DSLRUsers.com

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet.



It's a full frame E-Mount MILC camera with a choice of 2 models. Main difference is the sensors. Both have EVF and swivel LCD. No IBIS.

A7 comes with AA Filter, 24MP, 25 phase + contrast focus points. $1999

A7R comes without AA Filter, 36MP, 25 contrast only focus points. $2499

Sony has announced a E-Mount FE lens road map and there will be only a few FE lenses at release. The CZ 35/2.8, 55/1.8 and 24-70/4

Weight and size is competitive with the XPro: Camerasize. Not bad packaging for a FF Camera.

Battery life isn't fantastic. Interesting that the LCD uses less power than the EVF:

Approx. 270 images(Viewfinder), Approx. 340 images(LCD screen) (CIPA standard)

The 36MP sensor has some innovations to help receive the angled light in the corners.

(lots) More info at the usual suspects...

Thanks photohiker
Interesting info. Can't wait to see some reviews of this camera. Sony are going full out to establish themselves as bona fide real camera producers and they certainly are producing some notable gear.

Does a VF use more power than the LCD ?

Rooz wrote:Does a VF use more power than the LCD ?

I wouldn't have thought so, but I don't think there is any other explanation.

I think it's the latest and greatest EVF 1024x768, 60FPS or something. Maybe that sucks more power.

that's a significant difference. I wonder if that's the same with all cameras ? am thinking of battery life for the ep5 and v1 I have now.

Rooz wrote:Does a VF use more power than the LCD ?

Yes, you will find that almost every EVF equipped camera will provide a shorter battery life on the spec sheet for the EVF if they provide figures for both.

thanks cam...I didn't know that. would explain why my v1 battery life sucks ass.

A couple of interesting things of note

- I notice the more expensive model actually has the lamer AF system (presumably because they couldn't get the on sensor phase detect AF goodness to work without the AA filter)

- no mention at all of any wide lenses down the track (and 4 of the 5 lenses they have announced look pretty pricey for what they are (some f/4 zooms and a 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 for $1000 each!! - they'd better be epic) - will be interesting to see if they manage to defy physics and get great wide lenses working - FX with such a short flange distance...

- am I just dreaming in assuming that people hoping for that super small and light kit and buy this very small FX camera (and sure the body is tons smaller and lighter than say a D4, D800 or even D600) get an unwelcome surprise when they find the lenses to use with it I assume are about as large and heavy as their Canikon FX counterparts?

They won't be quite as big given its mirrorless design, but you're right Rodney, bigger lens which are large aperture will be quite awkward. It's a nice idea for some small primes but I doubt it will be a big seller. That's exactly the reason I went m4/3 rather than better sensor apsc mirrorless; cos the lens' are considerably smaller and compatible with the smaller body.

Rooz wrote:thanks cam...I didn't know that. would explain why my v1 battery life sucks ass.

That is partly due to teh sensor being constantly powered, your D800 which uses the same battery does not have to power anything other than the meter until you hit the shutter....heaps more battery wastage due to the live view function, and I suspect the brightness needed for the EVF to project properly means it sucks more juice than the rear screen.

It's not just a question of the size of the lenses. The body is cheap but lenses are expensive and it seems the only way to get good quality is Zeiss which is even more expensive. So I think it's a sign of things to come rather than a useful proposition for many people at this stage.

Rooz wrote:They won't be quite as big given its mirrorless design, but you're right Rodney, bigger lens which are large aperture will be quite awkward. It's a nice idea for some small primes but I doubt it will be a big seller. That's exactly the reason I went m4/3 rather than better sensor apsc mirrorless; cos the lens' are considerably smaller and compatible with the smaller body.

Well, I kinda have the opposite view. Not sure it is for me, but also doubt it will be anything but a big seller.

Full Frame brings Full Frame lenses, whether they be system or adapted. That's a choice taken when choosing a format. I can see a lot of landscape photographers taking the A7R and ignoring the lack of phase focus points, they will mostly manual focus anyway. The A7R body is built stronger than the A7 to take the stresses of larger lenses, something noted as a deficiency with the NEX series.

Personally, I think this is a ground breaking camera, watch the competition jump into the ball park in short order. In one step, Sony has taken the FF lead from Nikon and Canon and also challenged the crop sensor Mirrorless leaders. About time someone stirred the pot.

I don't think it will be a big seller any more than their full frame DSLRs which were also much cheaper than the opposition. Full frame and cameras over $1,000 are both small sections of the market and the market is tanking. There are only 5 lenses to go with it and likely only two primes which do justice to the sensor. It costs $US4,300 plus freight for the a7R plus those two primes of unexciting focal length. Not really that cheap at all.

It is a sign of things to come because manufacturing costs are much lower with mirrorless, reliability is likely better with fewer moving parts and autofocus is slowly improving but before Sony gets a reasonable high-quality lens lineup (probably at least two years) I expect that there will be other alternatives on the market with better lens choices. In the meantime I think a D800 or an x-pro 1 remain more likely choices.

photohiker wrote:I can see a lot of landscape photographers taking the A7R and ignoring the lack of phase focus points, they will mostly manual focus anyway

Possibly - but only if they can engineer some excellent wide lenses to go with the hires sensor - which is not a given due to the very short flange distance

FYI: Sony a7 torture test with Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander rangefinder lenses: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=224

photohiker wrote:
Well, I kinda have the opposite view. Not sure it is for me, but also doubt it will be anything but a big seller.

A big seller ? No chance of that. On what basis would it be ? This is certainly not the end of the market that sells "big".

Full Frame brings Full Frame lenses, whether they be system or adapted. That's a choice taken when choosing a format. I can see a lot of landscape photographers taking the A7R and ignoring the lack of phase focus points, they will mostly manual focus anyway. The A7R body is built stronger than the A7 to take the stresses of larger lenses, something noted as a deficiency with the NEX series.

Well perhaps it half solves one issue of range, but then then it's a half assed solution. But it doesn't address the issue of handling a tiny camera with a massive lens.

Personally, I think this is a ground breaking camera, watch the competition jump into the ball park in short order. In one step, Sony has taken the FF lead from Nikon and Canon and also challenged the crop sensor Mirrorless leaders. About time someone stirred the pot.

Ground breaking ? Hmmm....maybe. Great to see an fx mounted small camera. I'd suggest the rx1 was the true groundbreaker. how did that go ? Not particularly well.
Watch the competition jump ? Again, a maybe. But I'd suggest it may be inevitable in the medium to long term. Nikon and canon have hardly jumped onto the apsc mirrorless bandwagon so not sure why they would do so now. Especially the big 2 who would just see it as cannibalising their existing products.
Taken the lead ? In what way ? I don't see that at all. It takes more than a couple of bodies before they can crow about taking any lead. The system is still very much underdeveloped.

Let's not also forget that the mirrorless market is in decline. It's take a battering for whatever reason and $2000+ investments in an fx mirrorless camera sure won't stem the tide IMHO.

Is this the room for an argument?

Considering I was told here on this board that mirrorless was basically a non-solution to a non-problem, there seems to be an awful lot of mirrorless cameras about, even here. CaNikon are indeed trying to hold onto their core market but Oly, Panasonic, Fuji and Sony are all selling a lot of cameras that would have been bread and butter sales for CaNikon in the past.

Gary wrote:There's the problem: there is no market segment. Never will be.

People will either move to a PHD, and for a quality PHD they will go with either the G9/G10 or the Panasonic, or they will go with a fully functional DSLR, either in a very compact format (D40/D60) if portability is an issue, or a larger one where weight/size is not a concern.

Happy to wait a couple of years to see how the FF mirrorless segment pans out. FWIW, I predict that there will still be a Sony FF mirrorless in a couple of years, and several other capable FF Mirrorless cameras in the segment along with a bunch of worthwhile lenses for each. They will be eating DSLR upgrade sales as well as mirrorless upgrade sales for people not willing to carry the weight and bulk of a FF DSLR.

As for the RX1, I hadn't heard that it is a flop? Why did Sony release the RX1R recently, if the camera is such a disaster?

photohiker wrote:Is this the room for an argument?

it isn't. its the room for debate. are you interested in discussing this people who only agree with your view ? if so...stop reading.

Considering I was told here on this board that mirrorless was basically a non-solution to a non-problem, there seems to be an awful lot of mirrorless cameras about, even here.

actually no there isn't. not in comparison to dslr. it represents a fraction of camera sales. your logic is similar to looking out the window one day and seeing 20 yellow cars and then making the assumption that yellow car sales are booming.

but Oly, Panasonic, Fuji and Sony are all selling a lot of cameras that would have been bread and butter sales for CaNikon in the past.

yes they are selling a lot of cameras but not in the context of total sales. and that's what im commenting on. you suggested that this a7 would be a threat to Nikons dslr sales and the current evidence just doesn't back that up. the dive in mirrorless sales as a whole is quite well documented, do the research for yourself. here are 2 articles written as recent as august.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 ... ufacturers
http://investorplace.com/2013/08/nikon-and-cameras/

here's another showing a similar story and a dangerous one for the camera industry in general:
http://camyx.com/news/2013/05/mirrorles ... ales-cipa/

Happy to wait a couple of years to see how the FF mirrorless segment pans out. FWIW, I predict that there will still be a Sony FF mirrorless in a couple of years, and several other capable FF Mirrorless cameras in the segment along with a bunch of worthwhile lenses for each. They will be eating DSLR upgrade sales as well as mirrorless upgrade sales for people not willing to carry the weight and bulk of a FF DSLR.

I didn't say they wouldn't be around, I said that they are highly unlikely to be a big seller. and still you don't seem to want to address the point of FX = FX size lens'. hows that gonna work as a primary system camera ? and what about native lens range ? hows that gonna work out ? the roadmap is skinny as hell. and lets face it, sony don't even know what they are going to do. would you invest in a system that could get dumped for another cos it doesn't sell well ? its not klike sony don't have history on this exact issue. hell, even as recently as this year they abandoned their smart hotshoe. boom...gone.

As for the RX1, I hadn't heard that it is a flop? Why did Sony release the RX1R recently, if the camera is such a disaster?

again, it depends on the context. is it a flop in performance ? mostly not. is it a big seller ? absolutely and unequivocally the answer is no...so in that context it is more than a flop, its a bloody disaster. but sony never made it to be a big seller. why did sony release an R version ? who knows what sony thinks. lol I don't think even sony knows what they are thinking., they release cameras more than I change underwear. its a spray and pray methodology in a market where all manufacturers are scrambling.

don't confuse camera capability with facts on sales. one does not necessarily lead to the other. I happen to think Olympus offers an amazing product but I am also acutely aware of the fact that they are losing profit like nobody's business and their sales are also declining. that's not a commentary on the product, that's a commentary on the market and sales volumes.

Firstly, rooz, I started this thread because there was no mention of this camera here even though it has appeared almost everywhere you might look for camera news and information, not because I am it's sole supporter, although that seems it might be not far from the case on this forum.

photohiker wrote:there seems to be an awful lot of mirrorless cameras about, even here.

rooz wrote:actually no there isn't. not in comparison to dslr. it represents a fraction of camera sales. your logic is similar to looking out the window one day and seeing 20 yellow cars and then making the assumption that yellow car sales are booming.

That is a convenient distraction. There are millions of mirrorless cameras sold and most if not all at the expense of DSLR sales. The car analogy falls on it's head when you think of the commodore and corolla a few years ago. The commodore became the anachronism and the corolla took the sales lead. This was a predictable outcome, yet the large car manufacturers failed to change and the market did the rest.

rooz wrote: you suggested that this a7 would be a threat to Nikons dslr sales and the current evidence just doesn't back that up.

I'm suggesting that the A7 is a threat to Nikon and Canon FF DSLR sales, not all DSLR sales. Before the A7, the choices were Canon, Nikon, Sony DSLRS and basically nothing else. How is the introduction of a FF mirrorless with a choice of sensors not a threat to that market? I'm suggesting threat, not victory. Victory depends on how the situation plays out, and that remains to be seen.



So mirrorless currently runs about 20-25% of DSLR sales and is far less volatile. These are significant numbers, we're not talking about an irrelevant market segment here. DSLR is a mature market yet it's sales are up and down like a yoyo:

Things are not a lot better when it comes down to DSLR shipments. CIPA says that 2,600,765 cameras have been sold in Q1 2013, 23.2% less than in Q1 2012 when 3,386,386 units were shipped.

Lots of statistics quoted in that article to play down the DSLR losses and amplify the emerging mirrorless market losses which would be expected to be more turbulent in any case, but over that same period, the mirrorless drop was 18.5%.

Yes, the camera industry faces challenges, not for the first time.

rooz wrote:still you don't seem to want to address the point of FX = FX size lens'. hows that gonna work as a primary system camera ? and what about native lens range ? hows that gonna work out ? the roadmap is skinny as hell. and lets face it, sony don't even know what they are going to do.

I'm not seeing the problem with FF lens sizes on a FF camera? The camera size and weight has been reduced dramatically. The weight saving of the A7 over the only other 36MP camera (D800) is more than half. You can have two A7's for less than the weight of one D800. The lens length for native lenses also gets a significant reduction. Not seeing this as a problem. As a system camera, the total weight and bulk is significantly less. Re lens roadmap we don't yet know what Sony are going to do past the first few lenses because they have not released the details. Perhaps as you suggest, they don't know, or perhaps they know but are not releasing the details for competitive and operational reasons. I agree their native lens release history for the NEX has not been fantastic.

Deleting a smart hotshoe is hardly the same as deleting an entire range of cameras and lenses, is it? I refer you to your yellow car analogy.

RX1

rooz wrote:again, it depends on the context. is it a flop in performance ? mostly not. is it a big seller ? absolutely and unequivocally the answer is no...so in that context it is more than a flop, its a bloody disaster.

Tough crowd...

FF Fixed lens cameras. What have we got? Leica and ??? RX1, RX1R.

Sony recently revealed RX1 production was at full capacity with sales at somewhere less than 10,000 units per month. For a FF fixed lens digital, that is now probably the market leader. Doesn't sound like a flop to me, and definitely not a disaster. What sales numbers do you think would be required to decide that the camera is not a disaster?

I'm not suggesting that everything is rosy in the camera market, but it's easy to see who is trying to energise the market. Oly and Fuji have trashed much of their P&S models because of the onslaught of smartphones and they have instead headed into quality mirrorless cameras. Sony basically owns the sensor market so they make a margin on most cameras sold. They are in a very good position to emerge from the market turmoil well and appear to be actively pursuing that goal in contrast to the established DSLR manufacturers.

not sure why you're getting snippy. I don't think I've been rude in the slightest. its obvious you cant handle debate or someone that disagrees with you so I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Rooz wrote:not sure why you're getting snippy. I don't think I've been rude in the slightest. its obvious you cant handle debate or someone that disagrees with you so I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I'm not snippy rooz please don't take it that way. Not interested in making this personal. I've responded to many of your debating points. You make some good points, but IMO I don't think they all pan out as you suggest. Sure, I could be wrong. I think this camera is a threat to CaNikon's FF Business, you don't. Maybe you're right and Sony will discontinue their FF mirrorless range in a year or so, but knowing how Japanese companies work on planning, I sincerely doubt that.

Even Thom suggests that mirrorless will rule the roost in due course. I don't agree with everything he says either, but he has a valid opinion. He also disses much of the A7 introduction and compares the system to the EM-1 Suggesting also that any advantage Sony has is temporary because any camera manufacturer can enter the market with a new system and few lenses. That's fair, but the point is that there was no FF mirrorless pre A7 unless you include the non-AF veblen Leicas, Sony has kicked the first ball in a new market segment. In a contracting market, that segment will only grow at the expense of other segments.

photohiker wrote:I'm not snippy rooz please don't take it that way.

That's good then !

Maybe you're right and Sony will discontinue their FF mirrorless range in a year or so, but knowing how Japanese companies work on planning, I sincerely doubt that.

I sincerely doubt that too. I never said they would discontinue it. What I specifically said was I don't think they'll be a big seller or be a serious threat to fx dslrs.

Even Thom suggests that mirrorless will rule the roost in due course. I don't agree with everything he says either, but he has a valid opinion.

Let me be specific in what I mean, what I mean is that these tiny mirrorless cameras won't have the impact on nikon dslr for the reasons I pointed out, predominantly size and ergonomics. This will especially be the case with fx.

Mirrorless though is a broad term, do I think the mirror will disappear ? Most probably. And very soon in the lower level cameras. It's cheaper and the tech on Evf is almost at a point where it's debatable if you lose much to OVF. But they won't be big sellers in this tiny form factor in fx at the high end cos it makes no sense. Notice how the omd got bigger and bulkier ? Why is that do you think ? Ergonomics, balance, direct access buttons/ levers and form function. And that's just to handle and balance m4/3 lenses. That is the threat to dslr right there. These tiny things will be a niche for sure but certainly not a significant impact unless they figure out how to alter the physics of light to construct things like an 85/1.4 or 24-70/2.8 in comparative size.

If you notice the rumors about nikons upcoming smaller body fx camera, it may or may not have a mirror, but it's highly likely to be a small form factor. nikon have the benefit of relying on loads of native lens' though so far more likely to entice shooters who have vested glass and want something non-dslr like. Mostly I suspect as a second body.

He also disses much of the A7 introduction and compares the system to the EM-1 Suggesting also that any advantage Sony has is temporary because any camera manufacturer can enter the market with a new system and few lenses. That's fair, but the point is that there was no FF mirrorless pre A7 unless you include the non-AF veblen Leicas, Sony has kicked the first ball in a new market segment. In a contracting market, that segment will only grow at the expense of other segments.

I stopped reading thom a while ago, but just revisited and read a few articles. essentially he is saying what I'm saying isn't he ? Absence of system means they are unlikely to gain penetration in a big way. I wonder just how many people looking for a FF alternate will be picking a Sony a7 over the current offer ? I just couldn't imagine being limited to that body and those lens choices.

I agree that the a7 is a great innovation. Just like I love the idea of an rx1. I just don't think they are genuine high volume sales alternatives. The price is outrageous, AF is horrendous and the VF costs a right arm.

Nor do I think they will ever be at that size. Niche, yes. Norm, no.

There's also another Thom Hogan post where he points out why the new FF mirrorless Sonys aren't going anywhere. He also suggests that the full-frame sensor isn't really that significant compared to current DX sensors.

I agree that large lenses on a small body don't make a lot of sense and this also applies to NEX cameras quite apart from the lens quality issues there. It's a declining market and all camera manufacturers are under pressure. Some will disappear and only Canon and Nikon appear guaranteed to stay, other than some who are just a small part of a large multinational. Sony itself is under pressure and has been making billion-dollar losses almost every year in the last five or so.

Talking about the size of the mirrorless market is not particularly relevant because most of that is probably lower-end 4/3 sensors. Full frame is a very small part of mirrorless and there's no chance of these cameras being big sellers.

The two main advantages DSLRs have is accurate viewing through the mirror and much faster phase-detect autofocus. Mirrorless will slowly take over from DSLRs but these cameras will not save Sony.

Some decent studio photos with the A7R and the 35/2 as well as the Sony A-Mount 70-200/2.8 via adapter.

These are apparently straight OOC jpegs with sharpnes +1 and Contrast +1

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/my-first-re ... page1.html

Also:

very impressive files.
MF only zeiss lens' and have to wait until end of 2014 ? really ? not good.

Those are impressive files....now reveal the native mount lens roadmap please Sony.

I'm still more keen on the rumours Retro-Nikon though (16MP D4 sensor and lens compatibility back to pre-AI)

Yes, it would be nice if the lenses were released next week

Here's the lens roadmap:





I don't know about MF being such a disadvantage, depends on your photography I guess. The A7 definitely isn't aimed at sports shooters... With focus aids like peaking and magnification now de rigueur, I use it more and more. I wouldn't be afraid to add a MF lens to my kit if it shone where it matters.

photohiker wrote:Yes, it would be nice if the lenses were released next week

Here's the lens roadmap:

One that I have seen and one that does not reveal anything useful....

The upcoming Zeiss glass are an unspecified "fast prime" and a "wide zoom", this does not mean anything, is it a fast wide/normal/tele, how fast is fast? As for the wide zoom, are we talking a f/2.8? f/4? variable aperture? The G lens is meant to be a "macro". All the others (the silver bars) will be bog standard Sony lenses of a totally unspecified nature. So in short we may end up with two "fast primes" (ie faster than f/2.8, but Sony may think f/2.8 is "fast") and some f/4 zooms as the "pro" glass options.

Unfortunately this is not the lens roadmap I want to see, give me something that commits to a system, that reveals how long I will have to wait to get a 135mm f/1.8, an 85mm f/1.4, a 16mm fisheye etc.

It is a good system, but if Sony do what they have done with the NEX system the I will have to stay well clear of it. At present there is only one decent lens in the entire NEX (APS-C) kit and that is the CZ24mm f/1.8, nothing else does the NEX-7 justice and there has never been a clear roadmap.

Well, there's always Canon's answer ....

Murray Foote wrote:Well, there's always Canon's answer ....

Love the "Bionic Luminance Undulation Reflex™ (BLUR) double-thickness anti-aliasing filter"

lol
Nikons new FX camera appears far more compelling. although the rumoured price tag is hilarious.

Rooz wrote:lol
Nikons new FX camera appears far more compelling. although the rumoured price tag is hilarious.

no touch screen or built in stabiliser for the sony's. that's very surprising.

Maybe they're holding it for the A8

Not really surprising, the RX1 and RX100 don't have touch screens or in body stabilisation.

neither are ILC's. so not particularly comparable. neither have a tilt screen either I don't think so not as useful.

All three are recent new design Sony's. There is a common design language between the cameras, even if each is placed in its own market segment.

RX100 Mk II has a tilt screen, so 2 of the 3 have tilt screens... The new RX10 has a tilt screen, so 3 out of 4. Perhaps the RX1r mkII will grow a tilt screen?

Focus Numerique has an A7r noise test comparing A7r, D800, Leica M available via google translate.

Siam Mirrorless Adapted lens tests and samples.

Pretty awesome collection of lenses!

http://siammirrorless.com/board/index.p ... pic=1644.0

very tidy collection of classic lens. 135mm f2 nikkor AIS cool..
I don't give a crap about the camera, but it was a cool to see all the different samples from those lens and particularly the different kind of bokeh...

Some nice lenses, and some scary colour shift with the rangefinder lenses

Just weighing in on this again...

I now own an A7 and truth said it is pretty good although it has its flaws. I am using my A7 with the LA-EA4 adapter to adapter my Maxxum 17-35mm f/2.8-4D, Maxxum 50mm f/1.7 and Sony DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro (YES a DT lens, one for crop, but it is very usable even in full frame mode). A Novoflex adapter allows me to use my Nikon kit (including Adaptall-2 lenses) and most importantly my Voigtlander SL II primes (20/3.5, 40/2 and 58/1.4).

Rereading the thread and thinking over it again, my thoughts on the matter as of September 2014 are:
-Full frame is still amazing (love my D700 and my A7)
-Nikon Df dissappointed, price/performance/build does not match
-Nikon D750 - all in the name...NOT A D700 replacement (should have been the spec for the D600 from day one, and probably should be called the D620), still a great camera and will sell well
-A7s/A7 really are winners (A7r not so, more problems keep surfacing - shutter shock, bad colour shift with certain lenses)
-the A7 is easily the best value full frame camera, and the best value mirrorless (IQ for the money) especially if you are not afraid to adapt lenses and manual focus
-there is hope for the FE system (CZ 16-35/4, CZ35/1.4, G90/2.8, 28/2.8 announced and more lenses hinted)
-Zeiss came through with the MF FE mount lenses (Loxia range)

Interesting thoughts Cameron. I did have a play with an A7 before I bought the XT-1. What put me off (together with the fact that I had no Sony/legacy lenses) was the shutter button placement, which I found eminently uncomfortable. Your thoughts?

ozimax wrote:Interesting thoughts Cameron. I did have a play with an A7 before I bought the XT-1. What put me off (together with the fact that I had no Sony/legacy lenses) was the shutter button placement, which I found eminently uncomfortable. Your thoughts?

I don't find it an issue, it is similar enough to my FM2n and M3. It actually is not all that different to the placement of the shutter button on the XT-1 either. I do find the placement of the strap lug troublesome, as with most strap lugs, but placing the strap between the middle and index fingers solves that and places the index finger on the shutter button. If I was to dig into the little things that are less comfortable then the list grows quite a bit, it simply is not a Nikon.

I have played with the XT1 early on, and have played with the sneakily improved version (lets just say Fuji is no angel when it comes to fixing problems covertly), and can say that the button feedback is much improved, but still not as good as it could be. The camera still lacks the denisity, and at times feels flimsy (especially the dials, lets not mention the pre-fix buttons). It is however a good looking camera, must easier on the eyes than the A7 and the Nikon Df. The other thing that troubles me with the X-mount system is that none of the native lenses feel the part, they all feel too light, focus-by-wire is not satisfying. The hipster, fanboy user base troubles me as well as the marketing, APS-C will never deliver the same IQ as full frame (much the same way as full frame will never give us medium format quality)....one word "COMPRESSION".

In the end they both do what they are designed to do, deliver on image quality. They both have handling quirks, but matched with the right glass and in capable hands the results are stunning.

Amen. Can't argue with you here.

Cameron
You are one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to camera equipment....and I've known some! You should be doing equipment previews for camera magazines because you would quickly become an authority on the subject.

ozimax wrote:Amen. Can't argue with you here.

I try to be fair and try to make defendable arguments with a firm base. I'm not the sort that will pull something out of thin air. Both cameras (all three including the Df) are good cameras for their respective user base, all else is preference.

Matt. K wrote:You are one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to camera equipment....and I've known some! You should be doing equipment previews for camera magazines because you would quickly become an authority on the subject.

Thank you for the kind words. BTW, I strongly suggest people have a play with the D750, the tilt screen mechanism could be better, but Nikon seems to have gotten everything else right (pending a closer inspection and some shooting time). I have to say it probably has the best grip since the D200/D300