Bushwalk Australia

specs and announcement

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a7-and-a7r-specs/

first impressions
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/

RX10 first impressions
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-c ... -dsc-rx10/

Gosh, how did they come up with that body design in 2013! Terrible.

GPSGuided wrote:Gosh, how did they come up with that body design in 2013! Terrible.

I like it :S

At the moment I'd be happy with any full frame camera though, so I'm somewhat biased.

its small for what it is... i'm waiting for the sample pics

icefest wrote:I like it :S

You do know that exposes your age (or rather your youth), right? It's the look of SLR camera bodies from the 70s. I like some of those classics, but not again in the digital age and in a miniature form.

Yes, very small for a full frame. I just think they can do better with the body design. Can't wait for Nikon to bring out something similar so that my collection of full frame lenses can get a 2nd life.

nikon are still in love with slr's,,,, their mirroless leave a lot to be desired, besides they use sony sensors...

wayno wrote:nikon are still in love with slr's,,,, their mirroless leave a lot to be desired, besides they use sony sensors...

Yes, there are only so many sensor manufacturers. I dislike those mirror-less bodies for the difference in composing through a quality optical prism finder and a hard to see LCD screen. So large sensor mirror-less units don't interest me that much as I'd be going for compacts in those other situations. A super compact full frame dSLR from Nikon would be fantastic.

sony slt's are the other way to go...

I have been through Sony units but came back to Nikon. I generally dislike Sony's digital image treatment. There's something about Nikon's image rendition that I like. Subjective I guess.

GPSGuided wrote:

icefest wrote:I like it :S

You do know that exposes your age (or rather your youth), right? It's the look of SLR camera bodies from the 70s. I like some of those classics, but not again in the digital age and in a miniature form.

TBH it reminds me of the Nikonos V and the Nikon SLR that my parents used to have - the first cameras I was (under supervision) allowed to use.

Regardless of the looks (this is about the output, not the fashion), these two cameras look to be a new landmark in the mirrorless segment.

The A7R challenges the D800e with few technical deficiencies. Battery life being the main one. Size and weight, no comparison. CameraSize D800e

The A7 at $1999 stands as a pretty good challenge to D600/D610 and 6D at far less bulk and weight. Camerasize D610 Camerasize 6D

photohiker wrote:Regardless of the looks (this is about the output, not the fashion), these two cameras look to be a new landmark in the mirrorless segment.

Ummm... It'll be interesting.

BTW, that's a nice link. Looks like it's not that much smaller than a D5200, but has full frame. Otherwise, I say it's a bit of a stretch to compare it to D800e and similar Canon offering. Those full featured pro models have a lot more than this new kid on the block.

Is there a noticeable battery life difference between mirrorless and slr cameras?

GPSGuided wrote:

photohiker wrote:Regardless of the looks (this is about the output, not the fashion), these two cameras look to be a new landmark in the mirrorless segment.

Ummm... It'll be interesting.

BTW, that's a nice link. Looks like it's not that much smaller than a D5200, but has full frame. Otherwise, I say it's a bit of a stretch to compare it to D800e and similar Canon offering. Those full featured pro models have a lot more the new kid on the block can't match.

Canon does not have anything similar to the D800/e.

The sensor is the key. The current king of the full featured pro model landscape cameras is the Nikon D800e. Sony supplies Nikon's sensors and the D800e has an older model of the sensor in the A7r in it. There are specific mods to the A7r sensor to improve corner and high ISO performance compared to the older sensor.

Icefest, yes. Battery life is well down on the full size models as the batteries are way smaller. Compromise due to camera size.

Re being 'not much smaller than the D5200' No, it's a LOT smaller:

heard a friend of a friend got to use a test A7, it was over exposing the photos, and the movies werent good quality

some image samples here,

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/top-a7-a ... nt-images/

I wouldn't worry about the IQ at this stage. Wait for bug fixed production firmware. Otherwise and as said earlier, I have never truly liked Sony camera's colour rendition.

GPSGuided wrote:I wouldn't worry about the IQ at this stage. Wait for bug fixed production firmware. Otherwise and as said earlier, I have never truly liked Sony camera's colour rendition.

Take photos in .raw and do the pp yourself?

icefest wrote:Take photos in .raw and do the pp yourself?

True, but it's not very practical to do that for all my photos. I expect the camera to process to a certain quality of my choosing (subjective of course) for all the run of the mill photos and would only need to go to RAW for those special ones. Altering this subjective requirement for a brand label (Sony) is not logical.

photohiker wrote:Re being 'not much smaller than the D5200' No, it's a LOT smaller:

Yes, that's a lot more significant than their frontal dimensions.

Very, very interesting bodies from my perspective. I think my only real grumble is that they chose to change the build quality between the two models (plastic body plates on the A7) - other than that they look fantastic.

However, and I don't get why Sony doesn't get this - where are the lenses? A 35mm f2.8 and a slow, $1K 50mm? Really? Adapted lenses will only take you so far. Oh well...

GPSGuided wrote:You do know that exposes your age (or rather your youth), right? It's the look of SLR camera bodies from the 70s.

I'm also a fan of the design, and despite my apparent youth I've owned and used several cameras from the 70's and 80's... I don't see how that means this won't perform as a photographer's tool?

GPSGuided wrote:

wayno wrote:I dislike those mirror-less bodies for the difference in composing through a quality optical prism finder and a hard to see LCD screen.

You realise that the A7 and A7r (and most of the top-end mirrorless offerings from the other manufacturers) offer eye-level electronic view-finders as well as the 'hard to see LCD screen'? I'm curious to know if you've actually spent some time using one of the current generation EVF's from Olympus or Sony - they have some downsides compared to a traditional prism finder, but they also have some fantastic benefits (such as real-time preview of exposure, white balance, depth of field and so on).

I think the new Sony bodies look very good. Their light weight should make them ideal for bushwalking. It remains to be seen how heavy the new lenses will be. And it looks like there will be quite a few good quality lenses available fairly quickly.

One disadvantage of mirrorless cameras is that you need to have the camera switched on to compose a photo - this activates either the LCD screen or the EVF - both which use a fair bit of power. This is not the case when using a DSLR - with no EVF to power.

Dave

agreed, in my experience the lcd screens are massive power hogs, you don't want them on for any longer than absolutely necessary if you need to conserve your batteries...

I take a camera with me on most walks. Over the years I have gone with Canon, from the 350D and finished with the full frame 5Dmk2. Along the way I always bought the L lenses and now have a great collection of primes and couple of good zooms.
Last year I bought the Sony RX100, could not believe what this could do, images as good as the Canon 550D, with a really fast and excellent Zeiss lens.
Before taking the family on a trip overseas, I got the RX1, fixed 35mm lens.

I have not touched my Canon gear since, in the end I gave the camera to my brother and kept most of the lenses for use on the Sony A7R, on preorder currently.
I can use any of the Canon lenses on this camera with a metabones adapter, still has AF and IS.
I cannot understand how Canon lost the way, their sensors do not have the colour or dynamic range of the Sony.
Plus, as a bushwalker, I do not want to carry kilos of camera gear, when a much lighter kit does the job much better.
As well, the tripod does not have to be a monster to carry a heavy body and lens.
I am really tempted to just stick with the new 55mm lens and use stitching to get the wide angle image.

you think canon have camera problems , we have their latest model copiers at work, reliability is appalling, most days we have a canon tech in to repair on of the copiers...

I keep an eye on these topics, just 'chewing the fat', not at all an 'expert', not really intending to buy but it is interesting how fast things change. One thing is sure, it's still a money pit/ but there are some great choices and overall the cost for quality has come right down.

That said though, compare the base model (A7) with say Nikons new D3200. There isn't a huge amount of difference in any dimension besides 'depth' (and given you wont exactly be popping the A7 in a pocket once a lens is on there..). A bit less sensor area? Other downsides?

$400 V $1800... both virtually worthless in a couple of years..



The A7R looks like a huge leap though.. btw, apparently Tokina have brought /will bring their 11-16mm out in a Sony mount. It is a very nice lens when you can't decide what to leave out, i'd imagine it would do justice to that full frame sensor:

theres a reasonable difference in sensor size
for those who want the best photos they will go for a full frame sensor like the sony has and as you can see its the same size as smaller sensor cameras... you also get much better low light perfomance with the a7, its one of the best low light cameras on the market now...
the nikon is an aps-c sensor, the sony the 35mm full frame
http://www.laesieworks.com/digicom/MP.html

IQ wise are they directly transferable (ie. ok 20mpff = 32mp dx (not 24))?
I think i'm outa my league here, as much as i'd like to make meter high prints like all you guys

how good teh a7 will be will come down to the lens you put on it,, you could loose any benefit with a lens that isnt good quality,
i've read disparaging remarks about the default lens. part of the reason full frame slr's are so good is the quality of the lenses that come with them, you're less likely to get a dud lens with a full frame slr, people are looking for top quality and will pay for it..

Nuts wrote:IQ wise are they directly transferable (ie. ok 20mpff = 32mp dx (not 24))?
I think i'm outa my league here, as much as i'd like to make meter high prints like all you guys

Directly comparable how?

You have to take the area of the APSC sensor and the Full Frame sensor into account, as well as the pixel count. APSC is 370mm2 and FullFrame is 860mm2, so over twice the area. Given the same technology in the sensor, increasing the pixel density impacts multiple facets of the resulting image data, notably noise especially at higher ISO's.



Also look at Table of sensor formats and sizes for dimensions and areas.

So for equivalent Image Quality, a 16mp APSC would be roughly equivalent to a 36mp FF.

On top of these considerations, the angle of view from the lens hitting the sensor changes given the same focal length so a 50mm on FF gives the equivalent of 75mm when used on APSC. If you want the equivalent 50mm FF angle of view on APSC you need to mount a 35mm lens on the APSC camera. (35x1.5=52.5)

There's more, we could go on...