How to Submit your Facebook Fan Page for Verification

*UPDATE  10/30/14*
So I got in touch with my Facebook contact and asked about the URL I had used before. Here’s her response and I really feel like way too many people we’re submitting bunk requests and flooding their team with verification submissions after I gave out the original URL to the form.
Though I am glad that those who submitted legitimate requests did have their pages verified before the URL expired! My apologies. But, for personalities or celeb fan pages you can still request verification here.

*UPDATE  08/12/14*
While I still have not found the new business submission form, if you are a personality or celeb, use this form to request verification.
*UPDATE 06/24/14* 
No joke, I think this post was sending so much traffic to Facebook’s verification form that they moved/removed the page. :/
Doh…
Anyway, I encourage you to SUBSCRIBE to my blog so I can send you an updated method when I find it. I just didn’t want to leave new visitors and my readers in the dark!


-Original Post-
Facebook page verification is highly sought after for most brands and celebrities. Although Facebook states there is no way to request a page for verification, there is a work around that I’ve found and of course I couldn’t wait to share it with my readers!!
This week’s #SocialMediaMinute will teach you how to submit your Facebook Fan Page for Verification.
PS: I was very surprised by the amount of other ridiculous “tutorials” that I found when researching this topic. Some dealt with copy and pasting code, downloading some sketch software, and the top result on YouTube for this search is a video of some dude saying you can’t verify your page….wonderful!
For that reason please make sure to share this article as it’s the only legitimate way I’ve found, oh, and it works! *NOTE* I do not have the ability to verify your Page for you and will not respond to emails with that request. Sorry! 

See Also: How to Add a Facebook Page Profanity Filter

What are Verified Pages?

Verified Pages will have a badge beside the name of the Page that indicates the Page is the authentic voice of the business or individual. This makes it a whole lot easier for people to find and engage with the businesses and brands they’re looking for on Facebook.

Also, verified pages receive a huge boost in organic reach!

Keep in mind, Facebook Fan Pages that are verified belong to only a small group of prominent public figures (celebrities, journalists, government officials, popular brands and businesses) with large audiences and Facebook is proactively verifying authentic Pages and Profiles that are at the greatest risk of impersonation.

Video Tutorial

Not displaying? Watch this tutorial on YouTube.

To access the form to request verification for your page, use the following URL:
https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/583041871730382

*UPDATE 06/24/14* No joke, I think this post was sending so much traffic to Facebook’s verification form that they moved/removed the page. :/

*UPDATE  08/12/14* While I still have not found the new business submission form, if you are a personality or celeb, use this form to request verification. (note, you must be signed out of Facebook to access the link)

Disclaimer (don’t waste your/FB’s time)

Please use common sense when submitting your Facebook Fan Page for Verification using the form.
Ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your Facebook page the official presence of a popular brand or celeb?
• Is your Facebook page currently or has a high chance of being impersonated?
• Does your Facebook page have a large audience? (i.e. 20k+ Fans)
• Is the page in question running Facebook ads? (may not be necessary but I believe it provides extra leverage if you are)

What to Include in your Verification Form Submission

It’s important to include the right information when submitting your Facebook page to be verified. This will reduce the unnecessary back and forth that may occur between you and Facebook support. Including relevant information will also decrease the likelihood of your request being dismissed (assume they receive these requests all the time.)
Here’s what I included that helped get my submissions pushed through (and ultimately verified) to Facebook’s Pages team:

• URL of the Fan Page I wanted to verify
• Links to the Brand’s official website
• Links to 2-3 impersonating fan pages
• A good reason WHY the page should be verified (If you can’t answer this, it’s probably best you don’t submit a request)

If your Request is Denied:

If your profile or Page isn’t verified, there are other ways to help your followers or the people that like your Page know that your identity is authentic.
For example, you can:

• Link to your Facebook profile or Page from your official website
• Complete the About section of your profile or Page to provide more information

Takeaway

I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised by the response I received from Facebook’s Global Marketing Solutions team. After I had the pages verified I was sent a follow up questioner of their level of service and my experience working with their support. I suggest for good karma to leave them feedback whatever it may be.
Verified Facebook pages receive numerous benefits outside of the blue check mark. They rank higher in search, have increased organic reach and are allowed to add other special features to their pages like video trailers.
Good luck and don’t forget to spread the word!

We’ve got some exclusive info on Nokia’s Android phone, codenamed Normandy

This is Nokia’s Android phone

Codename Normandy is ‘full steam ahead’

Nokia has been building its own Android phone according to multiple sources familiar with the company’s plans. Codenamed Normandy, and known internally at Nokia under a number of other names, the handset is designed as the next step in low-end phones from the Finnish smartphone maker. We understand that Nokia has been testing “Normandy” with a special “forked” variant of Android that’s not aligned with Google’s own version, akin to what Amazon does with its Kindle Fire line.

WILL IT EVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY?

An image of the handset was published in November by @evleaks, showing a Lumia-style device with no apparent capacitive buttons for navigation. We’re told that Normandy supports Android applications like Skype, and other popular top apps. Nokia has been developing the Android-powered phone despite Microsoft’s plans to acquire the company’s handset business. It’s now unclear whether Nokia will release the handset before the Microsoft deal is finalized, or whether Microsoft will continue will the plans for the device.

Multiple sources have revealed to The Verge that Normandy is designed as an Asha equivalent to push low-cost devices with access to more traditional smartphone apps — something the company has struggled to achieve for its Series 40-powered Asha line. Nokia’s effort is similar to Amazon’s own use of Android, allowing the company to customize it fully for its own use. Nokia employees working on Normandy were informed the device is planned as a 2014 release, and one insider described the Normandy effort as “full steam ahead.” Unless Nokia manages to release Normandy ahead of its Microsoft deal, we can’t imagine Microsoft is interested in using Android to target the low-end over its own Windows Phone operating system.

Attempting to understand the most important chemical reaction on the planet: Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is the engine of life. The synthesis of organic compounds made possible by coupling light to the splitting of water is probably the most important set of chemical reactions on the planet. While there are hopes of one day channeling photosynthetic outputs directly to our needs, many key details of the process, including the actual efficiency, are still incompletely known. Researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have just received a big grant to map the molecular events that take place inside one the most complex biological machines known to man — a group of electron-shuffling proteins known as photosystem II.

In photovoltaics, efficiency has a clear definition we can all agree on. Namely, it is the amount of electrical power one can get from a solar cell divided by the power in the solar radiation that shines on it. Sunlight liberates electrons which in turn can provide power proportional to their total number times the “pressure” which backs them. If you are getting a 20% efficiency from your solar panel, you are doing pretty good. The problem with comparing photovoltaics to photosynthesis though, is that while the former generates electrical power, the later generates chemical products. To convert photovoltaic power into something comparable to what photosythesis does, analysts typically take an additional step and require that the electrical power in turn be used to split water and generate hydrogen, which reduces the efficiency by at least half.

A “photocurrent conversion efficiency” of 95% is often quoted for photosystem II, but this actually has little to do with overall photosynthetic efficiency. For most plants and bacteria, less than half of the incoming photons are of the proper wavelength to be be exploited by photosynthetic machinery. After accounting for various other inefficiencies, including maintenance costs and lost photons which never make it to reaction centers, real efficiencies are actually closer to 5% — but 5% of what?
The challenge ahead for Rensselaer researchers is to understand all the intermediate steps that occur when water is split during photosynthesis. To do this the group will use a combination of high speed spectrographic imaging with femtosecond light sources, andpetascale computer simulation. They note that it takes four photons to split one molecule of water. The hydrogen that is liberated from water is not stored or combusted in plants, but rather used to power a rotary engine that generates ATP. The ATP is in turn used to synthesize sugars which are the real deliverables of photosynthesis. Different sets of enzymes cooperate at all levels in these conversions which makes it difficult to arrive at the 5% efficiency spec solely by counting hydrogens and sugars.
The problem with plants is that, while they work pretty well at medium levels of solar radiation, their output quickly saturates with increasing levels of light. Photovoltaics, on the other hand, continue to scale their output more or less linearly as things heat up. If plants tried to operate across the full dynamic range of solar input at peak capacity, they would probably burn themselves out rather quickly. Plants are clearly not optimized for the generation of electrical power, or for hydrogen, but rather for a complex combination variables that might loosely be interpreted (at least for those farmed) as biomass.
Recreating photosynthesis in some kind of a machine may soon be possible, but how useful such a machine would be remains to be seen. The production of hydrogen would be one useful application, but methods of harvesting it efficiently have yet to be developed. To compete with photovoltaics, research on many fronts will be needed, but a better understanding of the basic operation of photosystem II is perhaps the most fundamental need.

Researchers crack the world’s toughest encryption by listening to the tiny sounds made by your computer’s CPU

Security researchers have successfully broken one of the most secure encryption algorithms, 4096-bit RSA, by listening – yes, with amicrophone — to a computer as it decrypts some encrypted data. The attack is fairly simple and can be carried out with rudimentary hardware. The repercussions for the average computer user are minimal, but if you’re a secret agent, power user, or some other kind of encryption-using miscreant, you may want to reach for the Rammstein when decrypting your data.

This acoustic cryptanalysis, carried out by Daniel Genkin, Adi Shamir (who co-invented RSA), and Eran Tromer, uses what’s known as a side channel attack. A side channel is an attack vector that is non-direct and unconventional, and thus hasn’t been properly secured. For example, your pass code prevents me from directly attacking your phone — but if I could work out your pass code by looking at the greasy smudges on your screen, that would be a side channel attack. In this case, the security researchers listen to the high-pitched (10 to 150 KHz) sounds produced by your computer as it decrypts data.
This might sound crazy, but with the right hardware it’s actually not that hard. For a start, if you know exactly what frequency to listen out for, you can use low- and high-pass filters to ensure that you only have the sounds that emanate from your PC while the CPU decrypts data. (In case you were wondering, the acoustic signal is actually generated by the CPU’s voltage regulator, as it tries to maintain a constant voltage during wildly varied and bursty loads). Then, once you have the signal, it’s time for the hard bit: Actually making sense of it.

Without going into too much detail, the researchers focused on a very specific encryption implementation: The GnuPG (an open/free version of PGP) 1.x implementation of the RSA cryptosystem. With some very clever cryptanalysis, the researchers were able to listen for telltale signs that the CPU was decrypting some data, and then listening to the following stream of sounds to divine the decryption key. The same attack would not work on different cryptosystems or different encryption software — they’d have to start back at the beginning and work out all of the tell-tale sounds from scratch.
The researchers successfully extracted decryption keys over a distance of four meters (13 feet) with a high-quality parabolic microphone. Perhaps more intriguingly, though, they also managed to pull of this attack with a smartphone placed 30 centimeters (12 inches) away from the target laptop. The researchers performed the attack on different laptops and desktops, with varying levels of success. For what it’s worth, the same kind of electrical data can also be divined from many other sources — the power socket on the wall, the remote end of an Ethernet cable, or merely by touching the computer (while measuring your body’s potential relative to the room’s ground potential).

In this light-weight setup, only the microphone (B) needs to be positioned correctly — everything else could be hidden away, for stealthy snooping
In terms of real-world repercussions, acoustic cryptanalysis is actually surprisingly dangerous. Imagine if you were decrypting some files in a library, coffee shop, or other public space — someone could obtain your decryption key just by placing their phone near your computer. Alternatively, an attacker could use spear phishing to put malware on yourphone that listens for the decryption key. With HTML5 and Flash able to access the microphone, it would be possible to build a website that listens for encryption keys too. The researchers propose one particularly nefarious scenario: Put a microphone into a co-located server, slot it into a rack in a data center, and then scoop up the encryption keys from hundreds of nearby servers.
If you want to keep your data secure, you only really have two viable options: Heavy-duty encryption, physical security, and ideally both at the same time. If an attacker can’t get physically close to your data, it instantly becomes much harder to steal it. As far as mitigating acoustic cryptanalysis attacks, you either implement physical security — keep your laptop in a sound-tight box, or never let anyone near your computer when you’re decrypting data — or you need to use a “sufficiently strong wide-band noise source.” Something like a swooping, large-orchestra classical concerto would probably do it.

Sony Alpha A7 and A7R review

Sony Alpha A7 and A7R review

Sony does the supposedly impossible

Every once in a while, a product comes along that changes the dynamic of an entire industry. The iPhone did it in 2007, the Mustang did it in 1964, and Converse did it with the All Star sneaker way back in 1917. Now, Sony is poised to upend the camera industry with the new Alpha A7 and A7R mirrorless cameras.

The A7s are the most advanced and expensive mirrorless cameras Sony has ever produced. They may look similar to the company’s line of NEX cameras, but the A7s have one significant difference: a *much* larger image sensor. Bigger sensors simply produce better pictures, and the full-frame sensor in the A7s is one of the biggest you can get in a consumer-level camera.
Of course, these aren’t the first full-frame cameras out there. But most cameras with big sensors are big and heavy and destined to spend most of their time at home. Sony’s earlier fixed-lens RX1 shifted this notion a bit: it’s a remarkably small camera with a great big sensor stuffed inside. But with a fixed lens and a price tag nearing $3,000, the RX1 made little sense for most buyers.
The new A7 and A7R are still expensive ($1,699.99 and $2,299.99, respectively) but they are significantly cheaper than the RX1. And they let you change lenses. They’re directly comparable to a full-frame DSLR such as a $1,899.99 Canon 6D or a $1,999.95 Nikon D610 — and the A7s are smaller, more portable, and much more approachable for photographers serious and amateur alike.
Most people take pictures with their smartphone (just look at the top three cameras on Flickr), but not because they take the best pictures — it’s because they’re small and portable and always with us. What if you could have a camera that has all of the flexibility and picture quality of a professional DSLR, but can fit in almost any shoulder bag? With the A7s, Sony offers just that.

Compact concepts

The Alpha A7s are virtual twins from the outside — their name badges are their only cosmetic difference. The cameras look a lot like Sony’s NEX-7, but they’re slightly larger and have a viewfinder in the middle as opposed to on the far right. Both are solid and well built, with metal materials and big rubber grips; they feel worth their price tags. The A7 has more plastic panels than the A7R, which relies more on metal, but I didn’t notice any handling difference between the two. At just over a pound, the A7s aren’t super lightweight, but they are significantly lighter than a Canon 6D or Nikon D610 (26.7oz and 30oz, respectively). Compared to the Canon and Nikon, the A7’s 5 x 3.75 x 1.94-inch footprint is tiny. It’s much easier to carry around all day, and much less intimidating to your subjects when you’re actually taking photos.

COMPARED TO FULL-FRAME CANON OR NIKONS, THE A7S’ FOOTPRINTS ARE TINY

Most importantly, the A7s feel good to shoot with. The rubber on the grip is easy to hang on to, even if you have sweaty hands, and there’s an abundance of dials, buttons, and switches at your fingertips. I’ve criticized Sony in the past for not putting enough physical buttons and switches on its cameras, but that is not at all a problem here.

The only real design issue I have with the cameras is the electronic viewfinder. The hump atop the camera’s center adds another inch or so of height, and looks like a throwback to cameras of yesteryear. I wish the A7s had the more integrated and modern viewfinder design of the NEX-6 or NEX-7, which is tucked away neatly in the corner, leaving a flat top. Fortunately, the A7’s viewfinder is an absolute gem, with a big, bright, high-resolution display. Many traditional photographers take issue with electronic viewfinders (and rightfully so, since most have been utter crap for years), but the A7’s half-inch XGA OLED viewfinder is just as good as a traditional viewfinder to my eyes.

SONY’S ONLY REAL DESIGN MISSTEP IS THE LARGE VIEWFINDER HUMP

If you don’t want to shoot with the viewfinder, the A7 has a 3-inch, articulating display you can feast your eyes on. It’s sharp, it’s crisp, it has great color accuracy and viewing angles, and its tiltable design makes getting pictures from unique perspectives much easier. Despite those qualities, I still found myself shooting with the viewfinder more often than not just because it is so nice to look at (especially outdoors in bright light, where it can be difficult to see the rear LCD). Call me a traditionalist, but nothing beats taking pictures through a proper viewfinder.

The A7s aren’t as retro-inspired as Fujifilm’s X-Series, but they are handsome cameras that straddle the line between modern design and nostalgic qualities well. They don’t rewrite what it means to be a camera, and that’s probably a good thing, since their design makes it easy for anyone that’s used a camera before to pick them up and go take pictures.

Powerful performance

Using the A7 is a joy thanks to the intuitive control layout of its dials and switches — it didn’t take me long to learn the system and make exposure adjustments just by feel. I’m pretty familiar with Sony’s control schemes by now because I shoot regularly with Sony cameras, but the A7s are still the most intuitive ones I’ve used yet. I really like how the three-wheel setup of the NEX-7 has been reworked, with one in front and two in the back of the A7, making it much easier to switch things on the fly.

There are also two custom settings on the main mode dial that let you set up the cameras for specific shooting needs and quickly access those setups again. The mode dial features a set of fully automatic and special scene modes, including Sony’s intelligent Superior Auto mode, but the A7s perform their best in the various manual modes, and the abundance of physical controls rewards manual shooting. It’s also much more satisfying to take a fantastic picture when you’ve controlled the camera yourself instead of letting it do the work. (You can call me a traditionalist here, too.)

The A7s are fast thanks to a new processor and I didn’t experience any wait times or lag when the camera was writing data to its SD card, or when turning the camera on from sleep mode. Scrolling through images I had already taken was fast and snappy as well. Both cameras are quite loud in operation, which makes them less than ideal for taking pictures in quiet environments. The A7R’s shutter is significantly louder and more obnoxious than the A7’s, and sounds it as if it’s breaking apart inside the camera every time you snap a frame. It’s not a comforting feeling to get from a $2,300 camera. Also, carrying a spare battery is almost a necessity since the battery dies after only a few hundred shots. As with other recent Sony cameras, the A7s require that you charge them through the Micro USB port, which is slow and not very convenient when I want to use the camera and charge a second battery at the same time.

The 24-megapixel A7 is ever so slightly faster in burst mode than the 36-megapixel A7R, but their 5-frames-per second and 4-frames-per-second maximum burst speeds won’t impress any sports photographers. Neither will their pokey autofocus, which is the most disappointing part of both cameras. The A7 features a hybrid contrast- and phase-detect autofocus system, while the A7R relies solely on a contrast-detection system. That makes the A7 faster to focus, but neither is exactly quick; most modern DSLRs will run circles around them. I also noticed that the autofocus systems tended to miss focus quite often, forcing me to take a series of shots in hopes that at least one of them would be in focus. Fortunately, Sony has an excellent manual focus system with peaking features (the areas in focus blink in the viewfinder) that’s very easy to use.

I like that the A7s have built-in Wi-Fi and NFC, and can be paired to Android and iOS smartphones. Sony has apps available that let you wirelessly transfer images from the camera directly to your smartphone or use your smartphone as a remote viewfinder. I love being able to quickly transfer images to my phone for instant sharing with friends and family and the bragging rights that come with posting a photo to Instagram that just can’t possibly be from a smartphone.

Through the lens

The defining thing that separates the A7 and A7R from the earlier RX1 is the ability to change lenses. The A7s use a version of Sony’s E-mount, which accepts the new FE full-frame compatible lenses as well as the older E-mount lenses designed for Sony’s smaller-sensor NEX cameras. Unfortunately, the selection of FE lenses is extremely limited right now, though Sony says that it will be rapidly expanding it.

LENS OPTIONS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED (AND EXPENSIVE) RIGHT NOW

I tested the 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS zoom, the Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, and the Carl Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 lenses on both cameras. The zoom is available for purchase in a kit with the A7 for $300 more than the body alone (or on its own for $499.99), and it’s not nearly as impressive as the camera itself. It’s not particularly bright, it takes forever to focus, it’s all plastic, it’s massive, and the zoom ring isn’t very smooth. On the upside, it does have image stabilization and the pictures it produces do look pretty good (the ones that are in focus, that is). If you are considering the A7 at all, you should probably get the kit with the lens.

While the zoom lens is acceptable, the A7s really come alive when they have a fast prime lens attached. The 35mm lens, which sells for $799.99, is remarkably compact and is sharp even when the aperture is opened all the way up. It’s also much quicker to focus than the zoom and has a much nicer feel thanks to its all-metal build.

Likewise, the 55mm lens ($999.99) is bright (it lets in even more light), quick to focus, and produces great images in difficult light. It’s about twice as long physically as the 35mm, however, so it makes it more difficult to just throw the camera in my shoulder bag on my way out the door. I also prefer the wider field of view of a 35mm lens, which lets me capture both my daughter playing in front of our Christmas tree and the tree itself. The tighter 55mm lens is usable for portraits, though dedicated portrait photographers will likely want something even longer.

Sony has a Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 OSS lens planned for early next year (it sounds promising but won’t be cheap at $1,199.99), but the system is still lacking any sort of long telephoto lens. That pretty much rules the A7 cameras out for sports and wildlife photography. It is possible to mount Sony’s NEX lenses on the A7 cameras, but you lose a significant amount of resolution when you do (the A7 cuts down to 10-megapixels, while the A7R goes down to 15 megapixels with an NEX lens). Sony also offers $199.99 (manual focus) and $349.99 (autofocus) adapters to mount Alpha DSLR lenses to the A7s, but those add a significant amount of bulk to the package.

SONY ALPHA A7 SAMPLE IMAGES

The big picture

The full-frame sensors on the A7 and A7R are able to capture so much more light than smaller sensors, I found myself blown away time and again. Both cameras can shoot up to ISO 25,600 when necessary and images up to ISO 6400 are virtually free of noise and grain. Dynamic range is incredible, and the depth-of-field control offered by the bigger sensor is something I wish my smaller-sensor mirrorless camera could match. It’s incredibly easy to separate your subject from the background with the A7s and a fast lens, and that can even be accomplished with the slower zoom lens. The A7s produce the kind of image quality you used to need a heavy, bulky pro DSLR and expensive lenses to obtain, all in a package that can easily fit in my bag.

The 24-megapixel A7 is ever so slightly better at high ISOs than the higher megapixel A7R, but I found it hard tell the difference between the two. The A7 does tend to over-process high ISO images, leaving behind ugly JPEG artifacts that are noticeable if you look closely. They aren’t a problem in many situations and are completely a non-issue if you shoot RAW. The 36-megapixel images from the A7R do offer a bit more room for cropping after the fact, but the A7’s 24 megapixels are more than enough for me and most other non-pro shooters. Studio pros will want to pony up the extra money for the A7R, but the rest of us can put the $600 saved towards adding another lens to our collection.

THE A7S PRODUCE THE KIND OF IMAGE QUALITY YOU USED TO NEED A HEAVY, BULKY PRO DSLR AND EXPENSIVE LENSES TO OBTAIN

The A7s also shoot smooth 1080p video at either 60 or 24 frames per second that rivals comparably priced DSLRs. Pro videographers will appreciate the uncompressed HDMI output option to record to external drives as well as the built-in headphone and external microphone jacks.

At the end of the day, the A7s give you confidence. Confidence that you can get the picture you want even in difficult lighting. Confidence that you can carry around with you everywhere and not leave at home because it’s just too big and heavy. Confidence that you won’t miss those golden photo opportunities because your phone just can’t cut it.

SONY ALPHA A7R SAMPLE IMAGES

COMPARE IT

Sony Alpha 7

8.3VERGE SCOREWRITE REVIEW

GOOD STUFF

• Great image quality
• Compact size
• Solid build
• Lots of controls and buttons

BAD STUFF

• Limited lens choices
• Loud shutter
• Poor battery life
• Slow autofocus

A TASTE OF TOMORROW’S PHOTOGRAPHY, TODAY

At the end of my review of the Sony RX1, I said all that we need now was a full-frame mirrorless camera with interchangeable lenses and the DSLR could be left behind. The a7 and a7R are those cameras, and for most people and most uses, they easily replace a DSLR.

Like the RX1, the a7s aren’t without their faults, namely a poor autofocus system, poor battery life, still fairly high price tag, and very limited lens options. But they are just the start, the first of a breed of camera that is sure to be the nail in the DSLR’s reflex mirror. Many photographers might hesitate to jump ship right away — the a7s aren’t ideal for sports photography and other specific disciplines — but once Sony builds out the lens options and improves the autofocus, it’ll be all but over.

Just like the first iPhone that didn’t have copy and paste, the first Mustang that didn’t have basics such as reverse lights, and the first Converse All Stars that didn’t even have Chuck Taylor’s signature on them, the first full-frame interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras are by no means perfect. But they are so much more advanced in both design and performance than other cameras that they already belong in the conversation.

The original goal for Micro Four Thirds cameras was to take the DSLR’s crown and provide a more portable interchangeable lens camera with the best image quality. In effect, Sony has taken up that mantle, taken the concept even further, and aimed right at the big players in the photography industry, much in the same way the iPhone went right after the incumbent smartphone makers of 2007. It might be a few years before we realize it, but when the DSLR is relegated to a niche status among specialty photographers and full-frame mirrorless cameras dominate the market, we’ll have the a7s to thank as the cameras that started it all.