DSLRUsers.com

The a77 is looking like an absolute pearler. Does this herald sony finally arriving on the dslr, (well sort of), scene ? All hands on previews have been outstanding and while we are yet to see much on image quality, one would expect it to be at lest equivalent if not better than the a580 which is no slouch. Full phase detect af in video at 60p no less and 10fps with full af. This would really pave the way for a 40mp FF a99 in future...medium format kinda territory and with the slt technology they dont lose their speed. If they can work the buffer out then we have another winner for sony.

I wonder if canikon is listening ? Are the days of the mirror coming to an end ? Hmmm....methinks a new dawn has arrived gentlemen and my gut tells me canon and nikon have no idea whats going to hit them.

It is an interesting development, and I have to admit I was very close to buying a A700 four years back, and the A77 really does look the part as a replacement. I would have to experience the viewfinder first hand, but I do love big bright optical finders.

12fps, 24.5MP...I am going to have to have deep pockets to get the Zeiss glass to resolve that!

Rooz wrote: Full phase detect af in video at 60p no less and 10fps with full af

aim54x wrote:12fps, 24.5MP.

Great to see some competition for the big 2 brands.

Yes, i am a little surprised there is not more interst in this. I suspect it is cos of the sony brand. But the a77s implementation of slt is arguabley the most significant change to interchangeable lens cameras in the last 10 years.

If the mirror isnt dead its sure as hell on life support.

Rooz wrote:Yes, i am a little surprised there is not more interst in this. I suspect it is cos of the sony brand.

lol, interest... on a photography forum...no way now if you where talking about something completely unrelated to photography, now theres a topic thriller..

biggerry wrote:now if you where talking about something completely unrelated to photography, now theres a topic thriller..

Rooz wrote:Yes, i am a little surprised there is not more interst in this.

I, for one, am extremely interested in the A77. The only thing making me think twice is my current investment in Nikon lenses (I am aware that I can sell them if needed) and not wanting to spend more money right now.

NeoTiger wrote:extremely interested in the A77

It almost sounds like a aircraft than a camera....

surenj wrote:

NeoTiger wrote:extremely interested in the A77

It almost sounds like a aircraft than a camera....

Or a machine gun. Hang on 12FPS. Maybe it is

The image quality isn't up to speed though (IMHO). I checked samples from dpreview and as expected, the high ISO suffers from smearing (like hell) even apparent at ISO 3200. I wish they stayed below the 16 Mpix range. Holy crap, they would have had people moving from Canikon like crazy. Well maybe not. But it's nice to dream. Their TVs are nice though.

I'm guessing (hoping) that the current posted images are just poor noise-reduced JPEG's with bad settings from a preproduction camera, and that final RAW output will be a lot better.

surenj wrote:The image quality isn't up to speed though (IMHO). I checked samples from dpreview and as expected, the high ISO suffers from smearing (like hell) even apparent at ISO 3200.

i didnt notice any particular issues.

Rooz wrote:i didnt notice any particular issues.

YMMV but I thought the samples were worse than Canon 18 Mpix APS-C sensors. It's hard to beat that level of noise.

The High ISO samples were tricky to evaluate as they chose to show you a scene where most of it was bokeh (so wasn't sure whether it was bokeh or noise?? ) Only a sliver of the scene is in focus.

Did you look at the samples from Dpreview? (at full size?)

surenj wrote:

Rooz wrote:i didnt notice any particular issues.

YMMV but I thought the samples were worse than Canon 18 Mpix APS-C sensors. It's hard to beat that level of noise.

The High ISO samples were tricky to evaluate as they chose to show you a scene where most of it was bokeh (so wasn't sure whether it was bokeh or noise?? ) Only a sliver of the scene is in focus.

Did you look at the samples from Dpreview? (at full size?)

yeah i looked at them, but i suspect they were jpegs so not much to go by there. sure its not at d700 level, nor were they even "wow look at THAT." level but i didnt see anything particularly offensive. what probably had me more interested is that some of the shots at lower iso's almost look cartoonish. its kinda like that P&S feel. i have noticed that every now and then with even the d5100 with a perfectly lit outdoor pic where those MP's are working their absolute maximum resolution. there is something un-photo like about the image. like its almost TOO resolved. like its a screen grab from a bluray movie or something...cant quite explain it. super clear ? yes. but i dunno man, something isnt "right" about it.

Rooz wrote:but i suspect they were jpegs so not much to go by there

Perhaps.

Rooz wrote:what probably had me more interested is that some of the shots at lower iso's almost look cartoonish

Do you think this could be JPEG effect?

Can't wait to see image quality from the actual release model. I would guess that it would be similar; unless they work on their noise algorithms a little more. Then the noise would be obvious rather than the splattering/smearing that is obvious now.

Also another concern would be diffraction?

i dont know what it is. its just the "look" that is produced. im not very good at explaining it sorry. lol

links people... google is three clicks away, what samples are you referring to?

Sorry Gerry,

check out the last three images from the samples gallery.

Rooz wrote:Yes, i am a little surprised there is not more interst in this. I suspect it is cos of the sony brand.

No. I think it's because they've screwed up on some basics within the fundamental design parameters.

I've just been to the Sony Dog and Pony, and they had quite a few of these available for a hands-on play, as well as the new NEX-5n and a non-working model of the NEX-7.

The 5n is nice; while it has a touch screen, I don't know if it offers touch focus-and-shoot in the way that the PEN does. That's something for later.

But to the 77 ... We all know that it's not about megapixels. 24 is nice, but the cameras didn't have memory cards fitted, and so I wasn't able to explore how good those megapixels might be.

What else does it have? It's a $1700 body, and comes with 12fps. That's very nice, but how often do really need 12fps? And when you do, what glass will you be wanting on the front? (just playing devil's advocate here ... )

To get the 12fps, they've done a couple of things that, quite frankly, are deal-breakers for me.

The eye-level viewfinder is digital. They automatically turn it off, using a sensor to detect when your eye at the viewfinder, and then it turns on. There's about a half second delay before you can see anything.

I don't particularly like digital eye-level finders, and while this was fast in terms of image rendition, that delay in turning on was very off-putting. This did nothing to convince that this is the way of future.

The mirror is translucent, and fixed in place. This is one of the compromises that they've made to be able get the 12fps. From my point of view, this is another fundamental design flaw.

The last thing I want in my optical path - the path my images are being made through - is a piece of translucent mirror. No matter how good their marketing department suggests that this might be, there is no way at all that it can be better than having no extra glass in that path.

And of course, we all know how easily that dust can collect on that sort of a surface, too.

To me, those are very serious flaws that I think will deter just about any serious photographer from the 77.
One thing that's less obvious is the need, even, for the mirror. It's a digital viewfinder, and there's no pentaprism. We were told (we asked) that the mirror is there to service the AF sensor, which sits in the roof of the mirror box, where the ground glass would normally lie.

I would rather have the ground glass, pentaprism, and optical viewfinder, with a slightly slower fps rate.

I think that the marketing dweebs have taken hold here, and with the demise of the megapixel war, they're wanting to grab those wankers who wish to boast about the 12fps. While they're saying that the camera is aimed at photographers, I think that, from a photographers' PoV, they've got it wrong.

It otherwise seems like a nice camera. It feels good in the hand, solidly constructed, well balanced, the body is magnesium, AF seems nice and quick and quiet ... What a shame they've buggered up the basics!

Gary, thanks for writing up about your handson of the a77. I must say your experience is quite contrary to what I have seen so far online but the thing I think that is of most interest to me is your comment about the mirror. With all due respect I think you have missed the point of the design. the design was not implemented to achieve 12fps. That is simple a good byproduct to that design. The reason the design was conjured up was Sonys answer, in fact the only answer, to the issue of continuous AF on dslr cameras. To enable fill phase detect AF, then you need this type of technology, otherwise you have the mirror flip flapping around and the vastly inferior contrast detect system. So no, I don't see it as a design flaw at all. Quite the contrary, it is an ingenious design which addresses the AF issue.

The only way we can judge the effect of that mirror on images is by reviewing the quality of the image. Sure, the theory is you don't want to shoot thru anything other than your lens but if the difference doesn't show up in the real world image then it's academic. We will have to wait and see what the result will be.

As for dust collection, well the same arguments were made of the digital sensor itself. I think we can spend all day using the argument about what could go wrong but it's a bit of a waste of time unless evidence suggests otherwise.

Price isnt an issue really, it's at the same level as a d7000 so no big surprise there at all for me.

The vf? Well I havent seen it yet and while I agree that in theory the oled they are using is going to be inferior to my d700, how much inferior will be the question. I think I'll cop the slightly inferior vf for the added capability in video. If it's really bad, then different story. As for the eye level activation, I didn't recall an annoying delay from the a700 so not sure if the a77 has a different system and more lag so cant comment.

What glass ? I take it you are stating that in reference to Sony having inferior glass and while I agree they don't have a complete system yet, some of the stuff they do have is superb. The zeiss 24-70 and 70-200 is the equal of any system. The 135/1.8 is stunning... So no, I don't think glass is in that bad a shape.

Chris,

Rooz wrote:Gary, thanks for writing up about your handson of the a77. I must say your experience is quite contrary to what I have seen so far online but the thing I think that is of most interest to me is your comment about the mirror. With all due respect I think you have missed the point of the design. the design was not implemented to achieve 12fps.

Better tell that to the guys at Sony, because they were telling us that it was.

That is simple a good byproduct to that design. The reason the design was conjured up was Sonys answer, in fact the only answer, to the issue of continuous AF on dslr cameras. To enable fill phase detect AF, then you need this type of technology, otherwise you have the mirror flip flapping around and the vastly inferior contrast detect system. So no, I don't see it as a design flaw at all. Quite the contrary, it is an ingenious design which addresses the AF issue.

While I understand that, I think it's totally the wrong compromise.

There's more than enough glass already in my lens. Having a extra piece of transluscent (which by definition must also cut down on the available light) material interfering in the image path ... and also being the source of more dust, again in the image path, is just not acceptable.

You may think it's ingenious, but there are other ways of dealing with the problem.

The vf? Well I havent seen it yet and while I agree that in theory the oled they are using is going to be inferior to my d700, how much inferior will be the question. I think I'll cop the slightly inferior vf for the added capability in video. If it's really bad, then different story. As for the eye level activation, I didn't recall an annoying delay from the a700 so not sure if the a77 has a different system and more lag so cant comment.

The delay was noticeable. Every time I put my eye to the vf, it was black, and I had to wait. Not long, but enough to already tell me that they haven't got it right.

If they want to replace an optical viewfinder, any replacement must be better than what we already have. That means that if they want to turn it off, any restart time must go unnoticed. it doesn't.

Those were my primary objections; I'm asking for a review unit, but I spoke with a couple of other 'togs there, and the there was agreement on these two issues.

What glass ? I take it you are stating that in reference to Sony having inferior glass and while I agree they don't have a complete system yet,

Basically, yes. Not so much "inferior", but not really a system. I agree completely with your comments about what they do have, but it's what's not there that's the real issue. It's been quite a few years since they acquired Konica-Minolta, yet we've seen virtually nothing. How many pros will ditch Canon or Nikon for Sony, given that the heart of the photographic system is the glass?

Yet that's what they're saying they're targeting? Even enthusiastic amateurs want a decent range of glass, and that was
one of Minolta's strengths, way back when.

gstark wrote:Better tell that to the guys at Sony, because they were telling us that it was.

well the sony guys are essentially sales reps so really...how much can they know ? i can use my own common sense and say that for a company to completely redesign and redefine the structure of the dslr simply to achieve fps does not make any sense. for them to achieve the holy grail of video which is seamless switching from video to photo and full time phase detect af in video, a significant market advantage, absolutely makes sense. i will let you be the judge of why you think all of those R&D $$$ were spent.

While I understand that, I think it's totally the wrong compromise.

well that entirely depends on the output. if there is no visible degradation of the IQ then what's the compromise ? if i look at the image and i need to be told that there was a translucent mirror than its a moot point. the problem that plagues the a55 is not iq degradation that has anything to do with the translucent mirror, it is the high iso that is its issue. so what leads you to believe this mirror is an unacceptable compromise ?

There's more than enough glass already in my lens. Having a extra piece of transluscent (which by definition must also cut down on the available light) material interfering in the image path ... and also being the source of more dust, again in the image path, is just not acceptable.

again, this is dependant on the output and also dependant on the dust issue actually being an issue.

You may think it's ingenious, but there are other ways of dealing with the problem.

lol really ? i havent heard of any let alone seen any. canon and nikon certainly dont have the answer. there is no dslr with a mirror that is capable of what the sony's can do. so i would suggest that based on the current evidence, (and a smattering of physics), unless you can keep the mirror out of the way to access the sensor and redesign how your AF modules work, then how do stop the flip flapping mirror and the contrast detect af system from being a hurdle ?

The delay was noticeable. Every time I put my eye to the vf, it was black, and I had to wait. Not long, but enough to already tell me that they haven't got it right. If they want to replace an optical viewfinder, any replacement must be better than what we already have. That means that if they want to turn it off, any restart time must go unnoticed. it doesn't..

this is clearly a new issue not present on the a700 or a580 that i have tried.and i agree this would likely annoy the living crap out of me.

Basically, yes. Not so much "inferior", but not really a system. I agree completely with your comments about what they do have, but it's what's not there that's the real issue. It's been quite a few years since they acquired Konica-Minolta, yet we've seen virtually nothing. How many pros will ditch Canon or Nikon for Sony, given that the heart of the photographic system is the glass?

Yet that's what they're saying they're targeting? Even enthusiastic amateurs want a decent range of glass, and that was
one of Minolta's strengths, way back when.

of course, the glass is a hole. i would argue nikon only recently got their act together here aswell though. canon were miles ahead of them for years. i wouldnt switch cos there's no f4 glass which im finding so useful and convenient over 2.8 zooms and i doubt pros are gonna ditch for sony but im not referring to sales per se, nor the appeal to the pro market. i'm talking about the innovation of the design.

the proof will be in the output as they say. if the translucent mirror really knocks the image quality around then we have a problem houston...but the current evidence of existing translucent mirror cameras suggests that its not a compromise and you get a massive improvement in the usability of video. so i don tthink the technology or the design is flawed. one may of course still question the logic of cramming 24mp into an aps-c sensor or even sony's "system". but the technology seems to me to be pretty solid.

Rooz wrote:this is clearly a new issue not present on the a700 or a580 that i have tried.and i agree this would likely annoy the living crap out of me.

That may have something to do with the A700 and A580 being conventional SLR's with a Pentaprism (or is a pentamirror in the A580). I am with Gary on the VF lag...it is there on all the EVF cameras, A33/A55, G1/GH1/G2/GH2/G3, PEN etc.

Rooz wrote:

gstark wrote:Better tell that to the guys at Sony, because they were telling us that it was.

well the sony guys are essentially sales reps so really...how much can they know ?

Actually, no. The first people we were talking with actually knew what they were talking about, as we were talking in photographic terms. We've met a couple of these people before, and photographically, they do know their stuff. We even asked a question that required some deeper product and design knowledge, and a different person was requisitioned.

FTR, we asked them if, given that the camera has a digital viewfinder, why in the world does it even have a mirror in the first place? That ios not the sort of question that a typical marketing person would have a clue about.

for them to achieve the holy grail of video which is seamless switching from video to photo and full time phase detect af in video, a significant market advantage

Ok, which market?



Again, they're saying that the camera is targeted towards the pro market. That was stated during the presentation. A few times.

While the features you're mentioning are great and useful in the consumer market, how much demand is there for them in the pro end of the market?

While I understand that, I think it's totally the wrong compromise.

well that entirely depends on the output. if there is no visible degradation of the IQ then what's the compromise ? if i look at the image and i need to be told that there was a translucent mirror than its a moot point.

Again, I'm looking at this from the PoV of what they said today, and especially considering their stated target.

With high degrees of magnification there will be likely to be a noticeable difference. Joe Consumer won't notice it, and couldn't give a damn. Peter Pro ? A different ballgame entirely.

the problem that plagues the a55 is not iq degradation that has anything to do with the translucent mirror, it is the high iso that is its issue. so what leads you to believe this mirror is an unacceptable compromise ?

Well, let's take your question in a different way: why should I bother buying decent glass? If I'm going to use a filter, why not use the cheapest I can find?

It's a serious point of weakness, and it's one that I challenge the necessity of.

There's more than enough glass already in my lens. Having a extra piece of transluscent (which by definition must also cut down on the available light) material interfering in the image path ... and also being the source of more dust, again in the image path, is just not acceptable.

again, this is dependant on the output and also dependant on the dust issue actually being an issue.

Take the camera out on a car rally during a major dry spell. Swap lenses a couple of times, and then tell me that this is not going to be an issue.

The delay was noticeable. Every time I put my eye to the vf, it was black, and I had to wait. Not long, but enough to already tell me that they haven't got it right. If they want to replace an optical viewfinder, any replacement must be better than what we already have. That means that if they want to turn it off, any restart time must go unnoticed. it doesn't..

this is clearly a new issue not present on the a700 or a580 that i have tried.and i agree this would likely annoy the living crap out of me.

For me, it made the camera close to unusable ... but I am willing to try it under more sustained conditions.

But let me explain just how much of a pain in the posterior this truly is.

The EVF turns itself off every time you take the camera away from your eye. And there's about a half second delay before it turns on when you put your eye back up to the viewfinder.

Now, have you ever put your eye up to the camera, looked, taken your eye away for some reason, maybe for just a couple of seconds, then put your eye back up?

Yep: it turns on, then off, then on. I was already noticing this in just my initial hands on, and it was irritating me. We had them change the settings so that the rear screen di not turn on automatically (the default) but the problem persisted. In fact, with the rear screen set to on, the problem is actually worse, as it takes longer, needed to switch off the big LCD before it switched on the EVF.

the proof will be in the output as they say. if the translucent mirror really knocks the image quality around then we have a problem houston...

To me, it's a serious point of potential weakness. An issue just looking for somewhere to happen. And I know that in many shooting situations that I've been in, these would not remain as "potential" issues.

gstark wrote:Actually, no. The first people we were talking with actually knew what they were talking about, as we were talking in photographic terms. We've met a couple of these people before, and photographically, they do know their stuff. We even asked a question that required some deeper product and design knowledge, and a different person was requisitioned.

so what you're effectively saying is that sony's complete redesgin of the dslr as we know it to use a translucent mirror was pased around the need to achieve 12fps ? nevermind the fact that the tehcnology was first seen in cameras liek the a55 which are certianly aimed at lower level consumers who want easy combined access to video and photo achieved seamlessly in the same device...but no...someone in R&D said...hey guys...we need to hit 12fps to be competetive so lets just turn the dslr design on its head. this is to me, quite an absurd proposition.

Ok, which market?

all markets. but lets say that predominantly target market is entry level up to some segments of the pro market. the only pros who are not finding video particualry useful right now is sports guys. that will also change. photojournos and wedding guys are using it to death...note the amazing stuff coming out of the 5dMkii. this is a new market and a new medium so it is way to early to judge the "need" cos people dont quite get it yet and the implementation of it is still quite rudimentary.

Again, they're saying that the camera is targeted towards the pro market. That was stated during the presentation. A few times.

come on gary, who cares what the marketers say ? since when was that a basis of an argument ? lol

While the features you're mentioning are great and useful in the consumer market, how much demand is there for them in the pro end of the market?

refer above.

Again, I'm looking at this from the PoV of what they said today, and especially considering their stated target. With high degrees of magnification there will be likely to be a noticeable difference. Joe Consumer won't notice it, and couldn't give a damn. Peter Pro ? A different ballgame entirely.

sorry, based on what ? the a55 did not suffer from IQ loss due to the translucent mirror, why would the a77 be different, or even worse ? there is no evidence that suggests this to be the case.

Well, let's take your question in a different way: why should I bother buying decent glass? If I'm going to use a filter, why not use the cheapest I can find?

lol well, a bit a of a superfluous question really. a bit like saying to someone who cant afford a d700 not to bother with a d7000, just get a p7100. there are shades of gray here. to use the extreme arguments isnt very productive to the debate.

It's a serious point of weakness, and it's one that I challenge the necessity of.

the necessity is to achieve full time phase detect af. yes that is a necessity for dslr video to evolve. what is questionable is whether this is the only way to achieve that. in the absense of any alternatives on the market...im operating under the assumption that this is the only way. so challenging the system becomes a matter of saying that implemnting video properly in dslr is not necessary. that is an entirely different debate. if you are of the belief that video in dslr is required in this climate, then you cant be against the necessity of the technology that facilitates its improvement.

Take the camera out on a car rally during a major dry spell. Swap lenses a couple of times, and then tell me that this is not going to be an issue.

and how many people even operate in this circumstance. manufacturers dont generally base their business model on the extreme exception. they base it on satisfying the majority of their target market.

For me, it made the camera close to unusable ... but I am willing to try it under more sustained conditions.

But let me explain just how much of a pain in the posterior this truly is.

The EVF turns itself off every time you take the camera away from your eye. And there's about a half second delay before it turns on when you put your eye back up to the viewfinder.

Now, have you ever put your eye up to the camera, looked, taken your eye away for some reason, maybe for just a couple of seconds, then put your eye back up?

Yep: it turns on, then off, then on. I was already noticing this in just my initial hands on, and it was irritating me. We had them change the settings so that the rear screen di not turn on automatically (the default) but the problem persisted. In fact, with the rear screen set to on, the problem is actually worse, as it takes longer, needed to switch off the big LCD before it switched on the EVF.

yes again, no disagreement if that is indeed the case.

To me, it's a serious point of potential weakness. An issue just looking for somewhere to happen. And I know that in many shooting situations that I've been in, these would not remain as "potential" issues.

i dont subscribe to the "what if" arguments so i doubt we are ever going to agree on this. where does the what if end and the acceptance begin ? like i said before, this is sounding like the same old arguments that there was with AF, AF-S, VR, video in the body etc etc etc. every little additional peice of technology they add to these things carries a "what if" factor. if manufacturers took that too seriously, it would significantly inhibit the evolution of the dslr and we wouldnt see the type of advanced equipment we have today.

good discussion though.

Rooz, You are beginning to sound like a Sony salesman yourself. Do you have a new job?
We all know Gary has a blind spot re Sony. We live with it.

He does raise some valid points though.
1. Anything in the light path will affect image quality If it doesn't need to be there, and is avoidable, it should be removed. I do not use filters unless there is a specific reason for one at the time. I would not want that "translucent fixed mirror there all the time either. Incidentally "translucent" means that some but not all light gets through. It also means that there is some degradation to the light passing through. Frosted glass is translucent. Clear glass is transparent. By using the term translucent, Sony are acknowledging that there is some image degradation even if not at the frosted glass end of the scale. Do you really want a degraded image before it even gets to the sensor? At the very least, a f2.8 will behave like a slower lens on a different system.

2. The camera is sold as an interchangeable lens system. While Gary cited an extreme case, there is always some dust in any environment, except possibly a "clean room" and if we are all required to change lenses on our Sony Cameras in a clean room, then all I can say is "what were they thinking?" If we are not expected to change lenses, then why not buy a PHD instead. Is the mirror hermetically sealed to the sensor? If it is then it may actually be an advantage re cleaning as we no longer need to clean the sensor, just the mirror. Easier to get to, and less trepidatious. If it is not hermetically sealed, then it has made the situation much, much worse as we now have two extra surfaces to clean (front and back of the mirror) and two of the surfaces (Back of mirror and sensor) are much harder to get to.

Greg,

Mr Darcy wrote:We all know Gary has a blind spot re Sony. We live with it.

And in fact, I have been quite enthusiastic about their NEX series of cameras.

Is the mirror hermetically sealed to the sensor?

It is not. We raised this issue as well. The answer was that the shutter mechanism is a source of dust and debris, what with grease and other lubricants that are needed, and so the sensor requires cleaning.

And if the sensor is going to have dust, grease and other debris land on its surface, and has been made accessible so that it may be periodically cleaned, then so too must the mirror placed just a few millimeters forward of it.

If it is not hermetically sealed, then it has made the situation much, much worse as we now have two extra surfaces to clean (front and back of the mirror) and two of the surfaces (Back of mirror and sensor) are much harder to get to.

As you said, what were they thinking?

Mr Darcy wrote:Rooz, You are beginning to sound like a Sony salesman yourself. Do you have a new job?
We all know Gary has a blind spot re Sony. We live with it..

lol, sony does not do it for me...although i have to say that after using the 2 amazing zeiss 135mm lens' on an a900, (stabilised of course), some time ago, i conceded a newfound respect. the za1.8 was sublime and every bit as goos as the 135L, (nikon have nothing here). and the za2.8 is unparalleled on any system. that being said, the glass is slim pickings right now.

but i am very impressed with their latest efforts to push the bar of technology. the nex line intrigues me and their effort to solve video AF is quite ingenious and a credit to their innovation. just cos i don't own sony or really consider them an option for myself, it doesn't prevent me from seeing the benefits of something so clever.

I have used a lot of the Sony/Zeiss glass and there certainly glass to go with this camera (ZA 85 1.4, ZA 135 1.8, ZA 16-35 2.8, ZA 24-70 2. but there are a few concerns with this camera.

Sony widely acknowledges that you lose 1/3ev through the TRANSLUCENT mirror, and with the angle of that mirror + coatings etc I can only cringe and think of the degradation that it can cause.

The A33/A55 did not seal the sensor behind the mirror, in fact you can lift the mirror to get in underneath to clean the sensor, my thought was why not seal it up? Now we will have THREE surfaces to clean instead of one.

24.5MP, if this is not at/beyond the resolving limit of the lenses available it must be pretty close. This worries me, why not go to something with fewer pixels and gain a bit more high ISO performance without straining your lens offerings? I would be concerned about the resolving power of a lot of the low to mid range lenses available in the kit.

Phase AF in video. Sounds good, but in my experiences with the A33/A55 I have found the AF in video to be somewhat jumpy at times, not a smooth transition as you would desire. Maybe they have fixed this....fingers crossed.

For the Sony DSLRs, I do wonder about the pellicular mirror, which wasn't a success in the 1960s. While they may have some good lenses, their range is not that extensive, particularly since they started with the Minolta range some years ago and not all of their lenses may be stellar. For example, after a quick check on the DxO website, I notice their DT 80-200 f3.5-6.3 is really f5.6-f11, a serious usability issue.

The body that interests me potentially, though is the NEX-7. I'm looking for something that will fit in a coat pocket, have very good image quality and be good in low light. It has the advantage that with an adaptor it can be a backup Nikon body, albeit without autofocus and VR. That should be OK except for long telephoto handheld.

The problem may be the lenses, either in terms of size or quality. We'll have to see when the reviews come out for the new lenses. It's not completely critical for me though, because I'm looking for a complementary coat pocket camera rather than a camera system.

In the meanwhile, I need something for October and I've got an X100. I might still keep that even if I get a NEX-7.

Murray,

Murray Foote wrote:The body that interests me potentially, though is the NEX-7.

The NEX-7 looks to be very nice, but the other cameras in the NEX series are even smaller, and share the same glass and sensor technology.

They did not have a working NEX-7 at the event on Thursday, but right from day 1, about a year ago, I was impressed with the whole NEX concept - stuff an APS-C sensor into a compact body and push interchangeable lenses onto the front of it. I am looking forward to getting a serious play with a couple of bodies, if and when the PR people would stop sitting on their hands.

Regarding the adaptors - yes, you can use Nikkor glass, and in July, ad the previous Sony event, they showed a NEX with a generic adaptor - acquired off eBay - and a seriously old lens, perhaps from an old folding camera of some sort mounted on the body and making images.

That actually surprised me - that they would have an adaptor acquired from eBay on display and mounted and in use on a demo camera, at an official Sony event. That's going way above and beyond the call, and I know that, based upon our experiences at other similar events, at least one other camera manufacturer would be very unlikely to do anything nearly as creative as that.

Yes, folks, we've actually been prevented from taking photos at these sorts of events purely because we were using a brand of camera other than the one that was currently on display.

But getting back to the point, and also to Chris's earlier references regarding sales people, how many sales people would be bothered to grab a lens adaptor of eBay? How many would even know of that sort of thing?

There's at least a couple of 'togs within Sony's local camp, and that can only be a good thing.

In the meanwhile, I need something for October and I've got an X100. I might still keep that even if I get a NEX-7.

I would.

aim54x wrote:
Phase AF in video. Sounds good, but in my experiences with the A33/A55 I have found the AF in video to be somewhat jumpy at times, not a smooth transition as you would desire. Maybe they have fixed this....fingers crossed.

Can be a little jumpy yes, but its fast. Much more sophisticated than contrast detect on my d5100. Also keeping in mind that af with a large sensor is always going to be a little jumpy cos the dof is so thin, so its dropping in and out of focus regulalrly with moving objects. The jumpiness is an annoyance we are going to have to live with to a degree; a cameras ability to quickly reacquire focus though is even more critical.

gstark wrote:Murray,

Murray Foote wrote:The body that interests me potentially, though is the NEX-7.

The NEX-7 looks to be very nice, but the other cameras in the NEX series are even smaller, and share the same glass and sensor technology.

I don't see that as an advantage, though. The coat-pocketability constraint with NEX is the size of the lenses, not the size of the bodies. I think a slightly larger body than the NEX-5 would be preferable for me. NEX-7 has a viewfinder, which for me is likely to be a major advantage and it has the external wheels and buttons that to me are greatly preferable to havng to use menus, however well designed they may be. The 25MP sensor I suspect is not so significant. It has 25% more resolution than the 16MP sensor but the 16MP sensor may have better low light capabiiity. Depending on what the tests will show, I might have preferred a NEX-7 with the 16MP sensor.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-0 ... meras.html

Canon Inc. (7751) and Nikon Corp. (7731), the world’s two biggest makers of high-end cameras, may be missing out on the industry’s biggest technology shift since film rolls became obsolete.

The two Tokyo-based companies use mirrors in all cameras with interchangeable lenses, a technique Sony Corp. (6758) is shifting away from. As a result, Canon and Nikon’s combined share of the Japanese market has fallen by 35 percent, while Sony’s share has doubled, according to estimates at research firm BCN Inc.

Panasonic Corp. (6752) and Samsung Electronics Co. are also leaving out mirrors to reduce the size and cost of cameras, with Japanese consumers being among the earliest adopters. Canon and Nikon, under pressure from smartphones in the low-end market, may further undermine their lead in the $6.5 billion market because mirrorless cameras are lighter and take good enough pictures for most photographers, analysts said.

“Mirrorless cameras are a threat,” said David Rubenstein, a Tokyo-based analyst at MF Global FXA Securities Ltd., who has “neutral” ratings on Canon and Nikon shares. “If the western geographies follow the same pattern as Asia, then it will be negative for Nikon and Canon.”

In traditional high-end models known as single-lens-reflex cameras, mirrors allow photographers to look through an optical viewfinder instead of a liquid-crystal display. Compared with an LCD, the viewfinder helps users see a more accurate representation of the images they shoot, avoid time lags between shots and conserve battery life.
‘Paradigm Shift’

In mirrorless SLRs, first introduced by Panasonic Corp. in 2008, electronic sensors send the data directly to the LCD screen. That allows camera makers such as Sony and Panasonic to skip mirrors, prisms and the optical viewfinder.
The technology may be the biggest “paradigm shift” in the SLR industry in six decades, Mizuho Securities Equity Research analyst Ryosuke Katsura wrote last year.

For example, Hoya Corp. (7741)’s new Pentax Q weighs 200 grams and its body is smaller than an Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPhone 4 in terms of width and height. By comparison, Canon’s entry level EOS Rebel T3 weighs 495 grams.
“It’s like the difference between automatic and manual transmission in cars,” said Kumio Yamada, a freelance photographer who periodically showcases his work at personal exhibitions. “There is a tug of war going on between traditional camera makers and consumer electronics companies. As camera specialists, Canon and Nikon need to better show what distinguishes their products or they’ll have a difficult time.”

Canon and Nikon, which began making SLRs in the late 1950s, are starting to lose their edge in Japan, home to the world’s five largest makers of SLRs. Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales in the country in July, surging from 5 percent in early 2009, according to BCN.

Globally, sales of mirrorless cameras surged fivefold to 2.1 million units in 2010, and their share of the overall SLR market may climb to 23 percent in 2011 from 16 percent, according to Macquarie Group Ltd. estimates last month.
Sony, Japan’s largest exporter of consumer electronics, said last month industry shipments will probably reach 13 million worldwide in three years. The NEX series introduced last year helped Sony’s share in the worldwide SLR market rise to about 15 percent in the year ended March 31 from 10 percent a year earlier, said Hirofumi Otsuru, a Tokyo-based spokesman.

Sony now plans to release its NEX-5N this week, while South Korea’s Samsung Electronics plans to begin sales of its NX200 next month. Panasonic brought out its G3 in July and Olympus started offering its PEN E-PL3 last week. Fujifilm Holdings Corp. (4901), which only makes compact cameras, has said it’s considering offering a mirrorless SLR.
Nikon has completed development of a next-generation camera and is considering when it will reveal the product, said Sayaka Suzuki, a Tokyo-based spokeswoman. She declined to say whether the company will introduce a mirrorless model.

Mirrorless cameras have yet to catch on outside of Japan, allowing Canon to hang on to an estimated 45 percent share of the global market for SLRs. Nikon accounts for about 30 percent, according to researcher IDC.
The new types of cameras aren’t as popular in Europe and the U.S. because “the big camera makers still haven’t entered market” and “the number of products is too small to draw consumers,” Ichiro Takagi, president of Sony’s imaging & sound business group, told reporters in Tokyo last month. “A new market is being created.”

Mirrors are still lucrative. Canon earned 114.8 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in profit by selling 5.9 million traditional SLRs last year, four times the profit it made from compact cameras, according to Nomura Holdings Inc. estimates last month. Nikon earned more from SLRs and lenses last fiscal year than with any other product, according to Nomura.
“We acknowledge the importance of making SLRs smaller and lighter to expand the market,” said Takafumi Hongo, a Tokyo- based spokesman for Canon. “We plan to continue addressing this issue with or without the use of a mirror.”
Canon, the maker of EOS cameras, forecasts SLR camera sales will rise 24 percent this year, helping offset the fallout from the factory disruptions caused by Japan’s March 11 earthquake and tsunami. SLRs accounted for 65 percent of Canon’s total camera revenue last year, the company said in February.

Canon and Nikon’s reliance on SLRs may increase as compact cameras, whose shipments jumped 10-fold in the past decade, face mounting competition from mobile-phone cameras. Shipments will likely begin shrinking in 2014, according to estimates by research firm IHS iSuppli.

“In the long run, Canon and Nikon will have to enter the market,” said Hideki Yasuda, a Tokyo-based analyst at Ace Securities Co. in Tokyo. “Still, it won’t be too late for them to enter the market after mirrorless cameras become a global trend.”

If by "long run" they mean within the next 12 months then i agree. any longer than that and they are gonna be in strife.

Chris, two important factors ...

Rooz wrote:Mirrorless cameras have yet to catch on outside of Japan,

And

Mirrors are still lucrative.

The Japanese market is very different from the rest of the world. Hell, they love the multi-coloured Pentaxes that the rest of the world loathes.

One fact is that Nikon have already stated that they're going to be entering the MILC market.

Another is that the A77 is not mirrorless.

And as I've already stated, the Sony and Olympus mirrorless cameras are quite good. I have the EP-3 for another few days, and I also now have a NEX-3C for review. Both are quite impressive.

What are the advantages of mirrorless?
Is it just size/weight or is there a performance gain? I imagine frame rate is higher?

gstark wrote:Hell, they love the multi-coloured Pentaxes that the rest of the world loathes.

Except Big Red

Wink wrote:Is it just size/weight or is there a performance gain? I imagine frame rate is higher?

One of the earlier points in this thread is that the A77 boasts 12fps. There was some contention about whether the resultant pictures were good though. I think it is mostly size & weight though. And probably cost to manufacture. It must reduce the complexity of the mechanics.

Also mirror bounce is reduced somewhat insofar as there is no mirror. Conversely, users may tend to regard a light system as more suitable for handholding and use a tripod less, in which case there is a handholdability penalty because a light camera is less easy to hold steady (other things being equal).

Mr Darcy wrote:One of the earlier points in this thread is that the A77 boasts 12fps.

Although the A77 does actually have a mirror.

But yes, smaller body, smaller lenses, less complexity leading to lighter weight.

I think that with the NEX series, Sony have taken a good step in using the APS sized sensor in the smallest bodies they can engineer: there's a lot of good work happening in that sensor space, and IMHO, that's where we will see some significant progress.

I still want to see optical viewfinders on all of these MILCs though, as EVFs present a number of issues, particularly outdoors in bright sunlight.

gstark wrote:I still want to see optical viewfinders on all of these MILCs though, as EVFs present a number of issues, particularly outdoors in bright sunlight.

I saw a rumour that Fuji is preparing an interchangeable lens version of the X100. If true, that really would be a challenge to Leica.

gstark wrote:And in fact, I have been quite enthusiastic about their NEX series of cameras.

Gary, what's your thinking/opinion on the NEX3/5 in image quality with the associated kit lens? I have the opportunity to acquire one cheaply and was just wondering.

I used to be a huge Sony fan with the F707 which was a stellar camera with a magnificent Zeiss F2 lens, but their P&S camera quality declined to the level of a Great wall ute. I might be prepared to give them another shot as a travel camera if the image quality is as good as their marketing claims.

P.S. I sold my X100. It is an outstanding camera except 35mm is just not my focal length.

ozimax wrote:

gstark wrote:And in fact, I have been quite enthusiastic about their NEX series of cameras.

Gary, what's your thinking/opinion on the NEX3/5 in image quality with the associated kit lens? I have the opportunity to acquire one cheaply and was just wondering.

How cheaply?

And you're referring to the earlier model? If the price is right, I'd have no issues buying either the NEX-3 or 5, and the kit lenses are fine. At the worst, you can grab an adaptor and throw some of your Canon glass onto the front.

They impressed me last year upon their release, and they continue to impress. And while I love the PEN, I think the NEX is a slightly better camera. And while the touch screen focus and shoot on the PEN EP-3 changes your whole shooting paradigm, I don't know if that's a real buying parameter.

Some of the newly announced NEX lenses look as though they could be good, though the range is still thin and often insufficiently compact. Give it a year or two and there could be many more and some may be genuinely compact. Sony have opened up their mount specs to third parties and so far Cosina (Voigtlander), Zeiss, Tokina, Tamron and Sigma have all asked for them.

gstark wrote:

ozimax wrote:

gstark wrote:And in fact, I have been quite enthusiastic about their NEX series of cameras.

Gary, what's your thinking/opinion on the NEX3/5 in image quality with the associated kit lens? I have the opportunity to acquire one cheaply and was just wondering.

gstark wrote:How cheaply?

Quoted $490 for NEX 3 plus 16mm + 18-55mm lens, brand new.

I suppose my main question re-stated is this:

Does anyone have any hands on experience as to how the NEX 3/5 series' image quality stands up as opposed to the smaller sensored Canon S95, Panasonic LX5, Olympus EPL-1 etc, which I think are around the same price point.

These cameras, at least the first 2, seem to be significantly more pocketable than the Sony with it's weird shape. (I am familiar with the shape as I used an F707 for a number of years, and it was quite a comfortable camera to shoot. It was just not able to fit into a pocket.)

The NEX series "should" have measurably better IQ than the others mentioned, but I'm not really familiar with the Sony kit lens lineup etc.

ozimax wrote:

gstark wrote:

ozimax wrote:

gstark wrote:And in fact, I have been quite enthusiastic about their NEX series of cameras.

Gary, what's your thinking/opinion on the NEX3/5 in image quality with the associated kit lens? I have the opportunity to acquire one cheaply and was just wondering.

gstark wrote:How cheaply?

Quoted $490 for NEX 3 plus 16mm + 18-55mm lens, brand new.

At that price, I'd do it.

ozimax wrote:I suppose my main question re-stated is this:

Does anyone have any hands on experience as to how the NEX 3/5 series' image quality stands up as opposes to the smaller sensored Canon S95, Panasonic LX5, Olympus EPL-1 etc, which I think are around the same price point.

There's no comparison between the Canon/Panasonic vs the Sony or Olympus. Sensor size wins.

At the price you're looking at - half the typical retail - the Sony becomes a no brainer decision to me. Just as well I have no brains.

And the NEX-3 with the 16mm ... delicious.

Murray Foote wrote:Some of the newly announced NEX lenses look as though they could be good, though the range is still thin and often insufficiently compact.

Murray, the lenses are around the same physical size as those in the Olympus range, but the bodies are very much smaller. That's almost somewhat odd, given that the original Pen's premise was a half-35mm format camera, and the Pen's resurrection was based around its size.

Sony have taken a smaller body than the Pen, and implanted a bigger sensor.

Give it a year or two and there could be many more and some may be genuinely compact.

Not needed.

If you want compact glass, just go with the kit lenses, which seem to me to be of very good quality. If you really want even better quality, the with adaptors readily available off eBay, you can throw Nikon or Canon or Leica glass at the body.

The same is somewhat true of the Pen as well, and last year, when I had a review EP-1, I also had an OM mount and was able to use a Zeiss 75-150 OM lens on the Pen. Magic!

ozimax wrote:I suppose my main question re-stated is this:

Does anyone have any hands on experience as to how the NEX 3/5 series' image quality stands up as opposed to the smaller sensored Canon S95, Panasonic LX5, Olympus EPL-1 etc, which I think are around the same price point.

In my opionion there's definitely a considerable difference in quality.

The NEX cameras are just as good, if not better, as APS-C DSLR cameras (since they have the same sensor). I think most would agree if I said a Nikon D3100 with kit lens would be a considerable improvement over those compact cameras?

gstark wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:Some of the newly announced NEX lenses look as though they could be good, though the range is still thin and often insufficiently compact.

Murray, the lenses are around the same physical size as those in the Olympus range, but the bodies are very much smaller. That's almost somewhat odd, given that the original Pen's premise was a half-35mm format camera, and the Pen's resurrection was based around its size.

Sony have taken a smaller body than the Pen, and implanted a bigger sensor.

Give it a year or two and there could be many more and some may be genuinely compact.

Not needed.

If you want compact glass, just go with the kit lenses, which seem to me to be of very good quality. If you really want even better quality, the with adaptors readily available off eBay, you can throw Nikon or Canon or Leica glass at the body.

The same is somewhat true of the Pen as well, and last year, when I had a review EP-1, I also had an OM mount and was able to use a Zeiss 75-150 OM lens on the Pen. Magic!

My criterion is coat pocketabiity. The size of the lenses here is more of a constraint than the size of the bodies. I find many of the bodies too small and I look on it as a good thing that the Nex-7 will be a bit larger.

When I refer to compactness, I'm referring to a length of 20-30mm rather than around 60mm. The X100 has this. The m4/3 cameras have probably four or five pancakes, the collapsible Olympus 9-18mm and the new Panasonic 14-42mm. NEX currently only has the 16mm pancake.