Sony A7-A7R pre-ordered @ 200% bigger than expected

[symmar22]

It's to admit that Canon hasn't released anything very exciting this year (except maybe the 200-400mm, but how may of us will actually buy it ?), and a few new products on the market is always good to take. IMO all the ranting shows mainly the frustration of some people who cannot accept that these days, creativity is not on the side of the brand they support. The A7R might not be for everyone, but for me it will probably be the camera that finally replaces my 5D2s.

I'm into architecture and landscape, I've been doing it for years with a 4x5 Linhof, and couldn't care less about AF or frame rate. What I need is a new sensor, and fact is Canon is not able to deliver it. They may in 2015, but I am not holding my breath for a 7000$ 1Dx HD. Until they have something affordable and available (5D4 in 2016 ?), the A7R might be the camera that will fill the void. With the lens adapter it will cost roughly the price of a 5D3, but in my case it will actually be an upgrade (contrary to the 5D3). The size of the camera compared to the lenses is irrelevant on my Gitzos. And it seems it will be a nice companion to my TS-E collection.

Instead of dismissing every technical progress because it doesn't have Canon written on it, I prefer to adapt and use the tools available, WHOEVER makes them.

I could link this to the Nikon Df, it is nice to see something different (if not new). I am sure Canon would have released a retro styled (A-1) digital camera similar to the Df, it would have been the pride of this forum. But as it's Nikon who released it, it can only be worthless.

These days there is much more excitement with Canon who repainted a 100D in white. That is some real exciting new product. Nice move Canon.

 

[Loswr]

My 5yrs loves snow. She can spend all day playing with it.

Any plan moving back to sun shine CA?

Our kids love it, too…and usually don't have to go further than the back yard.

We'll likely end up back on the west coast at some point, but we're looking at further north (Humboldt, Portland, Seattle).

 

[unfocused]

IMO all the ranting shows mainly the frustration of some people who cannot accept that these days, creativity is not on the side of the brand they support...Instead of dismissing every technical progress because it doesn't have Canon written on it, I prefer to adapt and use the tools available, WHOEVER makes them.

I could link this to the Nikon Df, it is nice to see something different (if not new). I am sure Canon would have released a retro styled (A-1) digital camera similar to the Df, it would have been the pride of this forum. But as it's Nikon who released it, it can only be worthless.

I don't think you are reading the same forum that I am reading.

Any product that is introduced, you generally have three groups on this forum.

The "every other brand is better than Canon" people who extol the virtues of every product offered by every other manufacturer and complain bitterly that Canon is behind the times.

The "Canon is always best" group that insists that Canon products are always superior, no matter what.

Finally, the group that falls somewhere in the middle. They prefer Canon for any number of reasons. Are generally satisfied with the product offerings, but are anxiously anticipating the next generation of any product line. They don't get too worked up about new products from competitors, but recognize that technology releases tend to leap frog one another. One product may be ahead for awhile, but then another product comes along and leap frogs over that one.

One day, they may be highly critical of Canon. The next, they may be ripping into Nikon or Sony.

The vast majority of people on this forum fall into that third group – each with their own personal perspective. Most have a built-in bias towards Canon (this is a Canon forum after all), but try to keep some perspective.

 

[symmar22]

Maybe it's me then, I am a Canon user as well and am not logged on any other brand forum, but I can feel a tendency to defend Canon with sometimes biased arguments.

I do not take for granted they are better or worse than others, they just make photo equipment (among other things). I read a lot of "it's crappy, it's ugly it's a useless stuff" about the Sony camera, I am just pointing out that this is for one a real novelty, and that Canon has not been the most creative lately.

I will take this camera for what it is, a possible upgrade from my 5D2s for architecture and landscape use. IMO we should be happy that other brands (in this case Sony and Metabones) can offer us some alternatives to what Canon is not able to deliver.

Maybe am I a bit too old, but coming from the 4x5 camera systems, where you can use any lens with any camera, I welcome the change that finally allows the same with digital cameras. IMO it is a healthy move from the closed systems big companies have been imposing for pure marketing purposes.

Mirrorless cameras allow almost infinite lens/cameras combinations, this is IMO a good reason to consider them.

 

[Renaissance]

New products like the A7 & Nikon DF are great for the market.
It keeps digital photography alive, and it should push Canon to offer competing products soon.
I'm sure they're well aware of the fact that they can no longer sit on old sensor technology, ignore the mirrorless market, and deny experimenting with retro inspired cameras.

I almost bought into the hype of the A7's. The high megapixels allow for more cropping and detail, their images (from nex and Rx1) can look textured and real, but sony's images look sometimes too digital to me. Not saying that it's bad, but I prefer a more canon filmic look. Fuji has their own unique filmic look as well, which is why I am getting more interested in fuji products now. And this is also because I shoot people portraits / fine art / and street photography. Currently, for landscape, (or super detailed work) there is probably no denying that the Sony 36mp sensor is the best.

Using canon glass on the A7 seems slow and cumbersome, in addition to quirks of the camera's handling (although I have yet to fully shoot it) the camera might get in the way of my shooting style. I need to stay in a flow. Finally, I am not interested in any of Sony's initial native lenses, and by the time their catalogue has better choices by 2015 (according to their tentative road map) the market will have changed drastically by then - we'll definitely see some amazing stuff from Canon and other brands.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And while Canon is criticized for "refusing" to deliver more DR, it is Nikon and Sony that are failing to deliver video performance to match that of the 5D3.

Which is why you keep your 5D3 for sports and video and buy the A7R for your landscapes. If Canon were update to date with sensors you'd just buy the one Canon but they aren't so you add the A7R.

(also 5D3 only rules for video mostly because of the ML hack, so while Canon engineers did make a camera that delivers video in spades, marketing or someone had it shipped pretty crippled; it is surprising that Sony punts so badly on video though I will add, if anyone should have that down it should be them).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The A7 and A7r I really don't get however. If you just want 30+ MP and/or greater DR than Canon offers, buy a D800(E). At least you will have a large selection of lenses available and know the manufacturer won't abandon you by moving on to a new lens mount or IBIS in a few months.

Maybe because with the D800 you have to commit to 100% swapping systems right now. Give up the better Canon video, the Canon 24-70 II and 17 and 24 T&S and 70-300L and MPE, nicer UI, etc. With the A7R you don't.

If you are a Canon user you are getting it for the MP/DR for landscapes most likely. You are not replacing your 5D3 or 1DX or 7D with this, it's a supplement. A hack to get the DR Canon refuses to deliver to so far.

I wasn't trying to advocate switching to Nikon, just making the point that if somebody was determined to chase the MP/DR of the Sony FF sensor, Nikon is probably a better choice than Sony. Until its proven that Canon glass works extremely well with the A7/A7r, I'll remain skeptical.

Some guy was already posting 17mm T&S shift shots with it sharp to the edges.
And by most regards the canon 24-70 II is much sharper at the edges than the nikon 24-70.
As a complete system yeah the Nikon, but for a Canon user that makes a lot less sense to me. Why spend tons and tons more when you could jsut use superior canon lenses onthe same sensor with the A7R instead and still get top canon video and what if canon comes out with high dr stuff in 12 months? the a7r buys you time instead of swapping over right away.

 

[zlatko]

And while Canon is criticized for "refusing" to deliver more DR, it is Nikon and Sony that are failing to deliver video performance to match that of the 5D3.

Which is why you keep your 5D3 for sports and video and buy the A7R for your landscapes. If Canon were update to date with sensors you'd just buy the one Canon but they aren't so you add the A7R.

(also 5D3 only rules for video mostly because of the ML hack, so while Canon engineers did make a camera that delivers video in spades, marketing or someone had it shipped pretty crippled; it is surprising that Sony punts so badly on video though I will add, if anyone should have that down it should be them).

The A7R will be great for landscapes, and will no doubt provide more detail for very large prints. However, you don't need an A7R for landscapes. Starting in 2008, Salgado used the previous generation 1DS3 to photograph landscapes and other subjects in Algeria, Alaska, Arizona, Brazil, etc. The result is a magnificent book. As early as 2002, Michael Reichmann (Luminous-Landscape.com) favored the original 1DS over the medium format Pentax 67II. So Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for quite some time. DR is just one of many factors in choosing a landscape camera.

The Camera labs review (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/) of the A7 & A7R is pretty clear on the 5D3 having superior video quality. No Magic Lantern is involved in that conclusion.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And while Canon is criticized for "refusing" to deliver more DR, it is Nikon and Sony that are failing to deliver video performance to match that of the 5D3.

Which is why you keep your 5D3 for sports and video and buy the A7R for your landscapes. If Canon were update to date with sensors you'd just buy the one Canon but they aren't so you add the A7R.

(also 5D3 only rules for video mostly because of the ML hack, so while Canon engineers did make a camera that delivers video in spades, marketing or someone had it shipped pretty crippled; it is surprising that Sony punts so badly on video though I will add, if anyone should have that down it should be them).

The A7R will be great for landscapes, and will no doubt provide more detail for very large prints. However, you don't need an A7R for landscapes. Starting in 2008, Salgado used the previous generation 1DS3 to photograph landscapes and other subjects in Algeria, Alaska, Arizona, Brazil, etc. The result is a magnificent book. As early as 2002, Michael Reichmann (Luminous-Landscape.com) favored the original 1DS over the medium format Pentax 67II. So Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for quite some time. DR is just one of many factors in choosing a landscape camera.

Yes, once again nobody said it's impossible to take amazing landscape shots with a 5D3, of course you can, hundreds and thousands and millions of them. THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties. Maybe some of us, heaven forbid, are excited to get to shoot some of those scenes, stuff nobody could ever pull off well before, well???

The Camera labs review (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/) of the A7 & A7R is pretty clear on the 5D3 having superior video quality. No Magic Lantern is involved in that conclusion.

Yeah but the advantage becomes smaller then. D800 video is actually more details and with more range, although with some more moire and aliasing than stock 5D3 video. 1DX in cam video is pretty good, better good for sure than any from Nikon or Sony. 5D3 with ML RAW is pretty awesome to say the least. One wonders what on earth canon did to the signal between it arriving for liveview and before compression (it is NOT bad compression that is hurting it as uncompressed out over HDMI doesn't help at all), you almost wonder if they don't call a C-line protecting subroutine that says like GaussianBlur() followed by KillDR() and then, for good measure, a MakeTightGrainIntoDigitalClumpyNoise() ;D since ML RAW proves that the HW is actually producing vastly better quality and clean HDMI proves it is not the compression chip mucking things up. Either marketing had them cripple it or the Digic chip simply stinks at processing video.

 

[zlatko]

And while Canon is criticized for "refusing" to deliver more DR, it is Nikon and Sony that are failing to deliver video performance to match that of the 5D3.

Which is why you keep your 5D3 for sports and video and buy the A7R for your landscapes. If Canon were update to date with sensors you'd just buy the one Canon but they aren't so you add the A7R.

(also 5D3 only rules for video mostly because of the ML hack, so while Canon engineers did make a camera that delivers video in spades, marketing or someone had it shipped pretty crippled; it is surprising that Sony punts so badly on video though I will add, if anyone should have that down it should be them).

The A7R will be great for landscapes, and will no doubt provide more detail for very large prints. However, you don't need an A7R for landscapes. Starting in 2008, Salgado used the previous generation 1DS3 to photograph landscapes and other subjects in Algeria, Alaska, Arizona, Brazil, etc. The result is a magnificent book. As early as 2002, Michael Reichmann (Luminous-Landscape.com) favored the original 1DS over the medium format Pentax 67II. So Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for quite some time. DR is just one of many factors in choosing a landscape camera.

Yes, once again nobody said it's impossible to take amazing landscape shots with a 5D3, of course you can, hundreds and thousands and millions of them. THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties. Maybe some of us, heaven forbid, are excited to get to shoot some of those scenes, stuff nobody could ever pull off well before, well???

The Camera labs review (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/) of the A7 & A7R is pretty clear on the 5D3 having superior video quality. No Magic Lantern is involved in that conclusion.

Yeah but the advantage becomes smaller then. D800 video is actually more details and with more range, although with some more moire and aliasing than stock 5D3 video. 1DX in cam video is pretty good, better good for sure than any from Nikon or Sony. 5D3 with ML RAW is pretty awesome to say the least. One wonders what on earth canon did to the signal between it arriving for liveview and before compression (it is NOT bad compression that is hurting it as uncompressed out over HDMI doesn't help at all), you almost wonder if they don't call a C-line protecting subroutine that says like GaussianBlur() followed by KillDR() and then, for good measure, a MakeTightGrainIntoDigitalClumpyNoise() ;D since ML RAW proves that the HW is actually producing vastly better quality and clean HDMI proves it is not the compression chip mucking things up. Either marketing had them cripple it or the Digic chip simply stinks at processing video.

"THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties." — That is your theory. It's not supported by actual photos, let alone "tons" of them. And I'm talking about actual photos, not DxO tests. My point — that Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for years — is proven by actual work by real photographers.

"Either marketing had them cripple it or the Digic chip simply stinks at processing video." — It is amazing that when faced with a review showing Canon's superior video performance, you still come up with a Canon-bashing theory, blaming their marketing and/or their technology.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Why spend tons and tons more when you could jsut use superior canon lenses onthe same sensor with the A7R instead and still get top canon video and what if canon comes out with high dr stuff in 12 months? the a7r buys you time instead of swapping over right away.

Good point.

 

[AvTvM]

oO ... Handling seems to have some nasty flaws. Especially the EV-correction wheel being too loose sounds really troublesome, since there is no user fix or workaround for this.

And A7 hybrid AF being less capable than A7R contrast-AF comes rather unexpected too. Lets see what other testers and new owners will find and report.

http://m.dpreview.com/news/2013/11/15/shooting-with-the-sony-alpha-7-and-alpha-7r

 

[RobertP]

It's to admit that Canon hasn't released anything very exciting this year (except maybe the 200-400mm, but how may of us will actually buy it ?), and a few new products on the market is always good to take. IMO all the ranting shows mainly the frustration of some people who cannot accept that these days, creativity is not on the side of the brand they support. The A7R might not be for everyone, but for me it will probably be the camera that finally replaces my 5D2s.

The sensor in the 70D is very exciting. Its just not aimed at landscape photographers. Canon may have decided that hobbyist and wedding photographers are a more important market. It is also possible that they have the DR but are saving it for the next gen 1D or 5D.

 

[Dylan777]

oO ... Handling seems to have some nasty flaws. Especially the EV-correction wheel being too loose sounds really troublesome, since there is no user fix or workaround for this.

And A7 hybrid AF being less capable than A7R contrast-AF comes rather unexpected too. Lets see what other testers and new owners will find and report.

http://m.dpreview.com/news/2013/11/15/shooting-with-the-sony-alpha-7-and-alpha-7r

Interesting ???

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And while Canon is criticized for "refusing" to deliver more DR, it is Nikon and Sony that are failing to deliver video performance to match that of the 5D3.

Which is why you keep your 5D3 for sports and video and buy the A7R for your landscapes. If Canon were update to date with sensors you'd just buy the one Canon but they aren't so you add the A7R.

(also 5D3 only rules for video mostly because of the ML hack, so while Canon engineers did make a camera that delivers video in spades, marketing or someone had it shipped pretty crippled; it is surprising that Sony punts so badly on video though I will add, if anyone should have that down it should be them).

The A7R will be great for landscapes, and will no doubt provide more detail for very large prints. However, you don't need an A7R for landscapes. Starting in 2008, Salgado used the previous generation 1DS3 to photograph landscapes and other subjects in Algeria, Alaska, Arizona, Brazil, etc. The result is a magnificent book. As early as 2002, Michael Reichmann (Luminous-Landscape.com) favored the original 1DS over the medium format Pentax 67II. So Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for quite some time. DR is just one of many factors in choosing a landscape camera.

Yes, once again nobody said it's impossible to take amazing landscape shots with a 5D3, of course you can, hundreds and thousands and millions of them. THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties. Maybe some of us, heaven forbid, are excited to get to shoot some of those scenes, stuff nobody could ever pull off well before, well???

The Camera labs review (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/) of the A7 & A7R is pretty clear on the 5D3 having superior video quality. No Magic Lantern is involved in that conclusion.

Yeah but the advantage becomes smaller then. D800 video is actually more details and with more range, although with some more moire and aliasing than stock 5D3 video. 1DX in cam video is pretty good, better good for sure than any from Nikon or Sony. 5D3 with ML RAW is pretty awesome to say the least. One wonders what on earth canon did to the signal between it arriving for liveview and before compression (it is NOT bad compression that is hurting it as uncompressed out over HDMI doesn't help at all), you almost wonder if they don't call a C-line protecting subroutine that says like GaussianBlur() followed by KillDR() and then, for good measure, a MakeTightGrainIntoDigitalClumpyNoise() ;D since ML RAW proves that the HW is actually producing vastly better quality and clean HDMI proves it is not the compression chip mucking things up. Either marketing had them cripple it or the Digic chip simply stinks at processing video.

"THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties." — That is your theory. It's not supported by actual photos, let alone "tons" of them. And I'm talking about actual photos, not DxO tests. My point — that Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for years — is proven by actual work by real photographers.

OMG yes we all know you can take amazing landscape shots with a 5D3 and you don't have to own an A7R to take a nice landscape shot but that doesn't mean there are not shots where the A7R wouldn't do a lot better, and that is not some dumb theory we have based on some stupid lab nonsense but from our own countless real world hours in the field, and maybe just maybe given the option some people would rather not pass up some of the shots that push the 5D3 and kind too far? OK? But I guess heaven forbid someone want to take some shots that didn't use to be possible before because they have to become sinners and use a body that doesn't say Canon on it. Apparently even if they still use Canon branded lenses that is not enough for you.

You know people managed to get a few sports shots years ago too so by your logic why should anyone buy a 1DX? Because it says Canon on it? I guess so, because the AF and fps and whatnot are obviously of no worth at all right? No? Well then maybe stop to think it can be the same for landscape stuff too.

Yes we know, and we've said you can take millions of perfectly find landscapes shots with a 5D3, but that doesn't mean that someone might not be able to get something extra out of the A7R compared to the 5D3 at times and if someone wants that what the heck is the big problem? That Canon is not stamped on every last pieces of equipment?

"Either marketing had them cripple it or the Digic chip simply stinks at processing video." — It is amazing that when faced with a review showing Canon's superior video performance, you still come up with a Canon-bashing theory, blaming their marketing and/or their technology.

Check out the serious video/film forums and you'll see the same comments. Compare clean HDMI out vs ML RAW and tell me there isn't a radically difference in quality even beyond the extra bits to deal with. And maybe if you didn't fanboy so much you wouldn't egg people on to sound like anti-fanboys.

 

[sdsr]

"THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties." — That is your theory. It's not supported by actual photos, let alone "tons" of them. And I'm talking about actual photos, not DxO tests. My point — that Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for years — is proven by actual work by real photographers.

I think you're somewhat missing his point - if some landscapes (or anything else - needn't be landscapes) haven't been captured because of dynamic range extremes, the evidence is either negative (you delete the photo as beyond rescue or don't bother to try taking it in the first place) or photos where you can see that some shadows are too dark or some highlights have been blown to retain shadow detail. You can't count the former, while the latter are a matter of taste - so you can't really count them, either. One may not need to do so often, but there's no question that if you try to recover underexposed portions of photos you'll get less noise in those areas via a Sony sensor in a Nikon or Pentax or Olympus camera than you will, in varying degrees (6D is better than 5DII or III, for instance). Have you never wanted/needed to do this?

The fact that tons of great landscape etc. photos have been taken with Canons is not a counterargument (there are plenty of great photos which aren't very good from a technical standpoint; if a photo's good enough chances are you don't even think about such things); the photos are great despite, not because of, the technical limitations of the camera, and they wouldn't be worse if they had been taken with a camera with greater DR. The question is whether there would be more good photos if cameras had greater DR. It's hard to see why this question could have a negative answer (except maybe of the when-I-was-a-lad-we-walked-to-school-barefoot sort, i.e. that having to work around limitations makes you take better photos).

If the sensor that Panasonic and Fuji (I think) are working on lives up to its promise, it should blow everything else away, but apparently we won't see it in a camera for another year or so - at which point the focus of DR whining will presumably shift a little.... With luck this silly debate will eventually become obsolete.

 

[zlatko]

And while Canon is criticized for "refusing" to deliver more DR, it is Nikon and Sony that are failing to deliver video performance to match that of the 5D3.

Which is why you keep your 5D3 for sports and video and buy the A7R for your landscapes. If Canon were update to date with sensors you'd just buy the one Canon but they aren't so you add the A7R.

(also 5D3 only rules for video mostly because of the ML hack, so while Canon engineers did make a camera that delivers video in spades, marketing or someone had it shipped pretty crippled; it is surprising that Sony punts so badly on video though I will add, if anyone should have that down it should be them).

The A7R will be great for landscapes, and will no doubt provide more detail for very large prints. However, you don't need an A7R for landscapes. Starting in 2008, Salgado used the previous generation 1DS3 to photograph landscapes and other subjects in Algeria, Alaska, Arizona, Brazil, etc. The result is a magnificent book. As early as 2002, Michael Reichmann (Luminous-Landscape.com) favored the original 1DS over the medium format Pentax 67II. So Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for quite some time. DR is just one of many factors in choosing a landscape camera.

Yes, once again nobody said it's impossible to take amazing landscape shots with a 5D3, of course you can, hundreds and thousands and millions of them. THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties. Maybe some of us, heaven forbid, are excited to get to shoot some of those scenes, stuff nobody could ever pull off well before, well???

The Camera labs review (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A7r/) of the A7 & A7R is pretty clear on the 5D3 having superior video quality. No Magic Lantern is involved in that conclusion.

Yeah but the advantage becomes smaller then. D800 video is actually more details and with more range, although with some more moire and aliasing than stock 5D3 video. 1DX in cam video is pretty good, better good for sure than any from Nikon or Sony. 5D3 with ML RAW is pretty awesome to say the least. One wonders what on earth canon did to the signal between it arriving for liveview and before compression (it is NOT bad compression that is hurting it as uncompressed out over HDMI doesn't help at all), you almost wonder if they don't call a C-line protecting subroutine that says like GaussianBlur() followed by KillDR() and then, for good measure, a MakeTightGrainIntoDigitalClumpyNoise() ;D since ML RAW proves that the HW is actually producing vastly better quality and clean HDMI proves it is not the compression chip mucking things up. Either marketing had them cripple it or the Digic chip simply stinks at processing video.

"THAT SAID, there are tons of shots that you also could have taken that would have worked out with Exmor sensor that either failed totally with the 5D3 or have some noticeable IQ nasties." — That is your theory. It's not supported by actual photos, let alone "tons" of them. And I'm talking about actual photos, not DxO tests. My point — that Canon sensors have been up to the task of landscape photography for years — is proven by actual work by real photographers.

OMG yes we all know you can take amazing landscape shots with a 5D3 and you don't have to own an A7R to take a nice landscape shot but that doesn't mean there are not shots where the A7R wouldn't do a lot better, and that is not some dumb theory we have based on some stupid lab nonsense but from our own countless real world hours in the field, and maybe just maybe given the option some people would rather not pass up some of the shots that push the 5D3 and kind too far? OK? But I guess heaven forbid someone want to take some shots that didn't use to be possible before because they have to become sinners and use a body that doesn't say Canon on it. Apparently even if they still use Canon branded lenses that is not enough for you.

You know people managed to get a few sports shots years ago too so by your logic why should anyone buy a 1DX? Because it says Canon on it? I guess so, because the AF and fps and whatnot are obviously of no worth at all right? No? Well then maybe stop to think it can be the same for landscape stuff too.

Yes we know, and we've said you can take millions of perfectly find landscapes shots with a 5D3, but that doesn't mean that someone might not be able to get something extra out of the A7R compared to the 5D3 at times and if someone wants that what the heck is the big problem? That Canon is not stamped on every last pieces of equipment?

"Either marketing had them cripple it or the Digic chip simply stinks at processing video." — It is amazing that when faced with a review showing Canon's superior video performance, you still come up with a Canon-bashing theory, blaming their marketing and/or their technology.

Check out the serious video/film forums and you'll see the same comments. Compare clean HDMI out vs ML RAW and tell me there isn't a radically difference in quality even beyond the extra bits to deal with. And maybe if you didn't fanboy so much you wouldn't egg people on to sound like anti-fanboys.

"Yes we know, and we've said you can take millions of perfectly find landscapes shots with a 5D3, but that doesn't mean that someone might not be able to get something extra out of the A7R compared to the 5D3 at times and if someone wants that what the heck is the big problem?" — The "big problem" is that you repeatedly trash Canon for making deficient sensors when that simply isn't true. There is nothing wrong with wanting more from any brand. As I wrote in another thread, photographers can use absolutely more of everything a camera can do, no matter what camera they are using. So go ahead and wish for more DR if that is important to you (or simply buy the brand that offers it). But don't blame Canon for making deficient sensors when their sensors are perfectly good for a wide variety of tasks and meet the standards of some very demanding photographers (for years now). Moreover, photographers have dealt with limited DR ever since photography was invented. In the film era, Ansel Adams wrote about raising underexposed shadows and recovering (or failing to recover) blown highlights — but he didn't blame Kodak when he screwed up. He understood that the sensor (film) would always have limited DR and that exposure was always his responsibility. Indeed, he understood exposure within the DR as a creative/technical decision.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

This might be interesting to some of you (what I found interesting starts at 3 minutes and ends at 25 minutes of the video)
Sony A7 & Sony A7R Hands-on & Tested & Special Launch Event

 

[spinworkxroy]

I was a 5D3 user and that was my workhorse camera for everything i shoot and i love that camera.
However, i wanted something smaller and lighter and since i was on FF, i needed it to be FF and I can't afford a Leica.
So in a way, the Sony A7r was what i always wanted.

I spent an hour today with the A7r and the A7 and comparing to the 5D3, the AF is definately not as fast but it's not slow either.
The continuous focusing is no where near the 5D3..it fails quite miserably actually but thankfully what i shoot, i don't use continuous AF. Surprisingly, i find the A7 even slower to focus than the a7r with the same lens.

The EVF is still not as nice to look at compared to the OVF but i guess you get used to it.. IQ however, even SOOC, that's where the 5D3 even with a good prime can't match the A7r.

Ultimately, if you are looking at something to dethrone the 5D3, this isn't going to do it except in terms of IQ. Everything else, i think the 5D3 is better.

But for me, it's light, REALLY small in the hands, fantastic IQ even SOOC jpg and it's exactly what i need for what i shoot.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I was a 5D3 user and that was my workhorse camera for everything i shoot and i love that camera.
However, i wanted something smaller and lighter and since i was on FF, i needed it to be FF and I can't afford a Leica.
So in a way, the Sony A7r was what i always wanted.

I spent an hour today with the A7r and the A7 and comparing to the 5D3, the AF is definately not as fast but it's not slow either.
The continuous focusing is no where near the 5D3..it fails quite miserably actually but thankfully what i shoot, i don't use continuous AF. Surprisingly, i find the A7 even slower to focus than the a7r with the same lens.

The EVF is still not as nice to look at compared to the OVF but i guess you get used to it.. IQ however, even SOOC, that's where the 5D3 even with a good prime can't match the A7r.

Ultimately, if you are looking at something to dethrone the 5D3, this isn't going to do it except in terms of IQ. Everything else, i think the 5D3 is better.

But for me, it's light, REALLY small in the hands, fantastic IQ even SOOC jpg and it's exactly what i need for what i shoot.

Interesting.