Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Sony A7r, gamechanger, to be announced Wed
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Sony-NEX
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikos wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
How have Canon shot themselves in the foot? They produce some of the best cameras and lenses in the world and have huge market share! Just cos us geeks can't use 1970s lenses on their dslrs doesn't mean they've done anything wrong Laughing

Let me explain.
In 2007, they were about 5 years ahead of the competition.
Nobody else had a FF sensor then, and Canon had it since 2001.
Nikon-ians used to say that FF is bad because you need good glass Laughing
Now Nikon users rave about D800.
Isn't it so?

Do not tell me you were impressed with the Canon mirrorless or the the 5D Mark III.
Why do you think they released 6D a few months after 5D III?

Note that I am a Canon user since 1997, and I do not like Sony (nor any other company which opens backdoors in my computer).
But Sony pushes things ahead now, while Canon tries to capitalize on their RnD of the previous decade.


The 5D III is an incredibly sucessful camera though, and from an AF point of view it improved dramatically over the 5D II. From reading forums plenty of Nikonians are disappointed with the side of effects of the D800 (slow fps, large file sizes etc.) and would have preferred a camera like the 5D III. 5D III users would prefer the dynamic range of the D800...you can't have it all I guess Laughing

I agree that the initial EOS M was poor, it will be interesing to see what the new model is like. Canon and Nikon seem to be about evolving rather than innovating.

Sony are indeed innovating but would you consider their SLT technology as pushing things forward? I had an a57 for a short while and didn't think it was special at all, the EVF was horrible!

It really is horses for courses and Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic and Samsung will all continue to respond to the market. I am particularly intruiged to see how the new Nikon DF does Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
..........................................and the IQ of the Kodaks (at low ISO at least) wasn't surpassed for several years, in fact, the Kodak produced better output at low ISO than the EOS 5D and D700 which appeared in 2005 and 2008 respectively.


+1.
I sold my DCS Pro 14n to finance a D700 purchase, but I kept my DCS Pro SLRn. I must admit I'm happier with the results I get with the Kodak vs the Nikon ones...


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Actually, Kodak were selling FF cameras in the form of the DCS Pro 14n and succeeding models from May 2003 so they were only a few months behind Canon in entering the FF stakes (the EOS 1Ds appeared in September 2002) and the IQ of the Kodaks (at low ISO at least) wasn't surpassed for several years, in fact, the Kodak produced better output at low ISO than the EOS 5D and D700 which appeared in 2005 and 2008 respectively.


Actually, to be complete, Kodak was selling DCS models well before 2003, but they weren't full frame. The image sizes were 18.4mm x 27.6mm. Back in the late 1990s they produced the 6 mp DCS 1, built on a Canon EOS-1n frame and a DCS 460, which was essentially the same digital tech, but built on a Nikon N90s frame. These two were the top dogs for quite a while, in terms of their 6 mp sensor resolution with a fixed ISO of about 80. They sold to high-end outfits who needed the immediacy they provided (like National Geographic and the New York Times), with prices ranging from $25,000 when they were first released to $20,000 or so a couple or three years later. After these, there were a series of DCS models, but all or most had fairly low resolutions in the 1.5 mp range and none of these were FF either. Even so, these were still bloody expensive cameras, selling anywhere from $4,000 to over $7,000, depending on model. My notes conclude at the year 2000. So, I don't have any references beyond then.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:

Do not tell me you were impressed with the Canon mirrorless or the the 5D Mark III.
Why do you think they released 6D a few months after 5D III?


By Canon "mirrorless" are you referring to the EOS M? No, I was not impressed. Rather, I was quite disappointed. I think Canon released the 6D to fill a hole. That big gaping hole between the 7D/60D (now 70D) and the 5DIII. It became the discount FF entry level camera, and I imagine has been a hit because of this. Personally, I'd rather get a clean used 5DII. But that's just me.

Quote:

Note that I am a Canon user since 1997, and I do not like Sony (nor any other company which opens backdoors in my computer).
But Sony pushes things ahead now, while Canon tries to capitalize on their RnD of the previous decade.


I've been a Canon user since 1983 and even stuck with them when they changed the lens mount, although I added Nikon to my inventory because of this. But I also added EOS in 1990. I've generally had decent respect for Sony because of their other electronic products, especially their monitors and their console gaming gear -- PS-2 and PS-3. I was never a Minolta user of any extent, so I have never been acquainted with their Maxxum line and just how good (or bad) it was. I do believe Sony saw an opportunity to jump into the middle of the photography arena by acquiring Konica-Minolta and then rebranding/redesigning the Maxxum line. By all accounts, they seem to have done an excellent job, to the extent that I don't even really notice the Maxxum vestiges anymore. To me, it's all Sony Alpha or NEX or now the A7's. Honestly I think that, of the Big 3 -- Canon, Nikon, and Sony -- Sony has by far been the most innovative. Both Canon and Nikon are resting way too much on their laurels and their histories, I believe. They're still producing outstanding products, but I don't think they are looking far enough down the road to provide for their own future security. In this respect, I think Canon is somewhat behind Nikon.

I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of improvements Canon will have included in the new "M2." Based on what I know about how Canon operates, I seriously doubt they will have been brave enough to bring it up to the level of the NEX 7. If they have, them major kudos to Canon. But I'll bet they haven't and I'll bet you won't see an equivalent to the NEX 7 until the "M3" or so. Canon still does not seem to be all that interested in mirrorless technology, which I think will come around to bite them on the ass in a big way.

Nikon's to-be-announced Df camera has me very interested, as I'm sure most Nikonians will be. What is this with a "hybrid" system anyway? Perhaps it can work with or without mirror, hmmm? Now that would be interesting, wouldn't it? The drawback I see to their method though is they will not have reduced the registration distance any, since the same lens mount will be used, which means it will have no value as a camera to mount various MF lenses to that have shorter registration distances, which will be too bad, if this is the case. The pics I've seed of the Df definitely make it look very retro. A lot of people are equating its looks to the FM. But they are mistaken. That pentaprism housing is not in the FM style, but the FE style. Take a look at the two and then at the Df, and see if you don't agree with me.

Quote:

The 5D III is an incredibly sucessful camera though, and from an AF point of view it improved dramatically over the 5D II. From reading forums plenty of Nikonians are disappointed with the side of effects of the D800 (slow fps, large file sizes etc.) and would have preferred a camera like the 5D III. 5D III users would prefer the dynamic range of the D800...you can't have it all I guess Laughing


This puzzles me. Why don't the D800 users just turn down the image resolution in their cameras?. I can do this in my lowly Canon XS, surely the mighty D800 has a feature whereby the image resolution can be reduced? Wouldn't that solve the problems they're complaining about?

Quote:

I agree that the initial EOS M was poor, it will be interesing to see what the new model is like. Canon and Nikon seem to be about evolving rather than innovating.


I agree. See my above comments with respect to the M.

Quote:
Sony are indeed innovating but would you consider their SLT technology as pushing things forward? I had an a57 for a short while and didn't think it was special at all, the EVF was horrible!


No, I don't see SLT as being innovative, no matter how they try to spin it. Remember the Canon Pellix from the 1960s? Or the EOS RT? Or any of the high-speed motor drive, fixed mirror pro cameras that have appeared, such as the Canon F-1 High Speed Motor Drive, the Nikon F2H, the F3 High Speed, etc, etc. Invariably they are admired for what they can accomplish, but sooner or later, the user is wanting the brighter viewfinder back again. I don't see this to be any different with the SLT.

Quote:

It really is horses for courses and Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Panasonic and Samsung will all continue to respond to the market. I am particularly intruiged to see how the new Nikon DF does Smile


I got to play around with the new Samsung NX2000 the other day at Costco. They're selling this sleek, smart-looking, 20.3mp camera with the two kit lenses (20-50 and 50-200) for $670 US. That is one killer of a price, and I see this new Samsung as actually being a very capable camera. APS-C, Touch-screen menus, and a lot more.

I would like to see Olympus move beyond u4/3 and begin to flex its muscles in the FF arena. It has arguably the best in-body IS around and has recently entered into a shared-technology agreement with Sony. Maybe they'll get to use Sony's FF sensors in exchange for their IS system, eh? That could end up being a helluva camera, couldn't it?

And I still look to Pentax as being something of a dark horse in all of this. Ricoh-Pentax has been staying very quiet about all this, although just last week it was announced that a FF Pentax is coming in 2014. But it looks like it's gonna be a DSLR. Still nothing but vague rumors about a mirrorless FF Pentax, but I still think they're making strides in that regard and just doing a good job of keeping a lid on the subject.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Seen from a marketing point, I would like to release a FF nex first or as soon as possible to capture the market share.
Then release slightly better models at the later time. Always something new/newer is coming. I don't think members in this forum ever need anything, either lenses nor bodies, but just nice to have Very Happy

You are right in everything you said, probably I'll wait a future model stabilized.

Get 2 or 3 EV by optical means can be very difficult, expensive and heavy or impossible. Get them by ISO break the image. This camera seems to be made for using old manual lenses, which would be stabilized without further problems. I'm surprised no one say anything about this on this thread. Does not seem important.

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Karen Hutton, Frederick Van Johnson & Gordon Laing chat about these cameras in this 16 minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3od_h-orI5E#t=466

They have a Nikon D800E with them for comparison purposes.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
anktonio wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
Seen from a marketing point, I would like to release a FF nex first or as soon as possible to capture the market share.
Then release slightly better models at the later time. Always something new/newer is coming. I don't think members in this forum ever need anything, either lenses nor bodies, but just nice to have Very Happy

You are right in everything you said, probably I'll wait a future model stabilized.

Get 2 or 3 EV by optical means can be very difficult, expensive and heavy or impossible. Get them by ISO break the image. This camera seems to be made for using old manual lenses, which would be stabilized without further problems. I'm surprised no one say anything about this on this thread. Does not seem important.

Happy shots!


People don't talk about this because by now they've probably realized: there won't be a stabilized NEX ever. There is just not enough space. The mirrorless with in body stabilization is Oly m4/3. Personally, I am a big fan of stabilized lenses, but with clean ISO 3200 and boatload of fast lenses in my cupboard, the need for stabilization is just not that critical. I would certainly love that FF with IBIS, but I doubt it's very likely in foreseeable future.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't see any reason why they couldn't put the SteadyShot Inside system in the NEX. Just look at the A3000, that has so much empty space inside it's like a NEX in a fat suit.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My thinking is that it's not for nothing that NEX has less flange distance than even m4/3. You've got to fit gyroscopes somewhere. Of course it's not ridiculous to suppose that Sony figured that it's more profitable to sell stabilized lenses and took the steadyshot out on purpose. But it seems perfectly obvious to me, that whatever the real reason is, NEXes won't have in-body stabilization for the fact that most Sony lenses for NEXes are optically stabilized.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't see any reason why they couldn't put the SteadyShot Inside system in the NEX. Just look at the A3000, that has so much empty space inside it's like a NEX in a fat suit.


Need bread in next year too, first generation sell camera easily due full frame camera for RF lenses... and price is very attractive, if you make a perfect camera promptly you can't sell next one to first buyers.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, there's no physical reason why they couldn't fit the sensor moving system in a NEX body, just they chose to put it in the lenses for some reason. Personally, I don't want it in either body or lens, just another gizmo I don't use and something else to go wrong, Steadyshot broke on both my A100 and A200, despite the fact I never used it. Maybe I just have steady hands, but I've never wanted it and never needed it.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Yeah, there's no physical reason why they couldn't fit the sensor moving system in a NEX body, just they chose to put it in the lenses for some reason. Personally, I don't want it in either body or lens, just another gizmo I don't use and something else to go wrong, Steadyshot broke on both my A100 and A200, despite the fact I never used it. Maybe I just have steady hands, but I've never wanted it and never needed it.


You always use a tripod, that probably crippled the steadyshot!

I always turn off the VR on my Nikon lenses because it slows you down too much, when photographing sport you want the camera to take the photo when you press the button - not when it thinks you should.

Anyway this camera looks ok, a little boxy but useful. Like an old Volvo. Probly wont bother yet though. FF will show how crap in the corners our old MF lenses really are.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@uhoh7: Reasonably expected due to the α7/α7r lack of mirror box I guess...


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="philslizzy"]
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Anyway this camera looks ok, a little boxy but useful. Like an old Volvo. Probly wont bother yet though. FF will show how crap in the corners our old MF lenses really are.


I personally like old Volvos -- I drive one. Actually, two, counting the wife's. Cool They're a lot better than the POS FWD models Volvo sells now. So if that camera exhibits "old Volvo" traits, that to me is just one more reason to buy a copy.

FF will show how crap our MF lenses are in the corners, but it will also show how good they are. One of the best corner-to-corner lenses I've ever used is the Canon FL 35mm f/2.5. But I have others also. It's just that the best image example of corner-to-corner sharpness I have that I can think of right now is a Kodachrome 64 slide taken with that lens.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
First professional resolution BENCHMARKS of Sony A7 and A7r sensors! (German language)

Resolution at ISO 100:
Nikon D800E 2.056 lp
Canon 5DMKIII 1.713 lp
Sony A99 1.643 lp
Sony A7 1.873 lp
Sony A7r 2.429 lp
.... new world record Smile

Full test reviews:
A7 http://www.chip.de/artikel/Sony-Alpha_7-ILCE-7-Profi-DSLM-Test_65234466.html
A7r http://www.chip.de/artikel/Sony-Alpha-7R-ILCE-7R-Profi-DSLM-Test_65234491.html
Comparision with all other current FF DSLRs/DSLMs http://www.chip.de/bestenlisten/Bestenliste-Profi-DSLR-und-Profi-DSLM--index/extended/id/969/

Most interesting for me was:
-They rated the IQ of the A7 higher than 5DMKIII, except for high iso
-At high ISOs (6400) the A7r shows more detail while the A7 shows less noise. They rated the A7r to be overall slightly better for lowlight.
-A7r has even higher resolution than Pentax645D (10000€ 40 megapixels medium format DSLR)
-A7r has better dynamik range than A7 (12 vs 10 ev)
-The rated the A7 to have the best price/performance ratio of all current FF bodies.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:10 pm; edited 7 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nothing to get excited about, just means it's got the smallest pixels and therefore is more demanding on lenses. Personally, I'd rather have a 16mp FF sensor than a 36mp one, I think there's a strong case to be made for too small a pixel pitch being a bad thing.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
100% crops of many manual lenses on Sony A7r might look a lot worse than on Sony NEX-3 indeed.
But that's no reason to avoid the A7r imho Wink


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thanks so much for the info. sounds like theres a tremendous amount to get excited about. i had made mention that the 7R was approaching digital medium format territory. perhaps it has eclipsed that territory!


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
100% crops of many manual lenses on Sony A7r might look a lot worse than on Sony NEX-3 indeed.
But that's no reason to avoid the A7r imho Wink


Dunno, 100% crops from my 20mp 6D were much nicer than those of the 18mp 60D allowing me to crop a lot without losing image quality. The Sony sensors are supposed to be even better...

I'm looking forward to trying one of these new Sonys to see how they feel with larger lenses though, as I struggled with the small size of previous models. I'm sure iq will be great with slr lenses regardless.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
100% crops of many manual lenses on Sony A7r might look a lot worse than on Sony NEX-3 indeed.
But that's no reason to avoid the A7r imho Wink


Oh sure, I agree. What I'm saying though is that a 36mp FF sensor is going to be very demanding on a lens and it is quite possible that many lenses that looked good on a sensor with a lower pixel pitch just won't be able to match the resolution of the 36mp FF sensor, meaning that they will fail to achieve the maximum sharpness. Most of my lenses outresolve my NEX-3 sensor, so the bottleneck in the system resolution is the camera, but with the 36mp FF sensor, the bottleneck is more likely to be the lens.

The reason I say I think I'd prefer a 16mp FF sensor is two-fold - firstly, I think that's as much as I need, and secondly, I know my favourite lenses will perform very well on sch a sensor, whereas they might not on a 36mp FF sensor.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:
100% crops of many manual lenses on Sony A7r might look a lot worse than on Sony NEX-3 indeed.
But that's no reason to avoid the A7r imho Wink


Oh sure, I agree. What I'm saying though is that a 36mp FF sensor is going to be very demanding on a lens and it is quite possible that many lenses that looked good on a sensor with a lower pixel pitch just won't be able to match the resolution of the 36mp FF sensor, meaning that they will fail to achieve the maximum sharpness. Most of my lenses outresolve my NEX-3 sensor, so the bottleneck in the system resolution is the camera, but with the 36mp FF sensor, the bottleneck is more likely to be the lens.

The reason I say I think I'd prefer a 16mp FF sensor is two-fold - firstly, I think that's as much as I need, and secondly, I know my favourite lenses will perform very well on sch a sensor, whereas they might not on a 36mp FF sensor.


In that case guys, you can always resize down to 16MP.
But you can never enlarge 16mp to 36mp...
It is absurd to disregard a good sensor, because it needs good lenses.
Reminds me of the Nikon-fans argument around 2007, that FF is bad...


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i couldnt agree more nikkos. sensor advancements cannot be blamed for lens deficiencies.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i couldnt agree more nikkos. sensor advancements cannot be blamed for lens deficiencies.


By the way, nobody ever accused film for having too high resolution. Quite the opposite, I think.
Did anyone?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh please, give me a break, you're misunderstanding what I meant, no need to throw around words like absurd.

Firstly, I don't think 36mp is necessary, for me, 16mp would be more than adequate, my Plustek Scanner produces 16mp scans from 35mm negatives and from experience, you can print them at 20x30 inches and they look great, so do I need 36mp? No.

Secondly, I am happy with the collection of lenses I have, so do I want a camera that will make many of them them look inadequate? No.

You only need 150 pixels per inch for a sharp print, so for a 20x30 inch print you need a 3000x4500 pixel file, which is just under 13mp. I've sold quite a few 20x30 prints made from 14mp NEX-3 files, they looked great. So do I need or want 36mp?

As for the possible resolution issues, let's look at the data:

Nikon D800
•24 X 35.9mm sensor hosting 36.3 mega pixels
•Sensor is 861.6mm squared
•Pixel Pitch is 4.88 microns

Nikon D7000
•23.6 X 15.6mm sensor hosting 16.2 mega pixels
•Sensor is 368.16mm squared
•Pixel Pitch is 4.78 microns

The 36mp sensor is outputting a 7360 x 4912 image. That equates to a resolution of 102 lp/mm. How many old manual lenses can achieve that resolution? If memory serves me correctly, even the legendary Contarex Planar 2/50 is only capable of resolving 72lp/mm and lenses known for their sharpness such as the Konica Hexanon 1.7/50 are only resolving in the 55-60lp/mm range. The Sonnar 1.5/50 which I love so much is only resolving around 45lp/mm in the centre, around 35lp/mm on the edges.

So do I want or need a sensor that has almost twice the resolution of my favourite lenses? I have to say no.

Unless my maths is wrong, I just don't see the need for a 36mp sensor and a 16mp sensor is all I need, even a 24mp sensor would be more than I need or my lenses could utilise.

There's a good reason why Zeiss have created the Otus Distagon 1.4/55 with it's very high resolution - to match these new very high resolution 36mp sensors, they wouldn't have created this lens if existing top designs like the Planar 1.7/50 could match the latest sensors. I'm never going to be able to afford glass like the Otus so what sense is there in buying a 36mp FF sensor if I haven't got any glass that can fully utilise that sensor? Sure, an Otus and a 36mp FF camera would be nice to have, but realistically, a 16mp sensor with a top legacy lens like a Planar 1.7/50 is more than adequate for my needs and I'd venture, for the needs of 99% of people on this forum.

I'm just trying to take a common sense approach to deciding what sort of camera would meet my requirements, if that seems absurd, then I have to question the common sense of others. Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras  Sony-NEX
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 13 of 27