« Those Remarkable Otii | Main | What's It Gonna Be? »

Friday, 16 October 2015

Comments

UGLY,,,, design by committee. forget the specs,, a camera has to look good feel good and have a gentle look that is so comforting as not to be noticed,,,this camera iswithout grace.

I remember when Sony bought Minolta and entered the photo market. I had serious doubts. I'm not sure how it's working as a business decision, but for pro photogs and serious hobbyists there's an A7 for them to lust over for almost all genres. Personally I'd like A7r II of the current line, with its usability with canon lenses but really I want what I suspect the A7 III will be as I want between the R and S.

This would be a really, really great camera if it were DX instead of Full Frame.

Full Frame lenses are just too big & heavy for a small camera. If I wanted to lug around big & heavy, I'd choose a Hasselblad H5X (which also takes film backs).

Based on specs, the A7s II is the camera to have now. And if I was starting from scratch there'd be a good chance I'd go for it. But something mysterious happened to me recently and I'm simply no longer chasing gear. I'm fine with what I have until it stops working correctly. But more power to those who lust after the new Sony. Here's hoping the reality lives up to the promise.

@ GlennBrown: "UGLY,,,, design by committee."
I just think, "Meh".

The Canon G5X on the other hand, I rather like. It looks functional.

Gadgygdala! This will surely ensure you a Nobel prize for medicine. Generations to come will thank you for this discovery, Dr. Johnston.

Mike

Rumors of a new Leica 'SL' announcement on Tuesday.....stay tuned....gear lust comes in many forms.

Dear Mike

I am in the same situation as you except I have bought a Sony A7. I made that choice after much deliberation and comparison to the Fuji. Referencing your next post I wanted and want a camera to last me four years. I want to forget buying cameras and focus on my photos. My head is sure I made the correct choice (I actually don't believe there is a wrong choice in this market segment)

Yet...

My heart keeps nagging about the Fuji. The Sony has the IS I wanted. It has the lenses I wanted. It is a very good camera. I like it. Yet...

This camera is aimed squarely at videographers. We use them for our inhouse videos at work. I've used shots we got using the A7S original at over ISO 100,000 and nobody noticed. The low-light capability of these cameras is just astounding.

Mike, I just don't get why these Sonys are such a siren song for you...especially when you own and use an X-T1. The only thing I can think is this is the megapixel trap, the same one fallen into some years back when it was rationalized that a 24 megapixel camera was needed to print double-truck spreads (and we both know how that turned out).

The bodies of the A7s are clunky, they don't feel like precision photographic instruments, they don't feel like cameras. I just don't get it; in the 19 months I've been shooting with my X-T!, I've never once thought, "Oh, I need a Sony A7 here...." Not to mention the stupid, mixed-bag of the Sony lens lineup (a mash-up is more descriptive) that is BIGGER and HEAVIER than the Fujis.

Why on earth would I want to go back there?

It's like that point you reach in high-end audio: I'm DONE.

Sony are really pouring effort into their offerings. For a while now I've really appreciated the results in terms of specs. Then I pick them up and operate them and they leave me cold. Just like other Sony products. They feel like they are designed by a committee or maybe a committee of machines...

Clearly I'm the problem because what's not to like?

"DONE" is a mythical photo gear concept. ;)

42mp not 12. Don't care if the camera is ugly as long as the pictures are not. Dxo numbers impress me....

[The A7rII has 42 MP, the A7sII has 12. --Mike]

Right you are my apologies...

The comments to this entry are closed.