put in you hand and it fit like a glove. remember the lens of course would be a separate item (that lens was the equivalent to a 28-200 f2.8-3.5). my vision of ergonomics is usability. minimize the electronic interface. i want to immediately see my options w/o having to use a screen. an articulated eyepiece and maybe the picture window too.
oh by the way that was designed in 2001. that being 14 years ago. yes, it can use a little refinement and can be using todays methodology.
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 it. At least for me all the other benefits of mirrorless, while nice to have, are not significant enough on their own for me to give up the advantages of a DSLR.
I think this is true but one of the reasons size needed to be the primary motivator is because you were otherwise giving up quite a bit in terms of performance vs a larger system. The A7RII along with some of the other recent mirrorless cameras are starting to show people that you are giving up less and less and getting more and more so you can choose a mirrorless camera like the A7RII based on features and performance and not primarily because of size. This will be even more true with next generation models and also if Sony releases mirrorless versions of their A mount cameras like the A99. But many people still have the perception that size is or should be the primary motivator and in my opinion that is no longer true. It could still be the primary motivator but it shouldn't be assumed that everyone is buying a mirrorless camera for that reason.
If Sony released the A99II with the 42mp BSI sensor and AF was very good I would consider it over the D810 for a number of reasons and size not being one of them. And I'm not saying that DSLRs won't have advantages over these next generation mirrorless cameras, surely they will, but then it will be up to each user to choose based on their needs and size may or may not be a priority.
sjms wrote:
put in you hand and it fit like a glove. remember the lens of course would be a separate item (that lens was the equivalent to a 28-200 f2.8-3.5). my vision of ergonomics is usability. minimize the electronic interface. i want to immediately see my options w/o having to use a screen. an articulated eyepiece and maybe the picture window too.
oh by the way that was designed in 2001. that being 14 years ago. yes, it can use a little refinement and can be using todays methodology.
4 different camera kits. more power to you.
The best EVF I have used thus far from an ergonomic pov is the articulating RX1 EVF. I think a few others like Panasonic have tried this as well (GX7). From a usability standpoint, it makes so much sense imo. Unfortunately, I don't think the mass market rewards such features and I'm afraid we may not see it used on future Sony's.
I have to be frank that the features, specifically the AF, would be most welcome in an A7III, 42 megapixels is a huge amount to be regular daily use for I would suspect the majority of us. If we can get the same features but with that 24 megapixel chip (with appropriately lower price), it will sell very well. I'm personally looking forward to it, knowing Sony it won't be that long a wait.
Stoffer wrote:
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?
This is not a trick question, BTW.
Well according to this presentation slide that was posted on SAR, the new sensors have dynamic range of 19EV
This unfortunately tells us nothing as everyone has a different way of measuring dynamic range, according to what point they decide that noise has taken over the signal in the shadows.
Dynamic range is the difference between this point and the saturation point (when the pixel "clips" and stops producing a stronger signal as more light hits it). Thus to increase dynamic range you have to increase the saturation point, or decrease noise in the shadows. BSI sensors do neither of these things directly, and shadow noise being incredibly low already I'm not expecting a big increase in DR, though I would be disappointed if it wasn't at least on par with the D810.
This unfortunately tells us nothing as everyone has a different way of measuring dynamic range, according to what point they decide that noise has taken over the signal in the shadows.
Dynamic range is the difference between this point and the saturation point (when the pixel "clips" and stops producing a stronger signal as more light hits it). Thus to increase dynamic range you have to increase the saturation point, or decrease noise in the shadows. BSI sensors do neither of these things directly, and shadow noise being incredibly low already I'm not expecting a big increase in DR, though I would be disappointed if it wasn't at least on par with the D810....Show more →
That slide and info are for the 1 inch chip in the RX cams tho, yes? I wonder if that 19 EV figure translates to the A7rII chip. I certainly hope the A7rII chip has at least the DR of the D810 since the DR of the Sony chips is for me one of their huge upsides. Without a continued emphasis on DR by Sony I'll be less interested in committing to the A7 ecosystem. I guess we'll see soon - reviews have to be coming soon, I'd think/hope.
This unfortunately tells us nothing as everyone has a different way of measuring dynamic range, according to what point they decide that noise has taken over the signal in the shadows.
Dynamic range is the difference between this point and the saturation point (when the pixel "clips" and stops producing a stronger signal as more light hits it). Thus to increase dynamic range you have to increase the saturation point, or decrease noise in the shadows. BSI sensors do neither of these things directly, and shadow noise being incredibly low already I'm not expecting a big increase in DR, though I would be disappointed if it wasn't at least on par with the D810....Show more →
I think the 19EV "exposure range" on that slide refers to the range of EVs made possible by the 1/32,000 shutter speed of the new fully-electronic shutter mode.
This unfortunately tells us nothing as everyone has a different way of measuring dynamic range, according to what point they decide that noise has taken over the signal in the shadows.
Dynamic range is the difference between this point and the saturation point (when the pixel "clips" and stops producing a stronger signal as more light hits it). Thus to increase dynamic range you have to increase the saturation point, or decrease noise in the shadows. BSI sensors do neither of these things directly, and shadow noise being incredibly low already I'm not expecting a big increase in DR, though I would be disappointed if it wasn't at least on par with the D810....Show more →
Apparently that 19 EV is reached by using the built-in ND filter. See footnote #8 here:
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 →
Where else do you want the EVF display and optics to go? It's either in the middle above the sensor/mount or off to the side rangefinder style. Your Minolta example in fact has a rather similar looking OVF hump right on top of the sensor - they've just moved parts of the camera innards from the left to the right.
I own a D800, GX7, and EM1 so I have experience with the full gamut of OVF, EVF, and range-finder style EVF.
I find no particular overwhelming advantage to either style of viewfinder placement.
I like my GX7 with small lenses, but I find the off-center placement of the EVF a bit awkward with longer/heavier lenses, though I do like not having my nose mashed into the LCD and portrait shots seem a bit easier. The D800 and EM1 viewfinders feel very comfortable to me where they are. I don't see a need to change something for change sake - if it's working well then there's a good reason to stick with it.
jhinkey wrote:
Where else do you want the EVF display and optics to go? It's either in the middle above the sensor/mount or off to the side rangefinder style. Your Minolta example in fact has a rather similar looking OVF hump right on top of the sensor - they've just moved parts of the camera innards from the left to the right.
I own a D800, GX7, and EM1 so I have experience with the full gamut of OVF, EVF, and range-finder style EVF.
I find no particular overwhelming advantage to either style of viewfinder placement.
I like my GX7 with small lenses, but I find the off-center placement of the EVF a bit awkward with longer/heavier lenses, though I do like not having my nose mashed into the LCD and portrait shots seem a bit easier. The D800 and EM1 viewfinders feel very comfortable to me where they are. I don't see a need to change something for change sake - if it's working well then there's a good reason to stick with it....Show more →
really, your ability to design is fairly limited. but, your consumptive ones are keen.
RobCD wrote:
I think this is true but one of the reasons size needed to be the primary motivator is because you were otherwise giving up quite a bit in terms of performance vs a larger system. The A7RII along with some of the other recent mirrorless cameras are starting to show people that you are giving up less and less and getting more and more so you can choose a mirrorless camera like the A7RII based on features and performance and not primarily because of size. This will be even more true with next generation models and also if Sony releases mirrorless versions of their A mount cameras like the A99. But many people still have the perception that size is or should be the primary motivator and in my opinion that is no longer true. It could still be the primary motivator but it shouldn't be assumed that everyone is buying a mirrorless camera for that reason.
..... ...Show more →
Ohh I would never claim that everyone is buying mirrorless for size. I do agree that in not too distant future mirrorless will start offering enough advantages over DSLR that people will switch just due to those features regardless of size. Even in traditional strong areas of DSLRs such as tracking AF, mirrorless will eventually leave DSLRs behind as mirrorless cameras have a lot more information to work with to make AF decisions. However I don't think we are there yet. Today we see a lot of Canon users who are jumping to A7R's because they can't get the DR they want on their Canon's and they still get to use their Canon lenses on A7Rs. But at the same time you will see far fewer Nikon users going to A7/A7r because if you are say aD600/D800 user then there is not much on offer on A7II/A7R which is any better than D600/D800.
sjms wrote:
4 different camera kits. more power to you.
I only have that for reviews. I need a small base for each of the systems I review. My APS-C Sony kit will drop a few lenses soon with the addition of my FF Sony stuff. Micro 4/3, I pretty much only use for reviews, macro and sometimes zoo stuff (light super telephoto is nice). Fuji and my A7 II see the vast majority of my shooting.
sjms wrote:
really, your ability to design is fairly limited. but, your consumptive ones are keen.
Well, the trash bin of history is littered with "better" designs and there are not huge groups of photographers complaining about the poor EVF placement on the now many models of mirrorless cameras. So I think my design skill are in a pretty good spot. Regarding my consumptive skills, I choose to get the right tool for the job and am fortunate that I'm able to do so - I also know how to find great deals so it costs me much less than one would think.
Placement of the EVF is not so critical as it the image viewed. In bright light they just look harsh/grainy and highlights/shadows are not what the eye sees with a good pentaprism. If the Sony sensor has such a great DR, why is the EVF so much worse? Is it a cost issue?
Because the EVF also has a certain dynamic range that might be eclipsed by the range of the sensor? Perhaps this could be (or is) compensated for by remapping sensor dynamic range to match EVF dynamic range. But I guess the human eye sees things much differently, better adapting to massive brightness ranges than current technology.
rscheffler wrote:
Because the EVF also has a certain dynamic range that might be eclipsed by the range of the sensor? Perhaps this could be (or is) compensated for by remapping sensor dynamic range to match EVF dynamic range. But I guess the human eye sees things much differently, better adapting to massive brightness ranges than current technology.
I think if we saw the absolute number for the DR of the OLED EVF's, it must be crazy high given that OLED's, when turned off for black, are pure black. The problem is likely two-fold - the aspect of the human eye you mention and that ultimately, the brightness of an EVF can't begin to match the sun. The battery drain issue might also come into play design wise with brighter EVF's.
GMPhotography wrote:
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
Circular sensor equals too much wasted silicon. I don't feel like doing the math but it would cut the yield substantially. (cutting a bunch of circles out of a 12" circular wafer). With full laser dicing of semiconductors I think it would technically be possible, but add a lot of cost.
I am more shocked it hasn't gone square, especially with the high mpix sensors there is no reason not to crop for portraits. Even cropping in camera starts to make sense at 36+ mp.
theophilus wrote:
Circular sensor equals too much wasted silicon. I don't feel like doing the math but it would cut the yield substantially. (cutting a bunch of circles out of a 12" circular wafer). With full laser dicing of semiconductors I think it would technically be possible, but add a lot of cost.
I am more shocked it hasn't gone square, especially with the high mpix sensors there is no reason not to crop for portraits. Even cropping in camera starts to make sense at 36+ mp.
One of the most effective base senor sizes for multi aspect ratio using lenses with 42mm image circle, is 36x30 mm. It can do square 30x30, the max square size for that image circle, without removing the possibility for 36x24.
EB-1 wrote:
The A7r sensor vibration is just awful and unacceptable for use with any lenses but wide and short teles.
Agreed. Fully fixed in the A7R2 (better shutter, plus options for EFCS and fully electronic shutter as well)
I'm hoping that the sensor mount design and the battery life at least have been addressed.
The sensor mount is beefed up. It uses the same battery design (although there are third-party batteries with 50%+ more battery life available).
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.
Did you adjust the EVF settings to maximize EVF DR (turn contrast down to -3, reduce sharpening)?
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
What exactly do you mean by "lack of versatility"?
