# Sony A3000: the latest game changer?



## iMatt

Sony introduces SLR-esque A3000, a mirrorless camera for $400: Digital Photography Review

The peanut gallery over at DP Review seems about evenly divided on this beast's prospects... I'm leaning toward the game changer side of the fence.

Pros:
- interchangeable lens SLR-style mirrorless camera with a 20 MP Sony sensor -- probably excellent -- for $400 w/ kit lens at launch (matches street price of roughly comparable m43 models and SLRs about a year after release)

- that's about it, but what a massive, massive 'pro'

Cons: 
- apart from the sensor it seems both stripped down and dumbed down, apparently to hit that magic $399 - no articulating screen, low spec LCD, few manual controls
- build quality may leave something to be desired
- E mount lens range is both limited and (mostly) pricey... Not a great choice for buyers who might eventually go beyond the kit lens
- confusing Sony product line up could cause problems. This is really a NEX, but it's named like an SLR and looks like one. And then there are two distinct camera types using the A mount (SLRs and SLTs). Is this the beginning of the end for the A mount?

Most of those cons are really only of interest to enthusiasts. I think plenty of consumers who want a better camera than their phone will snap this up, as will NEX users looking for a cheap second body and/or a camera for another family member. And I hope it drives competitors' prices down without being a wrecking ball for the industry.


----------



## i-rui

iMatt said:


> And then there are two distinct camera types using the A mount (SLRs and SLTs). Is this the beginning of the end for the A mount?


I can't see Sony discontinuing the A mount (Although I may be biased since I shoot with the Sony A77 and have used Minolta a mount lenses for years). they recently released a 50mm 1.4 Zeiss, and the new Distagon 55mm f/1.4 is also supposedly coming to the A mount.

Sony is moving away from SLT and will transition to a mirrorless design for the A mount cameras :

(SR5) Sony is betting high on the new A-mount mirrorless generation! | sonyalpharumors.

regarding the A3000, here's some pics taken with the newly released zeiss 16-70 e-mount.

19 picture`s A3000 & ZEISS16-70 F4 - Dyxum forums - Page 1


----------



## MacDoc

Not sure what the advantage is ....it's still big.

People move to MFT because of the small size.


----------



## iMatt

i-rui said:


> Sony is moving away from SLT and will transition to a mirrorless design for the A mount cameras :


That just confuses me more. First, I don't see the point, long-term, of having two mirrorless mounts. Second, between A and E it doesn't make sense for the E mount to be the dead end, since it allows much more flexibility in body size and design.

In a nut: it's physically impossible to use E-mount lenses on an A mount body, but A-mount lenses are easy to adapt to E-mount bodies with full functionality.

So why not just gradually transition all bodies to E mount (over the course of a few years, not months)? 

Edit to add: the rumours post you linked was from June. I think the A3000 announcement calls its validity into question. Not least because of the use of the A designation on a body with E mount. 



MacDoc said:


> Not sure what the advantage is ....it's still big.
> 
> People move to MFT because of the small size.


Mirrorless isn't getting much traction in North America, because P&S/phone upgraders, new parents, etc. are still mostly opting for entry-level SLRs. Apparently the average consumer associates a big camera with a central hump (whether there's actually a prism or pentamirror in there or not) with seriousness and quality, and are not convinced by the likes of Oly Pen, Pana GF/GX, NEX, etc.

So this new camera is aimed squarely at the entry-level SLRs sold at Costco, Wal-mart, Target, etc. more than anything else. Of course, it does have implications for all the mirrorless competitors. I fully expect to see entry-level Panasonic and/or Oly SLR-shaped bodies next year that ditch some bells and whistles to hit or even beat $400 MSRP. 

I also expect Nikon to do something major. Not sure what, though. Either double-down on the struggling One system, or ditch it and move forward in mirrorless with something F-based or at least F-friendly.

Ditto for Canon. They'll need to fish or cut bait with the EOS-M system.


----------



## Todd

Who cares about mirrorless?

Seriously. When you can buy an entry-level Canon SLR & lens for $390 or an entry-level Nikon SLR & lens for $320, both of which are tiny, lightweight bodies but come compatible out-of-the-box with huge choice of lenses, from hobbyist to professional level, why does anyone care about mirrorless?


----------



## iMatt

- better for video (which I personally don't care about, but lots of people do)
- all else being equal, allows for smaller and lighter bodies and lenses (which I do care about). No matter how small they make the SLR body, most lenses will always be larger and heavier than their mirrorless counterparts, and it will always be possible to make a smaller body when you eliminate the mirror (unless you're Pentax and you make a mirrorless with your SLR mount and no EVF... dumb).
- finally delivering on the promise of 100% silent shooting via electronic shutter; any SLR that does this will have to black out the viewfinder.
- electronic viewfinders are not constrained by sensor size; most current EVFs offer a FF-like level of magnification and always at 100% coverage
- electronic viewfinders allow display of any, all or no data (same as the LCD panel)
- true WYSIWYG shooting is possible
- even in bright sunlight, you can easily review your shots using the viewfinder
- most systems are compatible with virtually any lens, albeit not out-of-the-box

There are some drawbacks. For all their virtues, most current electronic viewfinders are not quite as good as optical, because refresh rates and/or pixel counts are not high enough yet. But they keep improving as the amount of processing power and pixels that can be stuffed into the camera increases. Through brute force they'll eventually surpass optical finders in the areas where they haven't yet.

To me, the mirror box + pentamirror/prism is a very elegant solution to the problem of parallax error and TTL composing and focusing in general. It has survived as long as it has for good reason. But the mirrorless approach is well on the way to turning it into a high-end niche item.


----------



## i-rui

iMatt said:


> That just confuses me more. First, I don't see the point, long-term, of having two mirrorless mounts. Second, between A and E it doesn't make sense for the E mount to be the dead end, since it allows much more flexibility in body size and design.
> 
> In a nut: it's physically impossible to use E-mount lenses on an A mount body, but A-mount lenses are easy to adapt to E-mount bodies with full functionality.
> 
> So why not just gradually transition all bodies to E mount (over the course of a few years, not months)?


IMO it makes sense to have 2 different lines because they are 2 different form factors. the alpha is more of the traditional camera with a viewfinder (now electronic) + lcd, while the nex is the compact variety.

personally i like big cameras. they balance better with large lenses. i see the need for compact cameras, and glad they exist, but my preference is to use the slr form factor.


----------



## i-rui

Todd said:


> Who cares about mirrorless?


in addition to what iMatt said, mirrorless has less moving parts, so faster shooting speeds, no mechanical problems (although more reliant on electronic solutions)


----------



## iMatt

i-rui said:


> IMO it makes sense to have 2 different lines because they are 2 different form factors. the alpha is more of the traditional camera with a viewfinder (now electronic) + lcd, while the nex is the compact variety.
> 
> personally i like big cameras. they balance better with large lenses. i see the need for compact cameras, and glad they exist, but my preference is to use the slr form factor.


And yet the A3000 has both the E (NEX) mount *and* your preferred form factor. 

I agree it makes sense to have two form factors, but not two mounts. And to me the A designation for this E-mount camera suggests Sony is headed that way, with the E mount being the long-term bet.


----------



## i-rui

iMatt said:


> And yet the A3000 has both the E (NEX) mount *and* your preferred form factor.


not really. it is the same style as a SLR, but it's still much too small for it to be my preferred form factor. I briefly had a Sony A55 and quickly got rid of it. It felt like a toy to me. I now have a Sony A77 and have the vertical grip which never leaves the body. I prefer a heavy camera body. I like lots of manual controls on the camera body over menu options. IMO using a 300mm lens on a nex with adapter or even a A33 would be comical. Just not for me.

That doesn't mean i think the A3000 is a bad camera design. I understand it and the need it fills. As a travel camera it would be nice. I would prefer to use it over the NEX bodies since that's how i like to use my cameras.



iMatt said:


> I agree it makes sense to have two form factors, but not two mounts. And to me the A designation for this E-mount camera suggests Sony is headed that way, with the E mount being the long-term bet.


I guess we'll see. The other thing i'll mention is that some lenses need to be big, and this lends itself to larger camera bodies. Also, when we're talking upper end optics these generally also increase the lens size. 

For instance Sony has a 50mm 1.4 lens. They also just released a Zeiss 50mm 1.4. The Zeiss is superior and costs $1500 (vs $500).










Notice the size difference?


----------



## iMatt

i-rui said:


> I guess we'll see. The other thing i'll mention is that some lenses need to be big, and this lends itself to larger camera bodies. Also, when we're talking upper end optics these generally also increase the lens size.{/QUOTE]
> 
> (Sorry if it didn't quote properly... the "Quote" tag keeps getting zapped to lowercase when I preview this post.)
> 
> As a micro four thirds shooter I totally get that certain small bodies are really not suitable for certain big lenses. Much as I like my GF1 (the original compact mirrorless), it was obvious from the get-go that it was a very poor match for the 45-200 zoom unless I added an EVF. Now that there are several bodies with no EVF or accessory port at all, you have a whole class of bodies only really suitable for use with lenses in the wide to normal range, preferably primes.
> 
> Even if the A3000 is too small and light for you, my point is that with the mirrorless mount they have the option of making bodies as big and heavy as they want, or as small and light as the electronics and mount allow. The A mount has some of that flexibility, but not nearly as much.
> 
> 
> 
> i-rui said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing i'll mention is that some lenses need to be big, and this lends itself to larger camera bodies. Also, when we're talking upper end optics these generally also increase the lens size.
> 
> For instance Sony has a 50mm 1.4 lens. They also just released a Zeiss 50mm 1.4. The Zeiss is superior and costs $1500 (vs $500).
> 
> Notice the size difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now imagine a lens with identical specs, features and build quality as the Zeiss version, only for E instead of A mount. I'm guessing it'll be noticeably smaller, even if built to cover FF (which is not necessary with any existing E-mount body).
> 
> To get an idea, you can compare the Olympus four thirds and micro four thirds lenses that have exact equivalents in both mounts. They're all built to cover the same sensor, but the shorter flange distance of the mirrorless mount leads to smaller designs. The wider the lens, the bigger the shrinkage.
Click to expand...


----------



## i-rui

iMatt said:


> Yes, now imagine a lens with identical specs, features and build quality as the Zeiss version, only for E instead of A mount. I'm guessing it'll be noticeably smaller, even if built to cover FF (which is not necessary with any existing E-mount body).
> 
> To get an idea, you can compare the Olympus four thirds and micro four thirds lenses that have exact equivalents in both mounts. They're all built to cover the same sensor, but the shorter flange distance of the mirrorless mount leads to smaller designs. The wider the lens, the bigger the shrinkage.


i think you also have to take in to account FF sensor sizes and how optics relate to that size. the industry and the history of SLRs have given us that form factor and it's been established as the industry benchmark (for the most part).

Zeiss is set to release a 55m distagon lens:

diglloyd blog - Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Distagon (Video)

this lens is substantially larger than other 50mm lenses, and it needs to be to get those results. I have my doubts that if you shrink the optics down the results wouldn't substantially suffer. Apparently this type of lens will actually be able to resolve the full resolution of these new 30+ megapixel sensors.

IMO if Sony wants to have a foot in the door in the "pro" market they need to keep the A mount.


----------



## iMatt

i-rui said:


> i think you also have to take in to account FF sensor sizes and how optics relate to that size. the industry and the history of SLRs have given us that form factor and it's been established as the industry benchmark (for the most part).


There are many precedents for FF mirrorless in the film world, and to date one digital one: rangefinders, including the Leica M system...



> Zeiss is set to release a 55m distagon lens:
> 
> diglloyd blog - Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Distagon (Video)
> 
> this lens is substantially larger than other 50mm lenses, and it needs to be to get those results. *I have my doubts that if you shrink the optics down the results wouldn't substantially suffer.* Apparently this type of lens will actually be able to resolve the full resolution of these new 30+ megapixel sensors.


My point is that just removing the mirror means shortening the distance between rear element and sensor/film, which translates into a smaller lens *all else being equal*.

That's not a comparison we can make with A vs. E mount, because AFAIK all current E mount lenses cover only APS-C, and all A mount lenses cover FF (if not, then maybe the comparison is possible... I don't know the A line-up well enough).

But consider these two sister lenses:

Leica Summilux 50/1.4 R
Leica Summilux 50/1.4 M

The R (SLR) version weighs fully twice the M version (710 g vs. 335 g). There are surely other variables in play, but I think it's fair to assume the two lenses are broadly comparable in performance, and in at least the same class as the Sony Zeiss lenses.

Just looking at rangefinder lenses in general it should be pretty clear that mirrorless lenses tend to be smaller and lighter than comparable SLR lens designs.




> IMO if Sony wants to have a foot in the door in the "pro" market they need to keep the A mount.


That may be so. And at this point FF + E mount is just a distant rumour. 

But as I understand it, Sony is struggling at the high end of the market, and in the SLR space in general, despite having excellent lenses and some fine bodies right up to the FF A900.

So maybe there's a case to be made that if Sony wants to make waves in the pro market, they need to do something radical.


----------



## iMatt

One unimpressed Sony-shooting pro:

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Sony exercises their right to build a crappy camera.


----------



## iMatt

NEX is dead....long live NEX?

The A7 and A7r are here: FF mirrorless using the E mount, along with 5 new E mount lenses with FF coverage. But to confuse matters, Sony is rebranding everything "Alpha" and completely dropping the NEX name even if there are now two mounts in play, with 4 basic sets of lens capabilities (APS + FF in both alpha and E mounts). 

Still looks to me as though Sony's endgame is to transition away from the alpha mount. How long that will take, I don't know. But I'm going to guess new Alpha-mount gear announcements are going to be few and far between from now on, more in the nature of life support than innovation and expansion.

FWIW I find the A7 body pretty jarring to look at. Not quite ugly, but unusual. There's a bit of classic SLR in there with the boxy body with a viewfinder that looks bolted on. In some vintage SLR lines, namely the Nikon F, the entire prism is removable, allowing you to mount different accessories for different purposes (waist-level finder, simple prism with no meter, metered prism, etc). The original F body itself is a clear descendant of Nikon's earlier Leica rangefinder clones. This reminds me of that. 

Sony announces A7 and A7R: first full-frame mirrorless ILC cameras: Digital Photography Review


----------



## i-rui

iMatt said:


> Still looks to me as though Sony's endgame is to transition away from the alpha mount. How long that will take, I don't know. But I'm going to guess new Alpha-mount gear announcements are going to be few and far between from now on, more in the nature of life support than innovation and expansion.


Still far too early to say that. 2014 will give us a clear indicator of what Sony's plans are. If there is no new a-mount bodies then obviously that would spell the end. But if they introduce new mirrorless a-mount bodies then I believe that would mean they continue on with the a-mount line.

The new A7 and A7r are not for me. The a-mount adapters Sony has introduced only confuses things, and if the a-mount lenses do not have a ssm or sam motor then they need the adapter with a translucent mirror, which negates the whole purpose of going mirrorless. 

Two important things to consider are that Sony's best lenses are all a-mount, and the majority of lenses that work on Sony bodies are a-mount (especially when you factor in minolta af lenses). The adapter solution really doesn't cut it.


----------



## i-rui

Double post


----------



## iMatt

You're right, it is really early to make such predictions. Especially since Sony is pretty unpredictable, on the whole. Anyway, interesting times.


----------



## MacDoc

Don't discount this as a factor either. Part of SONY being erratic is the bleeding going on.



> Sony Loses $2.2 Billion in Market Value After Forecast Cut ...
> www.bloomberg.com/.../2013.../sony-loses-2-2-billion-in-market-value-...‎
> Sony Corp. lost $2.2 billion in market value today after Chief Executive Officer Kazuo ... By Mariko Yasu and Grace Huang 2013-11-01T14:30:32Z ... for TVs, cameras, personal computers and video recorders as Sony's film unit lost money.


----------



## iMatt

Lots of struggling companies in the camera industry, including cases like Sony where the mothership seems troubled even if the photo division is doing reasonably well. Or Olympus, where the camera division is doing good things but having trouble turning a profit. Gotta wonder if there's going to be a shakeout. Some have been predicting one for a while, but the only big move so far has been Ricoh swallowing Pentax...


----------



## Niteshooter

In mirrorless nobody seems to be doing great. Canon IMHO blew it with the EOS M, Nikon blew it with the pricing of the N1 V series and continued that trend with the really nice (on paper) V3. Nikon may have a killer lens in the 70-300 N1 lens though the price is high, granted an equivalent 800mm in the DSLR world is fantastically expensive.

Sony photo gear has just never done it for me, not sure why exactly perhaps because it wasn't a system that was significantly better then my EOS kit to warrant a swap and big expense. Do like their high end lenses though but other than that... A co worker recently traded in his extensive Alpha system for a 7D/5D system. 

But going back to mirrorless, I picked up a Nikon 1 V1 a year and a half ago when they blew them out for $299. I know folks talk about the small sensor size but if you understand the limitations of these cameras they a fine. I routinely printed up 16x20s from it as long as I didn't do a radical crop. Same goes for my M4/3 panny. 

Recently grabbed an N1 V2 on the current fire sale. For those used to a DSLR it feels good and is very fast. Plus it actually has an EVF that can be used to do critical focus unlike some other cameras with low res EVFs. When Target blew out the 30-110 lens for $94 cdn I bought a couple. So for very little cash you wind up with a small inexpensive 2 lens kit which is perfect for street. But Nikon cannot survive if they have to blow out product for less then half the original selling prices...


----------



## iMatt

Niteshooter said:


> Plus it actually has an EVF that can be used to do critical focus unlike some other cameras with low res EVFs.


As far as I know the only mirrorless EVF with a res lower than the Nikon's is the one on the A3000, and having used an EVF of that res (202,000 pixels) I agree its usefulness is limited. A handful of compacts and bridge cameras also have low-res EVFs but there I see it as a case of "better than no viewfinder at all", which is the situation with many of their peers.

Hopefully it won't be too long before we have Retina-type pixel densities and ultra-fast refresh rates on EVFs. The GH4 and one or two others must be close but I haven't had the chance to try any of the higher-res EVFs yet.


----------



## Niteshooter

The V2 is 1,440,000 pixels so it's ok for checking focus. The Panasonic was a lot lower and pretty much worthless other then for framing. Nikon does smear a bit on fast pans depending on the subject. An EVF is something I would not shoot without. Dust in the Nikon eye sensor can be infuriating because it makes the automatic switching erratic.

Electronic viewfinder useful for shooting in daylight
Nikon 1 V2 comes equipped with a 0.47-in. color TFT LCD 1440k-dot high-resolution electronic viewfinder with an approx. 100% frame coverage. The electronic viewfinder faithfully displays the scene in front of you with minimum time lag, and is especially useful in a bright environment where an LCD monitor might normally be harder to view. The sensor next to the viewfinder detects you looking into it, so as to automatically turn off the LCD monitor when you are using the viewfinder and vice versa. This automatic switching between the electronic viewfinder and LCD monitor will enhance your comfort so you can fully enjoy the shooting experience.


----------



## iMatt

Which Panasonic are you talking about? All the current m43 bodies with an EVF have a minimum of 1.44 million pixels, just like the Nikon. The GH4 has 2.4 million, but then it's a much more expensive body. The only current Panasonics with fewer pixels in the EVF would be P&S models like the LF1.

Edit: and it's likely that the 1.44 million pixel EVF in a camera such as the Panasonic G6 is an off-the-shelf Epson part identical to that used by Nikon.


----------

