curious80 wrote:
I don't think anyone will deny that there are advantages of mirrorless cameras other than size. However for a large majority of users the primary motivator for them to get into mirrorless cameras is size. If my A6000 was as big as my D7000 then I would never have bought the A6000. At least for me all the other benefits of mirrorless, while being nice to have, are not significant enough on their own for me to give up the advantages of an DSLR.
Which is really a great thing for Sony. When the nex5 came out it had two things going for it.
1) it was bloody small with the ok pancake.
2) it could fit pretty much any lens.
Sony sold me the first one because of the any lens.
Sony sold me a nex7 because it promised more a900 like color and it had a real evf. Yay no more bellybutton shooting.
Sony then sold me an a99 for every reason but size. For the ability to focus alt lenses better than I could expect dslr af lenses to focus. For the full time live view effect with tilt shift lenses. Talk about shutter lag, live view on a dslr is atrocious.
Sony sold me an a7r so I could use old glass, because when I bought, the r premium wasn't too high.
Now you are saying that Sony needs to sell to you on size.
Bravo sony, you made it mainstream.
Sony now has people interested in native lenses.
This is a good thing.
I also fully expect a nx-500 alike, where we see a minimal size bsi ff sensor in something like a nex5 body with no sss. This camera will be an easy sell for friends. We will tell them to buy it with the 28-85 and the 35 or the 28, it will be small enough to be sexy and cheaper. Finally because it is bsi, it will make sense for the alt geeks to buy it for their m lenses.
I fully believe that the a7rii was announced in order to flummox canon against the 5dsr. I also think bsi is here to stay. And if the 1" chips are any indication, we are going to see some crazy tricks in the upcoming years.
P.S.
As with the other people... Damn I would love to buy one at release, but I bought the nx-1 because it was the first big bsi. Then I bought a big honking 50mp crop sensor from Sony. So I think I'll have to sit out this early release party.
akclimber wrote:
You might want to try an A7II to get a feel for the "new" generation of these cams. Not sure it's very different but it might be worth it - everybody has their own preferences and small changes could make a big difference in a user's experience. I really enjoy my A7II but do find the less cluttered ergonomics of my Canon and Nikon DSLRs preferable. I'm more than willing to put up with the somewhat cramped A7 cams for what they offer tho: small size, less weight, great DR, IBIS, EVF, ease of manual focus, adaptability of alt lenses, etc....Show more →
The A7r sensor vibration is just awful and unacceptable for use with any lenses but wide and short teles. I'm hoping that the sensor mount design and the battery life at least have been addressed. Typically I shoot in good light and the EVF has a limited DR compared to my old eyeballs, but it is useful for zoomed in focus checking. I understand the Sony bodies are good for limited purposes, but the overall lack of versatility and slowl, fiddly operation are just too unproductive to be practical. I'm not saving any size/weight when having to carry a DSLR along with the Sony.
EB-1 wrote:
The A7r sensor vibration is just awful and unacceptable for use with any lenses but wide and short teles. I'm hoping that the sensor mount design and the battery life at least have been addressed. Typically I shoot in good light and the EVF has a limited DR compared to my old eyeballs, but it is useful for zoomed in focus checking. I understand the Sony bodies are good for limited purposes, but the overall lack of versatility and slowl, fiddly operation are just too unproductive to be practical. I'm not saving any size/weight when having to carry a DSLR along with the Sony.
EBH...Show more →
No one is making you carry a modern Sony; there is always a place for using collector items..
howard wrote:
You actually listed it as one of your pros too (though you call it "thinner bodies").
Yep, I sure did list it on my pros list - why wouldn't I? That along with many more pros - that's my point
You can't deny it is one of, and some may argue one of the main, advantages of MILCs. The person just tentatively said that "it seems ..." and the way I read it he didn't not necessarily meant the only point. To condescendingly dismiss it is unjustified, IMO.
And quote the entire sentence he used:
"It seems to me that the point of mirrorless would be that it would offer similar performance to a DSLR in a smaller package"
He specifically said THE point of mirrorless not A point or ONE OF THE or something similar and was quite specific on problems with lenses being too big. I can only read the words as written. If someone is going to rant using an invalid point, then they get the response they got.
If he had said "From what I know the main point of mirrorless is supposed to be size compared to DSLRs, but when I add the Sony lenses to an A7RII it seems like the size is just the same - so why should I invest in a mirrorless system?" the responses would have been a lot different.
I'm one of the few I guess that did not buy a Sony for size coming from Nikons D800 series. Focus peaking, zoom, EVF and much better live view plus the ability to focus far better on the Sonys than the Nikons. Ability to use 3rd party lens. Also I was able to actually gain a extra lens in the price difference. Size was a minor factor. I still argue the point just because it's mirrorless the word small is not in that definition. It's more a bonus than anything. Although people expect small. Am I enjoying the size reduction yes but not a primary reason I bought it. Folks are talking grams and ounces between systems. That's a joke to me when we start talking pounds than I'll pay attention. Lol
EB-1 wrote:
The A7r sensor vibration is just awful and unacceptable for use with any lenses but wide and short teles. I'm hoping that the sensor mount design and the battery life at least have been addressed. Typically I shoot in good light and the EVF has a limited DR compared to my old eyeballs, but it is useful for zoomed in focus checking. I understand the Sony bodies are good for limited purposes, but the overall lack of versatility and slowl, fiddly operation are just too unproductive to be practical. I'm not saving any size/weight when having to carry a DSLR along with the Sony.
I understand where you're coming from re: some of the limitations of the A7 series, trust me, but the A7rII likely won't suffer from shuter shock and they have addressed the flimsy lens mount and boy, all the new tech and features they've packed into the cam are mouthwatering for a generalist gear head photog like me. The battery life will likely be the same, which sucks, and I admit I'm bothered by the Sony compressed RAW files - I do feel the D810 produces more robust files than the A7II. That said, altho the A7 series is now still a bit limited in functionality in some respects vs a mid to high end DSLRs, it does have some advantages. And honestly, some of us just like the gestalt of the A7 series...I'm one of them. But I also understand the "having to carry more than the Sony to cover your needs" worry. I'm headed up to Denali in a few days with a buddy. We have a 7 day pro photog permit. I'm having a hell of a time packing camera gear and am very glad we're truck camping. I'll at least have a Canon 5D2 IR, Nikon D810, Sony A7II, and maybe a nikon D800e and Canon 5D3 and Sony RX100 mkIII, all with assorted lenses and adapters for different purposes - it's nuts! I really hope to get rid of at least my Canon gear (except my TSEs and maybe the 500) to at least get down to a 2-ish system life in August. :-)
EB-1 wrote:
The A7r sensor vibration is just awful and unacceptable for use with any lenses but wide and short teles. I'm hoping that the sensor mount design and the battery life at least have been addressed. Typically I shoot in good light and the EVF has a limited DR compared to my old eyeballs, but it is useful for zoomed in focus checking. I understand the Sony bodies are good for limited purposes, but the overall lack of versatility and slowl, fiddly operation are just too unproductive to be practical. I'm not saving any size/weight when having to carry a DSLR along with the Sony.
EBH...Show more →
Did you know what you were buying and how you planned to use it? It sure sounds like you didn't know what you needed when you bought the A7R.
GMPhotography wrote:
I'm one of the few I guess that did not buy a Sony for size coming from Nikons D800 series. Focus peaking, zoom, EVF and much better live view plus the ability to focus far better on the Sonys than the Nikons. Ability to use 3rd party lens. Also I was able to actually gain a extra lens in the price difference. Size was a minor factor. I still argue the point just because it's mirrorless the word small is not in that definition. It's more a bonus than anything. Although people expect small. Am I enjoying the size reduction yes but not a primary reason I bought it. Folks are talking grams and ounces between systems. That's a joke to me when we start talking pounds than I'll pay attention. Lol...Show more →
You touch on the reasons I like ML.
I like small size in m43 gear because the lenses are small too. In the case of the Sony, the design frees them from the tyranny of the mirror and its attendant drawbacks.
A good EVF is superior to an OVF in the same way that an OVF beats a rangefinder. The EVF previews your actual results including (importantly) what WON'T be recorded thus ending the need for endless chimping. The OVF was touted as the real view as one could see focus and DOF while the RF showed only an estimate of the FOV.
The lack of mirror allows the short flange-to-sensor distance that permits the use of adapted lenses. Sony's recognition of the importance of this by supporting third party AF via adapters is notable.
In the end we are seeing in ML the modern application of current technology as opposed to further refining of old technology.
The defense of conventional DSLRs reminds me so much of the defense of rangefinders, handheld meters, manual exposure setting, film and B&W images. They all had had an air of condescension tinged with panic.
I have been in this game an awful long time and I could not be happier with the progress we are enjoying today and look forward to what other manufacturers will be responding with.
EB-1 wrote:
I canceled one 5DsR preorder and rather regret it. After using the damned A7r for a few weeks, I'm ready to run back to Nikon and Canon.
EBH
akclimber wrote:
You might want to try an A7II to get a feel for the "new" generation of these cams. Not sure it's very different but it might be worth it - everybody has their own preferences and small changes could make a big difference in a user's experience. I really enjoy my A7II but do find the less cluttered ergonomics of my Canon and Nikon DSLRs preferable. I'm more than willing to put up with the somewhat cramped A7 cams for what they offer tho: small size, less weight, great DR, IBIS, EVF, ease of manual focus, adaptability of alt lenses, etc. ...Show more → EB-1 wrote:
The A7r sensor vibration is just awful and unacceptable for use with any lenses but wide and short teles. I'm hoping that the sensor mount design and the battery life at least have been addressed. Typically I shoot in good light and the EVF has a limited DR compared to my old eyeballs, but it is useful for zoomed in focus checking. I understand the Sony bodies are good for limited purposes, but the overall lack of versatility and slowl, fiddly operation are just too unproductive to be practical. I'm not saving any size/weight when having to carry a DSLR along with the Sony.
EBH ...Show more → RobCD wrote:
Did you know what you were buying and how you planned to use it? It sure sounds like you didn't know what you needed when you bought the A7R.
I read the negative reviews of the A7r, but had to know for myself. I rented the camera and bought some accessories, so it only cost me $750.
I am pleased to see a higher price for the II and hope that is reflected in improved construction and performance.
jhinkey wrote:
Yep, I sure did list it on my pros list - why wouldn't I? That along with many more pros - that's my point
And quote the entire sentence he used:
"It seems to me that the point of mirrorless would be that it would offer similar performance to a DSLR in a smaller package"
He specifically said THE point of mirrorless not A point or ONE OF THE or something similar and was quite specific on problems with lenses being too big. I can only read the words as written. If someone is going to rant using an invalid point, then they get the response they got.
If he had said "From what I know the main point of mirrorless is supposed to be size compared to DSLRs, but when I add the Sony lenses to an A7RII it seems like the size is just the same - so why should I invest in a mirrorless system?" the responses would have been a lot different....Show more →
Give the guy a break, as I said he said it rather tentatively.
Probably not. There's not that much room to improve low light performance. There might be an improvement at the extreme end of the scale. For all the talk of the amazing low light performance of the α7s, it only starts to pull ahead at ISO 12800 and above.
AaronNegro wrote:
Will the AF be better than my 5DIII?
Depends on your definition of better. When using the viewfinder it will be more accurate with static subjects in single shot mode. It will also offer content based tracking capabilities and face/eye recognition capabilities that the 5DIII simply can't compete with.
The tracking of fast moving objects and low light performance probably wont be as good (but a step up from the previous model).
to me, just from the point of design, the Sony mirrorless cameras are pretty much a failing idea. they remove the pentaprism and mirror assy and make it essentially look and act like it still had one.
a long time ago there was a maker called Minolta. their early forays into the digital world were, in my opinion, well ahead of others when it came to ergonomics and features. whats even more amusing is that Sony purchased their camera division and essentially did nothing with its possibilities.
as a baseline the "A" series was full of potential in using the medium format form factor idea to start. and it was mirrorless concept long before it became fashionable. it could have easily become an interchangeable lens too
sjms wrote:
to me, just from the point of design, the Sony mirrorless cameras are pretty much a failing idea. they remove the pentaprism and mirror assy and make it essentially look and act like it stil had one.
I kind of agree
But people seem to prefer designs that look like SLRs, dont ask me why. Even if it squashes your nose.
Probably a visual association thing, in conventional wisdom the SLR shape is linked to "serious/pro" cameras, anything else is "weirdo or amateur".
Ergonomically the SLR shape works best with long lenses though, I'll give them that.
Standards in the industry don't not change very often. Leica S still a 3.2 format because Leica invented 35mm framing. Lots of stuff like this in the industry no one wants to buck the system. Getting a radical change in style of body may never happen. But I agree there is very little reason for instance not to have a circular sensor and body built around that. Will never happen
We all assume that the dynamic range on the new sensor will be [at least] as good as that on the A7R/D810, but do we actually have any evidence that the BSI sensor will match or exceed it?
sjms wrote:
to me, just from the point of design, the Sony mirrorless cameras are pretty much a failing idea. they remove the pentaprism and mirror assy and make it essentially look and act like it still had one.
a long time ago there was a maker called Minolta. their early forays into the digital world were, in my opinion, well ahead of others when it came to ergonomics and features. whats even more amusing is that Sony purchased their camera division and essentially did nothing with its possibilities.
as a baseline the "A" series was full of potential in using the medium format form factor idea to start. and it was mirrorless concept long before it became fashionable. it could have easily become an interchangeable lens too...Show more →
Guess it's a good thing that these things are subjective. That camera looks like a giant clunky mess in comparison to the A7 II in my eyes. In addition to being far bulkier, the direct settings aren't there, as you need to twirl a wheel then change the setting for things like ISO. I'll take the three wheels that offer direct access to the exposure triangle and the direct quick menus and so on. But again, everyone has different things. I really like the A7 II layout, but I still prefer the Fuji X-T1's a bit more. We're all different, but Sony has been drastically improving in my opinion. I hated the NEX-7 control layout and grip. I like the a6000's quite a bit and the new A7 II body is even better IMO.
sjms wrote:
to me, just from the point of design, the Sony mirrorless cameras are pretty much a failing idea. they remove the pentaprism and mirror assy and make it essentially look and act like it still had one.
a long time ago there was a maker called Minolta. their early forays into the digital world were, in my opinion, well ahead of others when it came to ergonomics and features. whats even more amusing is that Sony purchased their camera division and essentially did nothing with its possibilities.
as a baseline the "A" series was full of potential in using the medium format form factor idea to start. and it was mirrorless concept long before it became fashionable. it could have easily become an interchangeable lens too...Show more →
After using the damned A7r for a few weeks, I'm ready to run back to Nikon and Canon. 
