The new Hybrid A-E mount Sony camera will be launched between late 2014 and early 2015. It will look like a Sony SLT camera and target the High End market. I have been told that it has a lever to lift off the A-mount so that you can use the E-mount instead. I know this sounds quite strange, but the source used exactly these words…
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
114 Responses
So it is just a camera with a removable adaptor with SLT?
It sounds like a Ricoh GXR – except that the lens modules will be replaced with mount modules. If that’s true, then it should be possible to make such modules for just about any AF lens by any maker.
HELL YEAH!!! That’s what I am talking about: Levers, the epitome of technological development.
This interests me. I’ll be watching to learn more.
Can you buy it without the adapter?
As a FE and A mount camera owner, with lenses for both, this is right up my alley.
+1
Admin
It is unclear from this info
Does this have IBIS that can be used with E mount?
And will this have sensor Z shift at all?
I doubt there will be a Z Shift if the lever can “Lift Off” the A Mount. If its removable, it would be next to impossible to move the sensor in its place.
If z shift can focus/macro focus that would be great.
If not it is a waste and should be left off.
So, its a A7000 with a SLT Adapter?
Can folks who own both A & E mount cameras enlighten me if its even possible to have a hybrid mount? Are the mounts similar enough?
If it were not possible they would not be able too do it….
Why do people think that anything we dont already do is impossible?
More likely it is a new mount to which A-mount and E-mount adaptors can be added with high precision, so they are near native as far as alignment goes. I expect to be more like the demo camera Sony had on tour a while back with the double hot-shoes and distance antenna. A moveable sensor may be needed to get E-mount to the correct distance. If my surmise is true, then it will be very large and very expensive, hopefully it will have a nice 4K video sensor with pixel binning.
It sounds essentially like an e-Mount camera with an adapter of some sort, although whether it’s fully detachable or not remains to be seen.
On concern is that the e-Mount throat is smaller than A-mount, and it’s already tight for FF and there may not be enough clearance for IBIS to work as the sensor typically moves a mm or so in each direction. This might mean that, at times, the corner of an FF sensor would be partially occluded. It would be a considerable shortcoming if IBIS wasn’t available for FF and A-Mount lenses.
If they cant figure out how to put ibis on this camera then NO ONE will buy it.
The question is will the IBIS also work with the E mount an non sony..non stabilized lenses?
What is with you guys and IBIS? Saying that no one will buy something without IBIS is such a ludicrous statement, and in my mind none of your opinions have any logical substance. It’s amazing that you think that IBIS is an end-all-be-all in taking photos, like no one has ever been able to get sharp photos before it.
If you want to go back to being a hunter/gatherer..give up fire , the wheel and farming be my guest..I will not be joining you.
The fact that we once did not have it is irrelevent.
I will not take lesser guality photos in support of some arbitrary principle of your preaching.
I dont care about preserving the old school..I only want better sharper pictures.
If you want to kling to the old ways..use an old camera and have fun..
Since you will not be buying a new camera anyway there is no reason for sony to be concerned with you.
Your example of going back to the stone age and not using fire makes no sense. Fire (heat) is essential to many things, IBIS is not necessary. You can shoot fine without IBIS.
I also don’t understand your argument about sacrificing image quality because you don’t have IBIS. 1) It is easy enough to get sharp photos without IBIS and 2) you use Tamron lenses. If you don’t want to sacrifice IQ, why would you use Tamron lenses?
Sony DLSRs are crap if you aren’t using Zeiss lenses. Sony lenses suck, and cheap Sony lenses are utter rubbish. It’s just a better investment to go Canon or Nikon if you are doing non-Zeiss APS-C sensor combinations. If I ever switched from Nikon DSLRs to Sony DLSRs (which is a consideration for me), it would be for an A99 replacement and only Zeiss lenses. There is no way I would ever get a Sony lens, and there are only one or two Sigma lenses with good enough IQ.
If you want to sacrifice IQ for having Sony DSLRs with Tamron lenses, you go ahead, because I actually want high quality optics and IQ, and IBIS is just an extra cost for something that isn’t needed.
You can shoot fine without AF, automation or even a digital sensor. Save your money and get a cheap film camera and shoot.
Stop bothering about tech like IS and AF if its not your cup of tea. Also make fun of all those people buying Canon 70-200mm f2.8/4 IS versions over their non IS versions by paying extra money.
And you have little to no proof that cheap Sony lenses are crap.
Steve
Your argument is so foolish and contradictorry that I cant even argue with you.
Acording to you we should all buy the most expensive possible equipment but the cost of Ibis is unacceptable.
Furthermore you are apparently unaware that the 3. Tamron macro lenses. I have..the 60mm f2, 90mm f2.8 and 180mm f 3.5 are as sharp as any macro lens in thier class by any manufacturer at any price.
So if thats what you choose to do go ahead and spend 5x as much for the same quality and save lots of money by not having stabization.
And while your at it have fun using your macros and long lenses handheld because im sure you will find it EASY TO GET SHARP PHOTOS WITHOUT IBIS. And mayby it will even make ypu a ” better shooter”
P.S.
I also do have lenses by Sony,Sigma,and older lenses by Schnieder,Nikon, Minolta and even an old Vivitar series 1 90mm macro that was the best macro made in its time.
I research each lens and choose the best value and guality. No manufacturer has a monopoly on quality and if you blindly assume the most expensive has to be the best you will throw a lot of money away.
I recently mentioned 3 Tamron macros because they are excellent and my favorites and the new 150-600 because for $1000 it is better than any other long zoom. Almost as hood as some primes as a 600 for c, Only 4 lbs,
Compared to $9000 and 12 lb for a 600 that is a little bit better but less versatile..no zoom.
I do however only claim that these choices are best FOR ME as everyone has differrent needs.
Barry is just hung up on it, and will not admit that in-lens stabilization is superior and the Sony lenses are priced such that there us no price advantage of in body stabilization vs. in-lens (where it belongs)
The best way to feel good about having emotions like this is to assume nobody in the world disagrees with you and that a camera lacking this feature is surely doomed.
Mankind also invented a heasd-mounted toilet paper dispenser… But most of us get along just fine without it.
It does not matter which is better when there is only one choice.
A mount users cannot use oss
Non oss lenses cannot use oss.
Both systems work and will do the job better than nothing.
I chose NOT to debate which is better because it is more important to have something rather than nothing.
How is not having any type of IS superior to IBIS? Because even Canon and Nikon still produce the large majority of their primes without IS. Show me any Zeiss or Leica prime with IS. There’s only one Zeiss zoomlens with OSS, no Leicas. So it’s a bit simplistic to suggest IBIS is inferior in general when in practise OS(S) may never even be a full substitute, especially for those interested in primes and/or legacy glass.
Have to agree with Barry – ISS is essential to adaptation by A-mount users. If OSS, where are the A-mount OSS lenses? I believe they will come, but not anytime soon, and you really can’t push forward with a system with no stabilization options.
Would rock if E-mount also allowed ISS.
Sony could then be the first cameras to COMBINE ISS/OSS for the best of both, faster response, and increased range!
BTW, OSS is not superior it ISS. Optically they are two different animals; each has their strengths.
The whole notion of “in lens is superior” is based on oldthink – back in the film days, the lens was the only place to put stabilization. Canon did it first, everyone loved it, but that doesn’t mean that’s the best way to do it.
As for why somelike barry might be “hung up” on future A-mount bodies not having IBIS, the modern Minolta/Sony A-mount product line is predicated upon stabilization being in the camera. Canikon equivalents of, e.g., the 70-200/2.8G, 70-300/4.5-5.6G and 70-400/4.5-5.6G are all stabilized. The Sony versions aren’t. If future A-mount bodies ditch stabilization, it impacts the value of the entire A-mount system.
The only real advantage in-lens stabilisation has over in-body stabilisation is that the viewfinder image is stabilised on cameras with optical viewfinders. On cameras with electronic viewfinders that use a stabilised sensor, the viewfinder image is also stabilised, so no advantage there.
An A mount camera needs IBIS because the lenses are not stabilized. Period
+1000
That would boost sony sales, re-release a-mount lenses with stabilization.
Both Sigma and Tamron have to produce sonyvmounts without stabilization because they were overwhelmed with complaints and returns from sony users who lack the commpn sense tp turn of eother of the two stabilzation systems.
Shoot with lenses that don’t need stabilization or put it in the lenses that need it. Why make everyone pay for it if not everyone needs it? Why should I have to pay for IBIS if I shoot with 35, 50, 85, and 135 and have no need of it?
Oh yes Sony bodies are so darn expensive because of IBIS. Move to Canon/Nikon and pay extra $$$ for every lens with IS.
The E mount has plenty of OSS lenses but the A mount has none. If Sony removes IBIS then a lot of people might switch to Canon or Nikon.
Image stabilization is a modern tech and most people who use it appreciate it.
I and many other people bought into the A mount for IBIS and nothing else really since Nikon and Canon had a much better system than Sony but IBIS was the only real differentiators.
E mount didn’t have IBIS from the start which is why I stayed away but if they remove IBIS from A mount as well then a lot of people aren’t going to be happy.
A lot of people never used AF or auto aperture lenses before and still took good photos but if any manufacturer made cameras without AF or auto aperture I will bet money these companies won’t last long.
I’ll say it. Sounds stupid. So it’s an e-mount camera, possibly with IBIS, but with an a-mount adapter included.
I agree, there is no way to put E mount lenses on a camera with A mount so it has to be an E mount camera with A mount adapter.
Or, it’s a camera body without a bayonet Mount, but instead you can fit adapters with various mounts, allowing electronic communication between body and lens, irrespective of brand via Electronics inside the adapters.
So it’s basically a7 bundled with LA-EA4 ?
It sounds like it would look more like a high-end A3000 with an adapter.
Sure, but shaped like a A-99.
An option which is totally unappealing for me, as I have a bunch of A-mount glass that I am happy with, I have no need to use other types of lenses.
Sony always seems to be in its own world. In different people’s minds, what was the matter with the A-99? Variously, inferior focusing, inferior flash, SLT. Why not just fix those things, which are all presumably easy to do, and more valuable than making a disabled hybrid-mount camera?
Imagine an A99 with great AF, a flippable SLT, and a bombproof flash system–what a foundation. Then you could add easy things like a higher-res sensor, faster buffer, faster card, etc.
Then and only then should a removable mount adapter-version be offered, and it should be implemented without any further consideration for the performance of non-native-A-mount lenses–just as an easy option, if you want to use some other lenses however well they will work.
It seems to me to be easy to use the A99 as a launch point for a really good camera, which would mean less investment from Sony.
If other manufacturers can make a robust flash, so can Sony. They already know what they need to do, they just don’t do it.
Don’t like the SLT? Fine, flip it out of the way.
Need better AF? I have no idea what to do about this, it is out of my league–
–however, an A99 improved with only flippable SLT and robust flash would STILL be a really nice camera…and this coming from someone who doesn’t use flash at all.
Hybrid mount is going in the wrong direction IMHO, and not actually addressing weaknesses in the A99 system–it is more about exploring opportunities instead. Unfortunately, exploration of hybrid mount will only create a new set of weaknesses, which Sony will, no doubt, also fail to address, in favor of “exploring other opportunities” instead.
I agree with you on the better AF system needed but building a brand new flash system is a big big task and I highly doubt Sony can come up with a solution so quickly.
The future of SLT is mirrorless but the tech is still not mature enough to discontinue the SLT design.
A flipping mirror is completely pointless as Sony has moved away from a flipping mirror. Plus the SLT mirror is so delicate that its going to tear if its movable.
AFAIK this is going to be a different camera to bridge the two systems and an A99 replacement or upgrade will be announced early next year.
This camera will be launched most likely in 2015 only.
Brendon, I’m not a “flash guy”, but from what I understand, the problem is overheating at full power.
This is generally not a complex engineering issue to overcome. The logic and essential function of the flash could remain unchanged.
As for the pellicle mirror tearing if moved, that is not proven. Furthermore, the movement does not need to incur high acceleration or shock, because the type of flipping I’m talking about is like MLU, for people who just don’t want the pellicle mirror in the way, for whatever reason.
Sony is like a slut, always moving on to the next thing, without really making a meaningful effort to make the previous thing better. What we are left with is a trail of abandoned junk, a bunch of dead-end’s.
OTOH if they had acted differently, we would have a camera that many would consider purchasing–an A900/850 with live view, and a higher-res and flippable screen, good tethering, improved focusing–or an A700, with the same improvements. Even a non-overheating flash.
Think of it this way: what do you think people would generally rather have, an improved A900/850 that is fully supported with tons of parts and experienced service centers around, or an A99?
Think the SLT is really a step forward? Fine, then use the A99 as a jumping-off point instead of the A900–but stick to SOMETHING. Always switching things is lame, especially huge things like mounts.
Always starting over means that you are always dealing with problems that result from immaturity–and as many of us know, those problems tend to be fundamental, very confusing, and very painful.
Also, I personally believe that there should be a really good reason to move from a mature technology/system to something new, not just some sort of incremental benefit.
Consider the “size benefit” of the FE system over a DSLR/DSLT–incremental, but not fundamentally different. By that I mean that it does not permit a new type of photography or user experience, like being able to put it in your pocket, or not having to hold it in your hand.
There is no fundamental difference.
Same with the SLT vs the SLR. No fundamental difference. 7fps vs 5 fps, no fundamental difference. M4/3 vs APS-C vs FF? No fundamental difference.
Digital vs film, that is a fundamental difference. Stills vs movie, that is a fundamental difference. Full information display via either live view or EVF or both, that might be a fundamental difference.
I do believe that a camera that is instantly connected to a distributed storage and display system represents a fundamental difference. This is the camera phone. Image/video viewable instantly, and both locally and remotely, and archived for storage.
I’m not saying that there isn’t room in the market for product differentiation–but consumers are so novelty-oriented, that they exalt the virtue of novelty over that of reliability or function. For instance, I do believe that although sensor size isn’t fundamental, it is nevertheless probably worthwhile in a market sense to offer different sensor sizes. How many would be governed by market forces.
Consider the quest for frame rate speed–why? Did nobody in the film era get good photos of high-speed objects like athletes/racecars? Of course they did. Ditto everything else we now do with advanced digital photography.
Has the new tech variously made it easier to succeed? Maybe. As many have said many times before, the best camera is the one that you have with you.
Also, I believe that user-interchangeable sensors would be a fundamental change.
Interchangeable lenses vs fixed lens, that is a fundamental difference.
Hi Not an everyman,
Unfortunately while you and I would like a camera like an A900 the fact is we are not in the majority.
Sony saw a market share and overall sales rise with the introduction of the SLT cameras. People bought them primarily due to the LCD shooting experience which a lot of people liked as they moved up from a P&S camera and also for the AF in video mode which was the real reason that the SLT design was formed.
Pentax has everything that enthusiast photographers would like – Pentaprism viewfinders, tons of external controls, excellent IQ etc etc but the fact is, hardly anyone buys them. The reason is there is very little to differentiate between Pentax and Canon or Nikon. And when faced with little differentiation most people will stick with tried and tested.
So Pentax is languishing with very small market share.
Sony with its SLT had many advantages over SLR cameras (along with disadvantages of course). My cheap A55 shoots at 10 fps, has mirror lockup by design, has a large vari angle screen etc etc which no SLR can match on a budget.
My friend bought an A99 only because he likes using the LCD and the A99 has a vari angle LCD. If the A99 was an SLR then it would have no real advantage over say a Canon 5D MK III or a Nikon D800.
Canon has stolen a march on Sony with first its STM lenses and now with its dual pixel AF tech which matches or exceeds Sony’s video and live view AF performance wihtout the use of a light grabbing mirror.
And yes even Canon is guilty of abandoning its STM users with the 70D which can focus fast in video with any Canon EOS lens.
So the ball is in Sony’s court to come up with something better in future which is different from the competition.
Brendon: “AF in video mode which was the real reason that the SLT design was formed”
Unless we are both mistaken, this is correct.
I remember this feature being touted as a game-changer when, I think, the A55 was released.
However, I haven’t really heard much about it since that time. If it was so critical and fundamental, why were the A99 and A77 not greater successes? The answer is, because it isn’t fundamental, it’s incremental. It is a partially-successful attempt at the automation of a previously manual process.
There’s nothing wrong with that, and it may even be the kind of a reason that causes somebody to choose a camera having that sort of capability–but again, the A55 has flaws. Is it better having a flawed A55 with that sort of capability, or a robust system without that capability?
If that capability is critical to you, or a real game-changer, then maybe the former–but it’s not a real game-changer, as is interchangeability of lenses, instant communication, display, and archiving, and cost-free, real-time information display and image preview.
This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. How many times have we heard from Sony about the newest “revolution in photography”? True revolutions are few and far between, and the fundamentals shouldn’t be sacrificed unless something is TRULY revolutionary, which video AF is not.
I’m not an old stick-in-the-mud guy, but I do want something that “just works”. I want to do photography, not dick around with a bunch of crap. The Fuji X-Pro1 has got me interested.
I have already given you the Pentax example. Their cameras work just as good as any Nikon or Canon and many suggest its even better performing. However there just aren’t enough sales.
Sony needs to be different to survive. If Olympus didn’t launch mirrorless they would be out of the camera business today.
SLT has served its purpose by getting Sony attention and a lot of free press.
This hybrid camera could do that again.
The A900/A850 no matter how good there were had little differentiation between a Canon or a Nikon product and few people will chose some new player like Sony over an established brand like Nikon or Canon.
“Plus the SLT mirror is so delicate that its going to tear if its movable.”
No it isn’t. Take it out and have a look for yourself.
I 100% disagree with you. My SLT mirror has lots of scratches on it from a lenspen brush. Its also got a hole because my blower broke and the nozzle flew into the mirror making a nice hole.
Even Sony says never touch the mirror with anything. They never gave that advisory for the earlier moving mirrors.
Brendon, it sounds like you would break anything with your clumsy hands.
Ha ha. True. I don’t claim to baby my equipment but if a lenspen can scratch something rest assured it’s fragile and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
Heck even the sensor doesn’t get scratched with a lenspen.
The SLT mirror is made of plastic and is not fragile at all.
What’s wrong with the A99 AF? I don’t have one, but a neighbor of mine does, and he’s taken some pretty impressive focus tracking shots with it, like of his dog running straight at him and close-up BIF. Apparently you can set the expected range of subject for the 70-200 and really do well when tracking subjects in that range.
Are the “problems” more that not all lenses AF as well as the 70-200 on the A99?
Am keen to know if FE mount lenses will still be full frame on this camera…
They would if the sensor is full-frame.
Not sure what the obsession is with IBIS. Its not a big deal… It won’t make anyone a better shooter…
I couldnt care less about being a better shooter.
I want to take better pituress.
If you want to learn go back to school.
Clearly yo do not shoot long lenses handheld on a regular basis or you would not even ask your question.
I don’t shoot long lenses either but isn’t IBIS less effective for long lenses?
I am able to shoot up to 750mm handheld..i mount the camera on a support system to help..and I have no major problem with camera movement.
I am not able to compare oss with ibis but certainly ibis is good enough to make a major difference from nothing.
The new 5 axis ibis is sopposed to be even better than the current system.
Did we once manage without stabilization..yes.
Does that make it less usefull…no.
Well that’s encouraging. I have planned that if I ever get bored with the stuff that I’m shooting now, I’ll try long-range wildlife.
Check outvthe Dotline DL-V9 camera support for up to 10lb camera/lens combo.
Och think I touch a nerve…I know what shutter speed to use with longer lenses…Its not rocket science.
At night, handheld, it’s the difference between nailing a shot and missing it.
I do not control
my subject or force them to conform to my way of photographing them.
I photograph real subjects and adapt my technique to them.
Any preset rules about how to take pictures are of limited value outside the studio..and close to zero value in the field.
IBIS greatly increases options available and I am not willing to give it up.
What?
The stabilisation system in a mount is based on ibis.
Without it, it would be the only system around that lacks a approach for stabilisation.
Try selling that to anyone.
This. A-mount without IBIS would be panned by reviewers. People are clueless!
Now I’ve got fullframe E-mount, I think I’ll stick with it. The Hybrid stuff sounds large, complex and expensive.
I agree with you fully!
I understand where you are coming from John. Some of us already have many great Sony Minolta, Sigma, and other great full frame, Alpha mount lens and are willing and eager to deal with a large complex camera to address challenging photographic situations. IBIS is a positive feature that helps; it can be turned off when it hinders.
When I want small, simple and good I reach for my “RX200 MK2”.
It’s the search for excellence and versatility that keeps me coming back to SAR in hopes of finding that Sony is making a better camera that fits my needs.
The biggest problem they must overcome is to get all SLR lenses working well on the adapted e-mount. Because we are having problems with lots of adapted lenses in the corners on the A7(R).
Sony’s bad enough at supporting their own products – I can’t see them investing serious money in supporting adapted lenses. My gut feeling is that adaptors are intended as a stop gap – I’ll happily jump if they can give me a 50/1.4, 35/1.4 and 100/2.8 with OSS… But going on past experience we could be in for a long wait 🙁
If you are willing to work around the issues of using adapted RF lenses, using adapted lenses on the A7/R is very viable.
Manual focus SLR lenses are very viable on the system with very little issues.
For wide angle RF lenses, you can use the in camera compensation APP to correct the distortion in camera on raws and jpeg without doing it at the post processing.
With metabones and many other adapters that companies are coming up with, many people are making fantastic shots with their L lens, Nikkors , Leica Rs , Minoltas, and the list goes on.
People aren’t getting great results out of many SLR lenses. Especially wide angle lenses, the corners have big drops in quality and it’s more than just an adapter problem. If you want to make the beat use of canon’s lenses sadly the A7r is no full answer.
Read this article Roger from lensrentals:http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/a-bit-of-a7r-sanity
And look up blogs where people are testing.
Use full frame DSLR lenses on the VG900,A7 and A7r to avoid problems in the corners like with Leica rangefinder lenses.
The problems with lenses not working well on an A7/R are not DSLR lenses. The issues are with rangefinder lenses like those for the Leica M system. DSLR lenses have a much longer flange distance and tend not to have major problems.
No, SLR lenses are having many of the same problems rangefinder lenses are. It more complex than simply a flange problem. You might want to read this article by Roger at lenrentals, it’s his latest one. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/a-bit-of-a7r-sanity
E.J. Peiker is quite correct. I am using Nikon lenses on my A7 with no issues.
I don’t understand the fuss. Would canon shooters complain that their new DSLR doesn’t operate as well with nikon lenses attached??
Just by some Sony lenses. Problem solved…
I’m ok with this, but why offer it? I don’t see e-mount shooters getting drawn into this. That’s why they chose e-mount in the first place- it’s small and supposedly more convenient. To me, this is an attempt to capture a-mount users and open them up to e-mount possibilities.
It sounds like a phasing out if you ask me.
No mention is yet made whether this would be an APSC or FF model. To me, it would be an interesting innovation (I’ve always wanted a universal mount camera, like the T mounts of old—but not threads!—just universal…), but for me it would need to be a FF model, especially now.
I feel like APSC is so well served by affordable options in both DSLR’s, SLT, and mirrorless that this would serve FF far better.
If Sony are to be believed their plan is to fully support A-mount, so what is the point of this camera? For every E-mount lens there will be a better(?) A-mount lens available…or will there?
This is a native E-mount camera with an adapter and Sony are leading us down the E-mount path here. This stinks of dropping A-mount in a couple of years.
They will use a new universal mount with shorter flange distance and bigger throat and you can put either an E-mount or A-mount adapter with complete electronic connectors on.
Maybe the lever lifts and turn and does not actually come off the camera. If sony gets this right it will be the game changer everyone is always talking about. I am sure it will be expensive but it will expand there lens line up and the camera should have IBIS given its size. If they they can also make the sensor move to make manual lenses Af and that is a big if, they will have a real winner that can use any lens. Even without the moving sensor there will be Af adapters and those seam to be getting better and better. I always wanted a universal camera maybe this will be it. I wonder if its is anything like the tamron adaptall thingy. Lets just hope sony does not shoot themselves in the foot as they seam to be very fond of doing that. Sony really needs to fix there excellently designed but flawed flash system.
The lever could work like a diaphram increasing or decreasing the mount diameter. It could also move a cage sourounding the sensor forward or back to accomadate different flange distance.
If that were the case I would be dissapointed because z shift auto focus would not happen
So first they created the problem by introducing unnecessary FE mount and lenses and now try to solve it in some awkward way.
There is no FE mount, only FE lenses that work with E mount cameras with full frame sensors ( VG900, A7, A7r.
So, who created the problem?
What problem??
You have a camera that can mount 2 types of lenses..How is that a problem???
As per usual if canon did it first they would be exclaimed as the new Messiah…
Sounds really like a E mount camera with built in adaptor. Unimpressed
My take is this will not be an SLT design, but it will be mirrorless. The body will just have the shape of current DSLR’s but it will be smaller. It will certainly have the 5 axis Olympus IBIS which may not function with e mount lenses just A mount lenses. I expect it will take adaptors so that other makes of lenses can be used. I would like it to also have the rumoured Z shift, and if it can be done it should be implemented in these high end cameras. I expect both APS-C and FF hybrid cameras which also have 4K video. I would also like the next generation none Bayer sensor, but this could still be a couple of years away. If Sony gets this right you have a camera which will truly be a game changer.
this also mean total disaster in the autofocus speed/accuracy department.
so far the SLT is the only sony hope.
the on-matrix PDAF just a little less then totally useless. even more- the on-matrix PDAF eat up another 0.5 stop of light. (that is the main reason, why A99 is not a half stop but one stop less sensitive then, say Nikon d610 with essentially same matrix, but having no PDAF installed. And that is why A7 is 0.5 stop less sensitive then Nikon D610.
for e-mount lenses autofocus will work. unimpressive, but will work.
for A-mount lenses it will be focusing way too slow.
So basically it’s an E-mount camera with an adapter? Big deal.
Sony did many stupid things.
So far, I’m happy with A700 and A900 but some day they will need replacement and I don’t see anything in current Sony range worth buying.
I never used the A99 but the A77 is a worthy replacement for the A700. The A700 and A900 are still wonderful cameras.
If you don’t have a heavy investment in Sony glass, jump ship to CaNikon. I am beginning to see less of a future for A-mount, all I see is Sony announcing E-mount this and E-mount that.
Sadly if this rumour is true I see this as a stepping stone to getting us all on E-mount.
If somebody adapted a Minolta SB-70 to incorporate a giant new sensor and a memory card instead of a drive, I would still be using my Minolta 7000.
Imagine that, or a smaller and more elegant version of that or the SB-90s.
I have read that the SB-70 had a 640×480 CCD and about a 2X crop factor.
Imagine that, with an improved massive sensor, and z-shift.
Imagine being able to use a Dynax 9 with an interchangeable digital back, of very high res, z-shift, and IBIS.
Dust would be a problem, as well as the interface between back and camera, which would likely be a limitation very fast. There exists interchangeable backs for your lenses; they are called “cameras”. 😉 The savings in having interchangeable sensors in a fully electronic camera (no optical parts or precision mechanics) is negligible.
Can’t imagine a lever adding less decentering play than an adapter.
I don’t see any of these cameras appealing to me this time around. My A77 takes great pics. Faster buffer, better JPEG…yep? 1k-1300k?…nope?
My a900 still takes great pics as well. Sony, you could make a cheap DSLR with an OVF…heck, just make another a900 with better JPEG and ISO- how much can it really cost? There is your cheap FF. At this point you should be able to make those things for practically nothing. Increase the durability and show some serious support and there you go.
I’m all for more MP, 5 axis, yada yada. I’m not all about dropping 2K or more for incremental improvements. E-mount hybrid sounds like a throw in.
Sony can make any camera cheaply, they think that they are a premium brand so won’t.
The A99 costs no more to manufacture than a D610, hell it won’t cost significantly more than the A77. The EVF should be simpler and CHEAPER to manufacture than a pentaprism for a start and Sony don’t even need to buy their own sensor at more than cost price!
Sony think they are a premium brand in the dSLR world without offering a stable system nor the glass to go with their hideously over-priced body.
Sony could have astounded the dSLR world by putting a full frame sensor into the A77 body and charging the difference in sensor cost, which would be peanuts.
You don’t understand how a market economy works.
Of course I do you idiot. I am saying what Sony COULD do but will NOT do.
not to perform
yup. looks like fade-out A-mount. At least you have good adapters
dear sony. before you make more cams, how about the loooooooooooooooooooooooong awaited portrait lens.
When this was first written about it sounded very interesting. Now it seems less interesting as an adapter solution. My guess is it will be apsc and both mounts will have IBIS.
It’s sad that Sony is going to let the A mount die. Why did they even both in the first place. They had been making mirror less camera long before buying Minolta. E-mount in it’s present form is not my cup of tea. I like big SLR design. There is a place for small gear, but not everybody wants small. If Sony can’t hack it then they should of never uncovered the grave of Minolta. As for Imagine Stabilization. Sony had been using it in there Lenses in Video Gear before they Bought Minolta. The whole making things small is really over board. There a use for it, but not everything needs to be small. If Sony does want to make a full line for A-mount, then just make a few A-mount camera for those who still enjoy the larger form Camera. Give up and let Nikon and Canon win. You’ll just be losers. The Hybrid idea doesn’t sound very good if it’s just a E-mount with the Adaptor thrown in for good measure. The SLT design is a great idea, but so many bashed it. If they would just progress they would make it better. We all put filters on our lenses how much does that affect the imagine. PDAF would be lacking fulltime use unless it was shutterless Camera. Sony needs to calm down and smell the burning of there cash and building ( or Toast ). Constantly change course is a Titanic waiting to happen.
I meant Doesn’t want to make a full line of A-mount cameras
What sensor will this camera have.
This will be a high end camera.
Sonys new technology 54mp sensor is expexted to be released in late 2015/2016.
Will this camera be released in 2 years with the new sensor?
Will it be realeased sooner with a current technolgy sensor?
I will not buy another expensive camera until the new tech comes out .
The only camera I would consider buying before then is a low priced camera with higher resolution.
I am a little confused about what the timing will be with this camera, and of course I also wonter if it will include z shift focus.
Dont you have something better to do than steal my screenname..AS$HOLE!!!!!!!!!
Don’t get me wrong, the hybrid mount concept sounds interesting but what I really want to hear is details about the full-frame A-mount. Been holding off purchasing a FF camera and waiting to see what Sony is planning to introduce. The a77 is doing an acceptable job for now.
Feed us some A-mount rumors Andrea! 🙂
sounds like something I would not be interested in, just like hybrid cars… e-mount is the future, so I’ll only support e-mount
Bwaaa, whiners, if you don’t like IBIS, you can always turn it off. Having IBIS doesn’t prevent from having stabilized lenses. Also, IBIS can stabilize rotation around optical axis (“5x axis” olympus’ and pentax’s do that), which in-lens stabilization doesn’t. In-lens stabilization in a f/0.95 lens is not a good idea.
Lever is so dull…
There is very close to zero rotation around the optical axis when holding a SLR camera with two hands (one hand under the lens, looking through the viewfinder), regardless of how much you shake. This is a red herring, introduced by said manufacturers, for marketing reasons. It is only relevant for compact cameras held at distance.
If you disagree, please show one clear real-world example (meaning, not simulated for review or marketing reasons) of said shake-type. Just one will suffice.
About time too!! … I was on the point of dumping most of my Sony gear due to the uncertainty…. Would my Minolta AF and Sony A lenses suddenly be worthles?? Not a nice feeling after spending a small fortune over the years, is it!!