Sony A7

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Jan 25, 2014.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I played around a bit with the Sony A7 (supposedly the first full frame
    mirrorless SLR) and it seemed rather solid. It's a lot cheaper than the
    RX1R I bought a couple of months back (which I *love*) but will probably
    ramp up when you start adding lenses of course.

    It had three function buttons, and on on the thumb, so you can assign ISO
    to that one and easily get to ISO selections while still looking in the
    viewfinder.

    Some problems I found in about ten minutes of fiddling:

    1. EVF sucks for SLR work. The recent thread nonwithstanding. It's just way
    way too slow and panning a scene just hurts your eyes, and the presence of
    pixels are very obivous to the eye. This is FAR from replacing an optical
    viewfinder, and this one is supposedly one of the better EVF today.

    2. Startup time is still way too slow. This is a problem on my RX1R as
    well, it still takes slightly over a second to start up, and while it may
    not ruin any possible shots, it still ruins the experience

    3. The thumb knobs are awkwardly placed. The body is so thin so there is no
    way to hold it comfortably, so the knobs end up in strange places. And
    while I like the C1 programmable button near my index finger, it's still
    very uncomfrotably positioned. But I do like that the A7, in contrast to
    the RX1, has both a back and front knob.

    4. For all the compactness of the body, most of the lenses were still
    pretty damn huge.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jan 25, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Saturday, January 25, 2014 5:01:08 PM UTC-5, Sandman wrote:
    > I played around a bit with the Sony A7 (supposedly the first full frame
    >
    > mirrorless SLR) and it seemed rather solid. It's a lot cheaper than the
    >
    > RX1R I bought a couple of months back (which I *love*) but will probably
    >
    > ramp up when you start adding lenses of course.
    >
    >
    >
    > It had three function buttons, and on on the thumb, so you can assign ISO
    >
    > to that one and easily get to ISO selections while still looking in the
    >
    > viewfinder.
    >
    >
    >
    > Some problems I found in about ten minutes of fiddling:
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. EVF sucks for SLR work. The recent thread nonwithstanding. It's just way
    >
    > way too slow and panning a scene just hurts your eyes, and the presence of
    >
    > pixels are very obivous to the eye.


    I've got to check this. It's a 2.3M display so resolving the pixels must mean the virtual size of the viewfinder must be in the 5-6 foot region.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such bodies.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2014
    #3
  4. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/25/2014 5:01 PM, Sandman wrote:
    > I played around a bit with the Sony A7 (supposedly the first full frame
    > mirrorless SLR) and it seemed rather solid. It's a lot cheaper than the
    > RX1R I bought a couple of months back (which I *love*) but will probably
    > ramp up when you start adding lenses of course.
    >
    > It had three function buttons, and on on the thumb, so you can assign ISO
    > to that one and easily get to ISO selections while still looking in the
    > viewfinder.
    >
    > Some problems I found in about ten minutes of fiddling:
    >
    > 1. EVF sucks for SLR work. The recent thread nonwithstanding. It's just way
    > way too slow and panning a scene just hurts your eyes, and the presence of
    > pixels are very obivous to the eye. This is FAR from replacing an optical
    > viewfinder, and this one is supposedly one of the better EVF today.
    >
    > 2. Startup time is still way too slow. This is a problem on my RX1R as
    > well, it still takes slightly over a second to start up, and while it may
    > not ruin any possible shots, it still ruins the experience
    >
    > 3. The thumb knobs are awkwardly placed. The body is so thin so there is no
    > way to hold it comfortably, so the knobs end up in strange places. And
    > while I like the C1 programmable button near my index finger, it's still
    > very uncomfrotably positioned. But I do like that the A7, in contrast to
    > the RX1, has both a back and front knob.
    >
    > 4. For all the compactness of the body, most of the lenses were still
    > pretty damn huge.
    >


    One of my friends has one, and his comments are similar to yours.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 26, 2014
    #4
  5. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 25/01/2014 23:39, RichA wrote:
    > I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such bodies.


    So if you prefer small and light, choose APS-C or, perhaps, micro-4/3 If
    you can stand the EVF). I certainly have no intention of reverting to
    full-frame - it's not for me, but I appreciate that others will have
    different trade-offs.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jan 26, 2014
    #5
  6. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:28:52 AM UTC-5, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 25/01/2014 23:39, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such bodies.

    >
    >
    >
    > So if you prefer small and light, choose APS-C or, perhaps, micro-4/3 If
    >
    > you can stand the EVF). I certainly have no intention of reverting to
    >
    > full-frame - it's not for me, but I appreciate that others will have
    >
    > different trade-offs.


    A 36mp APS area-size sensor in 4/3 format would be the ideal solution. Best use of lens circle real-estate, very acceptable noise (same as m4/3), high resolution and the ability to use smaller and FAR cheaper lenses than FF.
    RichA, Jan 26, 2014
    #6
  7. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:07:10 PM UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:54:53 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:28:52 AM UTC-5, David Taylor wrote:

    >
    > >> On 25/01/2014 23:39, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> > I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such bodies.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> So if you prefer small and light, choose APS-C or, perhaps, micro-4/3 If

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> you can stand the EVF). I certainly have no intention of reverting to

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> full-frame - it's not for me, but I appreciate that others will have

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> different trade-offs.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >A 36mp APS area-size sensor in 4/3 format would be the ideal solution. Best use of lens circle real-estate, very acceptable noise (same as m4/3), high resolution and the ability to use smaller and FAR cheaper lenses than FF.

    >
    >
    >
    > But are cheaper lenses going to do justice to 36Mp?
    >


    Cheapness in this case is relative. Cheap, with regard to a FF lens, but it could very well be a good lens for APS. Like Nikon's 16-85mm APS versus the 24-120mm for FF. They aren't a directly comparable lens set as the new24-120mm is f/4.0 continuous, but they are similar in quality. The 24-120mm is twice the price of the 16-85mm.
    RichA, Jan 27, 2014
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>, RichA wrote:

    > I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of
    > them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will
    > be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such
    > bodies.


    And since this is a FF camera, the lenses are so huge that any size
    advantage you get from the body is lost on the lenses. A Nikon APS-C body
    with comparable lens would probably actually be lighter, and more
    comfortable to use.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jan 27, 2014
    #8
  9. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 27/01/2014 02:07, Eric Stevens wrote:
    []
    > But are cheaper lenses going to do justice to 36Mp?


    Nikon already have 24 Mpix APS-C (and I have one) and the sensor is
    already better than most of the lenses I have, and most of the pictures
    I take (i.e. with a slight amount of out-of-focus or subject movement or
    atmospheric blur). 36 Mpix would just add to the file size and storage
    requirement.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jan 27, 2014
    #9
  10. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:08:03 AM UTC-5, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <>, RichAwrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of

    >
    > > them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will

    >
    > > be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such

    >
    > > bodies.

    >
    >
    >
    > And since this is a FF camera, the lenses are so huge that any size
    >
    > advantage you get from the body is lost on the lenses. A Nikon APS-C body
    >
    > with comparable lens would probably actually be lighter, and more
    >
    > comfortable to use.
    >


    Yes, people don't seem to realize that the imbalance of small bodies, big lenses, is a critical factor in using these cameras. There is leverage (weight, grip) when using a normal DSLR that helps take much of the weight off a lens. Most of the compacts have a completely different feel when doing photography and (admittedly) is isn't a better feel. Mirror-less should firstand foremost be about weight and size savings. At least until a medium format mirrorless appears.
    RichA, Jan 29, 2014
    #10
  11. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Monday, January 27, 2014 2:21:20 AM UTC-5, David Taylor wrote:
    > On 27/01/2014 02:07, Eric Stevens wrote:


    > > But are cheaper lenses going to do justice to 36Mp?


    > Nikon already have 24 Mpix APS-C (and I have one) and the sensor is
    > already better than most of the lenses I have


    What lenses do you have? A old Nikon 35mm f/2.0 at f/8.0 will clearly show more resolution on a D800 (36mp) than a D7100 (24mp). I don't think stopped down lenses of reasonable quality are taxed by even 36mp, at least in the centre. Olympus and Panasonic cameras, if you combine shots (to make upthe same surface size as a FF sensor) will have 64mp and will show even more detail, even with a kit lens.
    I'd like someone to do a thorough test of this idea.
    RichA, Jan 29, 2014
    #11
  12. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/29/2014 11:49 AM, RichA wrote:

    >
    > What lenses do you have? A old Nikon 35mm f/2.0 at f/8.0 will clearly show more resolution on a D800 (36mp) than a D7100 (24mp). I don't think stopped down lenses of reasonable quality are taxed by even 36mp, at least in the centre. Olympus and Panasonic cameras, if you combine shots (to make up the same surface size as a FF sensor) will have 64mp and will show even more detail, even with a kit lens.
    > I'd like someone to do a thorough test of this idea.
    >


    Go ahead. You have my permission.
    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 29, 2014
    #12
  13. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/29/2014 11:39 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:08:03 AM UTC-5, Sandman wrote:
    >> In article <>, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of

    >>
    >>> them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will

    >>
    >>> be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such

    >>
    >>> bodies.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And since this is a FF camera, the lenses are so huge that any size
    >>
    >> advantage you get from the body is lost on the lenses. A Nikon APS-C body
    >>
    >> with comparable lens would probably actually be lighter, and more
    >>
    >> comfortable to use.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, people don't seem to realize that the imbalance of small bodies, big lenses, is a critical factor in using these cameras. There is leverage (weight, grip) when using a normal DSLR that helps take much of the weight off a lens. Most of the compacts have a completely different feel when doing photography and (admittedly) is isn't a better feel. Mirror-less should first and foremost be about weight and size savings. At least until a medium format mirrorless appears.
    >


    New concept. learn to grip the lens. Try using a pistol grip, it should
    work fine.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 29, 2014
    #13
  14. Sandman

    Nick Fotis Guest

    On 26/01/2014 00:01, Sandman wrote:
    > I played around a bit with the Sony A7 (supposedly the first full frame
    > mirrorless SLR) and it seemed rather solid. It's a lot cheaper than the
    > RX1R I bought a couple of months back (which I *love*) but will probably
    > ramp up when you start adding lenses of course.
    >
    > It had three function buttons, and on on the thumb, so you can assign ISO
    > to that one and easily get to ISO selections while still looking in the
    > viewfinder.
    >
    > Some problems I found in about ten minutes of fiddling:
    >


    Other shooter noted also the small battery capacity, small buffer and
    slow write speed, compared with a Nikon D800.

    Personally, I am intrigued by these cameras, but I am 'married' to my
    Canon L glass, and probably an upgrade to the body is more than enough
    (I am using a 5D and a 40D at the moment - going to a 6D should be
    nearly the same as getting the A7 plus the EOS adapter).

    And I do not have a collection of manual focus lenses which could get a
    new lease of life (but even then, there are adaptors for nearly
    everything to EOS mount as well).

    N.F.
    Nick Fotis, Jan 30, 2014
    #14
  15. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:42:24 PM UTC-5, PeterN wrote:
    > On 1/29/2014 11:39 AM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:08:03 AM UTC-5, Sandman wrote:

    >
    > >> In article <>, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> I'd just like to add this about these mirror-less cameras; none of

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> them feels as good as a full-sized DSLR to hold and they never will

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> be as good. Their claim to fame is being 1/2 the weight of such

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>> bodies.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> And since this is a FF camera, the lenses are so huge that any size

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> advantage you get from the body is lost on the lenses. A Nikon APS-C body

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> with comparable lens would probably actually be lighter, and more

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> comfortable to use.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Yes, people don't seem to realize that the imbalance of small bodies, big lenses, is a critical factor in using these cameras. There is leverage (weight, grip) when using a normal DSLR that helps take much of the weight off a lens. Most of the compacts have a completely different feel when doing photography and (admittedly) is isn't a better feel. Mirror-less should first and foremost be about weight and size savings. At least until a medium format mirrorless appears.


    > New concept. learn to grip the lens. Try using a pistol grip, it should


    > work fine.


    Still not the same. If it was, there would be no reason for 2lb DSLR bodies.
    RichA, Jan 30, 2014
    #15
  16. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/29/2014 10:21 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:42:24 PM UTC-5, PeterN wrote:




    >> New concept. learn to grip the lens. Try using a pistol grip, it should

    >
    >> work fine.

    >
    > Still not the same. If it was, there would be no reason for 2lb DSLR bodies.
    >


    Oh!

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 30, 2014
    #16
  17. Sandman

    David Taylor Guest

    On 29/01/2014 16:49, RichA wrote:
    > On Monday, January 27, 2014 2:21:20 AM UTC-5, David Taylor wrote:
    >> On 27/01/2014 02:07, Eric Stevens wrote:

    >
    >>> But are cheaper lenses going to do justice to 36Mp?

    >
    >> Nikon already have 24 Mpix APS-C (and I have one) and the sensor is
    >> already better than most of the lenses I have

    >
    > What lenses do you have? A old Nikon 35mm f/2.0 at f/8.0 will clearly show more resolution on a D800 (36mp) than a D7100 (24mp). I don't think stopped down lenses of reasonable quality are taxed by even 36mp, at least in the centre. Olympus and Panasonic cameras, if you combine shots (to make up the same surface size as a FF sensor) will have 64mp and will show even more detail, even with a kit lens.
    > I'd like someone to do a thorough test of this idea.


    I'm referring to zoom lenses - 16-85 mainly, but I also use the
    "consumer" 18-200 and 70-300, all Nikon, and the Tamron 10-24 mm. 24
    Mpix is good enough for those most of the time, at least. I have the
    delightful 35/1.8 but haven't used it a lot. These are not the
    high-priced, heavy, wide-aperture "professional" lenses, of course.

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jan 30, 2014
    #17
  18. Sandman

    RichA Guest

    On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:01:19 AM UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA <>


    > >Still not the same. If it was, there would be no reason for 2lb DSLR bodies.


    > Surely you don't think that DSLR bodies weigh what they do simply to


    > help balance the lens?


    > They weigh what they do because that's the weight of all the stuff
    > from which they are composed. If the designers were just after weight>
    > they wouldn't go to the trouble and expense of using magnesium,>
    > titanium, carbon fibre etc.
    >


    The physical size was never necessary, it was done this way (pro Nikons and Canons) because it afforded better control over the system. Small bodies do not. The weight is the result of needed size, like you said.
    RichA, Jan 31, 2014
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sarah Stewart
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,012
    Sarah Stewart
    May 8, 2005
  2. J.B.

    Sony TRV230 vs. Sony TRV245 (UK Models)

    J.B., Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    471
  3. alex
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    608
  4. Matt

    SONY F-717 verses SONY CD 505

    Matt, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    609
    Robert McDermitt
    Aug 18, 2003
  5. Monica Krowley

    Canon S400 vs Sony P10 vs Sony P92 vs Oly C50

    Monica Krowley, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    Monica Krowley
    Sep 6, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page