1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Is SONY A7/A7r a real game changer? What can we expect next?

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by mesmerized, Mar 2, 2014.

  1. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    Howdy,

    There's a lot of buzz about Sony's newest babies, namely A7 and A7R. They've already been called "real game changers." Can you think of any reasons why one should not go for a full frame mirrorless camera? What do you think the future might bring? Should one still wait a bit before leaping into small-size FF cameras? Perhaps SONY (or any other manufacturer) will shock us again in the nearby future?

    Cheers,
     
  2. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    RX1 was arguably the game changer - but I get your point....:biggrin:
     
  3. snaimpally

    snaimpally Mu-43 Top Veteran

    572
    Dec 31, 2012
    Getting a full frame camera down to the size of a mirrorless camera is a big deal, even if the size comparison is against the OM10, one of the largest of the mu43 cameras. With electronics, particular complex electronics, early adopters often pay a penalty so I think the reason to hold off going Sony full frame is to see how well it works, wait till they get the bugs fixed, and then adopt. If you want shock, look at the Panasonic DMC-GM1 - Panasonic squeezed a big sensor into a compact, P&S size body. Mu43 has gone both bigger (GH3, OM10) and smaller (GM1).
     
  4. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    For those of us who are connoisseur of MF legacy glass, the A7 is certainly a game changer: the ultimate camera for adapting lenses.

    For the mainstream...well, it all depends on the kind of lens system they build. I think most are in a "wait and see" mode.
     
  5. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    In terms of game changers in the next 5 years, I think we will eventually see the adoption of wide dynamic range sensors. Essentially with this technology each individual pixel has its own analogue/digital converter so that each pixel can be exposed differently (imagine very short shutter speeds for highlights and longer ones for shadows.)

    This technology is not particularly new - it is widely used in security cameras. At present I believe the largest sensor is only about 1 megapixel though. The market leader in this technology is Pixim - http://www.pixim.com/products-and-technology/technology - Pixim was acquired (I think) by Sony last year.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    The only attraction that the A7r has for me is the ability to use my M mount lenses (or most of them) with such a sensor, without having to buy a Leica. I would certainly like to try one before ever contemplating buying one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Jay86

    Jay86 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Dec 26, 2012
    Put me in the "wait and see" category like MAubrey said. While I dont think they are quite as big a game changers by themselves (the A7 and A7r I mean) like some people are touting them to be, they have certainly broken ground in a new direction and gotten the ball rolling what could certainly be the future for some time. Reminds a little bit of the first FF DSLR camera's that were priced a lot more consumer friendly (ex. the first Canon 5D).
     
  8. Art

    Art Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2011
    San Francisco, CA
    it's a no brainer to make small bodies with current advances in image processors and sensors, barely revolutionary. The real test will be to develop compact lightweight FF lenses to match the tiny bodies. This will require some truly innovative lens designs and clever software corrections. Until then, it's no game changer. It's not like there were no compact FF film cameras.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Leica has been doing that (making small, extremely good, lenses) since its inception.
     
  10. jsusilo

    jsusilo Mu-43 Veteran

    233
    Aug 28, 2012
  11. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    I am not really convinced that Leica lenses are that lightweight or even particularly small. Say the 90 f2 is 450g while the Oly 45 1.8 is 116g. The 135 is 450g and is only f3.5. The Oly 75 1.8 is 300g. Then if you add onto Leica an autofocus system they would be even heavier.

    My point being, I dont think (considering the lack of autofocus) there is anything particularly light weight about Leica lenses.
     
  12. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Focal length is focal length (or field of view is field of view), you can't compare a 90mm lens with a 45mm lens. The Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 (which I have), weighs 427g, the Olympus 75mm f1.8 weighs 305g. The Voigtlander is all metal, the Olympus is primarily plastic. The Voigtlander is 57.9mm D x 73.8mm L; the Olympus is 64mm D x 69mm L, not that big a difference.
     
  13. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    No game changer that I see. Not at all. It can't do a single thing that a DSLR can't do. The bodies are miniaturized but the lenses are not: they cannot be, as Sony hasn't invented a new optical principle. Therefore the only noticeable advantage over normal DSLR use is for owners who hardly want any lenses. The more lenses you buy, the smaller its size advantage becomes. Put the new Sony FE-mount 70-200mm f/4 on it and it is similar in size and weight to a Canon 6D with Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS. And most performance aspects like startup speed, AF speed, max shooting speed, are worse than most DSLR cameras.

    However, it does a brilliant job of creating a market illusion of a game changer. And that is all it takes. I predict a landslide.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    In all honesty, I'm not a big fan of going for smaller and smaller bodies... Heck, I even think that OMD-E5 should be a bit bigger. I like to "feel" the camera in my hands... With something like GM1 I'd feel like holding a toy... It might sound ridiculous to most of you but in my humble opinion cameras that are too small just don't feel all that good to me...
     
  15. yekimrd

    yekimrd Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 14, 2012
    Cincinnati, OH
    Mikey
    Sorry, Robby! But I agree with OzRay -- the main advantage towards portability of micro four thirds is owing to its cropped sensor and how the FOV of its lenses are effectively doubled as a result. Yes, there is also the advantage of having to only cover a smaller sensor but that is only secondary.
     
  16. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I quite agree with you and have made similar comment before. Ergonomics begin to disappear at some point when things become too small, even given the variability of the human form. When I hold my E-1 and my E-3, they seem so unnecessarily bulky, compared to the E-M1, which fits the hand perfectly. They used to feel just right, but my perceptions have certainly changed. No doubt if I could swap my 4/3 lenses for the equivalent m4/3 lenses, I'd settle right in, but I still like the feel of these old lenses.

    By comparison, the FF Nikons and Canons are cinderblocks when lined up with the Sony A7/A7r. The only question about Sony is: 'What are they going to settle on?' Since taking over Konica Minolta, they have been jumping one way or the other, with seemingly no direction. Sony will never compete with Canon/Nikon when it comes to a lot of pro activities, especially sports, but they can in others such as advertising, fashion etc. So my guess is that the new A7 format may well be the final iteration, much like m4/3 has become for Olympus.
     
  17. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    How about the fact that there are only a handful of native lenses, and they're all ridiculously expensive?

    $800 for a 35/2.8. $1000 for a 55/1.8. $1200 for a 24-70/4. $1400 for a 70-200/4. And that's basically it (aside from the unimpressive $500 28-70/3.5-5.6 'kit' lens). It's really hard to get excited about an 'affordable' full-frame body, when the cheapest decent lens for it is $800. Compare that to something like Nikon's D600 which has a dozen competent lenses available for it under $500.
     
  18. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe

    It CAN BE a game changer if like myself, all you want the FF camera for is for a fast-ish 50 and possibly a nice 35 to along with it....and the A7 + 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 fit the bill absolutely perfectly, and that's no illusion. Used in this way it would be ridiculous to go for honking big D800 or one of the big Canons.....I do however accept that if what a person wants a FF camera for is to use not only smaller primes but also use fast-ish long and wide zooms then yeah, the lenses are invariably going to be equally as large. So I guess what it boils down to is what you want the A7 for and how you intend to use it.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  19. mesmerized

    mesmerized Mu-43 Veteran

    344
    Jun 18, 2012
    For some reason I'm not quite sure if m4/3 is capable of saving Olympus or Panasonic in the long run... I mean... The sensor-size might still be the prime factor for many customers...

    Out of curiosity... What happened to Olympus DSLRs?
     
  20. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe

    I think its fair to say that based upon just about every single test and review made thus far that the $1000 Zeiss 55mm/1.8 is considerably superior optically to those competent lenses that can be had for under $500......and if all those tests and reviews are anything to go by, the 55/1.8 is probably better than just about ANY lens you care to mention in its focal range with the exception of perhaps the one single lens...the Otus 1.4 The 55/1.8 isn't just a really good lens, it's an incredible lens.....I call $1000 to be great value.
     
    • Like Like x 2