[Klaus]

Even so ... I'm slightly wondering in how far both Nikon and Canon are getting nervous now.

[WyldRage]

I don't think they will be very worried: at this point, both the D600 and the 6D can be bought for the nearly same price as the A7, they have much higher lens selection and much better pricing on those and they have much higher brand recognition in the camera world. The A7 has made Sony a player in the FF field (unlike the overpriced A99), but it will be years before they offer anything close to a complete system in E-mount.

 

Of course, you can always use the A-mount lenses, but have you looked at the pricing on those recently? They have gone up extremely fast and are sometimes 2-3x the price of an equivalent Canikon lens, especially when they stick that Zeiss brand on them.

[Klaus]

The A99 is a great camera but it has hardly a significant USP over Canikon.

The A7® has some.

 

Honestly I do not think that the system argument is that important on a broader basis. Most amateur photographers could be happy with the initial set of lenses.

Professionals are a different story.

[soLong]

<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">….the brilliant thing about the Sony strategy is that you can stay within the same brand and still have to buy a new set of lenses, or bulky adapter, for your lovely new camera....so that at least you aren't changing brands to get what you want….a Sony lens....

<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;"> 

<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">....but i'm a tad disappointed that a light weight latest tech camera like this doesn't at least include a decent OVF as well, others seem to be able to fit one in, and everyone likes a good OVF, surely this won't help sales….

[Brightcolours]

The A99 is a great camera but it has hardly a significant USP over Canikon.

Not entirely sure what makes the A99 a great camera, when you really look at it. It does not have an OVF, it does live view all the time so you can run into heat issues (especially with its closed sensor compartment), and its AF tracking ability can not hold a candle to what the Nikon and Canon FF models offer (including the much cheaper 6D and D610).

 

It might look nice spec list wise for some, but in practise... 

The A7® has some.

 

Honestly I do not think that the system argument is that important on a broader basis. Most amateur photographers could be happy with the initial set of lenses.

Professionals are a different story.

Amateur photographers who are happy with just an f4 standard zoom, a 55mm f1.8 and especially a 35mm f2.8, should not even be looking at FF, as the main advantage of FF is the possibility of shallower DOF. And for that, one needs to look at adpated lenses (A-mount, EOS-mount, M-mount).

[Rover]

Not entirely sure what makes the A99 a great camera, when you really look at it. It does not have an OVF, it does live view all the time so you can run into heat issues (especially with its closed sensor compartment), and its AF tracking ability can not hold a candle to what the Nikon and Canon FF models offer (including the much cheaper 6D and D610).

 

It might look nice spec list wise for some, but in practise... 

Amateur photographers who are happy with just an f4 standard zoom, a 55mm f1.8 and especially a 35mm f2.8, should not even be looking at FF, as the main advantage of FF is the possibility of shallower DOF. And for that, one needs to look at adpated lenses (A-mount, EOS-mount, M-mount).

Or the improved IQ, which is often cited as the biggest benefit of FF. And for most situations, "DOF control" should probably be adequate with the 55/1.8 lens (or the long end of a 70-200/4). Fail that, there are always adapted lenses, which is why there's a new LA-EA4 adapter being released now.

[Brightcolours]

Or the improved IQ, which is often cited as the biggest benefit of FF

But you do not just get "improved IQ" just by using an FF sensor. If you do all things similar, you end up with pretty much the same "IQ".

. And for most situations, "DOF control" should probably be adequate with the 55/1.8 lens (or the long end of a 70-200/4). Fail that, there are always adapted lenses, which is why there's a new LA-EA4 adapter being released now.

The same DOF control then can be had at APS-C too, that was my point. And of course, with adapters you can get other lenses to mount. My post was not about that. And I do not need an adapter on the 6D to mount EOS lenses.... 

[Rover]

But you do not just get "improved IQ" just by using an FF sensor. If you do all things similar, you end up with pretty much the same "IQ".

The same DOF control then can be had at APS-C too, that was my point. And of course, with adapters you can get other lenses to mount. My post was not about that. And I do not need an adapter on the 6D to mount EOS lenses.... 

Right, but the system is bound to expand. After all, I think nobody expected Sony to start with a 50/1.2 right off the bat, since it's not a high volume lens like a 50/1.8 (there are <i>nuances</i> in this case, of course, as the 55/1.8 is to cost $1000). Secondly, even with the adapter, this is going to be smaller than a 6D and you can adapt lots of stuff the 6D is no good for. SO as a starter, it looks very good. If I'd been starting from scratch a few months from now, I'd get the 24-70 and the 70-200. Going wider would've been trickier but a 10-18 in crop mode looks like a valid stopgap for now.

[Brightcolours]

Right, but the system is bound to expand. After all, I think nobody expected Sony to start with a 50/1.2 right off the bat, since it's not a high volume lens like a 50/1.8 (there are <i>nuances</i> in this case, of course, as the 55/1.8 is to cost $1000). Secondly, even with the adapter, this is going to be smaller than a 6D 

With the adapter you are back at square one where mirrorless gets its advantage... Same depth again, the adapter is just a mirror box without the mirror (and without the powerful PD AF sensor).

And yes, you still have a less high body, for which you have lost the OVF. And a bit less wide body, in return of which you get less battery time. Rather have a 6D, if it is about using SLR lenses...

and you can adapt lots of stuff the 6D is no good for. SO as a starter, it looks very good. If I'd been starting from scratch a few months from now, I'd get the 24-70 and the 70-200. Going wider would've been trickier but a 10-18 in crop mode looks like a valid stopgap for now.

That is a huge amount of money for that setup, and a big and heavy setup for that. To me, the A7® really only makes sense with compact primes for street and portrait shooting... Anyway, that is how I see this camera.

[Rover]

With the adapter you are back at square one where mirrorless gets its advantage... Same depth again, the adapter is just a mirror box without the mirror (and without the powerful PD AF sensor).

And yes, you still have a less high body, for which you have lost the OVF. And a bit less wide body, in return of which you get less battery time. Rather have a 6D, if it is about using SLR lenses...

That is a huge amount of money for that setup, and a big and heavy setup for that. To me, the A7® really only makes sense with compact primes for street and portrait shooting... Anyway, that is how I see this camera.

For me, these Sony cameras look like a perfect (so far; well, nobody can comment on their operational qualities like AF speed/precision etc. yet) one-size-fits all solution for adapting lots of different stuff. I have a boatload of EF lenses anyways which might be adapted in theory; and with native stuff, I (or rather, my wife) would get a decently compact setup. She is decidedly refusing to consider even a 6D (and the smallest practical lens I could pair it with would be the 24-85/3.5-4.5, which is not stabilized, reportedly iffy on FF and not very tiny at that).

 

Of course, it's all down to how much money we have, and how good are the two normal zooms. So far, she is managing pretty well with a NEX-3 and kit lens, but she has to step up sometime, and this looks like a much better alternative to both her current NEX and the 6D I was considering.