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

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by gus_lazzari, Oct 16, 2013.

  1. This changes everything...
    The new Sony A7, A7r and RX10 are now a reality <<< For a good preview, CLICK
     
  2. Woo Hoo! Way to go, Sony!
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. Adios SLR format. Sony just keeps edging the curtain back on the future.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. RX10 looks interesting, but not at $1300. at that price, it should have had APS sensor.
    Thom Hogan details the A7 lens line-up here. I would be more interested if the 24-70 was 2.8, not f/4.
     
  8. "RX10 looks interesting, but not at $1300. at that price, it should have had APS sensor."
    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.
     
  9. 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.​
    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.
     
  10. Well, the reason the RX10 is interesting isn't the sensor, it's the lens.
     
  11. 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.​
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  12. From DPReview:
    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.​
    That is an expensive set of lenses for not being all that to shout about. $999 for basically a 50mm f1.8 ?!
     
  13. "RX10 looks interesting, but not at $1300. at that price, it should have had APS sensor."​
    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.
    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.
     
  14. New lenses have "FE" designation of mount. F - for full frame, E - for old mount found in NEX line of mirrorless cameras. (?).
    The Nikon's like DX mode on the new Sony full frame camera should accept older "SEL"" lenses, I suppose.
    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.
     
  15. Sony has folded Nex into Alpha. in other words, we've seen the last Nex.
     
  16. 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.
    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?
     
  17. 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...
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. Adios SLR format. Sony just keeps edging the curtain back on the future.​
    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.
    --Lannie
     
  21. The point of these mirrorless cameras has always been the ability to use adapted lenses.​
    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.
     
  22. 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?
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. I think the phrase "The imaging is essentially the same with, or without a mirror" 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!
     
  25. Mirrorless...just one more piece of hardware next to the sensor that won't attract dust, move, break or make noise.
    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.
    Yeah, mirrorless rules. I can't wait to one day get one.
    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.
    I wouldn't be surprised if we all eventually went Sony.
     
  26. I do not expect to see the demise of SLRs anytime soon, certainly not in my lifetime.​
    Oh, I certainly hope you can survive until the end of this decade. Take care!
    The real point is a different way of making a camera that is smaller and lighter.​
    That is just one of the advantages. The real point is that you get live image processing and then that can be sent to a viewfinder. A DSLR cannot allow that. The mirror gets in the way of any such feature - it gets in the way of video, it gets in the way of LiveView. Things that get in the way of useful features eventually get eliminated. What advantage do you get out of that mirror these days? Only PDAF - that's the only lifeline that the mirror has and it will get cut in another year or two as the MILC PDAF implementations get refined. The pace of technology is amazing - 5 years ago there were no such cameras and I could only choose between P&Ss and DSLRs! Just think of what 5 more years will bring.
     
  27. I wouldn't be surprised if we all eventually went Sony.​
    I would be. Don't discard Canon so easily - they can put out a camera like Sony and carry over their customer base with relatively little effort. At the first clear sign that their customers are deserting them, they will do that. But apparently. not before.
     
  28. This allows the use of non-retrofocus lenses.​
    This applies to wide angle lenses. Placing the exit pupil of the lens close to a sensor runs into issues that weren't factors when film was the recording media. Here an an excerpt for a piece in The Online Photographer:
    There's little reason to expect that the optical stack (OLPF, IR filter etc.) in front of the Sony A7's sensor is thinner than the Leica M9's.
    In the film era, lenses were designed to be stigmatic in air. In other words, back in the days when digital sensors didn't exist, lens designers expected the medium present between the lens' last vertex (the rearmost glass surface) and the imaging plane (the film) to have a homogeneous refractive index (RI) of one.
    The entire piece
    The bottom line is that retro focus wide angle lenses designed to be located farther from image plane have fewer issues when used with digital sensors.
     
  29. The real point is that you get live image processing and then that can be sent to a viewfinder​
    Never have understood the big deal of being able to see histograms and all the rest of the data overload junk in your electronic viewfinder, so I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself. Maybe it has importance in the video world, but all I need are AF points and maybe an electronic level - all available in current mirrored systems. I used to care about seeing shutter speeds and aperture but even now I don't really need them either. I do agree there are other advantages to mirrorless systems - size, fewer moving parts etc, but I don't see the EVF being intrinsically the revolution that many enthusiasts gush about.
     
  30. A EVF has the advantage of being able to see the image in bright sunlight, a significant issue with the cameras that have only a view screen on the back.
     
  31. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    AF precision, on the other hand, is generally better with mirrorless cameras, because the actual image capture sensor is used for determining focus​

    EOS 70D.
     
  32. In the English language, generally is not a synonym for always.
     
  33. Steven Seelig said:
    A EVF has the advantage of being able to see the image in bright sunlight, a significant issue with the cameras that have only a view screen on the back.​
    Plus, you don't look like a clueless dork, holding the camera out three feet in front of you.
     
  34. I suspect Robin was comparing an optical system to an EVF not a rear LCD. I can assure you that an optical system is better than an EVF for bright light. My Leica M240 has both available but the optical system is much better. Focusing with the rangefinder (or indeed the old SLR split screens is much easier than with an EVF and focus peaking). Of course AF can solve this problem but AF focuses where it choses not always where you choose. This can be solved with careful AF point selection and focus bracketing. I personally find the manual focus rangefinder on my Leica M to be more precise at portrait distances with fast lenses than my 1 series Canon AF systems.
    While little information is available the flange distance on the A7 is 18mm which is 10mm less than Leica, and may lead to Sony FE being designed for retrofocus lenses. This would suggest that non-retrofocus wide angles may have the same issues as they have had on all not Leica bodies. Retrofocus design wide angle lenses should be fine. Still the price is right for a second body or Leica alternative.
     
  35. "I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself"
    "I don't see the EVF being intrinsically the revolution that many enthusiasts gush about" Robin S.
    Use one of these EVF mirrorless cameras with an exceptional manual focus feature, and you may understand what all the excitement is about.

    Consider that a state of the art DSLR can't do what these new EVF Mirrorless units can do,
    to utilize modern or old school glass without any regard to:
    1. "Focus shift" (It corrects for it)
    2. "RF calibration" (Ignores it)
    3. "Aperture calibration error" (Becomes moot, it meters & fires at taking aperture)
    4. "Adapter mount quality" (You can use a taped up toilet tissue roll if you had to)
    5. Super speed lens "nominal DOF focus" accuracy (Clear AF screens can't come close to accuracy & ease of RealTime focus peaking/zooming)
    6. Too dark to see the subject? (EVF boosts up the gain to allow for easy composing etc.)
    The only equalizer for the DSLR is a "Live View" feature; but when compared to the lighting speed use of legacy glass with EVF Mirr units, it becomes analogous of still using a flip phone from 5 years ago while Apple iPhone units are available...
     
  36. Gus,
    I do not shoot with MF lenses anymore: when I need to MF, I just use Live View. Nor do I use adapters. I could indeed use an EVF for manually focusing and this would be just fine, but your list otherwise is pretty incomprehensible to me (apart from focus shift which, if I am live viewing, I can solve - not that it's a problem so far) - not sure how they impact the quality of the final image in my case? I guess I am pretty unclued in about EVFs. I anticipate having one day and I have no beef about it, but I have to say I don't share the excitement. I guess they are to you as you do so much manual focusing with non-native lenses.
     
  37. The other advantage of DSLR AF, for now, is AF tracking or servo mode for sport and flying birds, etc. It'll be interesting to watch that gap close and new, super-telephoto lenses come out for mirrorless. (Grab you wallets).
     
  38. Having just played with an FD 300 F2.8 lens on my Leica M the real issue for fast lenses is actually holding the camera.
    This is where the small bodies fail. Firstly I suspect than many do not have the construction standard to allow anything
    other than holding the lens at all times. This makes moving around more awkward as a big lens may damage the lens
    mount in the camera. Secondly I find a 300 F2.8 much easier to use on my Canon 1 series bodies than on my Leica M.
    Indeed the 5D / 7D bodies are about the smalles I would like with a big lens. For many thing such as BIF you end up
    shooting handheld in some situations. I have played with live view and big lenses on Micro 4/3 and now my Leica M but it
    is a lot more difficult that on a big DSLR. Thus I would suggest that for this use the mirrorless camera would have to get a
    lot bigger.
     
  39. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Consider that a state of the art DSLR can't do what these new EVF Mirrorless units can do​

    Some of these are just plain wrong. Doesn't sound like you have kept up with the technology.
     
  40. The Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs will not disappear anytime soon. I read in another forum a photographer who after he had switched from a 5D system to an NEX-7 system, the camera could not stand up to pro abuse. Even with a protector he had to replace the screen twice, had issues with heavy lenses and the lens mount of the NEX, to say nothing of the dents on the NEX from heavy pro use. It would be reasonable to assume that these same flaws may plague the A7s. Nonetheless, the A7s are very exciting for photographers that can be somewhat more gentle with their equipment. Plus as Gus has pointed, the use of Leica and Zeiss glass is icing on the cake. I don't understand how Sony could have put out the A7s with that hideous SLR-looking lump of a viewfinder. The NEX line all display truly elegant packaging. Design wise the A7s should have been more like a cousin to the NEX line instead of a deformed relative.
     
  41. Just a few thoughts.
    First off:
    I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself​
    It's not just about focussing, of course, it's about EV compensation. On the Fuji X series cameras (and maybe others as well) you can dial in EV compensation with your right thumb without taking your eye away from the VF, watching the effect in the picture (and histogram) as you do. Much as I adore my Canon F1Ns (and 1Ds III), that's progress. I may be behind the curve here, but are there any DSLRs which even offer a histogram in the VF (don't see why that should be difficult)?
    Second, all these changes we are seeing increase choice, don't they? Choice as to which camera (or system) to use for which job or occasion. And in doing so they increase the fracturing of the camera market (already blown apart by smart phones) into smaller segments than was the case 20 years ago. As long as there is a market segment that want them, though, there will still be SLRs, just as RF film bodies (not just Leicas) were still being produced at the beginning of this century, 35 years (or so) after the SLR had taken over.
    Third, the legacy glass factor is an important one, but as Philip Wilson points out, it's not a free lunch. Using new bodies with old glass doesn't always work that well (at the other end of the focal length scale, my FD 24mm f1.4L showed noticeable CA on a Sony Nex 5) and techniques have to be adapted to make it feasible at all (esp. with big lenses). Another problem is EVF lag: I have found with my X-Pro 1 that the EVF can lag a little behind (particularly when using a polarising filter: but it's not much different when focusing legacy glass). That can be handled: you just have to slow everything down, but it means that capturing fast sports action, say, (or children running about), however good you are at MF with an SLR, just ain't gonna happen without a LOT of missed shots - at which point you might as well use the kit zoom (the Fuji is excellent) and save the legacy glass for landscapes and portraiture. What, perhaps, we will start to find out is just how good some of our legacy glass is (or isn't): at 38MP on an A7R, there's going to be nowhere to hide ...
     
  42. Never have understood the big deal of being able to see histograms and all the rest of the data overload junk in your electronic viewfinder, so I don't get the EVF is such a big deal in itself.​
    That is not what matters, what matters is that you can see the effect of changing settings. If you use a B&W digital filter, you see its effect. If an area is overexposed or underexposed, you see that. You see DOF more clearly than with an OVF. You can make adjustments and see their impact.

    Even if you don't care much about what you see in a VF other than AF information, you should still appreciate the better accuracy that you get by eliminating the mirror and checking for focus at the same place where you capture the image. dpreview has some interesting comments about the Canon 70D.
    My Leica M240 has both available but the optical system is much better.​
    It may be that Leica's implementation of their EVF is not state of the art. Also, focus peaking is not a precise focusing method with fast lenses at short distances (portraiture, for example) - it tends to overestimate the DOF. What you would want to use is image magnification, which can be done automatically as you adjust the focusing ring - not sure if Leica implements that. Focus peaking has its uses, but it is rather overrated.

    Now I have not used a rangefinder in years and I'm not sure how much Leica has improved the system since I used one. But the main problem with the rangefinders I used (and also with the SLR split screens) is that they forced you to focus in the center of the frame. There was no way to accurately focus off-center - you had to focus and reframe - that is probably going to introduce even more focusing inaccuracies than focus peaking when using thin DOF.

    With focus magnification, you can select the area you want magnified and have the system zoom in it. That allows focusing with precision pretty much anywhere in the frame. It is especially useful if you track a moving subject when you don't have the time to focus and reframe.
    Thus I would suggest that for this use the mirrorless camera would have to get a lot bigger.​
    That is not a challenge. A challenge is making SLRs smaller. Going the other way only requires market demand.
    The bottom line is that retro focus wide angle lenses designed to be located farther from image plane have fewer issues when used with digital sensors.​
    Again, if there is a kind of lens that can be better built with a retro focus design, nothing prevents its production for a MILC. The mirror of an SLR on the other hand prevents a choice. MILCs give you more choice for lens designs, more choices for body sizes, more real time information.
    The Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs will not disappear anytime soon. I read in another forum a photographer who after he had switched from a 5D system to an NEX-7 system, the camera could not stand up to pro abuse.​
    No way! A $1000+ camera that was not built to last like a $3000+ one? What kind of "pro" makes decisions like that? And what can we learn out of this story other than that such "pro" is either a made up character or a moron?
     
  43. Focus peaking has its uses, but it is rather overrated.​
    +1
     
  44. James since you mention the "New F1" I should mention that one of mine survived a fall of about 1000 feet down a scree
    slop (in a backpack). Despite several major dents it is still working fine 28 years later! Of course Pop photo tested this
    body in the shower for 45 mins (despite it not being advertised as waterproof!).

    Laurentiu. The new M240 rangefinder appears to be much more accurate than any prior version. While of course you do
    not see the DOF (or even through the lens) it is very accurate for the precise point of focus. Leica does implement a 5x
    or 10x zoom on the EVF and there are several was to zoom in. I personally use the button by the lens as I prefer this to
    having it do it when I touch the focus ring. The bottom is right under your finger but the zoomed image is harder to be
    exact with than the rangefinder - and the rangefinder is more accurate.

    My point on large tele lenses is that mirrorless vendors may not make bodies to take them - especially since they would
    also have to produce the lenses. Using a different manufacturers big tele on a mirrorless body is an interesting
    experiment but photographically very limited.
     
  45. "Some of these are just plain wrong. Doesn't sound like you have kept up with the technology." Jeff S.
    Okay Jeff I'll bite.
    Nikon or Canon may have proprietary corrections for focus shift in their OEM lenses, but why don't you tell us all about the FF DSLR that can take a Leica Noctulux f/.95 M-Lens, or correct for any of my listed items using legacy glass?
    "Another problem is EVF lag: I have found with my X-Pro 1 that the EVF can lag a little" -&- "capturing fast sports action, say, (or children running about), however good you are at MF with an SLR, just ain't gonna happen without a LOT of missed shots" James T.
    James, this "lag" you mention isn't true for the Sony NEX7 units -&- with the 10 Frames Per Second firing speed along with the ability to see peaking out to the edges of the field with "focus prediction" visible on the field, your "LOTs of missed shots" statement becomes a bit of an exaggeration...
    "the A7s are very exciting for photographers that can be somewhat more gentle with their equipment" Luis R.
    Luis, we probably won't know until testing & ownership mileage has been applied to these new Sony offerings how truly durable they are, but the simple fact that Sony added weatherizing & magnesium to the A7R, means debris, liquid and shock will be less apt to affect the internal complexities...
     
  46. The news is great (A7r), but until the question of wide angle lens compatibility is known I will definitely hold my breath and wait.
    Also, it is a pity that the excellent rotatable viewing screen of the NEX-7 wasn't adopted in the A7r. I do quite a bit of very low level or high position handheld shooting and the NEX-7 type viewing is what I would really like to see in a FF and Leica M lens compatible camera.
     
  47. I agree that magnification is more reliable than focus peaking, especially with longer lenses. Peaking gets you most of the way - and sometimes all of the way - but magnification allows perfect focus.
    I read in another forum a photographer who after he had switched from a 5D system to an NEX-7 system, the camera could not stand up to pro abuse​
    I believe that, but it confirms that for most photographers, mirrorless cameras are the future. Most photographers don't tend to abuse their cameras (although one should never be afraid to - after all, it's the shot that matters and not the camera). DSLRs - at least the pro models - are certainly built like tanks. They'll always be around, that is true, but they will serve a niche, sort of like film cameras. Not a bad thing.
     
  48. Wouldn't a mirrorless camera have the potential to actually be more durable/reliable than an SLR, due to having fewer moving parts? Manufacturers could build a mirrorless camera to be just as rugged (or heavy, or big) as an SLR if they wanted to. They simply haven't done that yet. That doesn't mean that mirrorless cameras are inherently less rugged.
     
  49. Manufacturers could build a mirrorless camera to be just as rugged (or heavy, or big) as an SLR if they wanted to. They simply haven't done that yet.​
    well, actually, the olypmus e1-m1 is a super-rugged body with more weathersealing than most DSLRs. the problem is that none of the Oly primes, which give best performance, are weathersealed. so if you're trying to use that body in the rain, you need to use the kit lens.
     
  50. They simply haven't done that yet. That doesn't mean that mirrorless cameras are inherently less rugged.​
    Yes, there is a big difference between what is possible to do and what is done now. Some people seem to think that we are already doing all that is possible to do.
    the problem is that none of the Oly primes, which give best performance, are weathersealed. so if you're trying to use that body in the rain, you need to use the kit lens.​
    Prime lenses are rarely weather sealed. The new 12-40/2.8 zoom is weather sealed. The 35-100/2.8 will also be weather sealed. There will be more weather sealed lenses in the future, if there is demand for them, although these two should cover everyone's needs, really. It's not like a weather sealed lens allows you to change it in the rain, so it makes more sense to weather seal versatile zooms than prime lenses.

    Personally, I wouldn't want to have a full lineup of weather sealed lenses, as it would increase their cost and I have little use of the feature. I'd rather get it in one versatile lens than be forced to pay for it in all lenses.
     
  51. Adios SLR format​
    I have been using SLR and also other types of cameras, and I have never said adieu to any of them. There is no reason to wish for the death of any of them (except for business competition).
    There are customers who can appreciate each of the formats.
     
  52. Actually, what I want to try is an RX2, which could be the same as the RX1 but with better auto focus and a built-in
    viewfinder.
     
  53. There are customers who can appreciate each of the formats.​
    They are not formats. They are just different technologies.

    And like with film and digital, there are those that appreciate both and those that just appreciate film. All of them still couldn't save film from falling from its dominant position.
    Same thing going on here. Except it's still going on and some people will only realize it once it's over.
     
  54. Looks like Nikon and Canon have decided they want less of the market share. Myself I bailed on the old school mirror camera's earlier this year and bought an Olympus EM-5. The camera has amaing picture quality and I love the EVF. Now Sony has jumped in and these cameras look very interesting. I will follow the line from now on.
     
  55. Now if Sony could have just moved the finder closer to the edge like a rangefinder of yesteryear, then we wouldn't get nose grease on the camera back. :)
     
  56. Now if Sony could have just moved the finder closer to the edge like a rangefinder of yesteryear, then we wouldn't get nose grease on the camera back. :)
    Unless you are left eye dominant. :) Apparently, one third of the population is.

    If manufacturers would put their mind to it, they could implement an EVF that you can set to different positions. Either as a plugin where they would have multiple ports on the camera to receive it or at the end of an arm that you could swing from one side to another, somewhat like what you can do with the LCDs that you can position to face forward. There are so many possibilities for customization now, but the problem is that new technology tends to imitate the old in its early stages of development - probably in response to people's adversity to change. Which in turn may make it even more difficult to notice that a change is happening at all - until it's done. :)
     
  57. Unless you are left eye dominant. :) Apparently, one third of the population is. Well, that is interesting. Actually, a simple solution is to make the finder have tilt capability, like the add-on finder accessory that Olympus has. I think Pany has that for one of its models. I always liked using the look-down finder of my Hasselblad. Very comfortable to hold and compose that way. I prefer that method of framing the best.
     
  58. I think Pany has that for one of its models.​
    Their GX7 has it. It's on the left side of the camera too, just as you want it. :)
     

Share This Page

1111