[Nicolas06]

The red dot in my K-5 is laughably small compared to the actual size of the sensor... which means I have no clue what the camera has actually focused on. Only that it is somewhere around the center. One of these days I'm going to start only focusing with one of the sensors around it, and recompose from there, because those may be a bit smaller!


With PDAF sensors on the sensor the actual ones are much smaller, and the EVF can display which one exactly was focused on. Imagine center AF selected, which is a couple (of definable) sensors in the center. The one that actually is focused on is lit up, so if the subject is behind a tree, you can see if it's the tree or the subject you focused on. No chance with a K-5.

The K5 focussing mechanism is bad for that... I know I had the problem. The K3 fixed the problem. As for knowing excactly what is in focus, you have to rely on your eyes or on focus peaking. Both will typically fail for me if the focus difference is small... Both will work for me if the focus difference is big.

While focus peaking is invaluble with manual lenses, I consider that the AF focussing issues were fixed when I started to use my K3. I don't want for sure to have hundred of very small points because this just make focussing harder and switching from one focus point to another one more time consuming.

[Nicolas06]

you mean, that's the hope

Exactly that the hope, like for the Sony roadmap and future !

sony has a roadmap for over 20 fe-mount lenses in 2015, but i don't see a complete list of all the upcoming glass:
Sony Lens Roadmap 2015 Plus New FE Full-frame Lenses

sony seems to be more into quality primes than fast zooms, which is fine by me... most zooms are weak sauce.

Sony claim on the roadmap that there should be 13 lenses in 2014
=> We are in december 2014 and there 6 lenses available + one you can pre-order.

=> They explain they'll add 7 more lenses in 2015 or later (see the ~) an use the term "short term" that can be anything. This is a marketing document. If 2014 performance of sticking with the road is an indicator we may achieve the objective of 20 lenses (including 2 converters) in 2018 or something.

As if they prefer high quality prime for 2014 3 zooms and 3 prime where planed and 2 converters. For 2015, there no information except that one will be a wide apperture prime. Saying that Sony focus more on high quality prime is just an interpretation as there nothing that permit to conclude that. I'd admit that in term of zoom there are more focussing on slow apperture zooms but I do not see that as a key asset even through one need entry level choice.

the a7r+lea4=625g
pentax k-3 =1249g

still only half the weight of a k-3, and you get pdaf.

a7II + lea4 = 759g
a7 + lea4 = 634g

K3= 800g.
K50=650g
K-S1=558g

Similar weight to K3 for a7II and similar weight to K50 for a7, K-S1 is lighter.

[Clavius]

Exactly that the hope, like for the Sony roadmap and future !



Sony claim on the roadmap that there should be 13 lenses in 2014
=> We are in december 2014 and there 6 lenses available + one you can pre-order.

=> They explain they'll add 7 more lenses in 2015 or later (see the ~) an use the term "short term" that can be anything. This is a marketing document. If 2014 performance of sticking with the road is an indicator we may achieve the objective of 20 lenses (including 2 converters) in 2018 or something.

As if they prefer high quality prime for 2014 3 zooms and 3 prime where planed and 2 converters. For 2015, there no information except that one will be a wide apperture prime. Saying that Sony focus more on high quality prime is just an interpretation as there nothing that permit to conclude that. I'd admit that in term of zoom there are more focussing on slow apperture zooms but I do not see that as a key asset even through one need entry level choice.



a7II + lea4 = 759g
a7 + lea4 = 634g

K3= 800g.
K50=650g
K-S1=558g

Similar weight to K3 for a7II and similar weight to K50 for a7, K-S1 is lighter.

Aren't we losing track of what's inside those cameras? Or are you trying to prove MILCS are 'better' after all? Because this is apples and oranges. The A7's are lighter and smaller, no mater by how much or little, but pack a much bigger punch. Compare the weight and dimensions of devices with similar specs instead. Like K-5 with Nex 5n. And A7r with (stand-in Pentax DSLR) Nikon D800. Sorry, but if I was forced to use a D800 sized camera now, I would place it on a tripod in my studio and it would never ever leave again.

As for fast zooms... How did the complainers about fast zooms ever get involved with Pentax? Small portable package with high IQ is what attracted me to Pentax years ago in the first place. They were the king of compact. But Pentax seems to have fully and completely abandoned developing nice high quality primes. Not to mention fast ones. That role is taken over by Sony now as Pentax has resigned from it. They handed it over on a silver platter. You'd think the two companies would be very good friends?

Anyway, different tools for different kinds of people. That's exactly how it should be. And if Pentax would have kept its course the userbase wouldn't have such fragmented requirements as evidenced in this very thread.

[kadajawi]

I usually don't chimp while shooting (my LCD is turned off), when I take photos my eye stays connected to the viewfinder, so for me at least having a proper preview inside it, and perhaps even being able to see the actual photo inside the viewfinder would be very nice. I end up with photos that went horribly wrong at home... maybe I forgot to change the exposure compensation (I switch a lot between video and stills, and may apply lots of compensation in video mode that I forget about and don't remove when switching back to stills...). Maybe the scene is too challenging. etc.


An EVF also doesn't have the physical size limitations that a OVF has (you can't, ever, make a APS-C viewfinder the size of a FF viewfinder, unless you just put in a FF viewfinder and add markers to show what area the sensor covers (a feature that I'd like btw.).


Admittedly for stills white balance never bothers me, for video it does though because you can't just fix it in post. Not without shooting raw video, which is not possible with our cameras and also way too memory intense.


I'd pick the burst mode that suits the scene. Maybe that's 3, maybe 8, maybe 15 fps. For action stuff, 15, maybe even for group photos, maybe 8 is enough then. Who knows.


Changing focus point... you can use a touchscreen for that, and also it can skip through the points pretty fast and always bundle like 10 together (you move them around one by one, but the ones around it are also selected). Not too much of an issue IMHO.

[Clavius]

Ontopic: Canon is rumored to release a 50mp Spotmatic mirrorless in 2015:
Competition rumors: Also Canon may launches a sort of Sony A9 alike High megapixel camera… | sonyalpharumors

[Rondec]

I usually don't chimp while shooting (my LCD is turned off), when I take photos my eye stays connected to the viewfinder, so for me at least having a proper preview inside it, and perhaps even being able to see the actual photo inside the viewfinder would be very nice. I end up with photos that went horribly wrong at home... maybe I forgot to change the exposure compensation (I switch a lot between video and stills, and may apply lots of compensation in video mode that I forget about and don't remove when switching back to stills...). Maybe the scene is too challenging. etc.


An EVF also doesn't have the physical size limitations that a OVF has (you can't, ever, make a APS-C viewfinder the size of a FF viewfinder, unless you just put in a FF viewfinder and add markers to show what area the sensor covers (a feature that I'd like btw.).


Admittedly for stills white balance never bothers me, for video it does though because you can't just fix it in post. Not without shooting raw video, which is not possible with our cameras and also way too memory intense.


I'd pick the burst mode that suits the scene. Maybe that's 3, maybe 8, maybe 15 fps. For action stuff, 15, maybe even for group photos, maybe 8 is enough then. Who knows.


Changing focus point... you can use a touchscreen for that, and also it can skip through the points pretty fast and always bundle like 10 together (you move them around one by one, but the ones around it are also selected). Not too much of an issue IMHO.

I understand using a burst mode, but 15 frames per second is way too many for portrait group settings. My wife shoots weddings and she typically likes three to four photos of a given shot. More than that and you are wading through hordes of photos that you just have to delete. The only application where that many fps is important is sports and even there, anticipation of a moment is just as important as having a super high frame rate.

Anyway, my bias is against really high frame rates. I feel like they just increase the number of throw away photos. Sure, they are "free" on digital, but they still take time to wade through and delete and time is something I never have enough of, since I am not a professional photographer.

[LensBeginner]

both you and he are missing the point.

i don't need wifi on a camera, but it's there because a small minority of people want it, just like a few people want 15fps.

nobody gets a camera that's 100% perfect, get over it

Well... more features would mean more than 100% perfect... I can settle for 80-90%.
Besides, I'd worry more about stuff like having a cheap kit for the wide end the focal range...

But it looks like many people just want 50MP FF pictures at 50fps in a 200g package with touchscreens and constant f/2.8 28-300 zooms...
What can I say? happy shooting...

[Clavius]

But it looks like many people just want 50MP FF pictures at 50fps in a 200g package with touchscreens and constant f/2.8 28-300 zooms...
What can I say? happy shooting...

LOL! Be carefull before this starts a new rumor.

Actually, all Pentaxians have been asking for for the past decade is an FF sensor camera for their excellent FF Pentax lenses, but got all kinds of high end cost increasing incredible features for APS-C instead. Personally, if I didn't already have FF, I'd still buy a Pentax 24mp FF, with 1/2000 max shutter speed, max ISO 1600, no SR and crappy AF with a really good pricetag. Regardless if it has a mirror or not. The mirror, or absence of it, is actually so unimportant. I bought the A7r because it came closest to the thing I described. (Sans the nice pricetag of course.)

[hoanpham]

But it looks like many people just want 50MP FF pictures at 50fps in a 200g package with touchscreens and constant f/2.8 28-300 zooms...
What can I say? happy shooting...

Very good summary.

I got into FF few years ago, takumars with 5D, 5D2 and now all lenses with A7r.
The 5D classic is still a very capable body.

[Ptr_Mrtn]

Interesting thoughts

[Dieseler]

.... As cameras become powerful computers some of that workflow will move to the camera.

An interesting snippet from this review showing just how much processing power is in the NX1:

"However with file sizes 1/10th the size of the Blackmagic Production Camera’s 4K ProRes it shows once again the power Samsung have put inside this camera to crunch the numbers. Even the Mac Pro cannot encode H.265 anywhere near real-time without dedicated hardware to do the job."

[Nicolas06]

Aren't we losing track of what's inside those cameras? Or are you trying to prove MILCS are 'better' after all? Because this is apples and oranges. The A7's are lighter and smaller, no mater by how much or little, but pack a much bigger punch.

It was say by some that the K3 was 1.2kg and the A7 + converter half of it.

In practice A7II and K3 are very similar weigh when you add the converter to have access to some AF lense echosystem. I agree then you could use f/2.8 zooms on FF and so on but as say you hand up very similar weigth in the end.

Don't use converter, there no fast or really small lenses anyway.

As for K3, if it was FF it would not need to be bigger at all... Well you could fit an FF as soon as you can fit the mount. So that mean that K-S1 or Kx or Canon rebel could keep the size and be FF.

Until now bigger was a selling argument for FF bodies so it didn't happen. At least Sony will show us if they can grab a significant share of FF market with their mirrorless...

As for fast zooms... How did the complainers about fast zooms ever get involved with Pentax? Small portable package with high IQ is what attracted me to Pentax years ago in the first place. They were the king of compact. But Pentax seems to have fully and completely abandoned developing nice high quality primes. Not to mention fast ones. That role is taken over by Sony now as Pentax has resigned from it. They handed it over on a silver platter. You'd think the two companies would be very good friends?

Role is taken the most seriously by sigma to have the fastest (big) lenses,Samyang if you don't care of AF. By Fuji to have good small high quality primes (through mirrorless and APSC). Sony offering is not particulary good on offering wide apperture or small lenses. That's not at all their asset in particular for FE mount. They got the sensor bigger but apparently they also need to be one stop slower or quite bigger than even Pentax (35mm f/2.8 vs FA35 f/2 or FA31 f/1.8, 55mm f/1.8 vs 55mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4 or 43mm f/1.9). Could say that Pentax is APSC only, but funnilly thoses FA are all FF capable.

That just me but I don't see FF as priority if small is also a need. The difference in cost and performance doesn't seems to be in favor of an FF mirrorless now. I can understand some are after it, why not. To explain they get something noticably smaller in the end while getter visibly better photo overall or something far better to use, that not that obvious to me. To get the most of your FF, the mirrorless FF offering doesn't look like the best one neither.

Doesn't means it will not improve or that theses FF mirrorless will not be the most popular thing in years to come, just that's a small evolution for now.

[Winder]

High end smartphone have this kind of power or more (some include 8 cores) and they do take photos. Does it help them take better photos than an old 5D? No. I care that typicall DSLR allow me to take arround 700-1000 shoots in a row without needing to change the batery. I don't give a shit of the theoretical power a camera embbed as long as it does it job correctly and that it doesn't drain battery to much.

And again you are missing the point. What phones do or don't do isn't relative to the point. Battery life will also evolve as cameras demand more power in a smaller form. Since you want to use a phone reference, take a look at phone batteries 10 years ago compared to today. Also look at changes in processors that draw a fraction of the power that they use to while providing significantly more processing power. Nothing evolves in a vacuum.

You conclude that a working mirrorless is going to be better than a faulty DSLR. I don't know for you, but I use an accurately working DSLR so I have no issue.

No. What I said was there are advantages. There have been some disadvantages as well, but those are disappearing as the EVF has gotten better.

If I'am using an EVF I don't see how I can adjust white balence in a better way than if I do in post.

It's not about "better" it about seeing the image exactly as the sensor sees it.

I can first shoot a card or something as a reference first

If you shoot a gray card at sunrise or sunset do you know what happens to your white balance? Yes. You can fix everything in post. That't not the point.

I don't want to spend time post processing while shooting. I prefer to be more in what happen at the moment in the real life.

Nobody is talking about taking time to process while shooting.

For me I find I can do more, faster with a computer. This is because a computer is typically:
- much more powerfull
- has instant access to many more settings/options
- has a big high quality screen that allow to better preview what you do.

Sports and News photographers don't spend much time processing images. News photographers are typically shooting JPEG and uploading them before they are old news. You might not realize this but there is a huge percentage of the professional photographic community that either shoots JPEG or batch processes RAW files with presets.

In the near future your camera will have more processing power than the computer you are currently using. The Samsung NX-1 already has more power than most laptops or tablets. We are talking about the future, not what your computer can do today.

There are a large number of working photographers who travel and can't carry around a pair of 27" Ezio Color Edge Monitors and tower. Last time I was in New York I had coffee with two professionals who are using mirrorless cameras, iPads, & Adobe Cloud to do the majority of their work. I don't know exactly how that works, but they were very happy with the quality and faster workflow. I'm still pretty happy with my 2 monitors and tower, but the industry is very diverse.

---------- Post added 12-04-14 at 08:49 AM ----------

An interesting snippet from this review showing just how much processing power is in the NX1:

"However with file sizes 1/10th the size of the Blackmagic Production Camera’s 4K ProRes it shows once again the power Samsung have put inside this camera to crunch the numbers. Even the Mac Pro cannot encode H.265 anywhere near real-time without dedicated hardware to do the job."

I know. I'm trying to explain it to people how much of a step forward the NX-1 is in terms of camera technology. There are many reasons why the camera might no sell well, but its still impressive.

[IchabodCrane]

And again you are missing the point. What phones do or don't do isn't relative to the point. Battery life will also evolve as cameras demand more power in a smaller form. Since you want to use a phone reference, take a look at phone batteries 10 years ago compared to today. Also look at changes in processors that draw a fraction of the power that they use to while providing significantly more processing power. Nothing evolves in a vacuum.



No. What I said was there are advantages. There have been some disadvantages as well, but those are disappearing as the EVF has gotten better.


It's not about "better" it about seeing the image exactly as the sensor sees it.


If you shoot a gray card at sunrise or sunset do you know what happens to your white balance? Yes. You can fix everything in post. That't not the point.


Nobody is talking about taking time to process while shooting.



Sports and News photographers don't spend much time processing images. News photographers are typically shooting JPEG and uploading them before they are old news. You might not realize this but there is a huge percentage of the professional photographic community that either shoots JPEG or batch processes RAW files with presets.

In the near future your camera will have more processing power than the computer you are currently using. The Samsung NX-1 already has more power than most laptops or tablets. We are talking about the future, not what your computer can do today.

There are a large number of working photographers who travel and can't carry around a pair of 27" Ezio Color Edge Monitors and tower. Last time I was in New York I had coffee with two professionals who are using mirrorless cameras, iPads, & Adobe Cloud to do the majority of their work. I don't know exactly how that works, but they were very happy with the quality and faster workflow. I'm still pretty happy with my 2 monitors and tower, but the industry is very diverse.

---------- Post added 12-04-14 at 08:49 AM ----------



I know. I'm trying to explain it to people how much of a step forward the NX-1 is in terms of camera technology. There are many reasons why the camera might no sell well, but its still impressive.

That's a good summary. I find the OVF/EVF debate less straightforward than most. My take on it:

OVF -- We see the image as it actually exists and then we set the camera up so to have the sensor record it as closely as we see it.

EVF -- We see a displayed representation of what is actually hitting the sensor which is not the same thing as what the sensor is recording. This representation will be limited by the ability of the display mechanism which, as far as I know, will always be less than the recording capabilities of the sensor itself. They are getting better, though.

I'm partial to the concept behind the OVF but that's not an ironclad prerequisite in a camera (to me).

[kadajawi]

An interesting snippet from this review showing just how much processing power is in the NX1:

"However with file sizes 1/10th the size of the Blackmagic Production Camera’s 4K ProRes it shows once again the power Samsung have put inside this camera to crunch the numbers. Even the Mac Pro cannot encode H.265 anywhere near real-time without dedicated hardware to do the job."

No kidding. I have a rather fast desktop, and it has no chance of playing back NX1 footage. It stutters badly.


However the encoder is dedicated hardware, it might not do any other job.