ricardovaste wrote:
So just to check, this is what we're calling the "pro nex" camera that the likes of Steve Huff spoke of?


How can it be considered a nex?

As far as I can tell the only thing which distinguishes ANY nex is the E mount.

Looks to be a great shooter for the street, but would they not have been better off with a tri-elmar like zoom?

An F2, say 28-50? Or just a bigger version of the one that's on the RX-100 now?

One thing's for sure, if they are willing to make such a niche model, the FF nex is inevitable--so long as the company stays solvent anyway.

To be fair, I have already removed the EVF from my GXR-M mount. The LCD is much better to check sharpness and luminosity, except in harsh sunlight. The EVF remains stand-by in the bag but I prefer not to use it if I don't have to.

Doesn't look like it has an EVF but it does have a hotshoe so perhaps it'll support an EVF bolt-on.

I just hate composing at arms length, or with it squashed against my face, so it has to be a VF of sorts for me. But I'm sure others will be happy with it being VF-less.

@uhoh7: I don't know, I'm just confused. This seems like it was the "secret" Sony product, and so to me has to be related. Unless the "pro NEX" camera is just wildly mislabeled... and is really just a NEX-7 with a slightly better sensor and EVF.

benee wrote:
love the concept. But... the lens looks awfully big compared to the body. i want w mirrorless for compact and light... this isnt it.

I think the body is just rather smaller, rather than the lens being huge. There is no VF by the looks of it, so I'd expect the back to just be a screen and everything else squashed to the right. Not a lot else going on...

And well, it is an AF, AE, semi-wide angle lens designed to work on a modern full-frame sensor. What can we really expect?

benee wrote:
love the concept. But... the lens looks awfully big compared to the body. i want w mirrorless for compact and light... this isnt it.

Keep in mind that this new Sony body looks to maybe be even smaller than the RX100. It is a very small camera body, so the lens looks larger than it is.

Anyone else slightly confused by why they didn't do a real focusing scale ?

Is it just me or does it have an ridiculously short focus throw?

ricardovaste wrote:
Anyone else slightly confused by why they didn't do a real focusing scale ?

ricardovaste wrote:
Anyone else slightly confused by why they didn't do a real focusing scale ?

So focus by wire seems to be a given then?

joychris wrote:
A FF P&S, cool.


I love this too...
FF cameras the size they used to be in film days!

Ah yes, good point. I think we can actually see THREE rings on the lens. Closest to body: aperture ring. End of the lens: focus ring. Middle ring: focusing limiter?

Seems kinda like a missed opportunity, as I'm sure all of us would prefer a real scale just on the lens. Simpler, easier, quicker.

ricardovaste wrote:

Seems kinda like a missed opportunity, as I'm sure all of us would prefer a real scale just on the lens. Simpler, easier, quicker.

Agreed.

Shame this couldn't have a collapsible lens to make it a bit more pocketable. I want a FF 35mm everyday carry type camera that fits into my pocket as easily as my RX100, even though that is probably not possible lol

Sure this will be able to generate nice images, but $3000 for a camera I'm not actually going to want to bring with me most times I leave the house is poor value to me.

Been down that road way too many times before with m4/3, X100, XPro, NEX etc lol

Fun and exciting to get something new, fun and exciting for a week or two to go out and take random snaps to show off on internet forums, and back to reality where I'd either take my day to day snaps with my iPhone and grab the Nikon's when I'm doing actual work.

Still could be a great camera for many, but I just know that if its too bulky to fit into a dress pants pocket I"m not going to carry it with me to work etc everyday

douglasf13 wrote:
benee wrote:
love the concept. But... the lens looks awfully big compared to the body. i want w mirrorless for compact and light... this isnt it.

Keep in mind that this new Sony body looks to maybe be even smaller than the RX100. It is a very small camera body, so the lens looks larger than it is.
Good point. i guess the lens is roughly comparable to my canon 35f2 slapped on a tiny body...

I dunno. If it's reasonably small, light, I just where it like a sling or leave it around my neck and don't notice it at all. aka my fixed lens rangefinders. I don't see this as an issue personally, but if you want something full-frame and that can fit in your pocket then, well, you might have very high expectations :-)

I do understand your point though, little point in buying something you don't need, want, or can't see using long term. That's exactly why I've not bought into any mirrorless or similar small system yet.

Perhaps you could rip the lens off, hope there is still a shutter there, and put a Perar 35/3.5 on? :-)

millsart wrote:
Still could be a great camera for many, but I just know that if its too bulky to fit into a dress pants pocket I"m not going to carry it with me to work etc everyday


Agreed. For my purposes a camera that is smaller but not pocketable offers no real advantage to a modestly larger camera, since if it doesn't fit in my pocket I have to "carry" the camera anyway.

If this is true, it came like two years earlier than I thought it would! Let's hope there's an EVF as well, but only a tiltable screen will do for me. Looks like everything I've ever wanted (except I doubt they have abandoned the 3:2 ratio).

I am sure the price is much lower than 3000$.