First Sony A99/NEX 6 Photos Released

The first test photos of the new NEX 6 and A99 cameras have hit the interwebs. The NEX 6 is very impressive and the A99 is... whelming. First, the good news.

The Fuji X Pro sensor appears to have given Sony the nudge it needed, because the NEX 6 sensor is very impressive. The images taken at the max ISO of 25,600 are usable. They aren't pretty, to be sure, but they are usable for small print or Facebook purposes.  It's still not in the same league as the X Pro 1, but it's a noticeable bump up from the NEX 5n.

The bad news, sorta', is the A99. The ISO performance is about as whelming as possible while not quite being disappointing. This isn't a surprise since the SLT mirror causes quite a hit to both resolution and ISO, and this effect was seen in grand fashion in image comparisons between the A77 and the NEX 7, which use the same sensor.

To be fair, these are all JPEGs, and Sony is notorious for god-awful JPEG processing. I'm sure that these cameras are no different, since even at low-ISO, there is significant detail smudging. Still, I wish that Sony had given us the ability to move the mirror out of the way.

Panasonic GH3 Is Enough To Keep Me Excited

Some details of the new GH3 have leaked out ahead of the full announcement, and considering that the "leak" was taken down then promptly put back up leads me to believe that it was on purpose. It doesn't matter. A very small number of people care about the GH3. This is never going to be Apple-level excitement regardless of how much tricky marketing Panny tries to do.



Basically, we already knew the details that were released. So no new data. What we do have, though, is lots of details and images about the body. Ignoring the hilariously translated text in the video with such winners as "mirrorless" Infinite Possibilities of Expression, and the flat-out wrong 1st Digital Single Lens Mirrorless, the video is good. Lots of action, and many clips that are obviously taken from the camera.

It's hard to tell from what was provided, but the dynamic range appears to be better, as we can see in the shot of the Corvette driving in front of the sun. Similarly, we can tell absolutely that rumors of a global shutter are false, and the rolling shutter "jell-o" effect is pronounced. You can see it in the aforementioned Corvette shot, but most noticeably in the shot of the subway passing by. Interestingly, the camera seems to read the sensor from the bottom-up. I don't know of any other SLR-styled cameras that do this. The lack of the global shutter is a big let-down, since that means we have no chance of seeing it for another generation of GH-series cameras.

That said, everything else about this camera is a big upgrade. The body is pro. The connections are pro. The accessories are pro. This camera has some serious aspirations, and I couldn't be happier. The single-biggest thing for me is the inclusion of focus peaking. That feature, more than anything, made me lust after Sony's cameras. I love buying old lenses off of eBay and seeing what I can do with them, and working with them with simple focus zoom is a nightmare in all but the slowest, most deliberate environments.

I like the E-M5, and I especially like the IBIS. If that camera gets hacked to fix many of the crippling issues with its video output, it could become a serious hybrid tool. But as it stands, the GH3 is the most exciting Micro 4/3 camera out there, and it hasn't even been announced yet.

P.S. There's a rumor floating around that Sony is behind the LVF, screen, and sensor in the GH3. I wouldn't be surprised by this and rather hope that it is true. Panasonic's GH1 sensor was good, but the GH2 was a step down. And every sensor after that has been a big disappointment.

"Sony Can't Get All The Attention!", Says Nikon's D600

Sony is getting all of the attention recently, and rightfully so. The RX1 is groundbreaking, and both the NEX-6 and A99 are incredibly competent cameras that push things further than Canon, Nikon, Olympus, or Panasonic have proven willing (capable?) of doing. The only other company out there that is even in the same ballpark as Sony is Fuji.

But that doesn't mean that the others are sitting still. Well, maybe it does, but we have a week's worth of announcements coming up before we find out. Next up: Nikon. Sony shot first, probably because Sony had the best stuff, but that's beside the point. The point is... what is the point? Don't do drugs is the point.

Where am I? The D600! That's where. The new D600 is a cheap, FF camera. It will cost $2,099. And trust me, that price is the most exciting element of the camera. I actually find the rest of it underwhelming. For example, the flash-sync is only 1/200th. That may seem like a small thing, but I see it as representative of a greater philosophy surrounding this camera. The maximum speed is only 1/4000th. That is base-level APS-C camera territory. It can do 5fps, but I don't know if that is some sort of speed priority or not. If not, that's good speed. It is weather-sealed, so it will be a suitable working camera.

The price is decently exciting, I must admit. Nikon jumped to where I think Sony should have already: compete with pro-thusiast APS-C cameras with cheap full-frame. I'm really puzzled about why Nikon didn't drop the camera to $1,999. It would have been only $100, and only $50 of which would be felt by Nikon. That would undoubtedly be made up for by the increased number of customers who react to the psychological barrier of sub-$2,000 pricing. This smacks of a company trying to "fit" a product into their selection of other products.

The other element of this camera's philosophy that is classic Nikon is the intransigence inherent in its genesis. Basically, this is Nikon doubling down on its traditional designs. There are two ways to increase value for a customer: increase product, or decrease price. The former is the domain of driving, innovative companies like Apple. That's not a fundamentally better place than a company that drives down prices — just look at Wal-Mart — but it is the place that evinces life inside a company. Ideally, most companies should be a combination of both, thus remaining competitive in all ways.

Nikon is only doing one. Instead of innovating, they are simply reducing their prices. And as I mentioned with my confusion over the price, they aren't even doing that very well. Nikon abjectly refuses to accept that the market is shifting. We are experiencing a large shift toward cell phones and mirrorless cameras. The market doesn't care that Nikon's system is built around a mirror. Nor will the market accept a half-asses piece of crap meant to fit in with extant products like the Nikon "1", which, by the way, has essentially been confirmed as dead with the release of a single, simple lens by Nikon.

So yes, the Nikon D600 is a pretty good camera. It should be $1,999. It should have some features expected in a camera of its price. It shouldn't be the most innovative camera to come out of Nikon in over half a decade. I don't count the D800 as a Nikon innovation since the sensor was designed and built by Sony.

Will any photog who buys this be happy. I'm 100% sure that they will. Images produced by yesterday's technology are still great images. But this isn't just an issue of images and cameras, it's an issue of technology and market development. Nikon is standing still, stubbornly so, and demanding premiums for the privilege of standing with them. It's one of the things that pisses me off about Leica, which has turned that behavior into an art form. When companies like Fuji, Sony, and to a degree Olympus and Panasonic, are willing to innovate —  to find new ways to implement technology —  not only do I see no reason to stand with Nikon, the arrogance required to claim that I should pisses me off.

As The RX1 Marinates

I'm continuing to think about the RX1 and what it represents.

In the world of pros and enthusiasts, as opposed to consumers, people want three things: a large, tank-like camera, a compact camera that provides similar quality, and a selection of lenses from compact primes all the way up to $10,000 zooms. That's why Nikon and Canon came to conquer the entire freaking world; they offered these three things while no one else did.

With the advent of digital, old camera companies seemed hamstrung by their design and implementation philosophies. Thus we have cameras that have no need for a prism hump having prism humps. This meant that the second thing pro-thusiasts want, size, was not met as well as technology allowed it to be met. Cankon released good SLR cameras, but their compact cameras had sensors the size of insects in them. Thus, yes, they were small, but so was their quality. And now, these companies have large legacy markets that they don't want to cannibalize, so expecting innovation from them is like expecting a man to give birth.

On the other side of the coin, we have camera companies that stumbled into making compact cameras with pro features — cameras like the GF1 — which sold well, but those companies revealed that they had no freaking clue why they sold well. They promptly tried to desperately turn their compact cameras into "transition" cameras for a market that doesn't exist.

I don't know why Sony appears to have understood what no other company has yet to. Lord knows, Sony's corpus is not known for being smart. But here we are, with the only camera company that is releasing exciting stuff being Sony.

With all that considered, let us return to the RX1. It is an odd beast, certainly. It is undeniably pro-oriented, yet carries the Cybershot moniker. It will probably be less versatile than the RX100, though costing over four times the price. It seems to be aiming at Leica, but doesn't offer a viewfinder that's found on Sony cameras that cost 1/3 the price. It has HDMI, a mic input, and high-quality video, with a fixed prime lens. This thing is indeed a Frankenstein.

But don't think about that. Think about the core of what it offers. It offers something that I don't think many pros really thought possible: not just similar quality, but identical quality in a compact body. They are making a large number of concessions for the price in comparison to a tank-like SLR, but I have to admit, having a FF camera in my pocket is a prospect that, even before holding it, seems to outweigh the limitations. That is the reason why, so often, I pick up my GF1 and not my other cameras, even though I know the images aren't as good, and I'm limited to the 20mm f/1.7.

Would I have liked to see an interchangeable lens? There's a part of me that says yes, but the more I let it stew, the less I think that. Again, this represents the inevitable FF mirrorless that is in the offing, but in Sony's market, it just doesn't make sense to invest in a completely new system yet. It's easier to make one-off products, and when those products are the RX1, they are a great way to innovate and keep people excited. Sony needs to focus on the current NEX line, because their lenses are seriously lacking and not in line with the people buying the cameras. Every NEX owner I know is a pro-thusiast with a big camera budget. Every "soccer mom" type that I know either relies on their cell phone or has a Cankon SLR.

Similarly, Sony needs to overhaul their FF lens selection, which has always been a bit behind Canon and Nikon, and this problem is becoming more apparent with updates from Cankon and the release of Fuji's X Pro series. Basically, Sony has a lot of work ahead of them to not only bring synergy to their disparate systems, as they have stated they want to do, but to bring their systems up to par with the competition. For example, Fuji started less than six months ago, and already has three APS-C lenses that are better than everything Sony makes. They have three more coming out this year, all of which will be better than everything Sony makes. And to add to this, they have the sub-$1,000 X-E1 coming out to open up new markets to this lens selection.

The more I ponder it, the better I think the RX1 is. This could very well become a pro-thusiasts number-one. With this released, I want to see the NEX system given the lenses it deserves. I'm talking five or six, $1,000+, pro-level primes. What I don't want to see is this 16-50mm nonsense, with image quality that looks like it's straight out of a cell phone.

I mentioned Fuji, and that's because I see Fuji has the only company that is in the same league as Sony. Olympus' E-M5 and 75mm lens are impressive, but not nearly enough to counteract three years of stagnant, overpriced crap. Only Fuji has groundbreaking stuff out, and coming out. The X-E1 and X Pro 1 are the only cameras that comes to mind when I think about competition for the RX1 (Seriously, guys, WTF with all the X's?). Fuji's lenses are an order of magnitude better than Sony's, but their autofocus is truly terrible. If reports from the NEX-6 are any indication, it appears that Sony has caught up to Olympus in the AF department — that is to say, very good.

So which would you rather have? Good AF, or good lenses? I would always choose the former,  though either one has the prospect of being engineered better. It's a profoundly difficult call. I would have said to choose Fuji, since before this time, their perspective alone was definitively pro-thusiast. But with Sony's release of the RX1, it reveals them to have shifted in the same direction as Fuji. Basically, the consumer market is dying. It will eventually be completely subsumed by the cell phone market.

And we always have Micro 4/3 as a genuine option. Its sensor is the smallest (although I hold out dreams for a 1:1 sensor update), but that provides significant advantages in many applications. Olympus has released two world-class lenses that have held up to scrutiny: the 75mm and the 12mm, and Panasonic is going full-bore into the world of video, which is a similar tack to Sony, which has revealed a strong focus on video capability with the RX1.

Three systems. Fuji is all about photography. Micro 4/3 and Sony are about video and photography. For me, it's a choice between the latter two. I'm awaiting the GH3, as I have been for months, before I make a decision. But as it stands, Sony is really impressing me.

Sony Drops The (RX1, A99, NEX 6) Bomb

The first bits of Sony's camera explosion are hitting the interwebpipes. Steve Huff has sex with the RX1 in his preview, DPReview posts their more measured take on everything, and the camera world in general trembles in the face of true innovation. Bravo, Sony. Bravo.



The Sony may seem overpriced at $2799, and it is, but not by much. I am of course assuming that the lens is stellar. If it's not, then the camera's value plunges off a cliff, but I think it nearly impossible that Sony wouldn't put top-pro-level glass on the front of their new wunderkind.

The pro-oriented details of this camera are fantastic. The leaf shutter is silent and will likely have a flash-sync of 1/2000th (the shutter limit) when released. And here I was pining for a camera that had 1/250th. For anyone who has a standalone microphone, this compact camera comes with a microphone socket. A microphone socket! I hope that the HDMI output is clean. And praise the lord, a mechanical scroll wheel on the back! I can't describe how long I have waited for that.

This is the camera for the enthusiast community. It blows everything else out of the water. It will sell like crazy. Obviously, all of this effusive language must be put into context. The enthusiast community represents a small niche of the larger market. When I say "sell like crazy," crazy means tens of thousands of units.

I must admit, this camera is a bittersweet thing for me. Sony has hitherto been aggressive in both design and price. Nothing about this camera is aggressive in price. In fact, it evinces a degree of arrogance that I find unsettling. The accessories are priced in the sky. I'm talking stupid prices with mark-ups undoubtedly measured in quadruple digits. I thought the $80 lens hood for the Olympus 75mm was batshit stupid, but the Sony has it beat. Its lens hood costs $179, the thumb grip costs  $249, and the optical viewfinder (that simply sticks on the top of the camera), costs a sphincter-clenching $599. Sony is so far out of their fucking minds with those prices that it makes me think them a joke. Time will tell.

Moving away from super-expensive, niche cameras, we find that, from the perspective of the general market, and by association in many ways, the enthusiast market, the NEX-6 is the most interesting camera to be announced.

Firstly, it's yet another camera in the burgeoning NEX line of cameras and fills a price gap between the $600 NEX-5n and the $1,100 NEX-7. Secondly, while the NEX-7 was a great camera, its sensor was beyond the capabilities of every NEX lens. The only one that even came close cost more than the camera itself. While Sony accelerated its lens development, it still takes time to engineer top glass, grow the crystals to make the lenses, ramp up production facilities, and get the lenses to market. It was obvious that Sony needed to fill the gap with a different camera.

The NEX-6 has everything that the 7 has save for the 24Mp sensor, and that's a good thing. This new sensor supposedly is a noticeable step ahead vis-a-vis ISO performance and autofocus, which is really what we want and need out of these APS-C mirrorless cameras. With very few photos being printed, and the pros who will be printing interested in greater cameras, the APS-C market can sit quite pretty in the 15-20Mp range. I think Sony is smart to have the option of the high-res camera on the market, but the NEX-6 is the recipe for success. Good enough for the pros, cheap enough for everyone. I think that it's going to be huge. Millions of units huge.

The A99 is, again, precisely what everyone thought it would be: a full-frame camera with the SLT technology inside. Not Earth-shattering, and perhaps a bit boring after the annoucement of the RX1, but still very important. Sony takes its pro equipment seriously, and we can expect significant development in its lenses as they work to unify their SLT and mirrorless lines. That said, some of the camera's specs are underwhelming, specifically the slow shooting speed. I was expecting 10fps, or more, and instead got 6. The video performance better be world class to justify the price.

These three cameras, and the ongoing work that they represent, again causes me to consider making the jump to Sony. If Olympus hadn't released the world-class (and cheap) 75mm f/1.8, I would have made the jump to Sony and sold my Micro 4/3 gear yesterday. Perhaps that's just me being pissy. We've still got a lot of announcements to go. Micro 4/3, Fuji, Sony, and Nikon are all very tempting systems into which a new user could dive and be very happy and they all have stuff to announce this week. Photokina, bring it on!

The Sony RX1 Is The Harbinger Of Change

Ok. Excited gibbering time.

Sony has been the source of almost every major advancement in digital camera for the past three years. Olympus' IBIS system is very impressive, Fuji's X sensor is a full generation ahead of everything else out there, and the GH2 has been unbeatable for video (no thanks to Panasonic, though), but everything else is all Sony. As such, Sony is really the only company that, when something about them leaks, I stand up and listen.

We have a multitude of photos of the new A99, the 24Mp full-frame, SLT camera that (maybe/hopefully/please god) will allow the user to move the semi-translucent mirror out of the way when a shot is taken, maximizing the abilities of the sensor. One thing that the images confirm beyond any doubt is the disappointing lack of CompactFlash support. SD cards are much faster than they were in the past, but they still can't compete with the fastest CF.

Also, and while this has been known for some time, I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't opt for the 36Mp sensor for the A99. 36Mp is beyond my applications, and handling RAW files of that size would literally require a new computer, but it's the newest and best sensor that they make. And as tests have shown, operating in 20Mp mode results in tack-sharp images beyond would ordinary 20Mp sensors can achieve. Perhaps this is indicative of the mirror in fact not being mobile, forcing Sony to use a lower-res sensor to avoid nasty ISO/sharpness comparisons with the competition.

All things considered, the A99 is about what we thought it would be. It is Sony's extant design and engineering philosophy applied to a full-frame sensor. This isn't terribly exciting, but nor is it boring. It is the first major advancement to the FF world since the advent of digital, and that is certainly worthy of note.

Ohhh, but don't think that's the only trick Sony has. There have been rumors bubbling around for awhile of a "pro" level NEX camera for some time. I doubted them because Sony's doing very well in the pro and enthusiast market with the NEX-7, and as far as I've heard, it continues to sell strongly. Moreover, Sony still has a metric crap-load of catching up to do as regards lenses. Why release a pro-level NEX camera, possibly with a FF sensor, when they haven't even exploited the current NEX market?

Apparently, Sony felt the same way that I did. What they are releasing though, is much, much more interesting.

The RX1, the bigger brother to the already-beloved RX100, is going to be dropping in the next couple of months. It is a FULL FRAME COMPACT. This is amazing. Even Leica didn't have the balls to produce something like this.

There are scant few details about the camera, but we do know that it will have an f/2.0 Zeiss 35mm lens on front and cost somewhere slightly south of $3,000. That price is a bit high, I think, even if the lens is excellent. It makes me worry that Sony may be getting a bit arrogant. But that's speculation, I'll wait for further information.

What I take from this announcement is that the rumors of the pro-level NEX camera were real. As I mentioned, I don't think that Sony should invest in a pro-NEX system until they have some good lenses in the current NEX system... where they only have one good lens. But what is a compact camera but a camera with a very short flange distance? And what is a mirrorless camera but a camera with a very short flange distance? I think that the RX1 is the first experiment in a line that will inevitably result in a full-frame NEX camera sometime in the future. When that future will arrive is, of course, the question.

Obviously, Sony has some big plans for intercompatibility between the Alpha and NEX systems. The problem is that once you get up to pro-level work, they are not going to be as tolerant of "band-aid" fixes like the EA-1 adapter. They want native lenses. Granted, the jump to a full-frame NEX isn't as problematic as the crop APS-C, since putting the EA-1 adapter on a FF mirrorless simply creates a fully-functional FF camera, with the lens being completely utilized. But then, why bother making a mirrorless camera if you're simply going to put a mirror on it?

I suspect that what is going to happen is that Sony will dedicate their entire entry-level camera market to APS-C mirrorless and market a large selection of cheap and enthusiast level native lenses for that format. They will compete with high-end APS-C by pushing their FF cameras down below $2,000. The Alpha a850 was already there, and I think Sony has more room to maneuver (They should really shoot for $1,500). This opens up the Alpha line of FF lenses to a larger market without design concessions. Sony will supplement this market with a small mirrorless full-frame series of bodies and prime lenses intended to compete with Leica. Needing at attachment for high-quality zooms isn't as much of a band-aid since they are already long and heavy.

At least for awhile, Sony will continue to make and sell the APS-C SLR cameras, since the SLT technology is unique, and they've already designed the lenses, so they may as well use them. Moreover, if the only people using SLT cameras will be pros and enthusiasts, the cachet associated with them will actually grow, meaning that Sony may want to maintain their cheap SLT line for those who want to fake it. I guess that it's all a matter of market size. Since the NEX-5, 5n, and 7 quickly became Sony's most popular cameras, that leads me to believe that the market size for cheap SLT's just won't be large enough to justify the continued support and development.

As we get closer, I'm inclined to agree with Steve Huff: this will be the best Photokina ever. The market is heating up so much, and the release of the RX1 means that not even Leica is safe from competition. The times they are a-changin'.

The Fuji X-E1 Is Exciting If and ONLY If...

Fuji announced the new X-E1 today... or yesterday depending what timezone you're in. It looks great, comes with a good lens, and sports that retro-sexiness that has been carrying Fuji quite well since the release of the X100.

I opened this with an if, and it's a big one: autofocus. I know that many people have found the autofocus speed tolerable. I did not. I found it atrocious. It was, all things considered, the thing that made me reject the possibility of buying the X Pro 1. Basically, the XP1 was an absolute marvel in low light. It's low-ISO performance was on par with other APS-C cameras, but past ISO-800, it just started to sing. It was noise performance that I'm not sure I would have ever expected out of an APS-C camera. It was in a different league.

That would make working in high-speed, low-light environments an ideal playground for the XP1. It was not to be, though. The AF speed literally crashes in low-light. Light levels that would require ISO-1600, and the places where I'd want the Fuji sensor, were no-man's land for the XP1.

Fuji is claiming an increase in AF speed, and I hope that's true. $999 for the body is much more tenable of a price and puts this camera right where it belongs: up against the NEX-7 and the E-M5. The Fuji also comes to the fight with what I'm sure will be a vastly superior kit lens that drops down to (heavenly trumpets) f/2.8!

I'd say that the NEX-7 is at the biggest risk, seeing as it is $200 more than the Fuji for the body only. Do not be surprised when the 7 magically has a $200 price drop in the next few weeks. The kit will cost $100 more than the Olympus kit, but that's immaterial at this price range. The Oly kit and the Fuji kit are essentially chasing the same people. What this does is show how ashamed the 4/3 group should be of their lenses, when Fuji can release a premium kit lens on an APS-C sensor, and the smaller 4/3-sensor zooms rarely drop below f/3.5.

This is a great time to be a camera enthusiast. We now have a whole messa'cameras around the $1,000 price point, and they all offer great things. And I'm not just talking about mirrorless, either. The upcoming Nikon D8000 will be here, as will Pentax's K5 successor. And ageing though it is, the Sony A65 is still a great camera. Move up the price spectrum and we can include the sub-$2,000 full-frame cameras that are rumored to be coming out from both Nikon and Sony.

While the $500 range will always represent the greatest number of sales, the $1000-$2000 category has essentially become the most competitive, exciting place to be. It's good to be alive.

P.S. I know that this is a small thing, but have companies just given up on having a flash-sync of 1/250th? The Olympus E-M5 has it, and for that it will always have a nod of respect, but the X-E1 doesn't. Isn't $1,000 enough for that feature? Is it something to do with the mirrorless design? I've noticed that many sub-$1,000 SLR cameras have this. WTF, people!