Camera of the Year

<p>Have you seen the latest Pop Photo? They voted a mirrorless ILC, the new Sony Alpha 7R, their camera of the year. Even though I've been a Nikon shooter for the past 9 years, I'm kind of excited by this because I'm getting the 7R's little bother, the NEX-6, for Christmas as a pocketable backup.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was a Nikon SLR/DSLR shooter for almost 29 years. I bought the NEX-6 in June and sold off my DSLR and lenses a couple of weeks later.<br>

You will love your new camera but note that it's not really pocketable (unless you have big pockets!).<br>

Happy shooting! cb :-)</p>

<p>I somehow have a lifetime free subscription to PopPhoto but have never considered their opinion to be validation for a purchase. They go on turns. Canon one year, then Nikon, then Sony. Olympus gets a bone once in a while too. Next year is Nikon I think. :)</p>

<p>The 7R is a fine enough camera but as a pure image maker it has some serious shortcomings. Most cameras do.</p>

<p>The NEX-6 will be a lot more pocketable than my D600 + 24-120 f/4 :-)</p>

<p>Right now I have no plans to abandon my Nikon gear. I want to keep the NEX-6 small (so it will fit in a pocket, albeit maybe a large one) and I'll use the D600 where I need the extra reach or other features. Of course, who knows what'll happen in a few years. Sony's introduction of their A7 and A7R could have a big influence on the future of large DSLRs.</p>

<p>Hey Harvey. </p>

<p>I've been using the NEX6 for about a year now and I love it. You might look at the Sony 20mm lens for all-around shooting. It's actually very good considering Sony's other wide-angle alternatives. </p>

<p>john</p>

<p>It will be interesting to find out which camera will eventually be your back-up: The NEX6 or the DSLR? Mirrorless just keeps getting better and better.</p>

<p>Honestly, I'd prefer to wait a bit and see how the camera fares once its been in use for a while. They all look good when new. Also, it's a shame that the "camera of the year" has only a couple of FE lenses shipping at launch. What good is the camera without glass? And I mean native FE glass, not adapted lenses.</p>

<p>Haha! Although I agree with Pop Photo for their choice of Camera of the Year based on the definition. Their choices over the years did follow closely their definition of Camera of the Year. But I also have found that if it's picked as Pop's Camera of the Year it's the one I don't want. </p>

<p>Harvey, I'm a long-time Nikonian too and I've bought a NEX-6 one month ago with the precise intention of replacing the small focal stuff (mainly landscape) because I need lighter gear. Indeed I agree that mirrorless is getting better and better and eventually will be on par on DSLR for most purposes (but, until I see good quality long teles that are really lighter, I've still doubts for fields such as wildlife).<br>

But at the moment there's no perfect mirrorless system and mostly it depends on your needs. For instance, m4/3 apparently is more compact because of the sensor, but for my needs it doesn't have any real lightness advantage on my Nikon stuff (measured). OTOH Sony and Fuji are lighter, but Fuji doesn't offer the lenses I need. Sony started only this year to offer a few good lenses; most brands, compared with Nikon or Canon, seem to have relevant problems in QC.<br>

Your advantage is that you don't plan to give away Nikon stuff, so you'll have plenty of time for evaluating. I recommend everybody to let alone reviews and polls such those at Pop Photo etc... and instead dedicate some time in reading lots of reviews, both on the field and technical ones, and trying stuff.<br>

Just an example: while I'm quite happy of the EVF and optimistic about its evolution, yesterday I found a scenario in which it gave me troubles - even though it is, for me, an extreme case.</p>

<p>Sony just doesnt have the lenses at this point. also not sure how Pop Photo selecting the 7r as camera of the year would make anyone excited about a Nex-6, which conceivably has to stand on its own merits.</p>

<p>We should not forget that the SLR concept originally came to being during the age of film, not digital. At that time there were few ways for the photographer to see the same exact image that the film would see, and the combination of a mirror and a prism provided an excellent solution. However, now that digital has largely taken over, the mirrorless ILC concept makes a lot more sense. A mirror that must be mechanically moved out of the optical path is quite anachronistic. The fact that a photography magazine with wide circulation has given their top annual award to the first full-frame mirrorless ILC with interchangeable lenses and a high-quality viewfinder suggests to me that we will be seeing more full-frame, interchangeable lens ILCs from other major manufacturers. There is of course the issue of lens compatibility between ILCs and SLRs on account of the different lens-to-sensor distances for these two approaches. However, I'm sure that this will somehow be worked out and that we'll be seeing more ILCs and fewer SLRs as time progresses. At least this is my humble opinion.</p>

<p>I've already bought and sold the A7. Great camera, but didn't fit into my work flow and was sort of a toy for me at the end of the day. Replaced it with an M9. <br>

Camera of the Year for me is the Nikon DF. Incredible files in no light. Great design. </p>

<p>Maybe the Df will make next year's COY list? Or a Df-2 with a 36MP sensor may be its logical successor? Love the control layout and metal body parts.</p>

<p>No way! I want the Nikon Df and because of that no way Pop will make it Camera of the Year.</p>

<p>I had the opportunity to purchase an A7 and walked away from it. I felt that the lack of native lenses and poor performance with some legacy glass - especially wide-angles made it less attractive. I will wait until it matures a little and re-assess it. I did however buy the DF, an XE-2 and an EM-1 because I already have glass for them. I disagree with anyone who says that m4/3 is the same weight as FF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that a <a id="FALINK_1_0_0" href="/digital-camera-forum/00cDYw?start=10">photography</a> magazine with wide circulation has given their top annual award to the first full-frame mirrorless ILC with interchangeable lenses and a high-quality viewfinder suggests to me that we will be seeing more full-frame, interchangeable lens ILCs from other major manufacturers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you do know that ILC stands for "interchangeable lens camera," right? "interchangeable lens ILCs" is redundant.</p>

<p>anyway, i dont think the camera industry bases its choices solely on the basis of what PopPhoto picks. maybe you've heard of a thing called sales? if the 7r does well, then other manufacturers will likely follow suit. However, this is not an absolute given for several reasons. if the OP's experience is anywhere near typical, a customer might gaze longingly at a $2000+ FF camera, but actually buy something in the $750-$1200 range, where the competition is fiercest, and hi-end MILCs are competing directly with DSLRs.</p>

<p>in order to sell a $2300 FF ILC, Sony has a lot of barriers to overcome.first, who are the customers? that's too much dough for P&S upgraders, so you're looking primarily at prosumer DSLR upgraders, who might be just as happy with a less-expensive MILC. But Sony doesnt have the lenses Nikon, Canon, and Pentax have, so you're not going to get as many legacy users migrating, especially because the A7 has a new mount. it's not like a Nikon/Canon FF body where you can use lenses you already have--a big selling point for both Nikon and Canon film era migrants-- at least not to that degree. It's competitiveness is crippled, at least until Sony expands its native lens lineup. The other factor which works against this is cost of manufacturing: FF sensors are significantly more expensive to manufacture than m4/3 or APS-C. So the price is probably always going to be above $2000, which is about $500-$800 more than the prosumer sweet spot.</p>

<p>if i'm making purchasing decisions based on image quality, for $3000 i can get a Nikon Df, or a Fuji X-mount camera with several lenses or a hi-end Oly m4/3 body with several lenses. With Sony, there's no clear upgrade path, due to the current unavailability of native lenses. In fact, the wide availability of Oly m4/3 primes and now pro zooms makes the P5, E-M5 and E-M1 highly appealing choices, as do the high-quality Fuji X-mount primes and zooms.</p>

<p>As i hinted earlier, in order to make a FF MILC, Sony had to engineer a new mount. That spells trouble for Canon and Nikon, especially Nikon, since they would have to tax their production capabilities to fill out a lens lineup to meet the demands of a market which maybe isn't even there. if you have to make an entirely new lens lineup, you can't just do so overnight. and if you're thinking, oh well i can just use legacy lenses with an adapter, then why even go for a FF MILC in the first place? why not just get a 5dIII or d610? the advantage of mirrorless is that the lenses are more compact than full-size FX or DX. if you are using big lenses on small cameras, you lose the small camera advantage. (Olympus is a different story, since they discontinued 4/3 bodies, but still had a surplus of high-end glass, so it made sense for them to come out with the E-M1).</p>

<p>Essentially, sony is making these bodies because they can, but not because they're necessarily filling a tremendous need. and their strategy doesn't exactly work for the end user, who might purchase a camera based on Pop Photo's hyperbole, only to find they'd be better off with a Canon/Nikon FF body due to lens availability. some people might be fooled by this, but if you really need all that resolution, you probably also want to have a wider variety of lens options.</p>

<p>I was not suggesting that Sony would reap big benefits from releasing a FF interchangeable lens camera (ILC) or even become a major contender in the FF camera market as a result of the A7. They might or they might not. Legacy, current, and future lenses certainly are a major concern. What I was suggesting was simply that given the simpler mechanics of a mirrorless design which is inherent in ILCs, we will likely see mirrors disappear or certainly become less common in the future because they are a carryover from an era when there was little other choice. ILCs are beginning to move into high-end territory and I'm sure they will continue to advance, whether by Sony or someone else.</p>

<p>I'm not saying this because I am opposed to DSLRs; on the contrary, I continue to enjoy and appreciate my D600.</p>

<p>addendum: Sony has always been a consumer brand, with the possible exception of professional video equipment. that aesthetic tends to carry over into their product lines. even though some of their electronics are very innovative (RX100), they undercut their usefulness by loading them up with consumer-oriented features (RX1), which carry over to engineering decisions. in the past they tried to take some of the pro market with earlier FF cameras that didn't really take (mainly because of what i explained above, which comes down to not really having the lenses). they seem to be repeating themselves, except this time, with mirrorless bodies. now this might make sense for sony from a manufacturing standpoint, since they do make FF sensor chips used by other camera makers, but you kind of get the sense they dont know where they're going with this, and are sort of throwing things at the wall to see if they stick (RX1, RX100, A7/r) with no clear commitment to a long-term strategy, as Olympus and Fuji clearly have.</p>

<p>in the case of a $2300 camera, to be successful, you at least have to get <em>some</em> of the pro market, but i'm not sure sony is going to do that with the A7. one reason is, they've tended to make cameras with a little bit poorer implementation in key performance metrics than other manufacturers have, using the same sensors. some of this might be explained by their consumer-oriented base, as opposed to Fuji and Olympus, who clearly have actual photographers on their engineering team.</p>

<p>but with the A7 and the E-mount, they have to be more ambitious, since they want 5diii/d610 money for them. thus far, the jury is still out: their <a href="http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/the-full-frame-e-mount-lens-roadmap-15-lenses-will-be-launched-until-late-2015/">roadmap</a> includes two standard zooms, neither of which are 2.8, two primes, and a 70-200/4 coming out in 2014, plus ten lenses TBD to be added over the next two years. that means they won't be playing in the same sandbox as canon or nikon for another two years. if you're a pro sports of action shooter, f/4 isnt going to cut it. and unless the a7 is a clear win in IQ (it's not in price), landscape and portrait shooters might look elsewhere too.</p>

<p>right now you can get a x-e1 + fuji 35/1.4 for $1200 -- which is likely 1/3rd to 1/4th the cost of an a7r+ Zeiss 55/1.8, with image quality that is equal or better, and a smaller footprint. so why do i need a FF mirrorless then? just for extreme low-light pics at uncommon ISOs and maybe a trace of shallower bokeh? bragging rights? if you have too much money and don't know what to do with it, why not donate some to charity? fact of the matter is that marketers will always try to upsell you, and camera companies are no different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was not suggesting that Sony would reap big benefits from releasing a FF interchangeable lens camera (ILC) or even become a major contender in the FF camera market as a result of the A7. They might or they might not. Legacy, current, and future lenses certainly are a major concern. What I was suggesting was simply that given the simpler mechanics of a mirrorless design which is inherent in ILCs, we will likely see mirrors disappear or certainly become less common in the future because they are a carryover from an era when there was little other choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>as i pointed out the "FF camera market" is a problematic term in 2013. we will see more mirrorless cameras because they are cheaper to manufacture than DSLRs but the line in the sand is going to be drawn at APS-C in terms of IQ and price point. there's only so many people willing to pay $2000 for a camera body, and less than that that will pay that amount every 2-3 years. OTOH, in the $750-$1250 range, you have a lot more turnover. what we're also seeing is point and shoots coming out that have increased IQ, and virtually no shutter lag. at base ISO, those cameras can take pics as good as any larger sensor cam. what's happening, though, is that camera phones are eating up the market from the bottom, forcing manufacturers to make cheaper, more full-featured cameras, which doesnt bode well for full frame as a format for the masses. if you work in fashion or commercial photography, you might need a FX body, but FX is going to be the odd man out, since the cost can only be brought down so much. i doubt we'll ever see a FF camera at $1500 new. and with 24mp APS-C DSLRs at around $500, the cost-benefit ratio just isn't in FF's favor.</p>

<p>I disagree with many of Eric's points.</p>

<p>Top Nikon FF cameras include two DSLR 36MP models (same camera, same Sony sensor) at about 3000$ and others at above 5000$, whereas Leica's top (FF) camera is about 7000$ (24 MP). Many advanced amateurs as well as professionals buy such cameras.</p>

<p>There seems to me to be a market for a high quality FF 24 or 36MP mirrorless camera of small dimensions, rotatable LCD monitor and other features, capable of taking its own optics as well as others (like certain recent Zeiss digitally optimised lenses). Not many mirrorless FF cameras yet have top optics (designed for perpendicular to sensor back rays) and that might take a little time, but the Sony 24 and 36 MP cameras, at about 1700$ and 2300$, seem to be high Q/P devices and offer the possibility of extended IQ over others.</p>

<p>A company making the highest resolution DSLR and mirrorless sensor today, acquirers of the Minolta heritage, can hardly be dismissed as simply consumer products only. Kodak, both a professional oriented and consumer product company (yes, both can happen under the same roof) produced the sensors for the Leica M8 and M9 models.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I disagree with many of Eric's points.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>what, exactly, are you disagreeing with? my main point is that sony doesnt have the lenses that nikon and canon do, which is a strategic error. also that the hottest market segment is at a much lower price point where there are a lot of quality options, which makes FF seem irrelevant for a majority of potential buyers. if you just need resolution, you can get a 24mp APS-C body for thousands less than the A7. my other point was that there's really not a compelling reason at this point to get a sony A7 series over a d610, d800e, or 5dIII if you're going to be shooting with long lenses and/or want a complete system before 2015. are you disagreeing with that? are you suggesting people are just jumping into the FF water with no prior investment in lenses/bodies? are you saying the lack of 2.8 zooms for sony's new mount is of no consequence? merely saying 'i disagree' without qualifying what you are actually disagreeing with is kind of an obtuse argument to make.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many advanced <a id="_GPLITA_3" title="Click to Continue > by Browse to Save" href="/digital-camera-forum/00cDYw?start=10">amateurs<img src="http://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png" alt="" /></a> as well as professionals buy such cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>again, "many" is kind of a vague qualifier. in this case that number is less than the amount of people who buy APS-C DSLRS by a wide margin. will a flip-out screen really make that much difference?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A company making the highest resolution DSLR and mirrorless sensor today, acquirers of the Minolta heritage, can hardly be dismissed as simply consumer products only.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's not exactly what i said. but there's no denying that a) sony's previous attempts to engage the pro/advanced amateur market with FF DSLRs didnt exactly change the game and b) Sony puts a lot of consumer-oriented features even in some of its hi-end products, i.e. RX1. so are you disagreeing with that? to appeal to pros, it seems you have to also make pro lenses, yes? so where are the 2.8 zooms? with only 5 available lenses for the new mount, sony is far behind canon and nikon, and also lags behind olympus and fuji. and please, don't "minolta heritage" me. the sony as stated before has an entirely new mount.i dont think you can simply dismiss market history, or pretend that the past is of no consequence. it's an uphill battle for sony to gain market share in FF land. they have a lot of barriers as i pointed out. if these cameras dont sell right now, sony might get cold feet about fleshing out the rest of the lineup. at this point, it's clear they're trying to cover a lot of bases--hi-end compact, APS-C MILC, DSLR, and MILC FF, with little to zero pro support and fierce competition in every segment. i dont really think that can be argued.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric, why should I care how many buy an APS size sensor camera? Great for them! I want a 24 or 36 MP full frame so the pixel size is decent. APS of the same MP (at least only 24 MP) are smaller pixels. You should know what happens when you cram high MP s into very small sensor size, point and shoot digital cameras. The difference between MF sensors and "35 mm" FF sensors is significant, just as it is between FF and APS size or similar cropped sensors. I notice you didn't respond to the leadership of Sony in providing Nikon and others with high MP (36) sensors for their expensive DSLRs.</p>

<p>I am not biased towards Sony, it's only that those wishing to construct a tirade as you have on the quality of their products or their position and philosophy just simply bore me. I am only interested in having a small interchangeable lens digital camera of the performance of the A7 or A7r that will host my better Leica optics and do so at a reasonable price for a first or second body. The moveable LCD screen would be a great asset in my practical photographic situations and it is a shame that the better cameras do not have this. Instead they bury us with a lot of programs or consumer type features that I for one do not need.</p>

<p>I have little faith in Nikon or Canon in making a mirrorless small camera available, at least one of suitable quality for advanced amateur use. Getting an adapter for high quality Leica or Zeiss M optics would be another hurdle. They want us instead to buy those inflated heavy FF DSLRs. No thanks, I will see what Fujica may do with FF mirrorless, and how Sony will handle wide angle M mount lenses, as they seem to be the only games on the street for serious mirrorless camera photography.</p>

<p>The impression is that SONY has problems building high quality lens at a reasonable price. This was evident with the NEX system, but it is evident now still with the A7. They cannot make a $200 ish small and high quality 50mm f1/8 lens as part of the kit? Do they not understand that for a FF system a 50 mm lens is a wonderfully versatile lens for a great variety of shooting conditions? Or aren't they unable to make a 50/1.8, which is among the easiest lens to make well and cheaply? The sad thing is that such a lens is not even on the road map, and we will be stuck with the $900 55mm lens from Zeiss. SONY is really not interested in blowing the D610 or Df out of the water. I am not a SONY hater. In fact, I love th A7 and the NEX, but have been frustrated by the selection of lenses.</p>

<p>Rumor has it that SONY is teaming up with Olympus, and hopefully with their help, we can see some nice and reasonably priced lenses for normal people. BTW, what happened to all the Minolta engineers? Why aren't they helping SONY to make good lenses?</p>

<p>Interesting comments about the new Sony cams being pro vs amateur. We've got to remember that pros don't simply buy bodies, they buy into systems. Right the Sonys have *no* system whatsoever. Two lenses? Really? Not a serious choice, unless the pro can live with those two lenses only.</p>

<p>CC and David, perhaps the system can be considered as one also including the available adapters and non-Sony optics? Like some Can-nikon users that adapt Zeiss and other lenses, with or without need for adapters. One pro I know of uses Leica optics on his Canon FF DSLR and loves the synergy of Canon firmware and Leica glass. The gurus at Sony no doubt well know that their NEX-7 and A7 models, amongst others, are being used with non OEM optics.</p>