sony a7r review on DP Review

<p>If anyone's interested, DP Review has posted their review of the Sony full frame a7r. In short, it received a "gold" award based largely on image quality, which is stellar (if you shoot raw). Like any camera it has its shortcomings, but when used with good glass and the shooter takes the time to get the image right, the results can be incredible. There's a couple of natural light portraits in the review. Click to expand to the full image and look how much detail can be captured.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7r</p>

<p>A very good piece of marketing material for a7 and a7r. For those who have money to spend regardless what to buy, go and place your order.</p>

<p>But if you really want to know the details, why not go to sony showroom with your own sd card. Capture some photos by yourself. Try to capture some images with highlights and dark areas. Look at the images by your own photo editing software. To check the noise level everywhere.<br>

<br />Also pay attention to the wonderful sound of camera shutter. And imagine the environment when you take photos with these cameras, should that sound arouse the subjects or people around when you fire the shutter.</p>

<p>Or even bring your own camera (if you have) to take photos side by side with a7 or a7r and then make your own judgement. At dealer's shop, I always love to watch the TV displays so that I can make some visual comparison of different TV sets at the same time.</p>

<p>Sometimes, I love to read on-line review on new products so that I can compare the writing skill of the review and the products catalog since they refer to same thing.</p>

<p>Read this as well..</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85316.0</p>

<p>I thought the review was fair. Like any camera, learn the strengths and weaknesses and make up your own mind. Although I'm quite certain your mind is already made up.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>Before you buy the A7R check out what Lloyd Chamber has to say as well. I have no axe to grind, I don't own one and do not plan on getting one though it is an interesting device, the first full frame mirrorless camera with a built in EVF. The Sony RX-1 is full frame but the finder is an add on, too bad. He worries about shutter shake and the "lossy compression scheme."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>when used with good glass and the shooter takes the time to get the image right, the results can be incredible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'm sure the sensor is capable of stellar IQ, but there's only two decent native lenses available for it, which really limits it IMO. you can get just as good results with a nikon d800e which has many more more lenses available for it. the sony is newer and buzzworthier, but i'm not sure it's a better long-term investment until there are more and better lenses for it. there also seem to be concerns about focus accuracy and AF tracking, so it may not be a good sports/action shooter. </p>

<p>No arguments here about the D800 (or any DSLR) being a better action cam. But this is a mirrorless forum and I though the readers in this forum might like the review. Frankly, I've never been interested in this camera due to the lack of native glass. Adapters, for me, are clumsy and too damned slow. I've never been interested in the RX-1, either. Fixed lens cameras, especially when you're limited to a single focal length just don't do it for me.</p>

<p>I think the best market for this camera is those who desire to adapt their old glass to a nice sensor. I've heard the shutter and it doesn't bother me that much. Also, I've never seen an unbiased test that proved the full effects of shutter shock. People have been telling me that my GH3 suffers from it, but so far I haven't see it there, either.</p>

<p>Mirrorless cameras will eventually dislodge DSLRs as the best-selling systems for professionals. But not yet. Back when the Nikon D100 was released, it was arguably in a worse position against film than mirrorless is against DSLRs today. And yet it sold quite well. DPReview (when it was still independent) gave it a rating of 'Highly Recommended'.</p>

<p>I guess for some people, it's okay for DSLRs to dislodge 35mm SLRs, but it's not okay for mirrorless to dislodge DSLRs.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone really cares who dislodges who. The topic of MILC dislodging DSLR has been addressed many times, and won't die for a while. I'm a mirrorless-only shooter, but trust me, if I was being paid to shoot action sports I'd have either a Canon 1Dx or a Nikon D4. There's nothing in the MILC world that can touch them, or any other good DSLR, like a Canon 7D. The focus tracking im MILCs, while improved in recent cameras, just can't touch DSLRs.</p>

<p>If you like manual focus lenses, investigate how to focus them on the camera before you buy, specifically, whether you must dive into menus every time you want to toggle over to magnified view.</p>

I can't help drawing a parallel of DSLRs to Mirrorless equivalents like the A7s to Leica M2s and M3s in the face of

competition of new SLRs such as the Nikon F. Now I have an M2 (2 in fact) and they are great cameras and I like

rangefinder photography, but I wonder how many arguments against mirrorless cameras could just replace the word

mirrorless with Nikon F and DSLR with Leica M3?

 

The Leica M (and M9 and M8 ...) are still around but they are no longer the main thrust of photography. Great cameras

though. I think it's more of a shade of grey. More money goes to Mirrorless cameras like the A7r and less to cameras with

actual real mirror boxes. Really first class mirror boxes and pentaprisms are heavy and expensive. They can be beautiful,

just as my Leica M2's rangefinder is, but in the end they are just a camera component whose purpose has been

superseded by a new technology.

 

Leica really never really did good SLRs though they did try. I hope that Canon and Nikon are more able to adapt than

Leica ultimately was. So far their forays into mirrorless have been less than compelling.

<p>I think getting hung up over the mechanics of the camera is distracting, and shooters should just choose the best tool for the job. When I switched from my DSLR setup my primary goal was to lighten the camera bag and still get image quality good enough for my purposes. I don't shoot sports any more, so continuous AF wasn't important. But whether or not the camera had a mirror wasn't relevant, and still isn't. Honestly, I very much prefer optical viewfinders and consider the EVF on my current cam adequate at best. But, like everything else you weight the advantages against the disadvantages and make your choice.</p>