You can finally preorder the A7s in Europe too!
At Sony Germany (Click here), Sony UK (Click here), Sony France (Click here), Sony Italy (Click here), Sony Spain (Click here), Sony Switzerland (Click here), Sony Austria (Click here), Sony Netherland (Click here), Sony Belgium (Click here), Sony Portugal (Click here), Sony Sweden (Click here), Sony Norway(Click here), Sony Finland (Click here).
These preorders are now available since 1-2 hours only. If you rpeorder now you will get on top of the waiting list!
Also the RX100M3 preorders started today: Sony DE, UK, ES, FR, IT, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, NO, FI, PT.
USA and Asia A7s and RX100M3 Preorders:
Sony A7s preorder in USA/CA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony USA, Sony Canada.
RX100M3 preorders in USA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony USA.
RX100M3 in Asia at Amazon Japan and Sony Australia.
0 Responses
Put this sensor inside A900 body and I’ll buy it at once.
I doubt that Sony will bring out DSLRs with optical viewfinders in the future…
I’d like to see a cheaper A7s without the 4K video (but identical in every other way).
I don’t see how Sony would be able to make the camera cheaper by letting 4K output out. The expensive parts are the same – sensor, CPU. It would just be software limitation, so.. no can do, sir.
Of course it can be done, 4K capability adds a lot of cost to a camera. You need a much faster CPU to encode 4K, large buffer memory etc. Get rid of those things and you have a cheaper camera.
I don’t see it. It doesn’t encode 4K, just outputs it through the hdmi which is not a very cpu intensive operation. The cpu intensive operation is downscaling the full 4K sensor to 1080p, without using pixel binning or line skipping.
If you want it cheaper with slower cpu, smaller buffer etc, they would have to use less cpu intensive ways to arrive at the 1080p, at a loss of quality. There are plenty of cheap cameras available that do that already.
1) Yes, it does encode 4K, how do you think it ends up on the memory card? Maybe it uses a separate processor for this, but if that’s what you’re getting at, then you’re just being deliberately obtuse.
2) I couldn’t care less about video quality, line skipping to down-sample is fine with me and is something that almost every single camera can do today. In fact I don’t care if it has no video at all.
3) I don’t want a cheap camera and I don’t want an A7 or A7R either. I want an A7s, but I don’t want to pay extra for a feature that I won’t use.
Ok, so you want a camera without the high quality video. That is a different thing. I thought you wanted the exact same camera, same quality of 1080p video etc, just without the option of 4K video output.
1. You do realise that the A7s doesn’t record 4k video to the memory card internally? Therefore you need an external recorder for 4K video.
2. and 3. I think I get it, you want the still image advantages of the new sensor, high iso, dynamic range etc, but do not need the video. Then I absolutely agree, that could probably be done cheaper.
Ah OK, I wasn’t aware that it needed a separate recorder.
Wrong, the CPU does not encode 4K, it does not even buffer it. Thats the sole reason why you can’t record 4K internally. It just is able to “copy” the contents to the uncompressed(!) HDMI Output, and for that it requires actually only fast sensor read out speed, so this is about the sensor, not the CPU.
You would be correct IF the camera would be capable of recording (and so: encoding) 4K, but as we all know, it cannot.
Good Price. For everybody saying it is too expansive: compare it to D4, D4S and Df.
Or maybe compare it with A7R which is identical production cost, (not to mention it reuses 95% of it parts so production should be even lower now) and priced 1750 vs 2400 euros . . . .
Totally agree .
You can even get it for 1550€ sometimes (new) from local Ebay dealers -.-
Different sensor, different CPU. Same cars with bigger engines with more horse power also reuse lots of parts of the same cars with the smaller engines, still they do cost more.
D4S has a pro body and very good AF and options for sharp glass without stupid adapters. I don’t see why would a pro use this instead of a D4S and at this price no hobbyist will buy this crap.
8 bit, so not good for low budget movies. No 4K internal, so nothing interesting for non-professionals, low resolution so no landscape/architecture, no PDAF so no wildlife/birds/sport. This is a nice toy but for 99% of the people it’s just better to buy a DSLR / videocamera (depending on their needs) at this price point.
And the D4 has all the video features lacking in the A7s? Or 4K out?
Sony never said it’s a video camera and for photographers I think the D4S is a better option. For videographers… well the A7S can’t shoot 4K internal and if you’re investing in a whole system then you can get blackmagic instead.
The D4s can only record for ten minutes at highest resolution with is 1080 60P MPEG 4 (most point and shoots are better than that). The D7s with external recorder for 4K is still thousands less the the D4s.
Please learn how to read. D4S is for photography. What does photographers do? They take photos . It’s resolution is 16MP, not 1080p. If you’re into filmmaking… I never said you should buy the Nikon for shooting video. Read my first sentence. If you still do not understand, then, here, I pasted it just for you:
“for photographers I think the D4S is a better option”
Please learn how to read. We now mulitple times explained to you, that there are quite some situations in photography, where the A7S performs better than the D4S *AND* is smaller and much lighter at the same time. It is ridicolous that you still do not understand, that both have situations, where they make more sense than the other. You just ignore those explanations. You are just like somebody who says “a Land Rover is the better vehicle because it provides much more space and is good for offstreet” to somebody, who loves his Porsche 911 for curvy roads, where he has lots of fun.
Well, you are doing a big mistake here. “D4S is a better Option for photographers”. No, it FULLY depends on what you are doing. For lowlight, for silent shooting, for the ability to use professional Zeiss glass WITH autofocus, for the ability to have a small light body, for an EVF, … the A7S is superior to an oldschool flappymirror D4S. The D4S is of course the camera of choice for high reliablity event and reportage shootings, and especially sports and everything requiring top-speed AF. For those things however you pay the Price: 3x as much as the A7S, Keep that in mind.
There is no “better” or “worse” if you are comparing apples to oranges you know. I know for sure, for MY usage I wouldn’t want to use a large heavy DSLR anymore, yet alone one of D4S weight and size :).
A7s is the only way to use leica m lenses on full frame for both stills and 4k video. I for one would never again carry around a full frame dslr and multiple lenses.
How can you call this camera “crap”, if you did not even understand whats it for? I never said it is for everything the D4S is good for. (You even overread the DF, didn’t you?)
But in ONE aspect you can compare it: low-light capability. And it is better than D4/D4S/DF in those points.
Oh and if you really think the A7S has no sharp glass without “stupid”(?) Adapters, you really are living behind the moon, because Zeiss is known for high end glass. Just go to dxomark.com and compare lets say the FE 55 1.8 against the more expansive(!) 58 F1.4 from Nikon…
>if you did not even understand whats it for
That’s exactly why I call it crap. Sony crippled that camera to a level where almost no one is interested in it. I understand it’s a dream came true for a few people, but for 99% it’s pure crap. Why is there no phase detection? Why only 8 bit? Why can’t it record 4K (at least with a grip)? Why only 5fps? Why only 50mb/s at 60fps (= 20mb/s at 24fps)? Why only 350 pictures per charge? And this list goes on and on with each line being a deal-breaker alone. Neither high resolution, nor speedy. It’s small, but too slow for run and gun and who cares about size if you’re in a studio or just taking your time composing the picture. It’s the worst of both worlds. for 2400 euros people want a product that makes breakfast for them, but no we get a good sensor packaged into a useless point & shoot body.
Oh my god. You are really calling it crap, because you don’t understand the product? The limitations are all very VERY easy to explain.
“Why no phase detection?” Because they want REAL Pixels everywhere. A phase detection pixel would mean you would need to interpolate from the pixels around it. Quality loss.
“Why can’t it record 4K?” Because TODAYS CPUs that would be strong enough to encode such a massive amount of data realtime would need a too big cooling system. The camera is small. Is that really so hard to understand!?
“Why only 5fps?” Why would you need more? I mean, when do you need more fps? The 5D-III only has 6 and I seldom heard of its users that that is not enough.
“Why only 50mb/s at 60fps?” Is numbers all that matters to you? That is already a lot of data.
“Why only 350 pictures per charge?” Because the camera is supposed to be small? You did not understand the concept of “SMALL camera”, did you?
You do not understand what the camera is for, fine. It is not for studio (you have the A7R for that). It is not for sports (you have the A6000 or $6000 cameras like Nikon D4S for that). It is not to replace DSLR in general. It is for LOWLIGHT. And there it KILLS EVERY other camera out there, bar none. Is it really that hard to understand?
It might not be for you, we got that. But just because it is not for you and you do not understand what it is good for, it is not crap. And where do you get the numbers “for 99% it is crap”, did you EVER make a SERIOUS market research GLOBALLY to be able to say such a number!? Or did it just come to you in a dream and you said “hey, 99 sounds like a cool number”.
1. Not this real pixel nonsense again please. This thing has 12 000 000 pixels with a bayer matrix, not true RGB. You already need interpolation to get RGB pixels. Who cares about loosing 100 bayer pixels? That’s less than 0,0001% of the sensor. Get serious!
2. Then put that processor in a grip. Very small camera with 1080p and simply small camera with 4K, in one package. The best of both worlds.
3 The 5D Mark III has 12MP. Wow. I didn’t know that. Oh wait, it has 22MP at 6fps. That’s 132 MP/s. 12MP at 5fps is only 60MP/s. Why would I buy a low-res cam if it has no advantages over a high-res one? The 5D might not be much faster but it has free 10MP.
4 No it isn’t. 20MB/s is O.K. category. When making a short film, you want 80+ or 50+ if you’re not shooting with crappy AVCHD. If you were a gamer you would know. Anything lower than 50 is a blurry, distorted mass compared to lossless, pixel perfect 2MP image @ 30fps.
5. O.K. It’s for lowlight. But if it has bad AF and cannot be used for moving targets, only for static objects, then why the heck shouldn’t I just use a tripod? Don’t tell me about the freakin’ size, because with all the external recorders, SSDs, replacement batteries and stuff, you won’t get anything small. So it’s for video, not for photos? With no global shutter and with this price, who the hell would use this for low budget movies? You can buy a BMCC for $2000.
6. Yes, 99 is a cool number, just as the A99 is a cool camera 🙂
7. The closer it is to being a full package, the better the product is. The A77 or the 7D was very close, but this new kid is crippled and bleeding from many wounds. I understand you don’t care about these aspects and it’s the best cam for you, but for Sony this is a failure. A prototype like thingy forced to the market. Some people don’t care if their wife is a mute or not (at least she whines less), If NFC doesn’t work on their phone or if they have virus on their PC. You are one of them. I’am one of them. Everyone is one of them. Everyone has things he or she simply doesn’t give a damn about. But that doesn’t mean they are O.K. the way they are. For this price they should have at least included a faster processor and PDAF. This is nothing more than a rip-off attempt.
I think everyone is saying that it is least expansive since it lacks internal 4k recording or 10bits choice and very few fps. It will be a good cam to buy in about 6 months when the price will be better (ie., at least 40% less).
RX2, by then, will be the hot item. Super compact and versatile. 🙂
PS: Post some RAW files when you get your A7s!
Yes, I think £2100 is acceptable, although I was expecting £2000 in the UK.
The RX100 III is fine at £699 as well. Keeping in mind that the first version came out at £550 on Sony website 2 years ago and with a Christmas cashback and company % off I bought it about £430 at the time.
Should be 2000€ max .
Why?
And further: why not say “1800 EUR max”? or “1000 EUR max”?
I hate it, how People always expect things to be ridiculous cheap. This is a good product, and Sony should not throw it away for cheap prices.
So give your money without discusion to Sony as they expect you to do ,and stop complaining about people that notice that the A7s is
1- overpriced regarding the us price , all taxes taken in consideration.
2-overpriced regarding the A7r which share most components
And 2000€ isn t in any means “ridiculous cheap .”
Which competition gives you a full frame with that sensitivity range?
The A7R is not competition, as it does not have this sensitivity.
And so what ?pricing is also about be realistic regarding what is offered.
A7s have nice features , but nothing that values more than 2000 euros..
Anyway A7s won t sell at that price and soon Sony will be glad to see them go for 2000 euros or less.
BLAAaaAAaaaH , price sucks !
If it would cost 240 EUR, there still would be people complaining about the Price. Oh man… Two years ago there was only a single full-frame camera (the Alpha 850) on the whole market at approx. that Price.
do you see the difference between 240 and 2400€ ? no ? ha ok.
You did not understand my point.
I did .
A7s doesn’t seem like a good way to spend my money. Cannot get my head around the positives of a small 4k camera along with some huge external hardware.
In other words, why not gh4?
LOL, good question!
GH4 is a cool product, but when you record 4K you need to be aware of its 2.3x crop factor it uses for 4K recording (no, not 2x in that case). For lowlight that camera is not on the same Level. If you don’t require lowlight or the shallow depth of field of a full Frame camera, then the GH4 is the right choice for you :).
I agree w you. Im getting the a7s. Price is high but its the only full frame mirrorless for BOTH good video and stills.
This says Sony Alpha 1X Camera…?!
http://petapixel.com/2014/05/31/alpha-dog-sony-created-innovative-camera-brand-decade/
Too quirky a camera with too many deficiencies in key places for a price like this. Give it 6 months and Sony will bring it down to a7r prices when they realise it won’t sell.
The 5D mark III sells extremely good even though everybody before said “too few new features, especially when compared to the huge step Nikon did from D700 to D800”. So lets wait and see…
Sony is not clear about 4k on the preorder site.
Sony say that 4k is available but nothing about the needed external recorder that double the price of the all package…