Sony's amazing cameras




Want this!


Here's hoping that this isn't a sign of covert ads yet to come.


It's funny, as I've been researching getting a new, compact camera for weeks now, and have finally decided on the Nex 5R (because it's on clearance now, I'm picking it up, with lens, for $400 - any Canadians with a local Future Shop should grab one if they're interested, this price is INSANE. My buddy paid $750 not much more than a year ago). I was tempted to get a RX100 mk II, but the better low light performance on the 5R is FAR more important to me than the small size.

The only issue with Sony's mirrorless ILC (interchangeable lens camera) systems is that the lenses are NOT cheap.

Also, I am totally drooling over the A7. But yeah, not gonna happen at that price. smile


I maintain that the RX100 II is the best pocket camera ever made, and so far, nobody who’s tried it has disagreed.

Knew it. Thing's great. Phenomenal.

I got into Sony pocket cameras 6 years ago after getting annoyed with my Lumix. It was slow. I couldn't believe we'd gone digital, but sacrificed actual picture taking on time for the supposed ease of managing pictures.

I read and read, found an indie excellent site (which I can't remember) going over cameras, and the author simply pointed out that the Sony took the picture when you pressed the button.

It was revolutionary.

I bought another one every couple of years, as the kids dinged them up, and got the RX100 Mk 2 in August.

It's phenomenal.

Pic on right slightly lower export quality due to BB 2mb filter, but both pics demo just how well it handles difficult lighting conditions, and the flipping detail in the image. Camera was set to "clever" mode i.e. no manual adjustments. It does ordinary just as well.

For a long time I'd wanted a pocket point and shoot that could pick up those special little moments. This camera is the dog's proverbials.

I loves it.


It looks interesting, but then I noticed the byline Pogue. Isn't he the same guy who was caught shilling, writing good reviews that weren't necessarily merited? There appeared to be a bias conflict. Or am I mistaken about the name?


To be clear, anything at BB which is paid for is marked "ADVERTISEMENT" or "SPONSORED".

Can't speak for the Pogue, obviously...


Gang, I have the Lumix GM1, and I think it's better than my RX100 Mk II. Review & comparison coming soon -- I'm ordering the "lens cap lens" to see if making it even smaller than the RX100 is a practical, credible choice.


Sony also makes Nikon's sensors for the D800 and D800e. Which happens to be the sensor in the a7R. They're doing some amazing things. I've been a Canon user since film when it comes to SLRs, and I'm seriously considering a shift to Sony on my next upgrade (while hoping Canon gets its act together before then and provides competition).


I'm not paid for my prattling about Sony, but would express favourable gratitude publicly were they to send me a cheque.

Not that I can be bought cheap, or anything.

Edit: Competitors note I never diss you, i.e. the door is always open. Happy to test your equipment and post pics here on BB if you send me the gear and let me keep it, sell it to fund my bread porn habit, y'know, whatever, I'm easy. No selfies.


The only issue with Sony's mirrorless ILC (interchangeable lens camera) systems is that the lenses are NOT cheap.

I'd argue that lenses in general are the issue with Sony's ILCs. Not the quality of them, but that their lens strategy has frequently been confusing to say the least. (The A7/A7R's FE-mount marks their 4th mount variation since they entered the ILC market in 2006, launched with barely any native lenses ready, and those promised are priced at odds with the fact that the body is frequently being pushed based on how cheap it is compared to other full-frame options.)

Disclaimer: except for an old point-and-shoot, none of my cameras are made by Sony. All of the best sensors among them are, however.


Counting 4 mounts is very misleading I feel. Sony took over Minolta and adopted their alpha mount. All Minolta lenses in alpha mount are are full frame as they were developed originally for film but Sony added some APS-C lenses because they can be cheaper and most DSLRs are APS-C. This is exactly the same as I understand the situation for Nikon and Canon - i.e. using your counting system, Canon and Nikon also have two current mounts on their DSLRs. I think that's a rather dodgy methodology to adopt though personally as they only really have one actual mount. Sony only actually have 2 mounts - A-mount (for the large size DSLRs) and E-mount for the smaller cameras (NEX series, A7 etc). However within those two mounts they produce full-frame lenses and APS-C only lenses.

In addition, some of their lenses are very cheap indeed. The APS-C only lenses particularly - take the 35mm f1.8 prime for example - a fine lens at a very cheap price IMO. Full frame lenses are expensive to make and lets not forget that many of Sony's lenses are made by Zeiss, who incidentally only make autofocus lenses for Sony. Look at the price of their lenses for other mounts - they are no cheaper and are manual focus only.

Finally, let's not forget that there are a plethora of adapters out there to mount almost any lens onto a NEX/A7 etc. With the electronic viewfinder and the things you can do with them like focus peaking and zoom focusing, manual focus is not that hard to nail. You can also get full autofocus adapters for A-mount lenses to mount onto E mount.

Disclaimer: I own two Sony cameras but hey... ;->


The cheapest I can find that lens in Canada is just under $500 (after tax, over $500). That is not really what I would call "cheap". It's over double the price of Nikon's 35mm 1.8 APS-C lens (granted, it is cheaper than the full frame version)

I agree with you with your previous points (about the number of mounts) - Sony only has two mounts. And my earlier complaints about lack of glass could apply to Canon and Nikon's mirrorless cameras as well, though I don't really count those as being in the same class as the Sony any way - the only real competitor to Sony's Nex/A7 class is the new Fuji mirrorless APS-C cameras, and I feel like they're still a little bit behind. I just really have no interest in mounting manual focus lenses on my NEX at the moment, at least not until I shell out for the EVF, which won't be for a while.


I made it a point to go out and buy the adapters for all my old film lenses so that I could use them on my Sony Nex-5N. I still shoot film on my Minolta X-570 and it is nice to be able to use my glass on all my camera bodies when I go out. The only real problem I have with the Sony is that there is vignetting if you use a circular polarizer with an additional filter. I bought a 49mm to 58mm adapter and now use the same filters for the Sony and Minolta lenses that I have.

(I ended up also adding a T-mount adapter and C-mount adapter for my Sony.)


Can't speak for Canon, but Nikon dslr lenses are all F-mount. Yes, Nikon makes APS-C lenses, but iirc they will mount on a full frame camera. They'll just vignette.

Having said that, incompatibilities related to metering and autofocusing abound, particularly if you use an entry level model. Mmm. full manual. And the really old lenses, made prior to 1977, will break certain current Nikon models.


Apologies, I meant the A-mount 35mm f1.8, (around £130 here) not the e-mount although I believe Sigma make a cheap 30mm for e-mount - also around £130. Anyway, my point was that they're not all expensive. There are some lenses made by Sony which I think are overpriced compared to the equivalent Canikon offerings though I would concede.


Same with APS-C lenses on a FF Sony camera. That was exactly my point. Sony only has TWO mounts, A and E.
I did say it wasn't a methodology I subscribed to - counting APS-C lenses as an extra mount if you read a bit more carefully,


Ahh, ok. Yes, on the Alpha said there is an absolute PLETHORA of available lenses, I have no argument there. Because you can use all the old awesome Minolta lenses, and auto-focus and meter correctly. My complaint was specifically about the e-mount side. You have this AMAZING APS-C camera, but in order to get any lenses for it you're shelling out ridiculous amounts of cash. And maybe there's a technical reason behind it, maybe it's harder to build these e-mount lenses, but I'm not convinced.


Sony's proprietary file formats for vid are still a pain.


Gotcha. Fair enough. It's early days though I guess. I tend to mount old manual (mainly m42) lenses on my NEX. I don't feel like shelling out shedloads of money on glass for it given that I have already spent a fair bit on A-mount lenses. I suppose I could buy an A-mount adapter but part of the fun of the NEX for me is using (often quite small) old manual lenses. I also agree that the e-mount lenses in particular often seem pricey although the lens that came with my NEX is very good for a kit lens I think.