JRG
Well-known
It's there:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7
That's A7. The A7R review is still in process.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a7
That's A7. The A7R review is still in process.
uhoh7
Veteran
I'm still waiting for the full review of the m9....
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Ya... I noted it yesterday and haven't bothered to wade through it yet. I looked, like I usually do, at the conclusion page first to see what they consider pros/cons. I also actually made a comment on their issue with Auto ISO and 1/60 of a second which can produce, apparently, "blurry" photographs.
After reading that I figured the rest of the review may be a bit, well, not for my palate I would say.
Blurry photos at 1/60... rubbish..
Cheers,
Dave
After reading that I figured the rest of the review may be a bit, well, not for my palate I would say.
Blurry photos at 1/60... rubbish..
Cheers,
Dave
kshapero
South Florida Man
I am still waiting for their review of my M3. Ok nevermind.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have never used a DSLR, but the SONY cameras look huge in size when compared with an M camera. Maybe the lenses that are shown are very large.
Mark C
Well-known
Most people say that in hand the a7 feels smaller than an M, and it is in at least some dimensions. The autofocus lenses are much bigger than M of course, but I think most of us are looking at this as a platform for legacy lenses.
I'm not sure if the comparsion itself will link here, but you can enter something appropriate if it doesn't:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#487,358
I'm not sure if the comparsion itself will link here, but you can enter something appropriate if it doesn't:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#487,358
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have the A7 and the M4-2 sitting side by side on my desk right now.
- The A7 body is about 3/4 inch shorter in length than the M4-2.
- The A7 body is about 1/4 inch shorter in height than the M4-2, except for the EVF housing, which stands about 1/8 inch taller than the M4-2.
- The A7 body is about the same depth front to back as the M4-2 except for the grip protrusion on the front right side (as you hold the camera) and the eyepiece rubber protusion in the approximate center rear. If I fit a mount adapter and the same lens as I would fit on the M4-2, the A7 will be about 12mm greater depth because the sensor plane is 12mm closer to the front of the camera than the M4-2's film plane.
- The A7 body sans lens weighs 472g and the M4-2 sans lens weighs 556g on my scale.
- The A7 body is about 1/4 inch shorter in height than the M4-2, except for the EVF housing, which stands about 1/8 inch taller than the M4-2.
- The A7 body is about the same depth front to back as the M4-2 except for the grip protrusion on the front right side (as you hold the camera) and the eyepiece rubber protusion in the approximate center rear. If I fit a mount adapter and the same lens as I would fit on the M4-2, the A7 will be about 12mm greater depth because the sensor plane is 12mm closer to the front of the camera than the M4-2's film plane.
- The A7 body sans lens weighs 472g and the M4-2 sans lens weighs 556g on my scale.
In the hand, with the same lens, the A7 body feels noticeably lighter and somewhat smaller than the M4-2. It feels about the same size (but a little shorter) and weight as a CL body, and is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the M9 body.
I've used the A7 only with a couple of Leica R lenses (Summilux-R 50/1.4, Summicron-R 90/2). The R lenses plus the mount adapter are substantially longer, larger diameter, and heavier than the sibling M lenses of the same focal length and speed. But because of the grip, the overall shape of the body, and the long mount tube which provides gripping surface, the camera does not feel out of balance with any of the Leica R lenses I have up to 135mm, but it does make the overall package feel about the same size as a small SLR camera (say, a Nikon FM or Olympus OM-1). However, fit the M-Rokkor 40/2 or M-Rokkor 90/4 and it feels like a Leica CL with a nice big grip on the right and a centered viewfinder.
BTW, my first test shots with the Summilux-R 50 and Summicron-R 90 have produced outstandingly lovely image qualities, extremely similar to what comes out of the Leicaflex SL on film. This is very encouraging as I have been somewhat disappointed using these same lenses on smaller than 35mm sized sensor cameras ... when you crop their image circle too much, you lose a lot of the beautiful center to edge interactions designed into their rendering signature.
This is why I wanted the A7, to provide a digital body with the right format for these wonderful old SLR lenses. I haven't tested M-lenses on the A7 yet; hopefully, most of my M-lenses will behave nicely with this sensor too.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've only made about 85-90 exposures with the A7 so far (just terrifically busy right now), but I have not seen any "blurry" photos at 1/60 second yet. I've only seen blurry photos when it was obvious I missed the focus or grossly jiggled the camera when releasing the shutter, as per normal ...
YYV_146
Well-known
I regularly shoot with my A7 and wide RF lenses at 1/4, and can get more than half of those shots in sharp focus. With the EFEC there is no camera shake before the image has been recorded, and this allows for far lower shutter speeds compared to a DSLR or even a digital M.
Not that I enjoy shooting at such speeds...but why would you go to 3200 or 6400 if you can make the shot at 640?
Lss
Well-known
The issue is auto-ISO that goes down to 1/60 before upping the sensitivity. It is a very valid argument, despite the fact that there are situations where it is possible to shoot at 1/60 without blur due to either camera shake or subject movement. IMO, any auto-ISO implementation that lacks shutter speed configuration is inherently broken. I would personally include aperture control into the mix, too, and allow user profiles for different use cases. Any other auto-ISO implementation basically assumes that you do not care at all about shutter speed (aperture priority) or aperture (shutter priority). I find this to significantly limit the usefulness of the feature.
Even such a dinosaur, by a company that according to many understands nothing about digital photography, as M8 by Leica implements shutter speed setting for auto-ISO. For obvious reasons that camera does not implement aperture control for this feature.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
It does work. Funny they quote the Sony with card and battery for weight, if so shouldn't the Leica have a film loaded
Michalm
Well-known
A7 isn't exactly DSLR , I find this camera to be too small actually , and it is thin. Lenses are bigger because sensor is very close to the lens mount , M lenses mounted with the adapter wouldn't be that much smaller.
Scrambler
Well-known
I have a much cheaper, very basic a3000. It's interesting to me that Sony have such similarities across a roughly tenfold price difference.
For those who want a faster shutter with auto-ISO, use Intelligent Auto. It's really just a Program mode which keeps the shutter at or above 1/160. Assuming this like nearly everything else is the same.
What about the customizable program modes? How much choice do you have about minimum shutter speed?
For those who want a faster shutter with auto-ISO, use Intelligent Auto. It's really just a Program mode which keeps the shutter at or above 1/160. Assuming this like nearly everything else is the same.
What about the customizable program modes? How much choice do you have about minimum shutter speed?
raid
Dad Photographer
The posted images here of the A7 with lens make the set look very large in size. As I said above, it could that the lenses are large in size.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
My solution to the valid argument is to not use Auto-ISO. I never used it on any of the DSLRs I have owned, was/is impossible to use it on the M7 or the Rolleiflex, and any of the film cameras I used prior to the digital era. I wonder how we ever got along without it ?!?!?
I change the ISO on the digital cameras as conditions warrant. Not difficult to do and while it may be useful to some people, it breeds lazy behaviour but that's just my opinion (which these days is worth less than 2 cents
) Cheers,
Dave
raid
Dad Photographer
I also do not use Auto ISO. I prefer to control the camera.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
That's how I look at it too Raid.
If the option is there - I guess that's great for those who want/use it. But I can live without it. Just like I can live without really using "live view" or some other features that have been built into the newer cameras.
Weird.. even with the advancements of digital I still want to control the camera just like my dad's old completely manual Pentax SL or like my Rolleiflex..
Cheers,
Dave
Lss
Well-known
I would sometimes use it if it was done better. A well-implemented auto-ISO is quite simply an extension of aperture/shutter priority. It's only natural that anyone who only ever uses manual is not interested in this feature.
Yeah, I've heard this before... but it's not exactly accurate. With Auto ISO, I can choose the shutter speed and aperture I truly want to use and then let the ISO run up and down. I've still made the choice on shutter speed and aperture... so I made the decision.