I got one more confirmation from another trusted source that Sony will indeed launch new products on April 23. He also added that there will no E-mount camera or lens announcement on that day. These leaves us with two options:
1) Sony will launch new RX cameras. Very likely the RX2 with curved sensor and 35mm f/1.8 Zeiss. Or a new RX10 successor (The grat [shoplink 35004 ebay]Panasonic FZ1000[/shoplink] does 4K and costs less). Don’t think there will be a RX100m4 already…
2) Sony will launch a new A-mount camera. The A77II is only one year old so I guess we can either hope for a new A99II or a new A58II. Certainly a new A99II would be a strong signal that A-mount is alive!
Just for fun let me know…
[poll id=”222″]
Reminder: E-mount stuff (a7rII and so) is likely going ot be announced in May!
–
To not miss any rumor quickly subscribe our social network:
RSS feed: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sonyalpharumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonyAlphaRumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/104216500156717934391/posts
If you have some “rumor” to share just send me an anonymous messages here:
at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com or use the contact form you see on the right top of this site.
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!
290 Responses
My A99 is starting to look pretty long in the tooth, compared to all of the new E-Mount cameras, but I have a pretty good collection of A-Mount glass, so I’m personally hoping for an A99 replacement, and a new LA-EA adapter would be a welcome addition as well. Still quite happy with the RX1R so an RX2 would be no sale for me.
LA-EA adapter is not a solution and current on-sensor PDAF is note quite there yet.. So a-mount should it be.
Who says? You?
Yes, Ive tried both LA-EA 3 and 4 on a7s with my 70-200 f2.8 and 300mm f2.8. LA-EA 3 (no mirror) does not work at all. LA-EA 4 has some old pre a99 AF array, quite a step backwards. And adding adapter added some significant flex to my system. Did not like that either. Concerning PDAF in a7, it’s absolutely not comparable with a99 PDAF. a7 is dowright slow and by my personal experience missed about 30% shots in CAF mode, compared to 5% or so in a99 case.
Also, try any E-mount body against the A77II, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. A-mount is king for speed & AF, and will be for sometime.
+1 I have moved out from A mount bodies as I found newer E mount bodies like the A7 II to have a better LCD screen, better EVF and better IQ too compared to the older A99 but if Sony does come out with a compelling A99 II I might switch back down the line.
A99 ii should address some of the things that have become nowadays standard, or minimum expectation to compete in FF. I’m talking about AF system spread all-over the sensor and not in the center, faster shots/sec, possibility to lift the SLT for top quality or low light, pop-up flash… to name a few. I expect from Sony a step ahead in the IQ and high ISO sensibility, that must surpasses the A7R given A-mount plans in a higher league
ahhh what are the chances of it being rx2 realistically? don’t want to wait 3 weeks to make a camera purchasing decision. really want this camera 🙂
Or you can buy whatever you need today…?
If you need…that is. If you “want” then that’s another thing and there will always be something new coming along.
im well aware, i only want it. dont think this is a forum for speculation of camera need, if it was iphone would be on top of the list as its capability exceeds most of our skill level 😉
Very high, there has been a lot of “chatter” and patents “relating” to RX2.
Now imaging a camera with the ISO sensitivity of A7s, AF capability of A6000 and 4K video………
Let’s just not forget that either of those, with Sony’s many flaws, will make us only be able to produce 50% or less of real gear used by real people…or so Anton Berlin would like us to know.
On another note. I think the a99 is due for an upgrade. Wouldn’t Sony be interested in splitting the FF A mount into at leas two cams like the A7r and A7s? One high MP stills and one high end video?
Of course A-Mount is alive.
Renewed G 70200 and 70400, renewed 300, release of the Planar 50.
Recently renewed G 70300 and announced renewals of 1635 and 2470.
Why are people ignoring those facts only because 29 month are gone since the release of the A99?
Sony are no sorcerers dragging new camera bodies out of the hat whenever they want. There is something needed that is called R&D. And that takes time.
Becuase there seems to be a constant outpour of negative outlook towards Sony and their releases, especially here on SAR.
Sony releases lenses – we want more bodies
Sony releases bodies – we need more lenses, man, what they thinking about?
Sony releases video stuff – nobody on SAR really cares
Sony finantial report – “I hope I can get a super 80mp cam with usable ISO 12500 that looks like today’s ISO 200 with all the money thay have…or not…I don’t care but that’s what I want”
Yep!
80mp is actually the resolution necessarry to do 24″ x 36″prints.
At the industry standard of 300 dpi
24×36 needs 78mp.
20×30 needs 54mp.
18×24 needs 36mp.
And the current 24mp will only do 16×20
Too many people on sar either do not understand or care what it takes to make high quality prints.
24″x36″ is actually the smallest size refference print I use……that is the reason for my continued frustration with the slow progress towards more resolution.
78mp would be the smallest resolution that would fully meet my needs without cropping , but 50mp is better than what we currently have and I could not expect more at this time.
Absolute rubbish.
300dpi is relevant only to the print media, and even then it isn’t actually related to the number of pixels.
Unless you’re sending photos to companies who produce 3 feet tall magazines at 300dpi, your figures are meaningless.
Ths is not rubbish…the standard resolution for inkjet printers varies from 300 to 600dpi and most companies that print recommend a minimum of 300dpi.
This is the minimum necessary for the highest quality print.
People are used to settling for inferior quality because better quality is not currently availble and justify it by believing that big prints will only be viewed at long distances.
That is only the case because we cannot currently do better.
The fact is 300 dpi is necessary fo acceptable print quality and anything less produces vastly inferior prints.
The fact that everyone uses lesser quality is strictly due to the fact that we cannot require adherrence to a standard that currently available technology does not permit.
I currently stitch images when possible to produce files that meet those standards and the print quality far exceeds scalling up lesser resolution.
You confuse the fact that we produce inferior products for lack of ability to do better…with the indisputable fact that a minimum of 300dpi is required to get the best quality available from todays printers.
That is true whether you are talking lithography, inkjet, laser or any other print media.
Your math is correct, barry.
Just that the bigger prints usually are going down in dpi.
Nevertheless I understand your demands for higher mp – or can anyone else tell me why companies like pentax are selling a 50mp camera for 8000$++ without lenses. And the 645Z is the cheapest one on the market, today.
If you can get 50 mp in a small, cheap, versatile FF body with tons* of lenses – why not.
* compared to MF-lens selection
You are correct that bigger prints are going down in dpi…but this is not because people want to, it is because they have to.
I utilize my photos for referrence.
I therefore care almost exclussively about how much detail I can see.
24″ x 36″ is a print size that is reasonably inexpensive and large enough for me to work with for my smaller pieces.
As such this is the default size for my prints.
While I can use 4k tv and view small portions of the image at a time this is more difficult than working with large prints.
Not everyone needs this kind of high resolution, and not everyone needs the high resolutiown camera I am talking about..in fact I often reccomend …based on thier needs…for somce people not to buy the highest res cameras available..
But there will always be a group of photographers that need or want the highest resolution available.
In a shriinking high end photography marked…where more and more users are going to smaller or easier to use camera alternatives…these are the customers who are not going away.
Those who can argue they want low res or dont need the quality have the many options : buying entry level cameras or taking pictures with smaller cameras.
Those who require higher resolurtion are still waiting for even a single choice
yes in theory, we are like andreas gursky and sell limited edition prints for millions of $$$. please dont wake me up from this perfect lucid dream!
Clearly you comment is based on not actually printing but only looking at tv.
Tv monitors are even more lacking in resolution than current cameras.
If you want big prints of the quality that todays printers can produce….current cameras dont even come close.
The print sizes/resolutions I gave you are absolutely indisputable!
Absolute BS. I can already do 24×36 with A99 just fine. For large format prints you need 150dpi. For photo books, 240dpi.
If you want this kind of resolution, you shouldn’t be shooting 35mm to begin with. Get a medium format camera, mate.
Absolute bull$hit
The highest quality 24 x 36 print cannot be produced at less than 300 dpi.
The fact that you are willing to settle for lesser quality will never change that.
You spout a bunch of nonsense to compensate for the fact that the quality is not yet available.. and before you start spouting medium format nonsense get out from behind your tv, put down your crappo magazine, and try shooting wildlfe and animals with medium format..that is even bigger nonsense than your resolution nonsense.
One point in your favor though…your current resolution camera wont be able to capture hairs, but your prints will still look FUZZY.
Then get a Canon 5DS and shut up, old man…
There are several things I do not like about the Canon 5ds r
2007 sensor
2 disabled low pass filters instead on no low pass filter
Poor dynamic range
Low ISO.
High price
I would like to compare it to the new Sony and Nikon high res camera first…but wait..We still cant make that comparison yet…
Should we all buy the Canon now? As you and apparrently Sony think we should?
As for me shutting up….thats not going to happen either.
P. S. I too can make prints at 150dpi just like you. .then they will look like crap, just like. …
Sadly for my mental state, I must say that Barry is correct this time.
Absolutely correct.
I can taste the vomit rising in my throat…
because 29 months is lightyear on Sony roadmap. We are spoiled with faster increments…
Normal lifespan for A99 grade camera is around 60 months – similar for D700 or 5d mk2. Even 5D mk3 is 30+ months old now but I do not see Canon folks talking about Canon dropping their full frame commitment.
Because Sony aren’t releasing A-Mount bodies every two seconds like the old days with their entry bodies. Many many claim they ‘need’ to release a new entry A58 replacement, yet when given the option (in the poll above) nobody actually cares or is interested in an A58 II… this is quite telling of the ‘experts’ here.
If A99-successor, I think it will be the 36 MP sensor. I think the 24 MP Sensor will be taken out of portfolio very soon and completely replaced by a OSPDAF 36 MP version. (Except A99 successor – there you will see the current 36 MP.)
What do you thing the high ISO noise will do with current 36MP sensor compared to old.
Good question – I want to see direct high-ISO comparison between:
A7 / A7R / A7R-downsampled to 24 mp
According DXOmark, A7R gets already better low-light ISO scores than A7 – I don’t know exactly how DXO does its measurement – maybe they are actually downsampling:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-versus-Sony-A7-versus-Sony-A7R___949_916_917
Waiting for RX2 with much improved AF and EVF, hope new 35/1.8 lens will not be bigger than 35/2. But Sony should make second varaition of RX: with 75/2 great Zeiss Sonnar. This would be an amazing combo for street and even for wedding.
Very much looking forward to get new a99II. Just, please — not high megapixel model, just high ISO model 🙂 Actually it would be nice if Sony will put new fast 50mm prime on it. Last one is not the best lens out there full open.
I’m quite happy with Zeiss 50/1.4 SSM, even full open is tack sharp, only the CA is a real problem – the same as with 85/1.4, which should really get weather sealing and SSM update soon
I would hardly call my ZA85 ‘tack sharp’ wide open, plenty sharp for what it is yes.
Yes, Zeiss is really good. I had in mind std Sony labelled glass. Old one is quite soft. I have also Zeiss F1.4 85 mm, but I’d really won’t call it sharp full open.
x100 I want speed, huge or unlimited buffer, amazing AF and a new 24 MP sensor with wider dynamic range & improved high ISO!
Nice! I do not need any of these cameras but plenty of people await new full frame A mount camera.
Could this feature the new 50MP sensor? That would be exciting.
Yes, and it would draw some new users to a-mount as a direct competitor with the new Canon camera, instead of just old A99 users upgrading.
When the RX100 line has been going RX100 > RX100 II > RX100 III, why are we expecting an RX2/RX20 instead of a mark II? That’s the way the other series have all been updating too – A77II, A7II, etc.
RX2 with fast AF, built-in EVF and a lens no larger than the current version. TBH a 28mm variant would get my money but I know thats just wishful thinking.
Fast AF and EVF should be a given IMO but yeah 28mm seems highly unlikely.
Compatibility with the WA converter from the 28mm would be a nice plus.
Someone please try the new WA converter on the Zeiss 24mm F1.8 , E 35mm F1.8 and the RX1, they all use 49mm filter.
So does the FE55 and FE35. Though it isn’t the filter thread it attaches to, but the bayonet. I REALLY wanted to know whether the older WA adapter would work on the FE35, but noone would bother to test it (and got grief for even asking). It would be great if someone would test the new adapter on the RX1 at least, that would be very interesting.
50 MP A99II… Is that the A9 which was rumored to come? Superfast AF + High Frame Rate + High Resolution Sensor?
50 MP would be Veeeery difficult @ 8+ FPS though. But you never know Sony.. The SOBs might just pull it off.. When the A55 was launched, who would have thought that you could get 10fps at less than $800? Then the A6000…
I would go for an A58II with no mirror, translucent or otherwise
go for A6000
A6000 is not the answer. If it is used with LAEA4-adapter, making the construction more unstable than a natural A-Mount.
A-Mount without mirror won’t work for fast AF. The lenses for A-Mount have the wrong motor. Lenses for mirrorless-focusing-systems (or DSLR-liveview) need different motors.
You can see parallels in canon universum: canon names the new motors: “STM” and you can see the differences to the old “USM”-motors, when AF is used in live-view with their new “dual-pixel-AF” bodies.
edit:
A6000 has no IBIS, that is a problem when A-mount lenses without OSS, (remember: A-mount is designed to have OS in body, not in lens)
People like the stupid idea, that use huge lens in a tiny camera,
which the tiny grip can only fit two fingers.
People like the idea of having only 1 up-to-date body that is small for regular usage, but beeing able to adapt big and fast tele-lenses if needed.
I won’t call this “stupid”
That kind of flexibility would be understandable, but there’re no big and fast tele-lenses for E-Mount, that can be used without stupid adapters.
Stick a 150-600 lens on the A58… it’s still a bad balance. Sure, not as bad as sticking it on an E-mount camera. But only talking about slight differences in degree. Not like a massive lens on an A-mount is a perfect balance either, or else there would be no need for Tripod collars.
Why the assumption that the way things exist now, will never change.
Go back in time, just a couple years ago..
And I heard arguments like, “E-mount can never substitute for A-mount… Because it doesn’t have full frame” — That changed.
“E-mount can never substitute for A-mount, because it’s menu system is a joke, it’s only for point and shooters” — Then they adapted the A-mount menu system.
“E-mount can never substitute for A-mount, because autofocus is so slow compared to A-mount” — Then the A6000 essentially reached the AF speed of traditional dSLRs, or at least has gotten very very close.
“E-mount can never substitute for A-mount, because there are no high quality lenses” — But that’s changing before our eyes.
“E-mount can never substitute for A-mount, because there is no IBIS” — Then came the A7ii. What makes you think the A6100 won’t have IBIS as well?
Will OS-PDAF ever be capable of driving older A-mount lenses? I don’t know the answer to that. But given the rapid evolution of mirrorless in the last couple of years, I wouldn’t rule it out.
So you want an A6000? 🙂
No, an A6000 won’t balance too well with my A-mount 70-400 and my A-mount 180mm Macro. Would love the latest Sony APS-C sensor in an A-mount camera.
The A58 doesn’t either… the A77 or A99 are a better fit.
You should get the A77ii with vertical grip
The A58II will have a tiny, plastic body.
It will be poor grip & balance with 70-400
I would go for the a99II but what I really need is a camera that is capable of competing against the 1DX/D4S.
Just hope that if it is the A99II. They lose the SLT…
and lose the A-mount too.
Yeah I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
I have often said that a new A mount camera with the latest technology high mp sensor needs to be released BEFORE the E mount counterpart.
Without a strong statement such as this Sony will not succeed in restoring confidence in the A mount system, and A mount cannot survive.
I am not convined that this is the stratagy Sony plans to take, nor am I convinced that Sony even wants A mount to survive
So why say it again? Do you think Sony is going to change its plans based on your musings, or are you simply in need of attention?
So why do YOU make this same comment again
Everything on this forum is repeated hundreds of times …ther are not enough new topics to do otherwise…
And every comment and opinion here ..including yours. ..has been repeted hundreds of times.
I have many times answered why I repeat myself…now you ask again just so you can complain if I answer again.
If you dont want the same answers over and over again dont ask the same questions over and over again.
Get over yourself.
#banbarry
Better yet. Why dont you insert meaningless inflamatory comments just to see how many additional comments you can generate?
Does admin hire you to boost the comment count?
perhaps you need a dictionary
Barry is self-unaware, and does not appreciate how he is perceived.
It’s a kind of sociopathy.
I don’t know anyone shooting with A-mount who wants ultra high resolution as a their primary body. We all want speed.
Thats what happens when you dont know anyone.
For resolution/landscapes, there’s already the A7R.
Even though both A6000 & A77M2 has 4D focus.
Sony keep marketing the A6000 instead of A77ii.
Most people / non-Sony users don’t even know that A77ii has improved AF.
..
And, Sony choose to put 5-axis IBIS in e-mount first but not A77ii,
means they won’t waste those perfect marketing headline on a-mount.
..
If Sony is planning to make a-mount target for pro, as what they want as to believe.
They would do it otherwise.
Yep, an A58 Mark II is exactly what Sony needs and what people want.
Wow, I was being sarcastic but seems that some would see this as a good outcome.
Would you really think a RX2 is in the making? IMO the original RX was a proof-of-concept and the pioneer for the small RX100 series and the more versatile A7 series. Today, there’s no need for such a special and expensive camera. The image quality and size wasn’t much superior over interchangeable lens systems. If you take a A7 with a 35/2.8 lens you probably don’t add much size and weight but have a much more versatile system. If size and weight matters more, the RX100MIII should be your first choice.
I’m waiting for a superior, all smashing and genuflecting beast of a A99MII.
Image quality and size might very well be superior to any ILC when using a prime and a curved sensor. Let’s see
We all thought the same about a highly optimized fixed prime lens. And the RX1 didn’t deliver. I guess a curved sensor could help a lot in keeping the size small.
In terms of IQ, I think an RX2 with 35f1.8 would likely be closer to the A7 with 35f1.4 than the 35f2.8 – so it would still represent a significant size savings (ie. the A7 with 35mm f1.4 will *not* fit in your jacket pocket… unless you’re ‘Inspector Gadget’).
Yes, I know. That’s why I choose the 35/2.8 as a comparison. The question is, how many people are willing to pay 2 grand for quite a big (against a compact camera) camera with limited application (against a interchangeable system camera)? I’m not sure.
RX2 makes only sense, if it has a curved sensor. Otherwise the fixed and new lens design is a waste of resources and should be put into the A7 lens lineup instead!
A new curved sensor camera however could be a big game changer!! Same way as the RX1 was a test the water concept leading to the mirrorless full frame, RX2 could be the start of a new thing.
Will there ever be an Apsc sized RX cam to rival the X100??
How about a Ricoh GR competitor ?
Полный пиндец. Goodbye, A7000.
maybe new a-mount lens, hope not just the pre-aounneced 1635ZA II & 2470ZA II
Yes, a Zeiss 35mm F1.4 ZA SSM with weather sealing!
Sony needs more no compromise cameras. A99II please.
E-mount A99II.
Does not work. On-sensor phase detection AF is not on the level yet.
in E-mount Sony has ONLY compromise cameras:
some examples:
A5100: no EVF, no (real) hotshoe
A6000: no touchscreen, no audio-jacks
A7: no popup-flash, no touchscreen
There is no “one for all camera” existing, regardless if FF of crop – all the stuff I mentioned is not rocket science. Sony has all the technology in theirs pocktes ready to use – and now IBIS, too.
you forgot
A7 series = slow AF compared to a6000, a77mk.2, a99… also low Fps count in AF-C
E-mount overall = no compatibility with Sony TC so it is useless for sports/action photography with big lenses and TC
Strategically, I belive it could be benefitial to Sony to indeed come up with a competitor to the Canon 1DX or Nikon D4. How can they achieve this with the A-Mount? Opposed to the E-Mount design, an A-mount camera offers plenty of space for processing power and buffer. If they managed to come up with a decent AF-System that relies entirely on analysis of the signals available from the sensor and if at the same time, they included the sensor of the A7s, than they might come up with a system-camera with a great combination of speed and high-ISO capacities. I am thinking of something like 18fps at 12 megapixel. With this kind of camera, they could lead the way even if the AF isn’t perfect yet. They would fill a niche that remains open so far.
I watched a video from one of their engineers two months ago stating the same thing. A mount has a lot more room to stuff things in. I want the kitchen sink and the neighbors kitchen sink thrown in…nothing less.
It might be even smarter to make this camera an SLR design including the optical viewfinder and Phase-detection-AF, offering 8fps. If you flip up the mirror and make it rest there, the sensor-based AF would come into place, offering 18 fps. That would be a true competitor to Canon and nikon.
And in the future, as soon as sensor-based AF and electronical viewfinder are perfectly developed, you could entirely move towards a larger E-Mount design when it comes to creating a professional action-camera.
No, that wouldn’t be competition because if the mirror is flipped up, then the optical viewfinder would be rendered useless.
Sony already has the ability to compete with Canon & Nikon with a new SLT if they build on their AF-D technology in A99 by upgrading the on-sensor PDAF to cover 98% as they did on A6000 and upgrading the traditional PDAF module to a refined, all-cross sensor version of the module in A77II. Then they’d need to do dual BIONZ-X to have a greatly extended buffer. FPS should be 8 FPS and 12-13 FPS in the Program AE Sports Mode (at full 24 MP res). Also extend ISO to greater than 100,000, and support the new high-speed SDXC cards.
THIS would be competition.
Having owned and used the A99 for an extended period, I can tell you — the AF-D sucked. That’s likely why it wasn’t incorporated into the A77ii. I found that even with compatible lenses, I would simply switch to AF-C, because the AF-D was slower and less reliable.
That said…. The formula isn’t complicated. A dedicated full frame AF-module. At the very least,use the A77ii module, which would be an improvement. But preferably, a full frame module with more cross-points, with F8 sensitivity. A deeper buffer. Improved low light performance (the A77ii managed improvement over the A77… If the A99ii can get a 1/2 stop ISO improvement, it would be noticeable and appreciated). 8 fps would be nice, but staying at 6 is actually acceptable. Improve some of the customization– better auto ISO implementation.
All you said is to go for a “sports” camera.
12 fps would be nice 🙂
Just remember: A77ii can process 12 fps, if A6000 can process 11 fps and a 28mp Samsung can process even 15 fps – and all this cams are priced below an A99, having same or even more mp per frame
Yes, but they are not FF camera.
The shutter size is larger on FF, it have to move faster to keep the same frame rate as APSC.
Also, the relatively slower read out speed on FF sensor limit the frame rate.
It is not shutter speed for bigger sized sensor:
Nikon D4s has 11 fps, and for each frame they
1. do AF
2. flip mirror up
3. open shutter
4. take picture
5. close shutter
6. flip mirror down
A99 has just to do 3.- 5. – plenty of more time for the shutter 🙂
I can not understand, why a sensor readout on a FF should be slower compared to a crop sensor. I expect it only matters to mp * RAWBitDepth.
I think it is an artificial limitation from the manufacturers to have selling points to a 6000$ body (1DX/D4s) or making people want to have 2 bodies at the same time (5Diii+7dii / D810+D7200 / A7?+A6000 / A99+A77ii)
Adam, we already had this discussion in another thread, and again, I disagree based on my own experience shooting semi-pro Rugby League Football to pro Soccer and pro Cycling. A99 AF-D is dead-on using the new 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM II and 300mm F2.8 G SSM II, even better than A77II in some ways, but there’s a big catch: this is ONLY in the T8 telezoom mode (8 FPS) which crops to 10 MP so the area of the focus array covers a greater portion of the frame. A99 was never intended to shoot sports full frame, and when shooting in T8 on A99 I get a 90% hit rate. It sucks that I have to crop to roughly 10 MP res to get that performance and for that reason, A99 has always felt like a mixed bag.
Now if you’re talking shooting full frame at 6 FPS for sports on A99, I agree with you 100%, but disagree that it’s a failing of AF-D, but a failing of Sony’s decision to have such a small AF array.
Again, if Sony can update AF-D so the on-sensor PDAF covers 98% of the sensor as it did on the A6000 and so the traditional PDAF sensor is an updated version of the A77II, all cross & a bit wider to match the full frame body, it would be unbeatable.
You are right. I wasn’t precise enough as to what I was aiming for. Should have mentioned that as a Canon and A7s shooter, I had developed hopes that a Dslr-design would not neccassarily mean exclusion of an electronic viewfinder. Thinkinginpictures was right: Why for once not have everything on board, including IBIS, 4K, optical as well as tilting electronic viewfinder? If it was up to me, they might even drop the camera-back display to achieve this.
Yes, I would like to see a 1DX/D4s competitor in A-mount.
Sony has a patent that can completely no black-out + real time liveview during high burst rate.
But the design is quite complicated, so after few years there are no real product in this design yet.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2013-03-20&edit-text=&act=url
http://cutieplus.jp/bbs/data/attachment/forum/201412/30/074706j1e1ukeo7ytzyr8o.jpg
Not sure I understand what I’m seeing. Sure that mirror doesn’t flip? Seems to be suggesting using the SLT mirror not just for AF, but also to provide an optical viewfinder? Or maybe an EVF with the exposure boosted, since little light is actually being reflected? But if the SLT mirror needs to be strong enough to provide sufficient image for the EVF or OVF, then how much light loss would be involved going to the sensor?
According the patent in Japanese,
it is a dual sensor & dual SLT mirror design.
Both 112 & 114 are SLT mirror. 141 is the AF module
130 is an extra sensor, use only when the main sensor 120 is block by shutter. There will be a high speed processor to design which sensor will be use for live view, and switching between them at high speed.
If A99II, this would be a passive admission by Sony that the A9 will not compete with Canon and Nikon’s best, because a fully capable A9 could simply use a new electronically active mirrorless adapter and you have an A99II. It is hard to believe that the near term will see a FF mirrorless with top tier DSLR autofocus. A curved sensor RXII would solve the question of which 35mm lens to buy, but price would/should be high.
This mirror/transparent-mirror/no-mirror its just a progression.
Im sure once mirrorless is good enough it will go to A-mount also.
Why bother to make a mirrorless A mount when you can provide the same functionality by making an E mount camera in a DSLR body and use a simple adapter to mount A mount lenses? You then merge the two product lines. Only on sensor phase detection limitations bar this from happening. Of course, making a mirrorless autofocus to compete with the successor to the 1Dx is a tall order.
Because adapter suck. They lose connection and create more wobbles on an already inferior mount.
And e-mount is not the same functionality with less battery, less ergonomics, less lcd articulation, less vertical grip controls. Can’t turn a toy into a tool that easily.
IF and WHEN the technologies converge…
What’s to stop them from making an E-mount camera with a bigger battery? What’s to stop them from making an E-mount in a dSLR body with dSLR ergonomics and fully articulated LCD? A-mount can’t be meaningfully downsized, but there is no technological limitation to upsizing E-mount.
A-mount doesn’t need to be downsized & feels perfectly balanced with my 300mm F2.8 G SSM II.
Well, the reason why E-mount is vastly outselling A-mount, is because many many buyers do want to downsize.
Exactly! And that’s why Sony appears to have killed the bottom end of A-mount.
Kill the bottom end, and starve the high end… What a strategy.
Starve the high end? An A99 replacement is not behind schedule. You’re not even rational.
Nikon, Canon an E-mount all have high resolution 36mp+ bodies.. where is a high resolution body for A-mount? Passed due.
Nikon, Canon, and E-mount are all expanding their lines of high end lenses (not just refreshing lenses), when was the last time A-mount expanded their line of high end lenses? Overdue.
E-mount, Canon, Nikon, all give their consumers on average, at least 1 new full frame option per year. (Canon skips some years, but still the average works out to 1 per year or more). Sony has only introduced 1 model in the last 5 years.
For high ISO performance, dxoMark ranks the A99 26th…. Think about that, according to dxoMark, there are 25 cameras with better ISO performance than the A99. So is it too much to ask, for a camera that can hit the top 10?
For the highest end professionals, you have the 1dx and d4s… A-mounters have been hoping for a competitive product for years. Long overdue.
To think that Sony has been lavishing attention on high end A-mount is simply blind. It’s wishful thinking. What has Sony done for high end full frame A-mount users in the last 2 years? Nothing. You may think, “well.. nothing is due.” But that’s ridiculous thinking. Canon just introduced a fantastic 11-24 lens, even though it wasn’t “due.” Canon/Nikon/E-mount are all expanding their full frame offerings, and expanding their high end lens lineups.
Adam, I don’t need or even want a new full frame option every year. Once every 3 years is perfect!
Sure… who needs things like options… who needs good lenses….
High end users just want a “1 size fits all” body every 3 years, with no significant new lens development.
Glad your needs and wants are so limited.
That’s not what I’m saying, but I don’t need incremental updates every year either. I would love for Sony to do two A-mount options: One for speed. One for resolution.
Regarding lenses, they’ve been updating them right and left. My 300mm F2.8 G SSM II and 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM II are both substantially faster and sharper with less ghosting than their predecessor. I cannot wait to upgrade to the 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II as that is one of my most used lenses. The 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM II I’m not as in a rush, but it’s nice to know it’s there.
My wish list for lenses:
I hope Sony updates their 35mm A mount to a Zeiss 35mm F1.4 ZA with SSM & weather sealing and udpates the 85mm F1.4 ZA and 135mm F1.8 ZA to SSM with weather sealing as well.
Not talking about incremental updates. Talking about OPTIONS. Because for high-end users, one size does not fit all. You have high end sports shooters, who need something like the 1Dx or D4s. You have high resolution shooters who need something like the A7r, 5Dr or D810. You have the “wedding” type of shooters, who gravitate towards the D750 and 5diii. You have entry level full frame shooters, who might go to the D610, 6D, or A7. So yes, Sony leaves high end full frame shooters starving for options.
Updating lenses left and right? First off, seems you are admitting they aren’t introducing any NEW lenses. They are not EXPANDING their lineup.
In terms of left and right updates — They are taking their superfast, super-premium, existing SSM lenses, and making them a bit faster at a huge price tag. They haven’t added SSM to any lenses that were previously lacking it… As you mentioned, the Zeiss 85 and 135. They haven’t updated some very old optics that are desperately in the need of a refresh, like the 35/1.4. They haven’t built a zoom any wider than 16mm. Still haven’t done F4 zooms (my lifeblood for my paid work, as it gives me the weight and quality balance I need).
In fact, I dare say that A-mount is the ONLY full frame system that heavily relies on screw-drive lenses. (Sure, Nikon has a few screw drives lenses left in their catalog, but the majority of their lenses are SWM… they have something like 50 SWM lenses, where Sony has less than a dozen SSM lenses).
So yes, the high end A-mounter is hungry for lenses.
Spin it however you want. Say you personally don’t need anymore. But you can’t keep a straight face, and say that Sony is lavishing attention on high end A-mount users.
And Canon & Nikon shooters complain about still not having good EVF options. The grass is always greener.
I never said anything was perfect — hence my wishlist.
No system has EVERYTHING. The question was whether Sony is lavishing attention on high end A-mount users or not. Canon had a gaping hole in not having a high resolution camera, but they got around to it this year. They also lacked ultrawide beyond 16mm zoom, and they blew past that now, with 11-24. Nikon improved upon the D7100 with the D7200, but they still lack a serious APS-C replacement of the D300/sports shooting APS-C.
But Canon, Nikon, E-mount — Are constantly introducing NEW high end products. Not just incremental minor updates of existing bodies and lenses. I believe you complained about not needing incremental upgrades– but that’s all Sony is doing with A-mount lenses. Incremental upgrades to a few of their already-newish lenses.
It’s true.. You could release 5 bodies per year, and 10 new lenses per year.. and there would still be gaps. But don’t sit in a fantasy land, and pretend that Sony is taking such great care of their high end users. The fact is, they currently barely have A-mount on life support. Hopefully, this will change soon. Hopefully in a few weeks, they will wake A-mount out of it’s induced coma, and we will see it get some much needed attention.
I don’t know WHAT the question is anymore. You’re just babbling and starting to sound mental.
LOL. Yes, mine does also.
I’d still like to see a D750-esk A mount body. Slim and trim.
I went from the A99 to the D750. The D750 almost feels like an A99ii — similar size, same resolution, but improved AF, improved low light, faster. For the most part, except for the EVF/live view, it took all the things I liked about the A99, and improved upon them.
Adam- I think you are right in theory. And I love the idea of having A-mount batteries in bigger sized E-mount bodies at all.
Buit understand the people that don’t want an adapter, because this makes the complete construction more instable. Longer lenses with adapter cause a strong leverage-force at the native-e-mount.
Question is, are there enough adapter haters, to force Sony to maintain 2 different product lines if and when the technologies converge?
There are people who never wanted to give up videotapes, but nobody is making VCRs anymore.
There are people who never wanted to switch from floppy to CD, or CD to usb/internet… But computers got rid of the floppy and are getting rid of CDs. There are those who still claim that record players product superior sound, but you won’t find many vinyls being released. There are those who were upset with Apple changed the iphone cable but oh well, they learned to live with adapters.
Sure, there will be people who don’t love the use of adapters. But will millions of buyers demand native A-mount to avoid the use of adapters? Will there be enough passionate buyers to make it profitable for Sony to maintain the production costs of two different lines? Is it still profitable for Sony to make Betamax players?
Profitability for A-mount depends on the A-mount bodies & lenses they release. Simple as that. Only time will tell.
I think that you have read into my post something that was not in evidence. To make clear what I said… Make an A99 body with less depth, but same, or improved battery and ergonomics. The adapter issue mentioned above is only an issue if Sony poorly designs/constructs the E Mount and adaper. What you get is one line of cameras vs. two and no mirror. What is needed is much better on sensor autofocus. Size has never been the only advantage to mirrorless. I find my A7 too small and many times prefer my 1D, but there is an advantage to dropping the mirror.
You said “making an E mount camera in a DSLR body…”
That’s not “Make an A99 body with less depth…”
If you want a bigger body, buy an A-mount camera.
OK, I give up. I don’t want a mirror in the light path. If A mount is such a great camera, then why are sales anemic compared to Canon and Nikon?
1. Lack of lenses?
2. Doubts about the future of A-mount?
And does Sony show any hint of truly correcting those issues? Even if they soon release 1 or 2 new bodies (which hopefully they will), it won’t really put long term future doubts to rest, until there is a steady flow of attention to the A-mount. And they haven’t expanded their lens lineup for A-mount in a couple of years now.
A-mount is a perfectly fine camera body. I agree. But unless it has advantages over CaNikon AND advantages over E-mount, it will continue to suffer. (Yes, it has more lenses than E-mount, but far fewer than CaNikon. Yes, it has a better live view than CaNikon, but it requires a compromise in ISO performance…with E-mount you can get the live view, without the ISO compromise. yes, it has better battery life than E-mount, but nowhere near as good as CaNikon. etc, etc. By just about every measure, it falls second… in some measures, second to CaNikon. In some measures, second to E-mount. In some measures, it falls below both).
I really think that’s an issue right there. There is still an SLT-phobia with the beam splitter inside, and Sony failed to market SLT technology well.
For what it’s worth, I’ve shot with A99 since it came out and the high ISO is much better than A900 which I shot with beforehand, which had no beam splitter inside.
I don’t doubt that SLT will eventually disappear in A-mount — it’s inevitable.
Did you consider how bulky a full-sized E-mount body would be with the adapter AND A-mount lens added on? And that point, why not just shoot with a mirrorless A-mount camera when they already have you covered from 16mm to 500mm with fast F2.8 zooms.
With adapter AND lens, it will be the same size as an A-mount camera. not any bigger than an A-mount camera. So if and when the technology can truly completely merge (where A-mount lenses can fully AF without SLT mirrors), there is no real advantage to having an entirely separate line of native A-mount camera bodies. If and when the technologies fully converge, the only “disadvantage” of solely E-mount bodies, would be the requirement of a spacer-adapter. Is that really a big enough disadvantage to justify the production cost of two entirely different lines of products?
Here you go again, Adam, arguing for the sake of arguing.
He just said put an E-mount body in a DSLR body (that’s already A-mount size). If you add adapter, it will obviously be larger.
No….. There are lots of design options. Open your mind. You can easily design the grip and “camera back” identical to an A-mount dSLR. But it would still be a thinner camera, with the decreased e-mount flange distance. Then add the adapter… making it the same flange distance as A-mount, and then it’s the same size as A-mount.
Stop thinking only of the current camera body designs.
Again, I’m not responding to what’s possible. I’m responding to what he said. DSLR body, does not mean thinner.
Read the discussion thread in full or shut up!
Did he say dSLR body with A-mount flange distance?? To me, dSLR body means deep grip, large battery, lots of buttons and controls. The flange distance doesn’t define a dSLR body.
Hey, if you want to invest in a mount with slow F4 zooms and have to use adapters for anything better, be my guest.
Talking about the future, not the present. IF… (big IF) the technologies truly converge… fully fast AF for A-mount lenses without SLT..
Then you might see a choice between two systems:
System 1: It can be compact, or large. It has the newest native lenses. It has some of the best primes being made. All the native lenses are silent AF. It can use a simple spacer adapter to use an even wider assortment of lenses. With that spacer adapter, it can use all those 2.8 A-mount lenses, without any image quality or AF impediments (just the need to attach a simple spacer adapter). It has the newest most advanced IBIS.
System 2: It is large. It can only use the older lenses. It can’t be downsized. It can’t use the newest lenses. Many of the available lenses are older, screw drive lenses.
IF the technologies converge… that’s the choice. At which point, why would Sony even bother with System #2? And furthermore, what makes you think they will never make native 2.8 lenses for E-mount?
Adam, I like how you are thinking!
In my opinion the problem is the big IF:
I worry that A-monut lenses are never as fast as E-mount lenses when AF-detection is only done “On-Sensor”. (At least with present technology)
Just look at the new Canon 70D with its “dual-pixel-LiveView-AF”: Rocking fast when used with STM-lenses, but kind of slow when used with top-notch-USM lenses (not to mention AF noise in video-mode).
I think:
STM-lenses equals E-mount natives,
USM-lesnes equals A-mount lenses,
Dual-pixel-AF is the competive counterpart to something like A6000-AF.
That’s why I said “if”
And why I said it’s a big IF.
But now, what IF OSPDAF never does “catch up?”
Then it’s an even bigger dilemma.
Looking at the current paths of both systems…
E-mount will ultimately have a lens lineup approximately as complete as A-mount. They might even eventually have native 2.8 zooms, who knows. But even without 2.8 zooms, they will have as many native lens choices as A-mount. And all the lenses will have silent AF, the newest designs. Some of the lenses will be optically superb. (I’ll bet you right now, the FE 35/1.4 will be optically superior to the A-mount 35/1.4).
A-mount will have a handful of the newest optically magnificent lenses. But will continue to rely on many older designs, many screw drive lenses. As long as you need that SLT mirror, A-mount will continue to have worse ISO performance.
This is the worst case scenario for A-mount users… The “adapter” path to E-mount is a big compromise. But there aren’t enough A-mount advantages to keep it profitable for Sony.
They could, but they’ll be huge, you loose the size advantage and might as well be shooting with A-mount.
No… it can be a system that offers bodies of all sizes. Large and small. Some bodies that are smaller than A-mount, some that are similar in size.
You seem to be under an assumption that if the size is equal, then A-mount wins. But why?
If size is equal — and AF is equal — and performance is equal — and everything else is equal — Except the E-mount also gives the OPTION to downsize, then why A-mount?
Why not say, if the size is equal, the AF is equal, the performance is equal, the lens choices are equal (actually, E-mount will ultimately have more lens choices due to the ability to adapt), then might as well be shooting with E-mount.
I still won’t even consider one of those things until they have a broad NATIVE lens line-up including F2.8 (or greater) zooms and long lenses, and AF tracking performance that beats traditional DSLR PDAF, the AF might come faster but the lenses will take years.
Lenses will take years? According to their roadmap, by the end of 2016, they will have just as many lenses as A-mount, including many options that are completely lacking in A-mount. Sure, there might still be a few lenses that only exist in A-mount, but it will go in both directions.
And why wait for AF tracking that BEATS a dSLR? Seems you are creating a rather odd test.
So if E-mount, in the next couple years– Can achieve AF that EQUALS dSLR, a lens line-up that EQUALS A-mount (with newer and better performing lenses largely), you will wouldn’t consider it? How very very odd.
Truthfully… I suspect you will have little choice in about another 5 years. I don’t know if Sony has any plans to kill off the A-mount in the immediate future, but I strongly doubt they are making any native A-mount bodies in 5 years. So you’ll have the choice of keeping your lenses with an adapter, switching systems, or recycling used A-mount bodies until the last used A-mount on earth has broken down.
Total # of lenses doesn’t mean anything to me. It’s the specs & capabilities that matter, and there’s still no F2.8 zooms or long lenses on their road map, so I’m not interested.
Furthermore, the AF of mirrorless ILC still falls short when going up against traditional PDAF, especially when it comes to tracking.
Sure, Sony could add E-mount F2.8 zooms & even long lenses in future, and A-mount absolutely could disappear in future, but I’m not going to loose any sleep over it.
Besides, if mirrorless ILCs become a true viable option for professionals, then current Canon & Nikon users are going to be in the same boat.
Where is A7000?! 🙁
A new Nex7II, sorry A7000 would be nice also.
(SR5) it will be the A9, FE 85mm F1.8Z and the FE SEL2470 F2.8 zeiss vario sonnar.
Admin, if you consider it as fun many ppl around SAR taking it as serious votes.
If Sony really listen to its cutomers. I would like to see G zoom lenses on a7 series. The apature must be F2.8. Yes F2.8, Sony already showing us some big lenses lately so why not to see some decent lenses of G.
Yesterday, I’ve received my a7II with Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8. It’s superb combo.
I’m planning to buy 70-400 G II instead of buying FE 70-200 f4 G.
Bigger lenses deos not bother me if the IMQ what it matters.
How about 1DX / D4s size e-mount camera?
So it match the size of the F2.8 zoom lens.
How about e-mount 300 F2.8 ?
Samsung has one coming.
Well, a7II size is great comparing to those mentioned models.
Did you see FE 35mm f1.4 & FE 90mm f2.8 macro?
What about FE 28mm f2 size is not good?
Lol, it’s already exist in a-mount “300 F2.8 “.
So do you think 70-400mm G II exist in e-mount or a-mount?
Please understand my point not over it
Right…then why make E-mount in the first place if it is not going to be small anyways…
It should be in E-mount APS-C sensor not a full frame. Or even both, I do not see the FE 35mm f2.8 in actual but it seems small compared to any FE lenses have been released.
Sony can do almost everything that we wanted if not everything. Its engineers are excellent all they need is an approval to show their fantastic design with decent glass. However, it’s all related to money. Money will not come if any company won’t take some risks to approve its capabilities.
The rx10 is a great camcorder/bridge camera. an Rx20 w/ h.265 internal 4k, picture profiles, zeiss 24-200 f/2.8, 12-16mp (less mp for better iso performance), and not to forget ibis, would make an even better run and gun documentary camera.
Agree,
RX20 4k H265 Full Frame Read-out, Slog2 …will be a great video camera 😛
Now, NX1, GH4, NX500, FZ1000 all have high quality 4k video,
But none of the SONY camera have internal 4k,
Sony again lack behind others,
RX20 should have 4k too
I think Sony has an opportunity to redefine the a-mount pro line with a whole new flagship model. I think there is more than enough new tech coming in the next models that “a99 II” would be understating. Maybe time for the “Alpha X”?
Also dont be all over the place with product names, A77III A99II is fine for new products.. it says there is refinement happening here.
Yes, something higher spec than a 9-series in the $4K range would be nice!
The Alpha X name is reserved for the future “hybrid” A and E mount camera. A larger E-mount body that comes with a cleverly disguised LA-EA adapter included in the box. A neat trick to make all E-mount and adapter haters actually use one.
Did you make this up? Good idea.
I’d buy it in a heart beat!
A58II? What happened to the SR5 rumor “There will be no more APS-C SLT cameras (after the A77II) anymore” from back in April of 2013?
A-mount could go mirrorless maybe.
it will as soon as they nail the focus speed/accuracy of the slt
A77 II was released in 2014……
The rumor I quoted was in April 2013, when we were all waiting for the A77II. Maybe go back and read it?
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-there-will-be-no-more-aps-c-slt-cameras-anymore/
A900 II would make me happy. DSLR is a king stupid people! I don’t like crappy E-mount stuff with short life batteries and dark overpriced lenses as well as SLT aggregates.
A900 II has arrived long ago, it’s called D800.
Pentax will deliver the A900 II.
I personally voted for A99II not because I want one, but because it might make A-mount cry-babies shut up and as a result make me happier not listening to their cries on a daily basis 🙂
I’ll stop crying now:)
>2015
>still believes in A mount
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62905067/4.%20Shocked%20Seal.gif
Not going to happen. Sony would have to do way more than just one A99 mkII. It would have to be similar to year 2014 for the E-Mount in order to bring back faith into A-Mount system.
On the other hand, i’m waiting for system-wide panic, so that I could get my hands on a used 70-200 F2.8, dirt cheap and A77II to make it worthwhile.
An A99II is much needed wich i voted for.
But a new starter model like an A58II or an A65II would also be much needed to add new people to the system.
Not sure if Sony will ever release A58 successor. I think this level of A mount cameras is now completely dead. Typical lifespan of a model in this segment is no more than 24 months. A58 is older than this now
As far as I read their marketing material, A mount will be limited to one highend APS-C model (A77) and a highend FF model (A99). A mount will also get longer life cycles (annual aps-c and FF releases in rotation). E mount is where the variation and innovation happens with a fast paced product cycle. I’d be fine with both world.
I remember an interview with someone from Sony and he said A-mount cameras just break even and they were surprised that the majority of sales come from A99. This would mean that they likely make a loss on A77II.
So I also think they will maintain one high spec APSC model, but maybe will introduce several versions of A99, why not A99R and A99S.
Both the high ISO 12Mp and high res 36Mp sensors lack on-sensor PDAF technology, but A mount cameras have dedicated PDAF sensors so these two sensors will be a very good fit for A-mount cameras.
i would love if they released multiple versions of the A99
“What camera would make you more happy?”
Sure A99 M2 ~!!!
A-mount, Full Frame, better high ISO, wider AF coverage , larger buffer ~!!!
I agree in every aspect. Plus more responsive joystick and my money is on the table…
keep no expectation on a99ii. U who voted for a99ii will most likely be disappointed again.
Why is A58 type an option? I thought the path forward included FF and hi-end APSC (A77 type) but eliminated lower end APSC due to e-mount success?
The admin is just guessing.
An A99 mk II as e-mount would be the perfect solution. Then they may introduce a new adapter. An adapter that is with fast autofocus. So if i then put on the new adapter along with ZA 135 mm f.1,8. Then the autofokus is as fast as i can get with the old A99 with that lens. Zeiss will then in the future make e-mount lenses for every old a-mount lenses that is available. So then in a year or two. I can buy the za 24 mm f.2,0, za 50 mm f.1,4, za 85 mm f.1,4, and the za 135 mm f.1,8 as e-mount lenses
A99II as e-mount isn’t an A99II though- it’s an A9. IMPOSTOR!
A9 + Adapter + Loctite 680 => A99ii 😛
Those lenses would be huge on E-mount. Forget it.
And where is long-rumored a7000? Not rumors but fakes.
E mount is dead.
RX2!!!!!! But it’s soooooo far away…
No E mount on April 23?
E mount is dead.
Sony has abandoned us again.
The sky is falling.
I’m going to Samsung!
Not
What are you doing here?
I remember you were saying on Canonwatch that you were a Sony hater…
I’m pretty sure I’ve said it here too. Hated Sony for my NEX7 experience. I’d purchased it pretty early on and added a few lenses. Shelved my DSLR. Loved the IQ. Loved the size. Hated the UX, the overheating sensor, the non-standard hot shoe and the (then) lack of native lenses. Sold it all.
But despite the visual similarities, the A6000 sounds like a whole new ball game. And the A7x lineup is most intriguing to me, as is the rumored A9 and A7000. From what I can tell, all the issues I had with my NEX have been more than resolved, although I don’t know about the sensor issue — can anyone confirm if the A6000 can shoot continuous video for 30 minutes without overheating?
I follow all of the rumor sites out of general interest, but no manufacturer is driving innovation like Sony.
Watching them release the A6000, the A7, A7R, A7S and now the A7m2 has definitely moved me from “never again,” to “maybe,” to a good chance that my next camera will be a Sony. I don’t think it can be my only system. I still like the size, weight, lens lineup, quiet shutter and focus speed of my current system.
But slowly but surely, Sony (with some much appreciated help from Zeiss) is catching up. A fast portrait lens from Sony-Zeiss or a lovely little Loxia in time for the holidays may pull me back in.
As for my “sky is falling” comment — just trying to fit in! 😉
I can tell you the A7s definitely records for hours, with a slight pause every 29:30. The video quality is everything I wanted the A99 to be, and more. If the A99ii does internal 2.7k, or 4k, Sony will probably have sucked me back in for another camera. And, oh if only there was 10 bit HD, but my understanding is that there is a way to convert 8 bit 4k to 10 bit 1080.
That’s good to hear. A7s sounds amazing. I was blown away by that Phillip Bloom low light video. For stills, do you think the A7s retains its advantage over the A7m2 or the A7r in terms of low light shooting if one were to downscale the higher resolution images to 12mp, thus reducing the noise? Thoughts?
For a guy that understands the advantages of the GR and DP you’re quite forgiving on Sony’s lossy RAW and sensor glass astigmatism.
I might borrow my wife’s A6000 for the day to see if it’s as bad as the A7r.
I haven’t seen the RAW files but have seen that complaint. By definition, doesn’t that sort of make them NOT raw? Why would they do that? Either way, everything I’ve read suggests that these are the highest IQ files of any mirrorless camera and better than all but a few DSLRs. I plan to rent before purchasing anything, but would be interested in your thoughts on the A7r’s IQ overall. The other troubling rumor is “shutter shock.” It gives me pause that Sony doesn’t address things like that. Even Olympus, which has had a less than stellar ethics record, acknowledged their shutter shock and released firmware to address it.
Oh God, you’ve opened a can of worms now… 😉
Please elaborate! 🙂
Anton regularly posts on here about Sony’s lossy RAW files. It’s a bit of an obsession with him, he even has a webpage dedicated to it. 🙂
That **IS** dedication! But…
a) is it true?
b) does it matter in practical terms? Are the RAW files as good or better than other manufacturers’ files? And are they still as malleable as others?
Don’t get me wrong: I agree, conceptually. “RAW” should be raw. But if lightly cooked Raw kills a few bad germs, it might not be so bad
a) Yes it is.
b) No it doesn’t – well not unless you habitually underexpose your images by 5 stops.
I’ve been known to miss by a few stops on occasion. 🙂 I don’t miss by 5 stops too often, but would love as much latitude as possible. Even if Sony gives back some of that latitude, they still beat everyone else in terms of DR, no?
+1
I push my RAW files quite a bit on a regular basis, and have never seen them break in the way Anton describes. Of course its extremely rare when i’m pushing by 5 stops. And I can probably recall only 1 or 2 photos out of 32k on the shutter, where I had such a scenario. And still those pictures look fine, except for gained noise in areas where I pushed shadows in post(which is to be expected).
No doubt you’re underexposing your files. Using ETTR and a histogram properly you will find it closer to 50% to all depending on your compositions.
I use histogram at all times, as well as in-camera built in EV meter, and an EVF live view exposure on top of that, and unlike you, I don’t shoot charts or try to prove a point that has a possibility of happening in 0.01% of all pictures taken.
Post a link to photos.
Why, you’re nobody and i’ve got nothing to prove to you, and frankly don’t care. You’re a troll and everyone on this board knows that.
No photos with your NEX 3n + kit lens Stan ?
Nice try, keep on trolling…
Yours in glorious Nikon 14bit, from all 56 countries?
No. Read Ming Thein’s review on a7ii
No matter how much technology is packed into the rest of the camera, if
the sensor does not deliver – then we might as well go home. I am still
not happy with the crippling 11+7 bit raw compression: you can still run
into posterization fairly easily in highlights and shadows, especially
if adjusting color balance under mixed lighting. Watch carefully for
clipping, too – it doesn’t roll off nicely in the highlights like the
D810. ISO for ISO, lens for lens, the D750
delivers a better quality file – with about 1-1.5 additional stops of
usable (i.e. clean, manipulable in postprocessing without artifacts)
dynamic range – in addition to slightly more transparent color, and
surprisingly, about a stop less noise.
PS – you can’t trust DXO – they calculate scores, They do not test actual systems (lens+ sensor)
And Ming also states that his D800’s were inherently poor for accurate focus AND his D810 cannot be trusted for critical focus through the OVF with fast glass. But again, like a cheap suited politician you skip the facts that don’t bolster your position. This is the reason why those of us that actually have an objective opinion on these issues will not take you seriously!
Sony files worsen with ETTR.
a) Yes
b) Depends on what you shoot
In short: It matters when you *REALLY* need great DR and tonality.
If the claims about the 11+7 RAW compression are right, the algorithm is indeed a lousy idea. With some modifications Sony could do a 14+7 RAW compression and even save 2 bit out of 128 🙂
How are so many of you in absolute denial over what’s been proven again and again by some of the best camera reviewers in the world. Not one credible person has ever come forward to say that Sony has 14 bit files for its mirrorless cameras, that shutter shock isn’t a factor from appx 1/30th to 1/250-1/300th depending on focal length and that Sony’s sensor glass causes astigmatism and a loss of resolution that I’ve consistently tested at 19-20% with the finest lenses in the world – Zeiss Otus and Apo Sonnar.
These are all cold hard tested facts. Why the debate ?
How are you focussing those lenses on your D810? It’s focussing screen has been proven “by the best experts in the world” to be inherently inaccurate below f/4. We could go on here, but you should know this Anton. You’re like a freshman politician at a high school debate…….
I only use the Otus 55mm, Otus 85mm and Apo Sonnar 135mm and manual focus through the OVF is flawless. The 21mm Distagon might need live view and 3x loupe to do as well but the DOF is so great at 5.6 it’s kind of hard to screw that up too. Nikon AF with 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8 is flawless. Like the dove photo I took from my living room. I’ve been in 56 countries for a total of 8 years out of the US. Tell us all about your world travels Jenny.
So your oft quoted “expert” Ming Thien is talking trash when he states his Nikon’s D800’s are poor reference focus accuracy. Like I said before Anton, you like to play fast and loose with the facts don’t you sweetie pie. Again, you comments (be they Sony or Nikon related) prove one point to my mind; you actually shoot very little with either system and your little more than an obsessive gear collector and purveyor of photographic literature.
I just think they should have it optional. They can even leave the 11+7 bit as default if they think it’s such a great idea… but at least give people the option.
Actually that’s not what I wanted to say:
I am not against a 11+7 RAW in general. I just stated the way Sony did the 11+7 RAW, they always lose 3 bit precision for the darkest and brightest pixel – even if 7 bit delta are completely sufficient when all pixels have similar colors.
There is another way of not losing this 3 bit of precision with a similar easy, same speed, same complex algorithm AND they would save 2 bits out of 128.(about 1-2% better compression rate)
The question, if there is an option to switch to a lossless or uncrompressed RAW is another one. I think Sony is afraid of having testers that switch to uncompressed RAW and measure a early buffer overrun in continuous shooting.
Sony’s RAWs can in certain circumstances have artefacts, but in practice I rarely see any problems with the pictures I take. I use both Nikon and Sony E-mount kits, and most of the time you’d be hard pushed to distinguish between the two.
Raw isn’t raw when it comes to Sony. Start at the bottom of the blog – it’s chronological that way.
https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/
Thanks.
None of the manufactures give you a true RAW, you should know this Anton.
What’s the URL? I’d actually like to learn more about it
You will not learn anything. It is full of test results of tests that didn’t actually take place and the ones that did are deliberately badly conducted and skewed to favour Nikon.
Anton is a troll (despite his claims to the contrary), and not a very good one.
Anton is the “11+7bit lossy compession” maniac here. He is crying like a baby about this in almost every post. Over and over again. I have never ever seen someone who is that persistant on one issue. (An issue that exists, but is in no way a deal breaker for the majotrity.)
Thanks! I admire someone for crusading for purity and truth, but at the end of the day, if the files are still better than those from other cameras, I’m still a happy camper. Are you an A7x shooter? Is shutter shock legit?
Totally depends on what one do and shoot as well. Some of the problems is only visible if one pushes the RAW-files. If one often do though it quickly becomes apparent from time to time. By “pushing the RAW” i basically mean shooting landscapes where DR etc is important so that one need to push colors, shadows etc in post.
People shooting their kids, animals etc would of course not see or have the same problems.
I like to push my RAW files pretty aggressively from time to time and always want as much DR as possible. According to DXO, Sony has significantly more DR than anyone else, save for Nikon, which is using Sony sensors. Are you saying that despite the impressive spec, that the files don’t actually hold up? Or that the DR is there as shot, but not when processed. That becomes pretty confusing. But Are they still more malleable than other files?
It holds up for most people. I tend to bracket my shots anyway so i can always get rid of such problems by blending images in post if problems occur.
I’m still waiting for A7r II and a fix + a real review of that fix though.
You should talk with his ex………… 🙂
I can’t speak to either the A7m2, or the A7r, as I haven’t used them. Most of my low light photos are either dance, or event photography. So, I’m not sure that stabilization would help me all that much, as my settings are more determined by how much I need to freeze the motion, and the desired DOF. I also do a fair amount of video, so stabilization could help for that, but after my experience with the A99, I don’t trust sony to be able to scale a 24, or even 26mp sensor down to video and have it not look like garbage. Even the VG900 had vhs grade video, which is what I assume VG stands for…vhs grade.
Hey Douglas. You should check video by Serge Ramelli when he was shooting New York at night from helicopter. He had both A7s and A7r and is comparing files even with A7s pictures upscaled to 36mpix. Seems like A7s still produces better files (for noise) at given (high) ISO. Video here: https://youtu.be/R4wRj35f4UU
Thanks for sharing this!
And over time, I’ve changed. I used to want one system. I’ve made peace with the notion of use case focused cameras. I love my Ricoh GR for street photography. If I shot landscape, I’d probably own a foveon packing Sigma. Going back to small, manual focus primes, legacy or Loxia, is something that interests me.
Since I own a GR, it is like a voice in my head. Every time I think about a new camera, it says: You don’t need one, the GR is all you need.
GAS is a serious disease!
Gear Acquisition Syndrome need not be debilitating! We all suffer from it from time to time. I treat my G.A.S. with Feasibility Assessment Rental Test Spins. One dose usually does it, but sometimes it takes two.
They should have named it the Ricoh DR because the dynamic range of that camera is fantastic.
confirmed: no E-mount pre-announcement = E-mount is dead,,
come on guys you remember how to do it, oh it doesn’t work that way for the e-mount too..?
I need some instructions. I’m hoping to rip out the AF in this A77II here and stuff it in the A900. Do I cut the blue wire first or the red one?
Make it X already. All good things have an X like 1Dx, OS X, Windows X (MS skipped IX)…errm… X-Men… X-…zibit …
New A mount camera? You know April Fools day is TOMORROW, right?
Admin, has forgotten that March has 31 days,
So he mistakenly scheduled the rumor today.
As I predicted last week, there will be a-mount rumor on 1st of April. 😛
LOL
Already April 1st where I am. All A-mount rumours do seem like jokes.
Quite calm Sony / E-Mount year so far. No attractive products in sight 2015. The good thing in all this not so much encouraging news is, my money can stay where it is. Rumors concerning new E-mount cameras and big events were over heating by end of last year. Now we are faced with boring reality.
FD mount is dead.
But the lenses live!
Canon’s evil plan has manifested itself!
there’s no camera coming in april…i fooled you once again.
sorry but its too funny so see your reactions. you guys are so predictable…
But we guys having fun speculating about new camera releases. Most of us give a f**k if we are predictable to you.
Cheers!
maybe predictable to the person who is managing this site?
A trusted source that fooled SAR *again*?
You wouldn’t be a trusted source, then, would you?
‘tard.
‘trusted source’ implies knowledge and facts. i only see fantasy and lack of knowledge here.
Its an RX camera release. sadly.
Why sadly? If they do release a new RX1 successor, I for one will be very pleased. If the curved sensor/lens combo lives up to it’s potential, it will be a phenomenal camera.
How do you know?
Interesting what is a99 / RX1 sales ratio?
I have no idea, but a possibly interesting study would be the ratio of soccer moms / professional shooters? Not hating on RX but they are in completely different leagues.
Why sadly? Sure, it might be disappointing if you are hoping for a different line. But it seems like there’s nothing to sad about the RX lineup. The three that spring to mind are/were pretty groundbreaking:
RX1 paved the way for the A7 lineup, although the price still seems way out of line today
RX100 could still be the best shirt pocket camera available, even several years later
RX10 had a much shorter reign, but was and is pretty strong in its class
I’d love to see an RX2 with that curved sensor technology and an aggressive price point, even though I too would be even happier with the rumored A9, A5 or A7000, as long as we’re talking about imaginary cameras 🙂
oh thats true , I didn’t mean to offend the RX lovers, it was more a selfish “hoping for a99 successor” type of post.
Too late. Now if it doesn’t happen, it will be a tidal wave of “RX is dead!” posts. Sigh
RX20 with APS-C sensor I hope 🙂
Or the 1″ and 4K
RX2 got 962 votes… most likely more than future buyers. 😀
And the most important camera for the A-mount, if it was to be spared: a new entry-level model… last.
Guys from Sony who look at this kind of data must think: “we’ll never make money on the A-mount, such a pointless system…”
😀
Sony, are we going to see the baby AF module from a crop camera in a possible FF a99ll again or you will please your users with a True Pro camera that can handle low light AF situations? Will work fast and be straight forward to operate. A7 cameras are no replacement to a99 styled body and lenses made it for it.
agree with you. integrated battery grip welcomed…
With the A77 II having a 77 AF point system I am sure that Sony would at the very least take that one if not design something new for the A99 II.
Will these cameras have 14 bit color and a well designed sensor glass cover that doesn’t reduce resolution by 20% ?
sure cant you read between the lines? it will have any feature you want or dream of.
Oh I see, it’s like voting for Pedro. All of your wildest dreams will come true.
Yes
Sony mirrorless 3 main issues that could be easily fixed –
1. Create and deliver true 14 bit* files, even at the expense
of frames per second. It’s obvious that your processor doesn’t have
the horsepower to deliver the quality and frame rates you advertise at
the same time (and in 14 bit color – never at all.)
2. Create an anti shutter shock setting on the camera that
raises ISO when the camera is in the 1/40 – 1/250 ‘danger zone’. A
zone that a multitude of experts have identified as a problem with the
A7r.
3. Pay for the replacement of the poorly designed thick
sensor glass that has also been identified by several experts and there
are after market fixes for.
The fix removes the sensor cleaning facility. It trades one problem for another in my opinion
dont waste your time here. send a letter to sony!
but it has to be handwritten for more credibility.
They should start releasing with these new cameras a roadmap entitled “expected depreciation over the next 12 months.”
Why all the hate between users of the different mounts? There’s room for both.
If you have E-mount you should be basking in the glow of all the releases you’ve had over the last couple years and be happy for A-mount users if an A99ii comes out. And if you have A-mount, you shouldn’t be jealous of E-mount users when your cameras are still on a normal ~3 year refresh rate.
Spread the love people! Advances on one side help the other. Things like improved sensor technology and 5-axis IBIS are good for both mounts.
I figured out who Anton really is – PixelLover69 http://petapixel.com/2015/03/31/satire-disgruntled-pixel-peepers-say-canon-5ds-still-not-enough/#more-162239
His real name is Max Berlin and he lives in San Antonio, Texas (USA).
https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/about/
https://en.gravatar.com/maxberlin88
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/max-berlin/8a/1a3/a0
https://www.facebook.com/max.berlin.503
RX2 with a 50 or so lense, would make sense to me 🙂