The Sony A7S Mark II Is Your Next Camera

The Sony A7S is a wonderful camera. Bodily, it has all of the same minor issues as the other A-series cameras, and the interface still has some... quirks... but the image quality is fantastic. Now that I've had a chance to man-handle one, I've come away incredibly impressed. It is obvious that after the disappointment of Sony ditching their APS-C cameras, they have gone whole-hog into their new strategic direction. This is a major development, a great camera, and bodes very well for Sony's future.

I'm excited because the A7S makes me believe that ISO performance matters again. I had recently declared that ISO no longer matters, and that is still true for almost everyone. For people with serious professional demands or artistic ambitions that go beyond pretty landscapes, the A7S opens new doors.


Now I See from Philip Bloom on Vimeo.

The A7S also opens a door that should have never been closed in the first place. Neither the A7 nor the A7R had good autofocus. It was a real killer for such an expensive camera and may help to explain why the A7 can be had for less than $1300. Both sensors were very good in low light, but the sensor far outstripped the capabilities of the AF. The A7S goes much of the way toward fixing that. The AF is still nowhere near the Olympus E-M5 and E-M1, or the Panasonic GH4, but seems on par with what I remember from Fuji's newest cameras.

This is significant because the A7S is more worth its price than the A7R was. The R had that crazy-high-resolution sensor, but no lenses to take advantage of it. And when the ordinary A7, itself no slouch in the resolution department, can be easily found for a thousand dollars less, well, the A7R made no sense. The A7S makes sense... lots of sense.

And the video is awesome! I didn't have much of a chance to deal with it, but you don't need me for that. Just head over to EOSHD and read his rolling review of the camera. If that doesn't get you excited, I don't know what will.

So, after all of that, why did I title this with the A7S Mark II? Because you shouldn't buy the A7S. You should buy its sequel, which is probably only a year away. The biggest problem with the A7S's video is the abysmal rolling shutter. It's very noticeable whenever the camera moves. Believe me, I very much appreciate how hard it is for camera companies to fix that and I do not blame Sony for this. They wedged way more into a super-tiny body than I would have bet possible. Moreover, the rolling shutter is bad because Sony made the big advancement to do a full-pixel readout from the sensor during video mode.

What that means it that when the sensor data is being stored on the memory card, it doesn't skip lines as it moves down the rows of pixels on the sensor. Back in the day, bandwidth and processing power necessitated this, and the act of skipping lines causes issues like jaggy edges and weird patterns to appear. A full sensor readout is a big deal, Sony should be commended for managing it in such a small body, and it should be pointed out that no one else is doing this. Still, the camera is expensive and when rolling shutter is so bad, that's a serious concern.

In fairness, and if you really want the A7S, it comes with an APS-C mode that uses a crop from the sensor that is about the size of a Super-35 circle. This greatly helps reduce rolling shutter.


Goodbye Jello! Hello Sony A7S APS-C vs Full Frame. Also some 720p 120 FPS. from Ed David on Vimeo.

Still, you get a full-frame camera to use the full frame. Taking a crop is a very useful tool when you want it. When one is forced to use it to avoid a problem... it becomes a problem.

So for that reason, I think that the current A7S is something that you should hold off on buying. I have complete confidence that this one issue, the rolling shutter, will be at least alleviated enough to warrant a purchase in the future, though.

How Did I Miss the A7S?

Was in a coma for the past month or so? It's the only way to explain that I was only recently made aware of the awesome Sony A7S. You know how I said that ISO performance no longer matters? Well, Sony didn't hear me and instead built a camera with the best low-light performance ever. This bad boy is nearing 4,000 on DxOMark's database. Four thousand!

Obviously, the tweaking that the sensor required to get that high required concessions. The dynamic range and color depth are both lower than the other two Sony A7 cameras, and lower than most other top-rated pieces of kit. But in this case, I don't think it matters. If you are buying this camera, you have very low-light situations in mind, and a bit of color and range is a fine trade for better night shots.

Sony is also progressing on the video front, making this the best video A7 camera yet. Rolling shutter is still dreadful, but if you won't be doing those kinds of shots, then it's not too much of a concern. That said, the rolling shutter is pretty bad. I would imagine that the heat coming from the sensor is the limiting factor. The A7 body is crazy-small, meaning that it can dissipate only so much heat.

In all ways, this is an exciting prospect that opens up new areas of image creation. If you are a journalist looking for night-time run-and-gun video shooting, we've found your camera. Because I love the GH4, but like Hammer, it can't touch this.

Very impressive.


Hey Sony A7S! Let's Rolling Shutter You Against Mr. Black Magic Pocket Camera BMPC from Ed David on Vimeo.

Sony Drops Price of RX10 by over $300

An interesting addition to my article about the RX100M III. We now can see, without doubt, what competition can do. Sony's excellent RX10 (one of my favorite Sony products ever) wasn't exactly aggressively priced at $1299. There was a good reason for this: other camera companies weren't competing for shit. Sony was seemingly all alone in trying to deliver high quality P&S cameras.

Well, another company finally came along, the Panasonic FZ1000. It is likewise a very impressive product. It's made doubly impressive in that the lens is twice as long as the Sony, probably has superior video capabilities, and also costs $400 less.

No longer! Competition, I choose you! Sony has responded to the new Panny with a $301 price drop on the RX10, bringing it down to a $99 premium over the FZ1000. We will have to wait to see how the lenses compare and the cameras perform side by side to determine with the premium is worth it. It very well may be, since the f/2.8 lens on the Sony is a gem. Then again, if it proves to not be worth it, all Sony has done is let their arrogance shine through.

Sony RX100M III Is Impressive, But Was Anyone Expecting Anything Less?

The first reviews of the Sony RX100M III are out, and really, we didn't need them to reach a conclusion: The RX100M III is even better than its predecessors. It damn well better be considering the price increase. $800 is a lot of coin.

And that's the difficult part. Sony was not exactly being aggressive with the original RX100 at $650. It sold, like, ninety buhjillion copies. The RX100M II sold for $750, an even harder sell. It still sold well, but sold less than half of the first. Granted, some of this is because the first camera ate up a great deal of demand. Let's face it, there are only so many people willing to plunk down the better part of a grand on a small camera. That said, that should have made Sony even more aggressive in keeping the price the same or even lower. Do you see Apple increasing the price of the iPhone or iPad every year? No. And considering inflation, that means that today's $200 iPhone is cheaper than the $200 iPhone from 2007.

Basically, the price increase was stupid on Sony's part. But, well, Sony is stupid. Their camera division is smart, but I guarantee that after the monster success of the RX100 that higher-level executives jumped in and fucked everything up. The price increase was a decision that was almost undoubtedly made by executives outside of the camera division.

And those executives are obviously still in control, because here we are, with the eight-hundred-freaking-dollar RX100M III.

Let's withhold judgment, though. Is the new camera worth the price? It has that viewfinder that everyone wants, which is a genuine upgrade, but it loses the hot shoe from the last RX100 camera. Its lens is brighter but shorter, meaning that there is even less chance of getting any bokeh out of the small, 1" sensor. At the same time, it keeps the flash that no enthusiasts would ever use. And who the hell else is buying this thing save for enthusiasts?

Sony has thankfully made some progress with the sensor. I maintain that ISO performance has stopped being a serious concern for anyone with larger sensors, but on smaller sensors, it is still a huge concern. DxOMark shows that the sensors of the M II and M III are the same, but the photos themselves are not. Sony made definite progress in making the photos look less like P&S images. Nikon's inane 1-series cameras and the first RX100 looked like P&S images. Unbelievably fantastic P&S images, but still P&S. The RX100M II also seemed like this in some shots.

It may just be the processing, but the new RX100M III looks better than the M II. This is a big deal. Because while these cameras may never be useful in low-light, they could become genuine tools for high-light situations. And the lens on this bad boy is awesome. It is tack sharp. You could easily take landscape photos and architecture photos with this camera.

Aside from that, and that is arguably a big deal, there is little in the way of real changes to this camera. And for that honor, we pay $50 more over an already overprices camera? Sony's price increase may come from the fact that there is almost nothing in the way of competition out there, and the competition that exists is even more arrogant and stupid. The Canon G1X II is utterly obviated by even the first RX100. It is over-priced, under-powered, and under-featured. And it is of course housing one of Canon's famously-crap sensors.

Likewise, the Nikon Coolpix A was a $1,200 piece of shit that targeted the Fuji X100. No one bought it. Seriously, the RX100 stood more-or-less alone and pretty much still does. There are rumors that Fuji has a camera coming out, and Panasonic undoubtedly will have a camera with the sensor from the new FZ1000 in it, but those are all in the future. Right now, it's Sony or nobody.

What's especially disappointing is that the original RX100 was groundbreaking. It was stupid that it took camera companies that long to release the first large-sensor P&S (I'm not counting Sigma's Foveon cameras), but it was still groundbreaking. For the large price increase to the M III, I would want to see more groundbreaking work. More pro-level features, more options, more connections, more tools. This is basically just a better RX100, and for the price, I don't think that it's much worth it.

Sony Is Looking Good Again

Earlier this year, I posted an article about Sony being a huge disappointment. I'm not completely eating my words with that, but I'm at least eating a few.

What I doubted Sony was doing is precisely what they are trying to do. They're going about it in a way that I never expected, though.

Effectively, Sony is abandoning their NEX series of cameras. You'll still be able to buy them, and Sony will still make cheap lenses for the APS-C cameras, but all future development will be in the higher end Full-Frame gear. This is disappointing because that means using larger lenses than you would otherwise need on your always-going-to-be-awesome NEX-7 and NEX-6.

It also means they are abandoning their SLR, oh, excuse me, SLT camera business in favor of mirrorless. Even though Sony never said this directly, their strategy is to focus on FF mirrorless and develop everything around that. Mirrors? Gone. Crop sensors? Gone. Sony is denying this, of course. They claim that they are still dedicated to their extant camera lines. They say more products are coming.

I would imagine that their "dedication" to continuing development of their Alpha SLR lenses is nothing more than a PR stunt just as Olympus' "dedication" to their SLR line of Zuiko lenses was PR garbage. They are saying that purely to keep the market from collapsing, because when it is apparent that Sony has abandonded all of their extant systems in favor of a mirrorless system tilted toward Full-Frame, photogs will start to abandon the SLR system in droves and used lens prices will plummet. And since lens prices are partially determined by their value on the used market, if the used market collapses, so collapses the new market.

I don't think photographers will be much fooled, though. They sure as hell haven't been fooled by Olympus. Used prices for the Zuiko lenses is around 50% or less of retail. Sony's Alpha lenses are destined for the same fate. Sony knows this and has simply made the decision that their market share of the traditional market is small enough that its loss is insignificant in comparison to the gains possible from entry into the next great frontier of photographic development.

Because make no mistake, the RX100 was destined to be a success, as was the RX1, the RX10 will also be a huge success, and this new A-series of cameras will be a huge money maker for Sony. Huge. The businessperson in me cannot fault their decision, but the consumer in me is pissed. Lots of dedicated photogs bought into Sony's NEX and SLR camera lines, and now they are left out in the cold.

Yes, yes, Sony is providing adapters so the lenses these people own will not go entirely waste, but being accommodated is a world away from being catered to.

This step also opens the door for Sony to do the same fucking infuriating crap that Nikon and Canon pull: selling things for ridiculously high prices. Remember the five-hundred dollar optical viewfinder for the RX1? Yeah. Expect more of that. Remember how Sony's Zeiss-branded lenses were stupidly overpriced for crap optics? Yeah. Expect more of that.

But Sony has done one thing very well, they are abandoning enthusiast-level APS-C cameras, but they are dropping the price of their FF gear. I don't know whether Sony always planned this or Canon and Nikon's sub-$2,000 cameras forced them to price their cameras lower than they wanted, I suspect a bit of both, but it doesn't matter. The end result is the same: a dynamite product that will sell like the dickens.

As with so many things recently, I look to both Sigma and Tamron, who have both made huge strides in their lens quality over the past five years. They are no longer the "discount" choice, they are now a genuine choice in their own right. As long as lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm keep being made, APS-C will live on. And as long as the two keep improving, I'll buy Sony's cameras, and then never buy one of their lenses.

Sony Announces A7 and A7R With Absolutely No Surprises

Sony has officially announced their new, full-frame, mirrorless system. Everything that we expected to be right with the system is right, and everything we expected to be wrong is wrong. The cameras themselves are very competitive in their price and feature set and I wouldn't be surprised if we see immediate discounts on the EOS 6D and Nikon D610. Of course, it would make the most sense for Sony to discount the A99, but this is Sony we're talking about. They don't have the budget to do two smart things in one go.

So what's right? Basically, the cameras. They are decently impressive. I'll have to wait to see what the speed of operation is to make a full assessment, but on paper, they are very good. Also, I am in love with the sizes of these things. Sony has crammed an immense amount of stuff into some featherweight bodies that make a Leica look portly.

Sony has given us clean, uncompressed HDMI out, which is nice. It's only 1080p, but with such a small body, that sensor is going to get hot. But as with the A99 and the VG900, it's the actual video quality that's important. I hope to see some serious upgrades to the video quality, although honestly, at this point, if I was interested in video and photo, I would just go with a Magic Lantern 5D Mark III. It's as close as we get to the magic, all-in-one camera.

It's a small thing, but I'm glad that Sony is using extant battery designs. That means that if you're already invested in Sony's NEX system, you already have the batteries you need. And with only 300-400 shots per battery, you're going to need a few.

What's wrong? Sigh. The lenses. They're slow, large, and overpriced. At least, I'm making the assumption that they are overpriced. I hope they aren't. They're slow, that's undeniable, but here's hoping that they sacrificed some speed for sharpness. The $1,000 price for the 55mm lens and the $800 price for the 35mm, basic lenses, are absurd unless they are as sharp as an X-Acto knife.

Both Canon and Nikon have 50mm and 35mm lenses for half those prices that are faster to boot! The only problem with them is that they are very soft wide open, so if Sony is selling one that's sharp at f/1.8, then that would indeed be a desirable lens. I hope that's true, because neither Nikon nor Canon have done much updating to their basic primes in many years and the lenses are showing their ages, very badly in some cases.

There was one surprise, but not a big one: the vertical grip. Obviously, they are targeting higher-end customers, so the much-desired vertical grip isn't a total shock, it hadn't been mentioned at all in earlier leaks. This will also likely hold two more batteries, giving you an all-day tool. So, yeah. There you have it.

Again, for me, the most interesting thing in this whole mess is the RX10. Assuming the lens is sharp, that is something we've never seen before — not even close. Superzooms have traditionally been marketed at people with money and no brains. I'm not kidding. The companies usually euphemize this and call them "active amateurs" or some such nonsense meant to imply soccer moms.

And while there are some superzoom cameras out there with very long effective ranges, and some rather good glass on them, they use supersmall sensors to achieve those numbers. It's very easy to make a long, quality lens for a sensor that's the size of a pinky fingernail. And when the sensor is that small, no matter the glass, the photos look like they were taken on a P&S... because they were. The RX10's output will be in a different league.

The companies are usually loathe to put anything good in this price bracket because, again, they don't want people to have good products. They want people to upgrade and buy into a system. And even then, they are loathe to give customers much good at the entry-point to the system, because they want to protect their higher-end products.

See. This is the reason why neither Nikon nor Canon have innovated anything at any price point for nearly a decade. Instead, they produce alarmingly stupid garbage like the Nikon 1 and the EOS M.

Enough about the other companies, though. The RX10 is so special that it may become a common piece of kit for professional photogs. The RX100's sensor is more than capable of producing fantastic, natural-looking images — nothing like P&S cameras. That f/2.8 lens with an equivalent focal length of nearly 600mm means that a photog could shoot damn-near an entire wedding with just that little wunderkind! Bird photography suddenly becomes possible for the average person! Nature shots! Distant landscapes! I cannot wait to try this thing out. It is a wonderfully positioned product in the market.

It's also a dangerous product, and one that I think Sony has balls for releasing. The RX1 and RX100 were not dangerous. The RX1 was aimed at a very specific, high-end customer. The RX100 was perfectly priced for people who wanted a P&S but were willing to pay a bit more, but not too much more. At $1,300, the RX10 is in precarious territory. I think that with good marketing, well-heeled families will eat up what this camera is serving, but marketing really needs to hit hard about its benefits, because hoooo-lordy, does it have benefits.

As I had said before, there is a part of this that pisses me off. Sony has abandoned its cheaper systems. Even though they won't admit it explicitly, there is nothing else of worth coming for those in the APS-C E-mount or the APS-C A-mount. Sony has done what Canon and Nikon did and shifted focus to larger, full-frame lenses that are "compatible" with the lesser cameras. This eliminates the advantages of designing lenses for those smaller sensors: size, cost, and complexity of the optics. Lenses should always be designed for the sensor. That's why the RX1, RX10, and RX100 are all amazing. That's why the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a freaking world-beater.

Taking optics and bolting them onto a smaller sensor is a disservice to everyone involved. Unless, of course, you're buying cheap, old lenses on Ebay and putting them on your Olympus E-M5 to see how they look. That's awesome.

Of course, there is one advantage in that there is nowhere else for Sony to run. They have chosen the last horse. It's safe to buy into this system because there are no other systems. Sony is sure as hell not going medium format, so they can't abandon this one. Hopefully, Sigma will continue with their Art line of lenses and keep APS-C alive, because there are some great, small cameras in that market that make excellent companions to these high-end pieces.

The final point I want to make in this rambling mess is that the innovation game has finally come knocking on the front door of Canon and Nikon's moneymakers: full-frame gear. There has been a whirlwind of innovation and work happening at the ~$1,000 price point, while Canon and Nikon blithely ignore it, looking down from on high with their $3,000 SLRs. Well, Canon, Nikon, you arrogant shits, the hungry, underdogs that you have hitherto been ignoring are finally coming to call. They're putting the money necessary into taking you down.

Olympus and Panasonic, for all of their faults, have a compact system that is leagues better than yours. Sigma's autofocus is finally getting as good as yours. Cell phones have destroyed your P&S business. And now Sony has undercut your previous full-frame gear by hundreds of dollars, all the while providing something that may be a superior product. This may not be a surprise, but it is still a fantastic announcement, the ramifications of which I excitedly await.

Competition, fuck yeah.

Sony's A7 and A7r Have Me Possibly, Maybe, Somewhat Excited

Further details of the new A7 and A7r continue to come out. At this point, it's no longer "leaks" and is instead an effort from Sony to build up excitement over their upcoming system. It's sort of working. There hasn't been much excitement on the interwebs, certainly nowhere near Olympus E-M5 or Fuji X Pro 1 levels. Still, these are expensive products. Getting them up to a slow boil is better than trying to get them to explode on day one.

Let's talk about the technical stuff first. The sensors are said to not be the same old sensors found in the D800E and RX1. They were redesigned for the new flange distance. And by redesigned, they mean new microlenses... and nothing else. I would imagine that once these sensors are put through the DxO Mark wringer, the results will come out the same.

The spec sheet reads as impressive as we would expect for a camera of its kind. What's very important is that the prices undercut both the Nikon D600 and Canon EOS 6D. Granted, as near as I can tell, neither of those cameras has apparently ever sold for sticker price, so it's not an entirely fair comparison. Regardless, these cameras undercut both of Canon and Nikon's babies while offering many of the pro-oriented features that they lack, like a 1/8000th shutter and a flash sync of 1/250th. Depending on how well these cameras handle, Sony might very well have the billion-dollar product like that they've been looking for.

Sony isn't just putting pressure on those above, either. Every camera company who hopes to play above the magical $1,000 price point will be tangling with a serious contender. The PDAF-rocking A7 is only $300 more than the Olympus E-M1, and whatever Fuji's X Pro 2 has, it had better go no higher than $1,300. Sony is being as aggressive with this system as they weren't with the release of the idiotic A99. It makes me wonder if they plan on abandoning SLR-style cameras entirely. Time will tell.

Moving on, our earlier speculation that Sony had abandoned development of lesser systems in favor of developing glass for this system appears to be correct. Sony is, smartly, launching with four good lenses. They aren't amazing, but with Sony's rumored-aggressive lens road map, it's obvious that they are putting the force behind this system that they refused to put behind their other systems.

The kit lens, 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 is slow, and therefore a bit disappointing, but it's also huge. That may indicate some significant elements within its frame. Hopefully that translates to a tack sharp lens. An upgrade is available in the form of a Zeiss-branded 24-70mm f/4.0. Also slow, but we'll have to wait.

Two primes look promising, because let's face it, a little system like this cries out for primes. Do you ever see Leica shooters with zooms? You do? Really? You know some weird Leica shooters. You should stop talking to them. They're bad news. Where was I? Oh right, the primes. A 35mm f/2.8 and a 55mm f/1.8 are both good basic lenses and are hopefully not overpriced. They are Zeiss-branded, and Sony has a penchant for pricing those lenses way higher than their optical abilities warrant. Both Canon and Nikon have fantastic lenses in those focal lengths that cost less than $500. If Sony doesn't follow suit... well, I will write a very angry blog post. And then they'll feel just awful.

All thing considered, unless Sony blows us away with a surprise on launch day, this is a whelming release. It's everything we would expect of a well-done launch for a new, full-frame, mirrorless camera system. Depending on how Sony handles this, it could become the poor man's Leica and the logical upgrade for someone playing around with cameras in the $1,000 area.

I wait to try one out.

Oddly, the most interesting camera for me is the new RX10 fixed-lens camera. It uses the RX100's 1-inch sensor, which is already tops in its class, and combines it with a an amazing-sounding 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. A constant aperture?! That sounds amazing! We also need to apply the 2.7x crop factor to those measurements, meaning that this little wonder-camera is going to have an equivalent field of view as 189-540mm! Hello bokeh!

So yes, $1,300 for a fixed lens, compact camera sounds crazy, but that is going to be an absolute workhorse. It could very well become the camera for soccer-parents the world over. Yes, yes. For people like you and me, photog weirdos who sleep with our lenses, this is not a camera that we are likely to consider a tenable purchase. But for others, if the lens is sharp, it will be killer.

The unknown in all of this is, of course, video. Video is increasingly becoming an important feature for digital cameras. People, not just photogs and videogs, are starting to expect it. The video on the A99, the RX1, and the VG900 were all awful. Panasonic appears to be the only company putting any effort into their video/photo synergy. Let's hope that Sony does the same.

Granted, you could always just buy a Blackmagic Camera.

Sony's Upcoming Full-Frame NEX-9 Makes Me Angry (UPDATED: Names are A7 and A7r)

The NEX-7's abandonment; the RX1 and RX1R; the stagnation of Sony's other camera lines; the dual E/A mount VG10: all of these were clues. Everyone knew that Sony was working on a full-frame mirrorless camera, but that doesn't make its impending release any less infuriating.

A full-frame mirrorless sounds pretty bad ass. Why the hell am I pissed? Because, in Sony's schizophrenic charge to find the next billion-dollar camera, they are abandoning everyone who got on board earlier. Imagine how angry a pro-thusiast now is who bought the NEX-7 when it launched with the Zeiss 24mm? They're pretty damned angry! If it wasn't for the Speed Booster and focus peaking, the NEX-7 would be a dead. Fucking. Camera.

It's especially infuriating because I'm seeing hints of Canon in Sony's behavior. The release of the EOS 7D made me think that, perhaps, Canon had decided to dedicate some actual resources to their APS-C line of cameras. Of course, that never came, and the 7D became this bizarre, mutant orphan that Canon hasn't updated since its release four years ago.

The lenses are still total crap, Canon moved its EOS xxD line of cameras down-market with the cheap 60D, and instead released the overpriced shit-show known as the Cinema Cameras. Their obsession with protecting their full-frame line has crippled the company's ability to innovate, and as such they simply squeeze money from their existing customers.

Sony abandoned their SLT cameras in favor of a joint E/A mount with a focus on mirrorless. Now they're abandoning them in favor of a full-frame line that will undoubtedly be too highly priced. I know this because somewhere in Sony a conference went like this.

Executive 1: We're Sony! Everybody loves us!
Exec 2: Damn right! Look at the RX100 and RX1. They sold like crazy.
Exec 3: Exactly! This means that we can charge whatever we want, again! Just like the old days before... Apple.
(Everyone in room vomits)

If they were actually interested in being competitive, I wouldn't mind any of this. A full-frame mirrorless camera will be a unique proposition on the market. That will be good. That will have value.

But just as Canon and Nikon have done in the past, Sony is assuredly going to try to artificially segment its cameras. Everything they make will be part of an attempt to create a closed, expensive, high-end fiefdom in which they will try to trap customers. That's the only reason Canon and Nikon earn the kind of money that they do; they've trapped people in their systems and work hard to keep it that way.

The EOS 7D: Forgotten, but not gone.

Just as Canon forgot about the 7D, Sony will forget about the NEX-7, NEX-6, and everyone who bought in. And as Sony has abandoned cameras and systems along the way, they've tricked small numbers of people into their fiefdoms, only to leave them high and dry. I encouraged people to buy into the NEX system, a lot of people. Now I regret that, because this upcoming NEX-9 confirms that Sony has already forgotten about them. There will be no more good lenses, because they will now need to protect their full-frame system from internal competition.

A flagship product should be a flagship naturally. Making a flagship by making sure that lower-priced alternatives remain crappy is bad goddamned business.

I may attack Olympus and Panasonic for being stupid, because they certainly are, but at least they aren't abandoning their customers. The Olympus 75mm f/1.8 alone makes the Micro 4/3 system worth it.

*Breathes heavily*

Ok. I'm trying to calm down, I am. I will wait to see what Sony releases. I will wait to pass judgment. I don't have much hope, though, because every move Sony makes etches their intentions on the wall. It's the case with every damned camera company. Aside from Fuji (which is why I give them a pass for whatever issues their cameras have) no camera company, not one, has zigged when everyone expected a zag. Not one company. As such, getting angry before something is even announced is completely reasonable.

And boy, am I angry.

UPDATE:

The names of the two cameras are apparently the A7 and A7r. Based on the naming scheme, I'm assuming that the A7r, which sports a 36MP sensor, will also have no AA filter, just as the RX1R.

The A7 will have a 24MP sensor, probably the same as in the RX1, and the A7r will have a 36MP sensor, probably the same as in the Nikon D800.

They will undoubtedly have an A-mount adapter available at launch, so they'll excuse their lack of launch lenses with a selection of old lenses that will work like crap on the CDAF sensor.

Of course, Sony hasn't been developing much of anything... at all... for the NEX line and the RX1/RX1R could really be seen as a prototype for this new system. As such, they've had two years to do nothing but concentrate on this. There's a good chance that they will have three, four, maybe even five lenses ready to go.

Sony Admits the A99 Isn't Selling

Sony has already launched the first "sale" for the A99, effectively admitting that, just as most industry observers thought, it isn't selling.

Sony of course is trying to save face and they aren't calling this a "sale." They're calling it a "bundle," where you get the camera, the verticle grip, and a flash for just the price of the camera. If you were planning on buying these things anyway, it drops the price of the camera down to around $2,000, which is precisely where it should have been from the get-go. Of course they shouldn't be fucking around and should instead simply drop the price of the camera to $1,999, but this is Sony, so they won't do that.

When is Sony going to realize that they don't have any brand value left? Why do they persist in trying to trade on the Sony name? They need to compete on price unless they have a truly unique product like the RX1 or RX100.

Regardless, this is actually a pretty good deal. If you're in Sony's system and don't have these accessories already, I'd make the jump. I still don't like the EVF for a flagship camera, but other than that, the A99 is a very solid camera.

Fuji Is Looking Increasingly Attractive

I recently posted about my disillusionment with Sony. I have been one of Sony's biggest boosters for the last two years. Sony essentially obivated every other sensor company on the planet with the release of their new sensors starting in 2009. They up and ripped the mirrorless market from Micro 4/3 in a six-month time frame with the release of the mega-successful NEX-5 and then 5n.¹ Then they did the same thing to the high-end P&S market with the one-two punch of the RX100 then the RX1.

But for each of these glimmering points of innovation, they have been average-to-poor in other areas. Obviously, from an enthusiast's perspective, their lack of work in lenses has been depressing. Both Canon and Nikon have refused to produce APS-C lenses of quality, even after they both released promising pro-thusiast cameras in the form of the EOS 7D and the D7000. Sony seemed content in following the same path.

But where Cankon have massive extant systems, Sony's lens system is small. The aftermarket is equally anemic. One could almost understand this inaction, seeing as despite Sony's best efforts,² they have made little headway in the SLR market against the entrenched duopoly. But they made immediate and significant headway into the pro-thusiast market with the NEX series, especially with the NEX-7.

And yet, we have one lens. one. The Zeiss 24mm. Yes, there are rumors that Zeiss has three more lenses in the pipes, but I will believe that when I see it, and I will also believe that they are indeed worth it when I see it. Zeiss lenses have a tendency to be overpriced for their performance, and combined with Sony's equal penchant to try and trade on their "brand," I do not expect amazing performance for the price. I will not be surprised if they are good -- after all, both companies know what they are doing -- but I don't expect it.

If the three Zeiss lenses are good, I will bite my tongue. The NEX-7 will finally get the lenses that it deserves... a year and a half after it was released. This will fix the material problem, but it doesn't fix the philosophical problem that the actions evinced; it appears that Sony is infected with some of the same germs that currently surge through the corpus of Cankon.

It is that slow speed and pathological desire to only sell lenses of real quality for ultra-premiums prices to the pro market, and thus refusal to make anything for the entry and enthusiast market that may take away from those sales, that makes me seek out another company.³ I think that I see that company in Fuji.

Obviously, the X Pro 1 had many faults, as did the X100 before it. The X10 was laughable in my opinion. But what is important is that Fuji is noticeably evolving with every generation. The X100 had many problems, and the X100S is a big upgrade in many ways. Compare this to the "upgrades" that Cankon produces, where they grind out the same fucking camera year after year.

Even among their disparate models, and not just direct successors, we see fast evolution. The X Pro 1 was released with fixes from the X100, then the X-E1 was released with fixes from the X Pro 1, now the X100S is released with big fixes from all of the previous models. This degree of every year, significant changes is the type of business model that Apple uses. It's the type that I want to see.

The photographic business had grown accustomed to releasing a product and then being able to milk that product for profit for years. In the world of solid-state technology, that no longer works. Iterations and development need to be annual and significant. Moreover, as this happens, prices for everything are going to come down. What was once the high-end will become mid-range, and what was once mid-range will be inside cell phones. Fighting this is not only suicidal from a business perspective, it is infuriating from a consumer perspective because the idiocy of large companies can hold back exciting innovation.

Fuji seems more interested in doing than any other company, and this was only apparent with the announcement of the X100S. Even if it still has tons of problems, it is progress -- progress worth rewarding. 

I am waiting to see what Olympus' next release is, since they've only had one camera since they switched over to Sony sensors: the E-M5. It, along with the stellar 75mm lens, was enough to keep my invested in m4/3, and if the follow-up to the E-M5 is a significant development, it may be worthy of genuine excitement.

Still, as it stands, Fuji needs to be recognized as the only company continually progressing in every way.

-----------------------

1: Obviously, Micro 4/3 continues to do very well in Japan, but nowhere else. In both Europe and North America, the NEX 5 and 5n are far-and-away the most popular mirrorless cameras.

2: Really, it hasn't been Sony's best effort. Sony still thinks they have some super-valuable brand for which people will pay extra, and as such, when they could undercut the market and really make some sales, they charge a premium and shoot themselves in the foot.

3: This is a pathology that is in every camera company to a degree. They grow so fat on the profits of professional photographers that they are cripplingly terrified of selling anything good to lower markets. Why do you think Olympus refuses to translate any of their good, Zuiko lenses over to Micro 4/3? Greed and stupidity.

Sony RX1 Gets DxOMark Review: Blows The Doors Off Competition

If you wanted more evidence that the RX1 is the supercamera du jour, look no further than DxOMark. The RX1 has just landed itself in 4th place among all cameras. The only cameras to beat it are the triumvirate from Nikon: the D800, D800E, and D600. Considering all of these cameras are sporting Sony sensors, it's not surprising that they are separated by scores that essentially fall within the margin of error.

As is usually the case, Sony's processing is inferior to Nikon, meaning that the Nikon cameras squeak out victories in all metrics, especially in the ISO score, which is usually where processing has the largest effect. Honestly, though, the differences are going to be mostly academic.

As I said, the price for this camera is not unreasonable. It's not a deal by any measure, but for an excellent lens attached to a world-beating sensor with leaf shutter, $2,800 still makes it a tempting purchase. It is a unique camera. Sony's camera division should be proud of this.

The Slow Motion Disappointment That Is Sony

I let it be known that I am incredibly disappointed with the rumor that Sony is working on a full-frame mirrorless camera system. For a camera geek, this may seem like an odd thing to do, what with "the next big thing" perpetually on my mind. And perhaps if the previous big thing had actually arrived, I indeed would be excited. Only it didn't.

Sony has absolutely delivered a few big things, the RX1 and RX100 chief among them, but their SLR and NEX systems have utterly stagnated. They have been nothing but promise for nearly a year and a half, and Sony's own projections show nothing for at least the next year. No good lenses. No good accessories. Just promise.

What worries me is that Sony is run by idiots. Their camera division appears to be run by some pretty smart people, but the company itself is run by idiots. The RX100 and especially the RX1 sold like hotcakes while also maintaining a pretty healthy profit margin -- something Sony was, at one time in the distant past, accustomed to. Money like that is prone to drive executives off of the very track that earned them the money in the first place.

So instead of concentrating on their systems, Sony will veer off into super-expensive hardware aimed at high-end enthusiasts and professionals -- all sporting the Sony premium price, of course. Look at the increasingly uncompetitive A99. It is a camera that is competitive at the $2,000 price point, but Sony is selling it for $2,800. Sony did the same thing with the A900, which was a significant enough of a disappointment to cause Sony to make the A850, which didn't sell well even with the market-beating sub-$2,000 price. If they had released the A850 from the get-go, they may have been able to build up some momentum. But they didn't. They released an underperforming camera for three-thousand freaking dollars.

That is the problem. Sony's leadership still thinks that the Sony name can command a premium. It can't. The Sony name is dead. It has been long surpassed by the likes of Samsung, Apple, and even boutique brands. As they have done with the A900 and now the A99, Sony's executives seem to think that releasing prosumer-oriented gear with a price premium is the sweet spot for them. Further evidence of this systemic hubris can be found in the prices for the accessories of the RX1; to wit, they are in-fucking-sane. This is stupid.

The A99 will fail. If they try to do the same thing with a premium, full-frame mirrorless system, it will fail as well. The RX1/100 were huge successes because they were unique. Yet another mirrorless system or yet another SLR is not a unique proposition. Hell, Sony's lens system is is so far behind Cankon as to be alarming. They haven't even yet matched the competition, much less found a way to out-innovate them!

I had hopes that Sony would be the company to push the market toward a state of sustained innovation and development -- the company that would shake the thrones of Canon and Nikon. But no. Given its first taste of success, Sony devolved. Maybe a full-on bankruptcy will humble them enough.

While this has been something of a despondent, pissy article, I still have hope. Perhaps Sony has some massive system in the wings, with a tight integration of full-frame, APS-C, and mirrorless cameras. I doubt it, but the possibility is there. As it stands, we have Olympus looking pretty good, and Fuji is an increasing force to be reckoned with. The competition is there is ways that it hasn't been years. So if Sony fails, so be it. We'll all just move on to someone else.

My Short Time With The NEX-6

As is usually the case, when a camera comes in that I like, I beat the pavement to find a store willing to let me capitalize their demo model for an hour. As was the case with the new, Sony NEX-6.

After the NEX-6's sensor disappointed in comparison to the old, NEX-7, I didn't go in too hopeful. A downgrade in the sensor for the sake of an upgrade in the camera didn't seem like the kind of thing that I would find acceptable. I waited, though, to make my judgment, and it was worth it. The NEX-6 is the best NEX camera to-date.

The first upgrade is in the autofocus. Even though I give the NEX-7 as my choice for the mirrorless camera to buy, I cautioned that it is not fast. It will fail for moving subjects more often than not (although not as bad as Fuji, to be fair), and in low-light it at times hunts for focus lock quite a bit more than even my old Panasonic GF1.

It's obvious that Olympus and Panasonic figured something out when it comes to the performance of CD-autofocus, because even with the new NEX-6's CDAF/PDAF combo, it has not yet achieved the speed and accuracy of the Olympus E-M5. The one area where the NEX-6 may be better is in continuous-AF, which I was unable to test, and which is receiving very little attention online. Regardless, in my experience, when it comes to speed of operation, Micro 4/3 is still the mirrorless system to beat.

I have never had too much trouble with Sony's menu system, perhaps because I've owned so many poorly thought-out gadgets in my life that I simply adapt. Still, though, I found my way through the NEX-6 quickly and easily. Many elements of the design appear more oriented toward soccer-mom types than pro-thusiasts, but I didn't mind. If you want to shoot things that require super-fast changes to settings because of a dynamic environment, this isn't your best choice. Actually, your best choice is still a traditional SLR.

I love the ergonomics. I prefer the ergonomics of the NEX-7, but this is similar. It sits in my hand very well, and the bends in my fingers seem to find comfortable spots in both landscape and portrait orientations. It will never match an SLR for comfort, especially with large lenses, but it gives it the ol' college try.

I didn't do a head-to-head comparison of the images, since I had no residual NEX-7 photos kicking around, but you don't need me for that. The sensor in the NEX-6 isn't quite as good as the sensor in the NEX-7, which is a big disappointment. It's also a crippling disappointment for the NEX-6 specifically.

The NEX-7 is the CSC of choice because of its sensor. It is inferior to Micro 4/3 in every other way. The NEX-6 loses the sensor, but only closes some of the gap. It invariable comes in second to the E-M5 in every way except for the sensor, and even here now, the difference is small. The NEX-6 either needed to close the performance gap entirely or have a stellar sensor. It did neither, and as such, the best NEX camera to date is also something of a stillborn in my eyes.

That's not to say it's a bad camera. The best NEX camera is still a fully usable camera and the first mirrorless from Sony to be a real option for a person's all-the-time tool. Moreover, it has Sony's ace in the hole, focus peaking, which Micro 4/3 SHOULD HAVE, but as of yet, does not. Still, though, I just could not see myself buying the NEX-6 when the NEX-7 and E-M5 exist.

Further adding to the knocks against the NEX-6 is that all interactions with it now take place under the pall of the recent rumors that Sony is working on a full-frame mirrorless system, even while the lens selection for its already fucking here mirrorless system sucks. When the NEX-7 came out, it indicated that we would have a bunch of high-end lenses by now, and Sony has let us down. And instead of working to rectify that, they have a bunch of crap in their lens roadmap, and are releasing another system that they won't support. Great.

I liked the NEX-6 a great deal, but I would never buy it. Micro 4/3 has gotten just good enough to completely keep my interest while NEX has gotten less interesting.

Full Frame NEX? Ugh. Why?

A rumor has exploded onto the Internet. And by exploded, I mean that it is being discussed by a few dozen guys. This is the camera industry, after all.

But yes, the rumor. Sony is apparently in the final stages of development of a full-frame NEX camera with an expected reveal in 2013. If this is true, and I'm not sure that it is, I would be very disappointed. Sony hasn't done shit-all with their NEX series of cameras. The lenses are, save for one of them, sub-standard. No, they're not bad lenses, but they don't impress, and they positively fall on their face on the NEX-7.

If Sony does release yet another system, they will be stretching themselves ridiculously thin. Unless they plan on tripling their investment in cameras, which is certainly a possibility, but even then, triple your investment in your current systems. Sony has half-assed many elements of their current products, and the only thing causing me to continue my recommendation is that they have great potential. But if Sony is going to just throw out a system, not support it, and move on to something else, only a maniac would by their products!

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Sony is indeed developing a full-frame NEX system. First, the larger the sensor gets, the more the size benefit is negated. The lenses on the NEX cameras are already much larger than 4/3, and full-frame will be larger still. We could assume that Sony will only product compact, prime lenses in the vein of Leica. But even on Leica, their more extreme focal lengths, like the 135mm, are large and slow.

Second, Sony's success with the RX1 is only because the camera is profoundly unique — a combination that is both unavailable and indeed impossible in other systems. But with an ILC, Sony will have a hard time making a good value proposition. Remember, size benefits are increasingly negated with larger sensors, and the performance of traditional, mirrored cameras will be more robust than the Sony. People with the cash to buy a camera that will undoubtedly cost as much as the FF-NEX would find a purchase hard to rationalize. Holding up Leica as a counter to this argument doesn't hold water, since Leica's sales are mostly due to the Leica name. Sony has no name, at least not in the photography world.

Third, Sony will now have another system that will need lenses. They've already shown little interest in developing the lenses in their current NEX line, and they're not doing too well with their APS-C and FF SLR cameras, either. Will they simply pop out an adapter for their current A-mount lenses? All that will do is further negate any size advantage, by adding a huge, honking adapter along with large lenses. WTF?

I will be very disappointed if Sony releases this. The thing that kept me from leaving 4/3 for Sony was its pitiful lens selection, and this seems to indicate that they won't bother with lenses anytime soon.

Woo Ha! DPReview Posts Sony RX1 Studio Shots (RAW Included)

DPReview has gone and posted its studio comparison of the new Sony RX1. As is expected with Sony cameras, the JPEGs are awful, with aggressive noise reduction and smeared details even at low-ISO. But who cares! It's the RAW that everyone wants to see, and they are... whelming.

Obviously, this is a studio comparison under studio lights, so we're only able to glean very specific things about the cameras performance. That said, the lens doesn't perform as well as I was hoping. Granted, it is a 35mm lens being compared to cameras that all sport 85mm lenses, which are always sharper. The field shots that I've seen reveal a high-quality 35mm piece of glass. I think that my expectations were set a bit too high.

The sensor is more than up to snuff. It outperforms the Sony A99, which is suffering the usual hit to performance caused by its SLT mirror. Of interest, considering Sony's boasting about this being the best sensor that they have ever made, is that the D600 outperforms it. It's such a small difference as to make no real difference, but it is noticeable on the pixel level, and by ISO-12,800, color is a bit better in the Nikon shots.

Unfortunately, they mention some issues with the autofocus. They say that it aligns well with the current crop of NEX cameras, which is good, but for nearly $3,000, I was expecting an upgrade. As far as I know, almost everyone is working with pre-release cameras, so the AF may speed up. I certainly hope it does, because having a camera that is excellent in low-light but has AF that falls on its face in the same environment is brutally disappointing. All one has to do to experience this problem is look to the Fuji X Pro 1.

I am going to be super-critical of the RX1 going into the future because while I am a huge fan of the camera and will buy it as soon as my budget allows, the price that Sony is charging for its accessories sets my teeth on edge. It's the kind of behavior that Nikon and Canon exhibit. Sony is fighting for market share. They shouldn't be pulling this garbage.

Steve Huff First Out The Gate With A Sony RX1 Review

I'm not sure how I missed this, but whatev's. Steve Huff, the man of none too few adjectives, has piled praise upon the RX1.

We already knew that Steve loved the RX1. He loved his short time with the camera earlier this year. He loved the very concept of the camera. Indeed, after his high praise, it appears that the RX1 is destined to become his go-to camera.

I can't help but be excited about the RX1 as well. It's far beyond my current budget, especially since I want to buy the Olympus 75mm and Voigtlander 25mm within the next three or four months. That does quite a bit to kill one's budget for camera gear. Still, the nanosecond I can afford the camera, I can see few reasons to prevent myself from totally and completely splurging.

Steve's work-up includes a expansive set of photos showing off how fantastic the included lens is. It seems quite sharp even wide-open, which puts it among the very best 35mm lenses available. This is wonderful news, since Canon, Nikon, and Sony alike all have pretty piss-poor examples of the classic lens in their systems.

And we cannot forget that the RX1 is completely unique. The only other camera out there that will achieve similar results in a similarly-sized body is Leica. Every other full-frame camera is large and sporting a focal plane shutter. The Fuji X Pro 1 may provide similar ISO performance, and the E-M5 may have faster lenses, but neither of them can produce the subtle and dreamy gradations of bokeh that a FF camera will produce.

Steve says that a noise comparison is incoming, but he did a quick comparison with the Leica Monocrom (which is just laughably overpriced), and the lens is right on par. Obviously, the Monocrom is sharper, but for the same reason that the Sigma Foveon is sharper: every photosite is a pixel. It is an illustrious beginning to what will undoubtedly become a seminal camera.

How The Hell Did Having No AA Filter Become THE Feature To Have?

I must express total confusion as to how having no AA filter became the de rigeur feature for digital camera to have. Both of Olympus' new cameras, the Mini and Lite, have none. The new Pentax K5-II, none. The Nikon D800E, goin' au naturale.

I'm confused by this because in the grand scheme of camera features that I want, no-AA filter is WAY down the list. I want more media choices, faster write times, better lenses, longer battery life, etc. I'm not even thinking about the sensor, since much of what the sensor does is out of the control of the company making the camera. All I'm thinking about are elements that can easily be bolted on from extant technology and features.

Like for Olympus, I want an adapter that lets me use the damned 4/3 lenses! They don't even need to make a new set of lenses! Just do what Sony did. But instead of that, Oly has given us... no AA filter? W the F?

The lack of AA filter does seem to increase the amount of light hitting the sensor, which is great. The upcoming Sony A99 is rumored to have no filter, and it will need it. The SLT mirror takes a big whack out of a camera's ISO performance. It also causes some softness, which will act like an AA filter. And for smaller sensors like those in 4/3, any ISO increase is desirable.

But again, what about the other features!? Why is everyone talking about the lack of AA filters as though it is the next thing from Apple? How in the world did this become the biggest point of discussion?

I think that it is a conspiracy to deflect our attention from other, more useful features that camera companies don't want us to have. It probably has something to do with the upcoming Mayan Apocalypse  Yes. That's it. Camera companies are actually run by Mayans! It's not the end of the world, it is the rise of the Mayans! They're coming back and they are using our cameras to do it!

Early Sony RX1 Test Images

While not RAW, Focus Numerique has posted some JPEGs from the new Sony RX1 and they are pretty good. Unlike the A99 or, ugh, the A77, there is no SLT mirror to get in the way of the light, and as such the ISO performance of the RX1 is right in line with the other camera that uses its sensor, the D600. It is high-priced, certainly, but the RX1 is shaping up very well.

First NEX-6 ISO Comparison With RAW

DSLRCheck, as they always seem to do, is the first out the gate with an ISO comparison of a new camera. Well, what I should say is that they are first out the gate with a useful ISO comparison. Tons of crap websites produce early comparisons with no value.

The biggest point of value is that DSLRCheck usually includes RAW comparisons. And such it is with the NEX-6. Obviously, the NEX-6 does battle with Sony's current king, the NEX-7, and everyone had high hopes that the new generation, 16Mp sensor would perform better than the NEX-7's 24Mp ubersensor.

Sadly, this is not the case. There is nearly a full stop difference at ISO6400, but below that, they compare similarly. It seems to do very well extracting detail at lower ISO, and I will withhold any judgment until a full comparison is complete, but I was expecting superior performance across the board. Most importantly, I was hoping that Sony would bring something to the table that did better against Fuji's truly magical sensor in the X Pro 1 and XE-1.

As the author mentions, this is actually a regression for Sony, since there was no significant difference in ISO performance between the NEX-5n and NEX-7. Disappointing, but again, ISO is only one aspect of sensor performance.

The NEX Lens Selection Is Getting Bigger

The single biggest issue holding back the NEX system is the crap selection of lenses. We have two. With only one of those being world-class (the Zeiss 24mm). We have a third coming out of the pipes, the 35mm, which is nice, but these lenses should have been available from the beginning. Fuji's X Pro 1 has been on the market for a scant six months and launched with three good-to-excellent lenses, we have a large and aggressive roadmap of other excellent lenses, and we already have another camera in the system!

But back to Sony. One advantage that the NEX system had was its access to Sony's full-frame and APS-C lenses with the SLT attachment. Not exactly elegant, but it did provide lenses. Still, even then, Sony's lens selection isn't exactly brimming over with top-quality glass. And when you have a camera as pixel-packed as the NEX-7, you need top-quality glass.

Enter third-party adapters. There are many problems with adapters working well with the electronics of cameras. First, most cameras are closed systems, meaning for a company to make lenses, they have to "hack" the coding of the cameras and lenses. Second, even though making adapters is a straight-forward enough process, no one wants to do it since, if they have the money to invest, they are also likely making their own lenses that they want people to buy. Thus, they don't want to make adapters for fear that people will use other companies' lenses. With facts like this, you can understand why so much of the camera industry makes me want to shoot people.

What I hope is that, with the rise of digital cameras and the ever-growing market, we will see an increasing number of smaller companies start making the tools, lenses, adapters, and accessories that the intransigent legacy companies refuse to make.

With that point in mind, I present today's video.




P.S.

Is anyone else as impressed as hell with the NEX-6? I had a short time with it and loved how fast they've made it. It's not as fast as the Olympus E-M5, but faster than anything Panasonic has out. It feels like it flows. I wish I could have kept my images, because I am dying to see the comparison between it and the NEX-7.