkward to use on a tiny body...

Toss in the new sensor technology that Fuji and Panasonic are supposedly working on - which may render FF obsolete - and it all becomes simultaneously confusing, interesting and enticing....)

Since Sony is rumored to release the following lenses: 35 f/2.8, 55 f/1.8 and 24-70 f/4 (all without stabilization), I am curious how their weights will compare against Canon's equivalent offerings, 35 f/2 IS, 50 f/1.4 and 24-70 f/4 IS. If they are similar to Canon's offerings, then I really do NOT see any advantage to Sony's concept.

Having used the EM5 for a year, I find that I intensely dislike mirrorless cameras for 2 reasons: (i) EVF (color and brightness never the same as OVF, no matter how fast and high resolving they are) (ii) poor handling, difficult to grip. Since Canon has demonstrated what they can achieve with weight reduction in the 100D, I am hopeful they can produce low weight DSLRs bodies in future.

FF can never be made obsolete, just like medium format never really goes away. Larger sensors will always have shallower depth of field and better resolution.

I am not a die-hard DSLR fan. I am willing to try out mirrorless stuff too, but at the moment, they simply cannot match my DSLR experience. I plan to use my 6D and 70D until 2020. Hopefully, some breathtaking technological breakthroughs happen by then.

I think IS for Sony isn't in the lens. It's in the body. One major advantage for mirrorless is the fact that there's no mirror and the form factor is smaller than a DSLR. I just hope Sony can make the EVF better or near the performance of an OVF as much as possible. I've tried A77 and same as you are, I don't like its EVF nor OMD's EVF.

 

[Dylan777]

WOW....This is the moment I been waiting for : : :

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/

If the body is same or slightly bigger than RX1, I'M ALL IN.

My wish list:
1. A7 or A7R?
2. 55mm f1.8
3. 14,16 or 17mm
4. 85mm

Will sell some of my Canon gear to get the list above ??? : ;D ;D

Anyone?

Edit: I want one NOW

A7 & A7 R Spec: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a7-and-a7r-specs/

A7 seems to fit my needs - Faster AF, with 117 points (phase-detection AF),

 

[Woody]

I think IS for Sony isn't in the lens. It's in the body. One major advantage for mirrorless is the fact that there's no mirror and the form factor is smaller than a DSLR.

If the rumored specs are correct, Sony A7/A7r do not have in-body image stabilisation. A pity.

It's fairly clear the small body form factor isn't too popular, otherwise Sony would not have released the A3000 (mirrorless body that accepts NEX/E-mount lenses but with a DSLR camera form factor). ;D As Thom Hogan says, Sony is going all over the place without any clear direction, as they desperately try to grab more market shares.

 

[Woody]

A7 & A7 R Spec: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a7-and-a7r-specs/

A7 seems to fit my needs - Faster AF, with 117 points (phase-detection AF),

I hope their PDAF in mirrorless body works well. On the Nikon V1/J1, they are next to useless when light levels fall (see DPReview write-up on V1/J1 PDAF).

 

[Dylan777]

A7 & A7 R Spec: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a7-and-a7r-specs/

A7 seems to fit my needs - Faster AF, with 117 points (phase-detection AF),

I hope their PDAF in mirrorless body works well. On the Nikon V1/J1, they are next to useless when light levels fall (see DPReview write-up on V1/J1 PDAF).

I'll tell you after I play with it

 

[zlatko]

But so do the new FF mirrorless Sonys. The appeal isn't so much the size (it might be a nice upgrade from the Micro 4/3 equipment I have, but it's so good that I'm not sure how important that is) but the fact that they're mirrorless, with all the advantages that come with that. New, small lenses would be nice, but I'm as interested in trying some of the highly regarded Minolta lenses, which might be a bit awkward to use on a tiny body...

Toss in the new sensor technology that Fuji and Panasonic are supposedly working on - which may render FF obsolete - and it all becomes simultaneously confusing, interesting and enticing....)

Since Sony is rumored to release the following lenses: 35 f/2.8, 55 f/1.8 and 24-70 f/4 (all without stabilization), I am curious how their weights will compare against Canon's equivalent offerings, 35 f/2 IS, 50 f/1.4 and 24-70 f/4 IS. If they are similar to Canon's offerings, then I really do NOT see any advantage to Sony's concept.

Having used the EM5 for a year, I find that I intensely dislike mirrorless cameras for 2 reasons: (i) EVF (color and brightness never the same as OVF, no matter how fast and high resolving they are) (ii) poor handling, difficult to grip. Since Canon has demonstrated what they can achieve with weight reduction in the 100D, I am hopeful they can produce low weight DSLRs bodies in future.

FF can never be made obsolete, just like medium format never really goes away. Larger sensors will always have shallower depth of field and better resolution.

I am not a die-hard DSLR fan. I am willing to try out mirrorless stuff too, but at the moment, they simply cannot match my DSLR experience. I plan to use my 6D and 70D until 2020. Hopefully, some breathtaking technological breakthroughs happen by then.

Those rumored Sony lenses are not very exciting. Not even a 35/2. However, the A7/A7r may be very exciting for photographers who want to use Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander lenses on a full frame digital without spending $7k for a Leica M.

Canon has done a great job of shrinking the DSLR. The 5D3 offers much of the power of the 1DsIII, which was much bigger. The full-frame 6D is just barely bigger than an APS-C camera like the 7D. And the 100D/SL1 takes the APS-C camera down to a brilliant new level of smallness.

 

[Canon 14-24]

Would have jumped shipped if if they had a better lens line up with more pancakes, fast primes, "fast" 2.8 zooms, or a 14-24!

They got the price point down for the A7 and A7r, but charging extra to buy a charger (camera usb charging?!) and a 35 f/2.8 and 55 f/1.8 being sold for almost $1k over cheap pancake alternatives doesn't make much sense.

 

[EchoLocation]

just pre ordered the a7 and the crappy kit lens. I'll probably get some cheap vintage MF fast glass to play with it until I figure out the exact lenses I want.
I'm very excited about this bad boy!

 

[Woody]

Since Sony is rumored to release the following lenses: 35 f/2.8, 55 f/1.8 and 24-70 f/4 (all without stabilization), I am curious how their weights will compare against Canon's equivalent offerings, 35 f/2 IS, 50 f/1.4 and 24-70 f/4 IS. If they are similar to Canon's offerings, then I really do NOT see any advantage to Sony's concept.

Looks like the above Sony lenses (24-70 f/4 with OSS) are pretty lightweight. But their telephoto stuff like 70-200 f/4 OSS and 70-200 f/2.8 are slightly heavier than Canon's equivalent. Hmmm...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The problem with Sony has been poor customer support to a extreme. A 2-3 month turnaround for repairs is not something I'd ever buy into. Then, they have also dropped support entirely for items that didn't sell well, even entire product lines. This hasn't happened yet with mirrorless cameras, but I don't recall seeing any new ff lenses since they dropped ff DSLR bodies. Owners are possibly never going to see upgrades. I guess buying a throw away P&S camera is fine, but spending large amounts on a system that they will drop at the tip of the hat does not appeal to me.

+1 ... about 10 years ago I had bought a Sony Plasma TV and when it stopped working I was told by Sony service center that they no longer provide any support for it ... since then I've stayed away form Sony (except for my kids PS3) ... that being said, I am tempted by these new Sony mirrorless cameras provided they come up with some good small sized prime lenses (preferably pancake), otherwise it makes no sense for me to buy it coz I don't think I would ever buy a zoom lens for a mirrorless camrea, kinda defeats the small form factor.

 

[Fleetie]

So, what are the retail prices for these two?

 

[J.R.]

The problem with Sony has been poor customer support to a extreme. A 2-3 month turnaround for repairs is not something I'd ever buy into. Then, they have also dropped support entirely for items that didn't sell well, even entire product lines. This hasn't happened yet with mirrorless cameras, but I don't recall seeing any new ff lenses since they dropped ff DSLR bodies. Owners are possibly never going to see upgrades. I guess buying a throw away P&S camera is fine, but spending large amounts on a system that they will drop at the tip of the hat does not appeal to me.

+1 ... about 10 years ago I had bought a Sony Plasma TV and when it stopped working I was told by Sony service center that they no longer provide any support for it ... since then I've stayed away form Sony (except for my kids PS3) ... that being said, I am tempted by these new Sony mirrorless cameras provided they come up with some good small sized prime lenses (preferably pancake), otherwise it makes no sense for me to buy it coz I don't think I would ever buy a zoom lens for a mirrorless camrea, kinda defeats the small form factor.

My experience was quite the opposite. Sony Alpha 100 was my first DSLR back in 2007. It came with a 3 year warranty. As luck would have it, the camera went kaput in the fall of 2009. When I put it in for a warrant claim they told me that the Alpha 100 had been discontinued and gave me a new Sony Alpha 300 (essentially an upgrade) instead.

Sony has become smarter though, most of their products now come with a 1 year (non-extendible) warranty (at least in my country) so you need to commend your soul to god buying anything from them.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So, what are the retail prices for these two?

As per the email I received from B&H today:
a7 Body: $1698
a7 w/28-70 lens: $1998
a7R Body: $2298
24-70 f/4 ZA lens: $1198
35mm f/2.8 ZA lens: $798
55mm f/1.8 ZA lens: $1998

 

[Pi]

According to DPR:


The new Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 24-70mm F4 zoom lens will be available in January for about $1200.
The new Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 prime lens will be available in December for about $800.
The new Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 prime lens will be available in January for about $1000.
The new Sony 28-70mm F3.5 – 5.6 OSS zoom lens will will be offered as the kit lens paired with the new Sony A7 Full-Frame E-mount camera for about $2000.
Pricing and availability for the new G Lens 70-200mm F4 OSS Telephoto zoom is still TBD.
The new G Lens 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM II Telephoto Zoom Lens for A-mount cameras will be available in January for about $3000.
The versatile LA-EA4 and LA-EA3 mount adapters will be available in December for about $350 and $200 respectively.

Still expensive.