It's here! Sony's full-frame mirrorless...

<p>This changes everything...<br>

The new <a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/10/15/hands-on-1st-impressions-the-sony-a7-a7r-and-rx10/">Sony <strong>A7, A7r</strong></a> and RX10 are now a reality <em><<< For a good preview, CLICK</em></p>

<p>Woo Hoo! Way to go, Sony! </p>

I'm interested in seeing reviews of the RX10. That's what Nikon should

have introduced this year, instead of another tiny sensor Coolpix. I was

really hoping by now for a Coolpix with the CX sensor, AF speed of the V1,

fast midrange zoom, and standard hotshoe with iTTL flash compatibility.

<p>Very competitive pricing for the bodies though deliberately crippled (slow max. flash sync, no IBIS, short battery life), saving these things for coming iterations. Profit margins look noticeably higher on the lenses though.</p>

<p>Adios SLR format. Sony just keeps edging the curtain back on the future.</p>

<p>Because of the small body size Sony is limited as to how big the batteries can be. We'll be stuck with short battery life on these cameras for quite some time. I have a NEX 6 and I just carry two spare batteries with me all the time - no big deal.</p>

<p>RX10 looks interesting, but not at $1300. at that price, it should have had APS sensor.<br>

Thom Hogan details the A7 lens line-up <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-takes-mirrorless-camer.html">here</a>. I would be more interested if the 24-70 was 2.8, not f/4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"RX10 looks interesting, but not at $1300. at that price, it should have had APS sensor."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If they had used an APS-C sensor, they would have needed a much larger and much more costly lens in order to cover the larger sensor area, which probably would have pushed the price far higher than $1300 and made the camera significantly bulkier and heavier.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If they had used an APS-C sensor, they would have needed a much larger and much more costly lens in order to cover the larger sensor area, which probably would have pushed the price far higher than $1300 and made the camera significantly bulkier and heavier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The point being that at $1300 you can get a very NICE APS-C sensor camera that will have things the Sony won't have. Going higher in price than a DSLR for less features doesn't seem to make sense. </p>

Well, the reason the RX10 is interesting isn't the sensor, it's the lens.

<blockquote>

<p>If they had used an APS-C sensor, they would have needed a much larger and much more costly lens in order to cover the larger sensor area, which probably would have pushed the price far higher than $1300 and made the camera significantly bulkier and heavier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the real appeal of the Rx10 camera is a 24-200/2.8. no other reason to get excited. Canon already makes the G1x which is a compact almost-APS-C P&S, which sells for as little as $600 new and has a 28-112 lens that's 2.8 on the short end. so you're paying double the price for a smaller sensor, more zoom range and constant 2.8 and (hopefully) faster AF.</p>

<p>what makes it tough is that price point, there's a lot of competition. this would be a very attractive camera at about $800-$900, but $1300 is high-end territory. at that price point, other cameras have mag-alloy bodies and manual zoom rings.</p>

<p>basically sony makes sensors and they're good at that. most of the current chips in APS-C and FF are theirs. but their implementation and iteration of cameras and lenses has always seemed a bit off. they produce some products with great specs which dont always perform as well in real life.</p>

<p>if you look at the A7 announcement, it looks good until you realize they have two slow XX-70 lenses for it, a few expensive primes, and not much else. their 35mm zeiss is only 2.8; which is a bit disappointing, especially for $800 -- a 1.8, 1.4, or even f/2 would be more competitive with what's out there already for APS-C, fuji and m4/3.</p>

<p>if i'm coming from a FX DSLR and want a smaller body with better low-light ability than APS-C or m4/3, it would have been nice to have a full selection of fast primes to choose from. not only is the 35mm too slow, but where's the w/a prime options? a truly thought out system would have f/2 or faster 24 and 35mm lenses, plus an 85. you need that if your fastest zooms are f/4.</p>

 

<p>From DPReview:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS is the basic 'kit' zoom for the A7, and won't be sold separately. The 35mm F2.8 will cost $799, and be available in December 2013, while the 55mm F1.8 will cost $999 and be in stores January 2014. The premium 24-70mm F4 OSS Carl Zeiss standard zoom will cost $1199 and go in sale in February 2014; pricing and availability of the 70-200mm F4 OSS telezoom are still to be confirmed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is an expensive set of lenses for not being all that to shout about. $999 for basically a 50mm f1.8 ?!</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"RX10 looks interesting, but not at $1300. at that price, it should have had APS sensor."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to the techie info I've read, the reason Nikon went with CX format - their version of the one inch sensor - was because it was the largest sensor they could manage with the desired fast autofocus. I'm assuming Sony faced similar tech challenges with the RX100 and RX10.</p>

<p>If squeezing in an APS-C meant compromising on AF performance - as with the EOS M and G1X - then it would be less appealing, to me anyway. I wouldn't have any use for an APS-C compact camera that can't autofocus quickly in dim lighting.</p>

<p>New lenses have "<strong>FE</strong>" designation of mount. F - for full frame, E - for old mount found in NEX line of mirrorless cameras. (?).<br>

The Nikon's like DX mode on the new Sony full frame camera should accept older "SEL"" lenses, I suppose.<br>

Take down 36 MP in FE, so in DX mode the camera should deliver similar pixel count to Nikon D800 in DX. This could undermine the existing line of NEX cameras with 16 MP (NEX3/NEX5/NEX6), but they could be refined and re-priced.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sony has folded Nex into Alpha. in other words, we've seen the last Nex.</p>

<p>Eric, I'm not sure which line will live, but if I were to bet, I'd say the E mount cameras. Sony may call these latest cams "Alphas," but they have an E mount, not Alpha. You can use Alpha lenses, but need an adapter.</p>

<p>If I owned an Alpha I'd be concerned about the future of that line. If they can get the AF speed to acceptable levels, why build big clunky SLRs when they can build these?</p>

<p>Agree the RX10 looks really interesting - if it competes image wise with a good APS-C or m4/3 sensor then I can see this one as possibly entering the collection of our family. The FF mirrorless on the face of it are interesting, but not really for me: not sure I can see a particular use for it that my Canon system doesn't handle. As usual, the Sony lenses are not exactly thrilling: rather slow and expensive. A 35 f2.8 hardly strikes me as something likely to set the world on fire, although I had a 35mm/2.8 Summaron back in 1985 which I thought was great...</p>

<p>Camera is interesting and we will see how it does with Leica wide angle lenses once people start testing it. I am personally very happy with my new Leica M 240 but it is obviously much more expensive than the Sony. The lenses on the sony do feel expensive when the 50F1.8 costs more than the excellent (but manual focus) Zeiss ZM 50 F2 but it is still less than half the price of the Leica 50 f2. The real issue will be how the Sony lenses perform and how well they hold their value. The advantage of Leica lenses is that you can normally sell them used for more than you bought them for new! Focus accuracy will also be interesting with MF (or indeed AF lenses). I find that rangefinder focusing on my Leica M is more accurate then using the EVF (only really noticeable with very fast lenses) or indeed the AF on my Canon DSLRs.</p>

I agree with CW: mirrorless systems

are allowing digital cameras to be more

true to themselves. They will soon

outsell DSLRs for some applications

(unless this is the case already) and

eventually for all. 'DSLR' still equals

'serious' or 'pro' in the minds of some,

so perhaps buying choices will change

more slowly than we think.

 

I find that some commentators unfairly

criticize the lack of native lenses for the

A7. The point of these mirrorless

cameras has always been the ability to

use adapted lenses. And heaven forbid

that any lens be narrower than f/1.4.

 

Of course I will wait for the reviews.

Recall that the NEX-7 does not like

ultra wides, whereas the other models

do.

 

So what will this mean for Leica M

system users? Not much, perhaps.

However, instead of having two M9

bodies, one might have one M9 body

and one A7 body with an M adapter.

This is not merely to save money but to

allow flexibility in lens choices. M240

users would not need an A7, I don't

think, but it would be a cheap back-up

body.

 

The A7 does apparently make some

cameras redundant, such as the X-

Vario. Now, many people ignorantly

dismiss the X-Vario. But I am not sure

that it makes sense in light of Sony's

new products.

 

Lets see what the reviews tell us.

<blockquote>

<p>Adios SLR format. Sony just keeps edging the curtain back on the future.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not all of us find the SLR format all that antiquated. I do not expect to see the demise of SLRs anytime soon, certainly not in my lifetime.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The point of these mirrorless cameras has always been the ability to use adapted lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But at what cost ? If you have to use an adapter, then you lose functionality in many cases. Besides, I disagree about this being " the point " of mirrorless cameras. The real point is a different way of making a camera that is smaller and lighter. Yet, when you put lenses for DSLRS and SLRs on them, the difference is reduced. </p>

<p> </p>

Is there some inherent advantage of the SLR over the mirror less system? I don't mean based in current models available, but rather in

terms of image quality and camera performance possible?

<p>The imaging is essentially the same with, or without a mirror. AF speed, particularly continuous, is an advantage for SLR's, because the AF sensors (PDAF) can be designed with fewer constrains since they don't have to be integrated into the image capture sensor. AF precision, on the other hand, is generally better with mirrorless cameras, because the actual image capture sensor is used for determining focus, so there won't be front or back focusing. Which camera type is better in practice is very dependent on what you're shooting.</p>

<p>I think the phrase "<em>The imaging is essentially the same with, or without a mirror" </em>needs clarification. An advantage of mirrorless over DSLR is that the lens designer does not have the constraint where the back lens element must be positioned far enough from the sensor so as not to interfere with the mirror. With no mirror, the back element can be positioned very close to the sensor. This allows the use of non-retrofocus lenses. But sometimes retrofocus lenses are designed for mirrorless, but where the back element is still close to the sensor. I am not a lens expert, so I can't comment on the technical issues associated with this. But basically, with no mirror, there is more design freedom for the lens designer. The result is that a lens for a mirrorless camera can be both excellent and relatively small. Also, the camera body can be made smaller when mirrorless. I think mirrorless cameras are the future, and someday Nikon and Canon may have to re-think their professional line of DSLR. Mirrorless rules!</p>

<p>Mirrorless...just one more piece of hardware next to the sensor that won't attract dust, move, break or make noise.</p>

<p>Now, what do you use to frame the scene since there's no viewfinder?...oh...a brighter, bigger, easier to see LCD preview with a more precise frame crop.</p>

<p>Yeah, mirrorless rules. I can't wait to one day get one.</p>

<p>Glad I caught this thread. Sony keeps knocking it out of the ballpark. They green lit "Breaking Bad", greatly improved their sensors especially with regard to DR in my wish list camera Pentax K-5 and now this full frame sensor in a mirrorless design. I even found a Pentax mount adapter for the Sony NEX series for both aperture ring (old film lenses) and DL lenses with electronic communication contacts.</p>

<p>I wouldn't be surprised if we all eventually went Sony.</p>