Sony a7R, you want one.....

[Gavjenks]

Ok, so based on what your telling me, the thing has a loud shutter, slow autofocus, shoots slow and has terrible battery life. Why is it I want one again? Lol

^
This.

For the same money (at every tier: a7 = 6D, a7r = something like 5D, etc.) I can get a full frame camera in Nikon or Canon that has none of those issues at all. PLUS light-speed optical viewfinding. And just as good of image quality because they are all using the same modern generation equally sized digital sensors.

"Here are some good photos I took" isn't an argument for why somebody would want one of these cameras. You need to demonstrate:
A) Why you can't take the same photos as easily with a traditional full frame SLR, OR
B) why the features of the mirrorless are currently more convenient or powerful to make it attractive even thought image quality is equal. And currently, what you seem to be saying is "Actually the features are crap by comparison" Other than size, which is fairly irrelevant for pros or high end amateurs already lugging many pounds of gear.

 

[sashbar]

My other concern is that mirrorless is relatively new - and I'm a little worried about investing in a system until I know it's something that is going to get long term support. I just really haven't gotten that impression yet from a lot of these newer systems.

I am worried about a long term support for DSLR Mirrorless will be OK it seems.
Just think about it: a mechanical mirror is expensive and complicated to manufacture, it can break, it shakes the camera, it is noisy, spreads dust around, has limited frames per second capability and takes a lot of space. An SLR system is preferred for now by most to an EVF of a mirrorless camera, because the quality of an EVF is poor. But it will not stay poor for long.
An EVF will INEVITABLY trounce an OVF, all it needs is more powerful processors and better electronics, and it all gets better every year. A mechanical mirror does not get any better. I want to see the new FUJI X-T1 EVF which looks like a sign of things to come. Today's EVF in most mirrorless cameras that I saw is like a 1960-s color TV with its small screen, color cast and overall poor picture quality. Tomorrow it will be like a wide screen plasma. Well, maybe day after tomorrow. From what I have heard X-T1 EVF is already larger than any current OVF, including Canon 1D. (Jessops in London started selling it yesterday). And if the picture/screen quality is good enough, and you can look through the EVF and clearly see the real DoF, as captured in your image, a focus peaking, if you can clearly see in the dark (unlike OVF), if you can embed a hystogram and pretty much anything you wish, why on earth would you prefer a mirror? It is a XX century technology... As I said it is all about a processor speed. X-T1 already has 8 fps. And inte future it will not be limited by the mirror.
I am not talking about the next year or so, but long term it is just inevitable.
Small size is the main advantage of a mirrorless because it is still lagging behind a DSLR in many ways, but it will all change rather soon. As soon as they start competing with DSLR in operational speed, we will see "pro size" mirrorless bodies. I have no doubts about it.
I can bet that in 10 years a pro camera of choice for a sports shooter will be a mirrorless camera with an electronic shutter and with 30 fps. A DSLR can not even theoretically match that.

 

[robbins.photo]

My other concern is that mirrorless is relatively new - and I'm a little worried about investing in a system until I know it's something that is going to get long term support. I just really haven't gotten that impression yet from a lot of these newer systems.

I am worried about a long term support for DSLR Mirrorless will be OK it seems.

Will mirrorless be the next big thing? Maybe. But does that mean that the first mirrorless systems on the market continue to receive long term support? No, that doesnt necessarily follow.

So for me it makes more sense to wait and keep an eye on the market for now. It just doesn't make good financial sense to spend the kind of money I'd have to spend to go mirrorless at this point.

I'd rather wait for more options and for a system that I'm confident will get the long term support I'm looking for before making that kind of investment.

For me this isn't about DSLR vrs mirrorless- it's about making sure that I don't end up investing money in a system that for whatever reason doesn't take hold and ends up getting abandoned.

So yes mirrorless on the whole might well end up replacing DSLR, but that doesn't help me much if I buy mirrorless system A now and it turns out they switch to system B in a year or so and I end up having to buy B because they won't be making anything else for A.



Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[vipgraphx]

Well that's just it, I don't have quite that much faith in the idea that they won't be changing mounts - I mean I'm not a Sony expert by any means but don't they have like 3 mounts already.. the A, the E and the FE - and while they might decide to stay with one the might not. They seem to be jumping around quite a bit and frankly that just makes me nervous. The other thing I'm waiting on is the next generation of EVF systems - that will most likely be when I start seriously looking at getting a mirrorless.

There is only two mounts A and E the FE is full frame E mount. Just like in nikon same mount but lenses are either FF or CF

 

[robbins.photo]

Well that's just it, I don't have quite that much faith in the idea that they won't be changing mounts - I mean I'm not a Sony expert by any means but don't they have like 3 mounts already.. the A, the E and the FE - and while they might decide to stay with one the might not. They seem to be jumping around quite a bit and frankly that just makes me nervous. The other thing I'm waiting on is the next generation of EVF systems - that will most likely be when I start seriously looking at getting a mirrorless.

There is only two mounts A and E the FE is full frame E mount. Just like in nikon same mount but lenses are either FF or CF

Okdoke.. well that's good info to have - from just looking at stats it looks like Sony builds a pretty nice camera overall, so it might be something worth considering a little further down the road.

 

[vipgraphx]

Yeah in time only when your ready

 

[Derrel]

Well that's just it, I don't have quite that much faith in the idea that they won't be changing mounts - I mean I'm not a Sony expert by any means but don't they have like 3 mounts already.. the A, the E and the FE - and while they might decide to stay with one the might not. They seem to be jumping around quite a bit and frankly that just makes me nervous. The other thing I'm waiting on is the next generation of EVF systems - that will most likely be when I start seriously looking at getting a mirrorless.

There is only two mounts A and E the FE is full frame E mount. Just like in nikon same mount but lenses are either FF or CF

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.ht

"What Sony did in a decade is end up with five different "lens sets," none of which got particularly deeper (more apps), and some of which are incomplete. Those sets are crop sensor Alpha (DT), full frame Alpha, crop sensor NEX (E), full frame "NEX" (FE), and the bolted to body things like the RX1 and RX10. So what prompted this article? A comment by a Sony executive on the day they launched the A6000 (NEX E mount) that they were going to concentrate on FE! Say what? "

and then farther along in the story, THom wrote: "But Sony? The Alpha full frame lens line seems to have stalled. The Alpha DT line is like Canon and Nikon's crop sensor DSLR lines: extremely incomplete. The E-mount lenses seem to be stalled at the moment, and it's really only in the FE mount that we're seeing lots of new lenses in a Road Map, though this is more catching up with a basic lens set than a deeper or broader exploration of what their cameras can do.
Which brings me around to the question in the headline. Can we trust the camera makers? Are we buying into lens sets that, like the Canon EF mount or the Nikon F mount, will still work on our cameras of the future? Or are we buying into lens sets that have some risk of being never broadened the way we want?"

 

[Stevepwns]

Well that's just it, I don't have quite that much faith in the idea that they won't be changing mounts - I mean I'm not a Sony expert by any means but don't they have like 3 mounts already.. the A, the E and the FE - and while they might decide to stay with one the might not. They seem to be jumping around quite a bit and frankly that just makes me nervous. The other thing I'm waiting on is the next generation of EVF systems - that will most likely be when I start seriously looking at getting a mirrorless.

There is only two mounts A and E the FE is full frame E mount. Just like in nikon same mount but lenses are either FF or CF

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.ht

"What Sony did in a decade is end up with five different "lens sets," none of which got particularly deeper (more apps), and some of which are incomplete. Those sets are crop sensor Alpha (DT), full frame Alpha, crop sensor NEX (E), full frame "NEX" (FE), and the bolted to body things like the RX1 and RX10. So what prompted this article? A comment by a Sony executive on the day they launched the A6000 (NEX E mount) that they were going to concentrate on FE! Say what? "

and then farther along in the story, THom wrote: "But Sony? The Alpha full frame lens line seems to have stalled. The Alpha DT line is like Canon and Nikon's crop sensor DSLR lines: extremely incomplete. The E-mount lenses seem to be stalled at the moment, and it's really only in the FE mount that we're seeing lots of new lenses in a Road Map, though this is more catching up with a basic lens set than a deeper or broader exploration of what their cameras can do.
Which brings me around to the question in the headline. Can we trust the camera makers? Are we buying into lens sets that, like the Canon EF mount or the Nikon F mount, will still work on our cameras of the future? Or are we buying into lens sets that have some risk of being never broadened the way we want?"

This is exactly why I have not bought anything new or upgraded anything. I really like my Sony, I want them to keep producing lens for the A mount. Upgrade their FF body.... but they seem real bi-polar with their mounts and camera systems in general. In the back of my mind I figured I would give them this year to show me they are going to continue with what they already have. If by the end of the year they havent shown me enough, Im moving on to Nikon.

 

[vipgraphx]

If by the end of the year they havent shown me enough, Im moving on to Nikon.

never can go wrong with a NIKON

 

[goodguy]

There is no argument that the A7 is a great camera but frankly in its price range I would rather go for the Nikon D610.
I think in general mirrorless cameras offer small body with small lenses creating a small pretty powerful package but for those who want low light good performance they need fast lenses which are by their nature big so even if I would use a converter I think the overall result will be small camera and a huge honking lens on it, it would look silly and defeat the point of having a small power package.
So A7 is a good camera to a certain crowd but still lacks the flexibility of a DSLR.
I think there is place in the camera market both to mirrorless and DSLR and I have no doubt that Sony and other makers will make better and better mirrorless cameras, the future is going to be very interesting

 

[goodguy]

If you shoot landscapes you want it. I hate to use the old terms, awesome, amazing, stunning ect. How about smoking' ?


Cherokee Rock Village, 2-22-2014 by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr


Little River by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr


Dawn at the Lake by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr





Little River by Cosmonaut's, on FlickrGull in flight by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr

BTW by looking at these pictures its obvious to me that the one who should get the credit to them is the photographer and not so much the camera, I am sure if you were there with a Sony a57 or even a37 the results would have been just as breath taking, I love these pictures!!! :hail:

 

[jaomul]

It seems that these Sony cameras excel in image quality. They are an inexpensive option in terms of fullframe cameras but their limitations are in my opinion to great for cameras that still cost a lot of money.

I think a year or two may make a big difference here. If these cameras had better batteries and focus systems they would elevate from good to great. For sure they have all some people need, but if you drop a 4 figure sum on a camera it has to do most things we'll and some things great

 

[Greiver]

My other concern is that mirrorless is relatively new - and I'm a little worried about investing in a system until I know it's something that is going to get long term support. I just really haven't gotten that impression yet from a lot of these newer systems.

I think if you look at the starting point of mirror less and where they are now is a great indicator that mirror less is here to stay. The features and things that you can do with these stomps all over DSLR no questions asked. Its only going to get better. There are flaws in them but there are flaws in every camera.

Have you tested the A7 or any other mirror less camera? Not just in the store but I like to say the best buy challenge, hahahahaah. Once you have really shot with one for at least a few weeks when you go back to DSLR it seems that they are just so far behind (feature wise).

I understand not wanting to dive in just yet but two things are going to happen. Either they are going to replace DSLR in the future or they are going to figure out a way to get those cool ass features into DSLRs. Like Pre Chimping and Focus Peaking to start with. Not sure how they would but thats the only way I think DSLR will be able to last in the future…IMO.

That's highly subjective.

 

[Gavjenks]

They are an inexpensive option in terms of fullframe cameras

They cost almost exactly the same as equivalent full frame cameras.
Sony A7 and Canon 6D for instance are two equivalently low end full frame cameras in mirrorless and SLR respectively, and are sold within dollars of one another.

 

[jaomul]

They are an inexpensive option in terms of fullframe cameras

They cost almost exactly the same as equivalent full frame cameras.
Sony A7 and Canon 6D for instance are two equivalently low end full frame cameras in mirrorless and SLR respectively, and are sold within dollars of one another.

Yes exactly what I said. Same price approx as Nikon and Canon's cheapest options. Inexpensive