Photokina is coming up starting September 16th in Cologne. There will be lots of leaks in the next few days and lots of announcements leading up to the show.
I think it is 1" sensor, same as in Nikon 1 platform and Sony's own RX100 cameras. It is smaller than 4/3 but larger than common P&S sensors.
But yes, this is basically a complete screen-less camera - lens, sensor, processing/power. It uses phone for preview screen and controls... maybe storage? Not sure if these things have their own storage or not.
People who already own a Sony camera with E-mount lenses will be especially drawn to it. The ability to use the same interchangeable lenses on your Sony mirrorless camera and also with this setup, together with a smart phone, is huge. It means that when you don't want to carry your camera around with you, you can leave it home and use your smart phone instead, with the lenses from your E-mount camera and a top-notch sensor, and without having to pay for additional lenses the way that you have to today, with either of the two existing, similar Sony cameras.
I don't know, Kaiser, I've got a Sony NEX 5 camera, two actually, and I don't think this is all that appealing.
As it is the camera is pretty much the smallest and lightest part of the entire package anyway, so still carrying around the lenses and this mini-camera means you're not going to be saving very much weight or space. And I don't know what kind of battery this uses, but it can't be as large as the ones in the NEX camera, so another negative there.
The 55-210mm lens I have already looks quite obscene on the tiny NEX body, I dread to think how odd it would look hanging off the back of an iPhone!
Certainly not everyone will deem it to have any strong advantage over alternatives. But, the weight and space savings should be compared relative to carrying both your iPhone AND your NEX5 camera at the same time. For me, part of the advantage is that the camera does not have to be used attached to the iPhone. In fact, were it not for that, i.e., if it were only possibly to use it while physically attached to the iPhone, I probably would not have much interest in it. It probably is not a camera that I will purchase, because it is priced higher than I would have guessed, and it just doesn't have that much appeal to me. I think that I would be more likely to buy the other one that was announced this morning, i.e., a dedicated lens with ultra-zoom capability. It is unquestionably true that these are all niche cameras.
Okay Literal Man. This is a mirrorless camera shaped like a lens mount that takes interchangeable lenses.
No need to get testy. Your characterization of this camera as a Micro Four-Thirds type camera was a miss by a country mile, and it was appropriate to say so and to explain that you were implying a particular mount and a particular sensor format, both incorrect. Now that you've taken that out, the statement is vacuous. Move on to something else.
FF would mean lenses that are way too heavy to snap onto a phone unless they're all f/5.6 or smaller.
I think APS-C is unlikely as well, for the same reason. Even a modest APS-C lens, like the Canon 15-85, would be too heavy to rely on a universal phone mount to hold it from falling.
I think it would be easier to add smartphone functionality to a mirrorless camera. Pop in your sim card for the day and head out.
Sony's E-mount lenses fall into two categories: the original ones that work with APS-C sensors, and the more recent ones that work with their newer Full-Frame cameras that similarly use E-mount. The newer ones that work with FF sensors can also be used with cameras with APS-C sensors, but not vice-versa, because severe vignetting will occur in the corners. The larger lenses for FF are in fact larger and heavier, as you suggest, but not by a lot, and it would not be out of the question for Sony to make a similar camera but with FF sensor. Even with the slightly more compact lens, the camera still overwhelms the smart phone in terms of mass and bulk. And, it is not necessary to physically attach the phone to the back of the camera, which many people seem to take for granted. And now that Sony has officially announced the QX1 (also the QX30) we know that the sensor is in fact an APS-C sensor and that it does in fact have the capability to do phase-detect autofocus, which was virtually certain. The sensor resolution is about 20 megapixel, and is evidently the same sensor that Sony uses in the a5000, announced near the beginning of this year.
Sony's E-mount lenses fall into two categories: the original ones that work with APS-C sensors, and the more recent ones that work with their newer Full-Frame cameras that similarly use E-mount. The newer ones that work with FF sensors can also be used with cameras with APS-C sensors, but not vice-versa, because severe vignetting will occur in the corners. The larger lenses for FF are in fact larger and heavier, as you suggest, but not by a lot, and it would not be out of the question for Sony to make a similar camera but with FF sensor. Even with the slightly more compact lens, the camera still overwhelms the smart phone in terms of mass and bulk. And, it is not necessary to physically attach the phone to the back of the camera, which many people seem to take for granted. And now that Sony has officially announced the QX1 (also the QX30) we know that the sensor is in fact an APS-C sensor and that it does in fact have the capability to do phase-detect autofocus, which was virtually certain. The sensor resolution is about 20 megapixel, and is evidently the same sensor that Sony uses in the a5000, announced near the beginning of this year.
It's amazing that there is a market that will support so many different systems. I guess manufacturing is just getting so dynamic that costs don't sail through the roof.
Yes, I absolutely do know. Does the mere fact that a camera supports interchangeable lenses and does not use a mirror make it a Micro Four-Thirds camera? Sony's mirrorless cameras (with APS-C sensors) compete fairly directly with Micro Four-Thirds, and they are not the least bit compatible (unless you find a lens adapter between the two, which is possible but would be weird). To characterize a Sony E-mount camera with APS-C sensor (which is a good bit larger than the MFT format) is downright bizarre. The leak was spot-on, as we now know. The camera is exactly what was described in the article: a camera with an APS-C sensor, without a lens, but with Sony E-mount for attaching any E-mount lens, and with absolute minimal physical interface and no built-in LCD display or viewfinder, relying instead on a smart phone for both the display function and the control interface. The article did a very good job of describing what the camera is. If you think that your characterization is compatible with what was in the article, then you must also believe that all cameras that omit the mirror and that use interchangeable lenses are Micro Four-Thirds cameras. If you really believe that this really makes sense, then why would you not similarly believe that it would make sense to use the technical designation that is specific to Panasonic and Olympus DSLR cameras to refer to DSLR cameras made by Sony, or Canon, or Nikon? How would that make any less sense?
Yes, I absolutely do know. Does the mere fact that a camera supports interchangeable lenses and does not use a mirror make it a Micro Four-Thirds camera? Sony's mirrorless cameras (with APS-C sensors) compete fairly directly with Micro Four-Thirds, and they are not the least bit compatible (unless you find a lens adapter between the two, which is possible but would be weird). To characterize a Sony E-mount camera with APS-C sensor (which is a good bit larger than the MFT format) is downright bizarre. The leak was spot-on, as we now know. The camera is exactly what was described in the article: a camera with an APS-C sensor, without a lens, but with Sony E-mount for attaching any E-mount lens, and with absolute minimal physical interface and no built-in LCD display or viewfinder, relying instead on a smart phone for both the display function and the control interface. The article did a very good job of describing what the camera is. If you think that your characterization is compatible with what was in the article, then you must also believe that all cameras that omit the mirror and that use interchangeable lenses are Micro Four-Thirds cameras. If you really believe that this really makes sense, then why would you not similarly believe that it would make sense to use the technical designation that is specific to Panasonic and Olympus DSLR cameras to refer to DSLR cameras made by Sony, or Canon, or Nikon? How would that make any less sense?
I feel like this is an SNL sketch. One that should have ended about 120 seconds earlier.
The word "essentially" means "similar to." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to verify that the term "µ4/3" could be swapped with "mirrorless," and not change the meaning of my sentence.
I feel like this is an SNL sketch. One that should have ended about 120 seconds earlier.
The word "essentially" means "similar to." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to verify that the term "µ4/3" could be swapped with "mirrorless," and not change the meaning of my sentence.
It is not at all like an SNL sketch, because most SNL sketches are funny, and there isn't here that is the least bit funny so far as I can tell. At least not in the same sense of the word. But yes, I will agree that it should have ended, however the point where it should have ended was with my pointing out that your characterization was simply incorrect. It should not have proceeded beyond that, unless you wanted to simply acknowledge that you were wrong. You should NOT have referred to me as "Mr. Literal". That was NOT appropriate or called for. Nor is there anything to be accomplished by you trying to argue that what you wrote was correct. It plainly was not correct, except in your reality, where you are allowed to use words and terminology in whatever way that you see fit, even in cases such as this where the terminology has a very precise meaning, which you do not grasp. But, if you insist on having the last word, you may have it, because I have already wasted too much time on this. I should have ignored you in the first place, but what bothered me was the possibility that an unknown number of people at various future dates would read this thread along with your comment, and come away with the notion that these Sony cameras are a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds cameras. This bugged me, and this is why I responded to your commented and explained why it is incorrect. I know that you do not understand this, but if you were able to look at it objectively, you would possibly realize that it would be unfortunate for lots of people to think of the camera as a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds camera, and that as such, it was fully appropriate for me to point out why this does not make sense. Yes, it was fully appropriate for me to do that, and if you were capable of thinking in a clear manner that derives not from how it impacts you personally, you would find yourself in agreement. If case you still are in denial, I will say it once more for your personal benefit. All cameras without mirrors and with interchangeable lenses are not Micro Four-Thirds. Especially when they are made by Sony. Micro Four-Thirds is a specific mount and a specific sensor size. E-mount is a completely different mount, developed by Sony, and is used with either APS-C or FF sensors, neither of which is particularly close to the size of sensor used with Micro Four-Thirds. Now, I'm done. It's all yours, Mr. I-Said-A-Very-Dumb-Thing-And-Then-Acted-Even-Dumber-When-Someone-Corrected-My-Dumb-Mistake.
It is not at all like an SNL sketch, because most SNL sketches are funny, and there isn't here that is the least bit funny so far as I can tell. At least not in the same sense of the word. But yes, I will agree that it should have ended, however the point where it should have ended was with my pointing out that your characterization was simply incorrect. It should not have proceeded beyond that, unless you wanted to simply acknowledge that you were wrong. You should NOT have referred to me as "Mr. Literal". That was NOT appropriate or called for. Nor is there anything to be accomplished by you trying to argue that what you wrote was correct. It plainly was not correct, except in your reality, where you are allowed to use words and terminology in whatever way that you see fit, even in cases such as this where the terminology has a very precise meaning, which you do not grasp. But, if you insist on having the last word, you may have it, because I have already wasted too much time on this. I should have ignored you in the first place, but what bothered me was the possibility that an unknown number of people at various future dates would read this thread along with your comment, and come away with the notion that these Sony cameras are a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds cameras. This bugged me, and this is why I responded to your commented and explained why it is incorrect. I know that you do not understand this, but if you were able to look at it objectively, you would possibly realize that it would be unfortunate for lots of people to think of the camera as a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds camera, and that as such, it was fully appropriate for me to point out why this does not make sense. Yes, it was fully appropriate for me to do that, and if you were capable of thinking in a clear manner that derives not from how it impacts you personally, you would find yourself in agreement. If case you still are in denial, I will say it once more for your personal benefit. All cameras without mirrors and with interchangeable lenses are not Micro Four-Thirds. Especially when they are made by Sony. Micro Four-Thirds is a specific mount and a specific sensor size. E-mount is a completely different mount, developed by Sony, and is used with either APS-C or FF sensors, neither of which is particularly close to the size of sensor used with Micro Four-Thirds. Now, I'm done. It's all yours, Mr. I-Said-A-Very-Dumb-Thing-And-Then-Acted-Even-Dumber-When-Someone-Corrected-My-Dumb-Mistake.
Comments
This is, indeed, LEAKS SEASON !!!
Photokina is coming up starting September 16th in Cologne. There will be lots of leaks in the next few days and lots of announcements leading up to the show.
I think it is 1" sensor, same as in Nikon 1 platform and Sony's own RX100 cameras. It is smaller than 4/3 but larger than common P&S sensors.
But yes, this is basically a complete screen-less camera - lens, sensor, processing/power. It uses phone for preview screen and controls... maybe storage? Not sure if these things have their own storage or not.
No, it is APS-C. Same sensor as Sony A5000.
People who already own a Sony camera with E-mount lenses will be especially drawn to it. The ability to use the same interchangeable lenses on your Sony mirrorless camera and also with this setup, together with a smart phone, is huge. It means that when you don't want to carry your camera around with you, you can leave it home and use your smart phone instead, with the lenses from your E-mount camera and a top-notch sensor, and without having to pay for additional lenses the way that you have to today, with either of the two existing, similar Sony cameras.
I don't know, Kaiser, I've got a Sony NEX 5 camera, two actually, and I don't think this is all that appealing.
As it is the camera is pretty much the smallest and lightest part of the entire package anyway, so still carrying around the lenses and this mini-camera means you're not going to be saving very much weight or space. And I don't know what kind of battery this uses, but it can't be as large as the ones in the NEX camera, so another negative there.
The 55-210mm lens I have already looks quite obscene on the tiny NEX body, I dread to think how odd it would look hanging off the back of an iPhone!
Certainly not everyone will deem it to have any strong advantage over alternatives. But, the weight and space savings should be compared relative to carrying both your iPhone AND your NEX5 camera at the same time. For me, part of the advantage is that the camera does not have to be used attached to the iPhone. In fact, were it not for that, i.e., if it were only possibly to use it while physically attached to the iPhone, I probably would not have much interest in it. It probably is not a camera that I will purchase, because it is priced higher than I would have guessed, and it just doesn't have that much appeal to me. I think that I would be more likely to buy the other one that was announced this morning, i.e., a dedicated lens with ultra-zoom capability. It is unquestionably true that these are all niche cameras.
Okay Literal Man. This is a mirrorless camera shaped like a lens mount that takes interchangeable lenses.
No need to get testy. Your characterization of this camera as a Micro Four-Thirds type camera was a miss by a country mile, and it was appropriate to say so and to explain that you were implying a particular mount and a particular sensor format, both incorrect. Now that you've taken that out, the statement is vacuous. Move on to something else.
Your characterization of this camera as a Micro Four-Thirds type camera was a miss by a country mile
Incorrect.
the statement is vacuous.
You should know.
FF would mean lenses that are way too heavy to snap onto a phone unless they're all f/5.6 or smaller.
I think APS-C is unlikely as well, for the same reason. Even a modest APS-C lens, like the Canon 15-85, would be too heavy to rely on a universal phone mount to hold it from falling.
I think it would be easier to add smartphone functionality to a mirrorless camera. Pop in your sim card for the day and head out.
Sony's E-mount lenses fall into two categories: the original ones that work with APS-C sensors, and the more recent ones that work with their newer Full-Frame cameras that similarly use E-mount. The newer ones that work with FF sensors can also be used with cameras with APS-C sensors, but not vice-versa, because severe vignetting will occur in the corners. The larger lenses for FF are in fact larger and heavier, as you suggest, but not by a lot, and it would not be out of the question for Sony to make a similar camera but with FF sensor. Even with the slightly more compact lens, the camera still overwhelms the smart phone in terms of mass and bulk. And, it is not necessary to physically attach the phone to the back of the camera, which many people seem to take for granted. And now that Sony has officially announced the QX1 (also the QX30) we know that the sensor is in fact an APS-C sensor and that it does in fact have the capability to do phase-detect autofocus, which was virtually certain. The sensor resolution is about 20 megapixel, and is evidently the same sensor that Sony uses in the a5000, announced near the beginning of this year.
Sony's E-mount lenses fall into two categories: the original ones that work with APS-C sensors, and the more recent ones that work with their newer Full-Frame cameras that similarly use E-mount. The newer ones that work with FF sensors can also be used with cameras with APS-C sensors, but not vice-versa, because severe vignetting will occur in the corners. The larger lenses for FF are in fact larger and heavier, as you suggest, but not by a lot, and it would not be out of the question for Sony to make a similar camera but with FF sensor. Even with the slightly more compact lens, the camera still overwhelms the smart phone in terms of mass and bulk. And, it is not necessary to physically attach the phone to the back of the camera, which many people seem to take for granted. And now that Sony has officially announced the QX1 (also the QX30) we know that the sensor is in fact an APS-C sensor and that it does in fact have the capability to do phase-detect autofocus, which was virtually certain. The sensor resolution is about 20 megapixel, and is evidently the same sensor that Sony uses in the a5000, announced near the beginning of this year.
It's amazing that there is a market that will support so many different systems. I guess manufacturing is just getting so dynamic that costs don't sail through the roof.
Incorrect.
You should know.
Yes, I absolutely do know. Does the mere fact that a camera supports interchangeable lenses and does not use a mirror make it a Micro Four-Thirds camera? Sony's mirrorless cameras (with APS-C sensors) compete fairly directly with Micro Four-Thirds, and they are not the least bit compatible (unless you find a lens adapter between the two, which is possible but would be weird). To characterize a Sony E-mount camera with APS-C sensor (which is a good bit larger than the MFT format) is downright bizarre. The leak was spot-on, as we now know. The camera is exactly what was described in the article: a camera with an APS-C sensor, without a lens, but with Sony E-mount for attaching any E-mount lens, and with absolute minimal physical interface and no built-in LCD display or viewfinder, relying instead on a smart phone for both the display function and the control interface. The article did a very good job of describing what the camera is. If you think that your characterization is compatible with what was in the article, then you must also believe that all cameras that omit the mirror and that use interchangeable lenses are Micro Four-Thirds cameras. If you really believe that this really makes sense, then why would you not similarly believe that it would make sense to use the technical designation that is specific to Panasonic and Olympus DSLR cameras to refer to DSLR cameras made by Sony, or Canon, or Nikon? How would that make any less sense?
Yes, I absolutely do know. Does the mere fact that a camera supports interchangeable lenses and does not use a mirror make it a Micro Four-Thirds camera? Sony's mirrorless cameras (with APS-C sensors) compete fairly directly with Micro Four-Thirds, and they are not the least bit compatible (unless you find a lens adapter between the two, which is possible but would be weird). To characterize a Sony E-mount camera with APS-C sensor (which is a good bit larger than the MFT format) is downright bizarre. The leak was spot-on, as we now know. The camera is exactly what was described in the article: a camera with an APS-C sensor, without a lens, but with Sony E-mount for attaching any E-mount lens, and with absolute minimal physical interface and no built-in LCD display or viewfinder, relying instead on a smart phone for both the display function and the control interface. The article did a very good job of describing what the camera is. If you think that your characterization is compatible with what was in the article, then you must also believe that all cameras that omit the mirror and that use interchangeable lenses are Micro Four-Thirds cameras. If you really believe that this really makes sense, then why would you not similarly believe that it would make sense to use the technical designation that is specific to Panasonic and Olympus DSLR cameras to refer to DSLR cameras made by Sony, or Canon, or Nikon? How would that make any less sense?
I feel like this is an SNL sketch. One that should have ended about 120 seconds earlier.
The word "essentially" means "similar to." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to verify that the term "µ4/3" could be swapped with "mirrorless," and not change the meaning of my sentence.
I feel like this is an SNL sketch. One that should have ended about 120 seconds earlier.
The word "essentially" means "similar to." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to verify that the term "µ4/3" could be swapped with "mirrorless," and not change the meaning of my sentence.
It is not at all like an SNL sketch, because most SNL sketches are funny, and there isn't here that is the least bit funny so far as I can tell. At least not in the same sense of the word. But yes, I will agree that it should have ended, however the point where it should have ended was with my pointing out that your characterization was simply incorrect. It should not have proceeded beyond that, unless you wanted to simply acknowledge that you were wrong. You should NOT have referred to me as "Mr. Literal". That was NOT appropriate or called for. Nor is there anything to be accomplished by you trying to argue that what you wrote was correct. It plainly was not correct, except in your reality, where you are allowed to use words and terminology in whatever way that you see fit, even in cases such as this where the terminology has a very precise meaning, which you do not grasp. But, if you insist on having the last word, you may have it, because I have already wasted too much time on this. I should have ignored you in the first place, but what bothered me was the possibility that an unknown number of people at various future dates would read this thread along with your comment, and come away with the notion that these Sony cameras are a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds cameras. This bugged me, and this is why I responded to your commented and explained why it is incorrect. I know that you do not understand this, but if you were able to look at it objectively, you would possibly realize that it would be unfortunate for lots of people to think of the camera as a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds camera, and that as such, it was fully appropriate for me to point out why this does not make sense. Yes, it was fully appropriate for me to do that, and if you were capable of thinking in a clear manner that derives not from how it impacts you personally, you would find yourself in agreement. If case you still are in denial, I will say it once more for your personal benefit. All cameras without mirrors and with interchangeable lenses are not Micro Four-Thirds. Especially when they are made by Sony. Micro Four-Thirds is a specific mount and a specific sensor size. E-mount is a completely different mount, developed by Sony, and is used with either APS-C or FF sensors, neither of which is particularly close to the size of sensor used with Micro Four-Thirds. Now, I'm done. It's all yours, Mr. I-Said-A-Very-Dumb-Thing-And-Then-Acted-Even-Dumber-When-Someone-Corrected-My-Dumb-Mistake.
It is not at all like an SNL sketch, because most SNL sketches are funny, and there isn't here that is the least bit funny so far as I can tell. At least not in the same sense of the word. But yes, I will agree that it should have ended, however the point where it should have ended was with my pointing out that your characterization was simply incorrect. It should not have proceeded beyond that, unless you wanted to simply acknowledge that you were wrong. You should NOT have referred to me as "Mr. Literal". That was NOT appropriate or called for. Nor is there anything to be accomplished by you trying to argue that what you wrote was correct. It plainly was not correct, except in your reality, where you are allowed to use words and terminology in whatever way that you see fit, even in cases such as this where the terminology has a very precise meaning, which you do not grasp. But, if you insist on having the last word, you may have it, because I have already wasted too much time on this. I should have ignored you in the first place, but what bothered me was the possibility that an unknown number of people at various future dates would read this thread along with your comment, and come away with the notion that these Sony cameras are a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds cameras. This bugged me, and this is why I responded to your commented and explained why it is incorrect. I know that you do not understand this, but if you were able to look at it objectively, you would possibly realize that it would be unfortunate for lots of people to think of the camera as a particular sort of Micro Four-Thirds camera, and that as such, it was fully appropriate for me to point out why this does not make sense. Yes, it was fully appropriate for me to do that, and if you were capable of thinking in a clear manner that derives not from how it impacts you personally, you would find yourself in agreement. If case you still are in denial, I will say it once more for your personal benefit. All cameras without mirrors and with interchangeable lenses are not Micro Four-Thirds. Especially when they are made by Sony. Micro Four-Thirds is a specific mount and a specific sensor size. E-mount is a completely different mount, developed by Sony, and is used with either APS-C or FF sensors, neither of which is particularly close to the size of sensor used with Micro Four-Thirds. Now, I'm done. It's all yours, Mr. I-Said-A-Very-Dumb-Thing-And-Then-Acted-Even-Dumber-When-Someone-Corrected-My-Dumb-Mistake.
Good one. I apologize to your keyboard.