p.5 #1 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I think my initial flush of excitement from yesterday has passed. I'm going to hold off and see how these truly perform, and probably get a hold of one to use for a week or so before making any plunge. Mainly because the size of the native lenses is a big turnoff, and I'm looking through my recent Fuji images, and I really don't think I need anything better than this right now, especially with the current glass situation. If I had a stable of Leica M lenses, I might think differently. I'm tempted, for sure (if anything just to see how the Hexanon 57/1.2 acts in its native format), but it doesn't make financial sense for me right now, so I'll wait until I can get my hands on one for a short time and then go from there. Lets face it...the camera will still be available in February.
The first I have seen people tested the resolution against ISO settings instead of aperture. Interesting to see nonetheless. It seems that ISO 100 does offer a bit better performance than 50 and 200.
p.5 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jabberwockt wrote:
I think canon and nikon can still hold on. They just need to miniaturize. Many film slr were small, I don't understand why after all these years they've still not reduce the size of dslrs.
Some of us like the larger bodies. They are easier to handle quickly and in varied situations. I don't like the size of rebel bodies and definitely don't like the size of NEX bodies. Depends what you are shooting. These NEX are for landscape/street/family use IMO. They will have slower response, slower FPS and poor handling. I'll keep my dslr since at least 50% of my shooting is action and a lot of that in winter.
p.5 #10 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
safcraft wrote:
^^^^I think this image says it all.....almost the same size and a GIGANTIC difference in sensor size !
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
p.5 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
ceder wrote:
OK, sounds good with wireless. But what about bulb-mode? Can't see it on the dial - is there a time limit (1/2 or 2 minutes)? I like to be able to do up to 60 min....
for bulb mode on the rx1 (and NEX cameras) you put the camera in M mode and set the shutter speed to one click past 30s. this puts you in bulb mode where you can shoot much longer than 2 min if you want. i'm sure it'll be the same setup for these cameras
p.5 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
p.5 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
It looks a great camera, but I am not sure I am really swayed by the excitement shown here. OK, so the camera bodies are smaller, but that is about it- the lenses are unlikely to be much smaller than current DSLR lenses - or if they are then they are slow particularly once they are longer than 50mm. Their 50 is 49mm filter size vs Canon's 50/1.8s 52mm - big deal. And theirs is much more expensive too. This also discounts what will happen with Canon and Nikon - the 6D and SL1, in particular, show that they can make smaller DSLRs if pressed. So I'm not biting on this one - if you want small, in my opinion the m4/3 look much more interesting.
The Sony looks great to those who have money to spend on a new system, although since Sony bring out a new camera or system every 6 months be prepared to be orphaned! Does this mean the death of the A-mount?
p.5 #15 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I think a lot of people expected an rx1 with interchangeable mount. This. Not that by a long shot. Its a great first step but not as compact as I think many hoped, lens selection as expected (native) is quite limited.
Yes a 21mm biogon was tested and showed heavy vignetting and color shift
Its an exciting first step but much more of a melting of next and a mount than continuation of rx1 to interchange it seems.
Great looking, good pricing, but to all but an initial niche audience its a very limited camera. No it won't kill leica, or even out a dent in canikon.,.,yet. Give it 18 months though. And I think the used prices of rx1 were suffering as people expected to see something a bit different than a Sony mini DSLR with mediocre auto focus (presumably) relatively low burst, and larger size.
So its great, but its immature, which changes, and I don't see it impacting much of anything save all forum members who want full frame...although many of those look to size.
Perhaps in the size comparison I saw it looks bigger than it is. To me more in the k5 size area.
I'm excited by it. I will be more so in a couple of years.
Rx1/r 35/2 vs a7 and 35/2.8. Not much of a comparison for those who want a small 35mm ff.
OTOH those shooting nex 7 with all glass, fantastic.
The lower end doesn't have tilt and neither have much screen?
philip_pj wrote:
Loud shutter, its no RX1. 1/8000 though. Native ISO 200. Great grip. This is the high end Canon users' top end camera with Sony's best sensor - 36Mp.
p.5 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
That is why I will keep the m43 for tele zooms esp when Sony charges $3000 for that lens. However my Canon 70-300mm IS af w/ nex+adapters, not worth to sell it for the current prices. I never was fond of Canon 70-200 f/4 due to size, instead I had the 135L.
Site doesn't have the Oly 12-40 zoom but they are more comparable sizes w/ Zeiss 24-70mm. Here is w/ Panasonic 12-35mm, sharp lens but w/ 5%+ distortion correction on the wide side where I don't like it esp w/ people on the edges:
Jman13 wrote:
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
But that isn't a fair comparison. The optical characteristics of the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 would be matched by a 70-200 f/5.6 zoom. One doesn't exist (at least yet) and if it did it would not be much bigger than the 35-100 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 has a lot shallower depth of field and that matters to a lot of folks and a major reason that a lot of people schlep along a f/2.8 70-200 when there are excellent f/4 7-200s around. Note I do not have a hate on for micro 4/3rds. I have an OM-D (Em-5) and I plan to keep it and I even plan to get the Panny 35-100, but I know what I am getting and it is not the same as a 70-200 f/2.8 on full frame. Instead it is a much smaller lens that makes some sacrifices (primarily more depth of field or less shallow depth of field).
p.5 #18 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Looks nice, but I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach.
At least they ditched that abomination that is/was the NEX menu system - goodness that thing sucked.
And here I was, about to sell off my Minolta 24/2.8 because I never use it.
Now I'm in a holding pattern - I have to wonder how it would perform on the A7R.
And like Jman said, I like my Fuji already and I'm not sure I need more than this for a travel camera. I don't see the Sony replacing my 5D3 for anything, either, though again I have to wonder if the 40/2.8 Canon would work well adapted to the A7R.
That is the only lens so far that is similar in size. And I'll take f/1.8 + 4 stop IS over f/2.8 on full frame with no IS....but that's just me. I'll give the minor advantage in DOF to the Sony.
The Panny 25/1.4 is significantly smaller than the 55/1.8, and even the slow kit zoom is quite large. Leaked images of the upcoming 85/1.8 mean that lens is going to be pretty darn big too.
I'm not saying the image quality won't be there...it most certainly will be, but this system seems really awesome for adapting rangefinder lenses, and even manual focus SLR lenses. The native lenses, though, are going to be very similar in size to their FF DSLR counterparts, and that makes it very much a non-starter for me as a full system, since I got away from my FF DSLR because I was tired of lugging a bag that weighed a ton. This isn't going to solve that with native lenses.
I still may get one down the line, making it a digital A-E1, but I'm holding off for now.
The Sony is clearly not built for long lenses, but the battery grip may help. When it comes to 35mm eqv., the Zuiko is f/1.8 and the Zeiss f/2.8, so there goes more than a stop already. Add to that the IBIS of the Olympus and what's left for Sony is mostly more megapixels. But that's fair enough. I have m4/3 now and will probably buy the A7R as well. Horses for courses
