Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 27, 2018, 07:56:59 pm
-
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1870760563/first-impressions-sony-fe-400-f2-8-gm-oss
Great specs and extremely light for a 400mm f2.8.
Now, what do you guys think about the bokeh?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That first image at DPReview challenges my idea of a compact camera. No criticism of Sony—400/2.8 is unavoidably massive—but is it time to find a more accurate name for this forum? Size is not the defining virtue for me, and I prefer a positive phrasing like “EVF Camera” or “Live View Camera”. But I know some people will quibble with the accuracy of those proposals too.
-
That first image at DPReview challenges my idea of a compact camera. No criticism of Sony—400/2.8 is unavoidably massive—but is it time to find a more accurate name for this forum? Size is not the defining virtue for me, and I prefer a positive phrasing like “EVF Camera” or “Live View Camera”. But I know some people will quibble with the accuracy of those proposals too.
True, but that has been the case since Sony released their f1.4 line up of lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have little interest in the 400/2.8 per se - it's essentially a dedicated sports lens. But what it represents - the development of fast-focusing supertele lenses capable of working with mirrorless cameras, as well as mirrorless cameras with AF systems and electrical power up to the task - is very promising for future lenses more suitable for wildlife. Recent information out of Sony, detailing 500/4 and 600/4 lenses, seem to confirm this direction, and I suspect a 200-400/4 or similar would not be far behind those two.
IMO 'compact' vs 'SLR' forums never made any sense - the more relevant divisions are cropped sensor, 35mm full-frame and medium/large format.
-
That first image at DPReview challenges my idea of a compact camera. No criticism of Sony—400/2.8 is unavoidably massive—but is it time to find a more accurate name for this forum? Size is not the defining virtue for me, and I prefer a positive phrasing like “EVF Camera” or “Live View Camera”. But I know some people will quibble with the accuracy of those proposals too.
Well the Sony 400 weighs less than the Olympus 300 and do we consider the Olympus system compact?
-
That first image at DPReview challenges my idea of a compact camera. No criticism of Sony—400/2.8 is unavoidably massive—but is it time to find a more accurate name for this forum? Size is not the defining virtue for me, and I prefer a positive phrasing like “EVF Camera” or “Live View Camera”. But I know some people will quibble with the accuracy of those proposals too.
This is worth thinking about, IMO. With the size of Sony's lenses, and the growing body bulk (e.g. the Fuji X-H1 w/ VG), the defining feature of compact/mirrorless cameras is the WYSIWYG nature of the electronic viewfinder, and not "compact" as a common denominator. Perhaps, "Electronic Viewfinder, On-sensor Focusing Cameras." Ah, but that leaves Leica M cameras out! LOL
I shy away from "mirrorless" because one of the days, not too terribly far in the future, there won't be any cameras with mirrors and so the term will become an anachronism.
Come to think of it, when that happens there won't be a need for "classifications" of this sort at all. :-)
Rand
-
I think of my own gear in terms of rangefinder, EVF and SLR. Size is a secondary thing, though it's important enough that my smallest format sensor wise (Micro 4/3) also gives me the greatest amount of reach field-of-view wise (800mm "equiv.").
The new Sony lens paired with the A9 showcases the kind of speed/accuracy a matured EVF system can deliver.
-Dave-
-
yes... but what about the bokeh?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
yes... but what about the bokeh?
Cheers,
Bernard
Looks about the same as the Canon and Nikon 400/2.8 lenses: http://mattgranger.com/sony400 (http://mattgranger.com/sony400)
-
That first image at DPReview challenges my idea of a compact camera. No criticism of Sony—400/2.8 is unavoidably massive—but is it time to find a more accurate name for this forum? Size is not the defining virtue for me, and I prefer a positive phrasing like “EVF Camera” or “Live View Camera”. But I know some people will quibble with the accuracy of those proposals too.
Whenever a larger lens comes out there are always people who say "Ah Ha! It's the size of a Brikon." But... you have to remember that you can also mount a 28mm f2, a 35mm f2.8 or a 55mm f1.8 and you have a compact camera and lens package which is significantly smaller than the brikon. Plus of course even if the "CSC" is the same size the brikon doesn't have WYSIWYG, peaking, focus aids, the ability to see what can never be seen with an OVF and the ability to take pictures without making a sound.
-
yes... but what about the bokeh?
Cheers,
Bernard
It'll be completely and utterly irrelevant to most viewing the pictures this lens was intended to take.
-
Well the Sony 400 weighs less than the Olympus 300 and do we consider the Olympus system compact?
My complaint with “compact” is aimed at the whole category of “full time live view” systems, not just Sony’s.
(Though smaller sensors with smaller pixels give some more opportunities for compactness, mostly through shorter focal lengths: once upon a time, “compact” meant 36x24mm vs larger formats, not rangefinder vs SLR.)
P. S. to Scooby70: I am not disputing the opportunities for a smaller kit; just pointing out that the size advantage is not the most important virtue of ditching the OVF, and is not a universal, defining characteristic, because it vanishes when one wants significant telephoto reach.
-
My complaint with “compact” is aimed at the whole category of “full time live view” systems, not just Sony’s.
(Though smaller sensors with smaller pixels give some more opportunities for compactness, mostly through shorter focal lengths: once upon a time, “compact” meant 36x24mm vs larger formats, not rangefinder vs SLR.)
P. S. to Scooby70: I am not disputing the opportunities for a smaller kit; just pointing out that the size advantage is not the most important virtue of ditching the OVF, and is not a universal, defining characteristic, because it vanishes when one wants significant telephoto reach.
But it can be defining characteristic if like me you mostly use lenses in the 28-50mm sort of range and if you do that the fact is that a CSC is a CSC compared to your average DSLR.
The first time I took my Panasonic G1 out instead of my 5D the weight reduction was such that I had to keep checking the bag to make sure that the camera was still in there and these days I can take an A7 and 35mm out in a very small bag and even in a winter coat pocket. So the CSC does work at times.
I see your point, mount a 400mm f2.8 and it's not really a CSC... Yes. I see that but sometimes it's still a CSC and after moving to CSC for reasons of bulk and weight and to be able to shoot more discretely I came to value the other things.
I was never happy with the bloated things that DSLR's and their lenses became and CSC mostly just get back to the sort of bulk of the 35mm SLR's I had all those years ago, although the new cameras are heavier as back then they were a mostly empty box.
I do appreciate that in general lenses need to be bigger these days to incorporate all of the electrical stuff and to give us the quality across the frame from wide open that we expect to see these days when pixel peeping and these things add to the bulk and weight so even with a humungous lens shaving a bit off the body is IMO still worthwhile especially if you have a 35mm in your bag to use on the way home from shooting the World Cup with your 400mm f2.8.
Size and weight are issues for me and if they were the only advantages they'd still be enough for me and enough to deserve the title of CSC and maybe for a lot more people too as 400mm f2.8 users are going to be a tiny minority, add in discreteness, the EVF and all it brings and the keeper rate and it's a package that no OVF DSLR can match.
-
But it can be defining characteristic if like me you mostly use lenses in the 28-50mm sort of range ...
True, but what “defines” it for some (minority of?) users is not a good reason to name the entire category for that feature.
The first time I took my Panasonic G1 out instead of my 5D ...
That comes back to my point about format size having more effect on compactness than viewfinder type— especially for us at the other end from you in FOV tastes; I love the compactness of my “24-600 equivalent” 4/3” format kit.
-
It'll be completely and utterly irrelevant to most viewing the pictures this lens was intended to take.
I totally disagree.
Subject isolation is a key reason why people buy the f2.8 version of the 400mm and bokeh ends up occupying most of the image.
This is especially true for sports such as soccer where the background can be incredibly distracting.
This is coming from someone who owns a 400mm f2.8 btw.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My complaint with “compact” is aimed at the whole category of “full time live view” systems, not just Sony’s.
(Though smaller sensors with smaller pixels give some more opportunities for compactness, mostly through shorter focal lengths: once upon a time, “compact” meant 36x24mm vs larger formats, not rangefinder vs SLR.)
P. S. to Scooby70: I am not disputing the opportunities for a smaller kit; just pointing out that the size advantage is not the most important virtue of ditching the OVF, and is not a universal, defining characteristic, because it vanishes when one wants significant telephoto reach.
Well actually the Sony A9 with the new 400 2.8 is compact compared to the equivalent from Canikon. In fact the A9 with the 400 2.8 combined weighs less than the Canon 400 2.8 by itself...that to me is compact.
-
The sony weighes less than the new 500mm F4 Nikon ( 2895 gram vs 3090 gram) and it has about the same price...
frontlens opening of the 400mm sony is (400/2.8)is 143 mm compared to the nikkor 125mm..
so yes a very lightweight lens and relative 'cheap'.
-
The new Sony 400/2.8 is impressively small for its category, but I doubt that is anything to do with the lack of an SLR VF behind it; just technical progress.
Also, maybe you missed my amusement at the bulk of the body in that photo, thanks to the added battery grip.
-
yes... but what about the bokeh?
From what I've seen all the current 400/2.8s render very similarly.
-Dave-
-
yes... but what about the bokeh?
Cheers,
Bernard
I saw some criticism on FB about the bokeh but honestly I am not seeing much if any difference from Canon and Nikon lenses of the same focal length and the comments seemed to come from the same people that have been critical of Sony since it's entry into the market. Plus the very small number of people either buying or renting this lens are not basing their decision on something as esoteric as bokeh... 1. AF performance 2. Sharpness 3. Build and Durability 4. Weather Sealing 5. Pro Service & Support 6. Weight ...... 99. Bokeh
-
I totally disagree.
Subject isolation is a key reason why people buy the f2.8 version of the 400mm and bokeh ends up occupying most of the image.
This is especially true for sports such as soccer where the background can be incredibly distracting.
This is coming from someone who owns a 400mm f2.8 btw.
Cheers,
Bernard
I also own a 400 2.8 (Canon non IS mk1) and I have been using it with the a9 and MB IV for months. I'll eventually get a Sony 400mm rental from Sony Pro services and test the two head to head but I will not be looking at bokeh as a deciding factor as to whether I sell the Canon and get the Sony. My decision will be based 100% on AF performance and sharpness wide open.
-
yes... but what about the bokeh?
It'll be completely and utterly irrelevant to most viewing the pictures this lens was intended to take.
I completely agree. Bokeh will be discussed by a few in forums but there won't be a single editor at a sports, fashion or editorial desk even considering it.
-
I saw some criticism on FB about the bokeh but honestly I am not seeing much if any difference from Canon and Nikon lenses of the same focal length and the comments seemed to come from the same people that have been critical of Sony since it's entry into the market. Plus the very small number of people either buying or renting this lens are not basing their decision on something as esoteric as bokeh... 1. AF performance 2. Sharpness 3. Build and Durability 4. Weather Sealing 5. Pro Service & Support 6. Weight ...... 99. Bokeh
I must be an exception then, because for me the order of importance is 1. AF performance, 2. Bokeh, 3. Weather sealing, 4. Sharpness, 5. Durability, 6. Weight,...
Images taken with such a lens are all about bokeh really. At the reproduction sizes most people use these lenses for, ISO 12,800 on a D5/1DxII/a9 is more than good enough and this means that f4 or f5.6 would be ok. The reason why we shoot f2.8 is because we want to isolate the subject over uncontrollable backgrounds, typically a crowd or ugly buildings. And the way they are rendered has a high impact on the look of images. To me that's the main reason why I shoot a FF camera and not a micro 4:3.
Nervous bokeh has a bad tendency to generate interferences with low res magazine print technologies and can be nearly painful to the eyes in some cases. I wouldn't want my images to be affected by that.
But anyway, it seems that this topic is a bit touchy, I'll leave it at that. ;)
This is an example of what I call a nice bokeh.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5755/23238871285_45c5b585db_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A quote from the page linked below.
"These wide open shots in particular display beautiful background separation, with lovely bokeh. For sports photographers, the quality of a lens' bokeh is obviously second to sharpness and AF performance, but lovely bokeh sure is nice to have.'
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1870760563/first-impressions-sony-fe-400-f2-8-gm-oss?slide=2
-
"These wide open shots in particular display beautiful background separation, with lovely bokeh. For sports photographers, the quality of a lens' bokeh is obviously second to sharpness and AF performance, but lovely bokeh sure is nice to have.'
Yes, I read that comment but I just don’t see the same in the samples, at least in some of them.
Now some situations can be challenging for any lens, so it’s hard to say. It may be ok, but it’s not a lens I would buy without renting it and doing some thorough testing. Since I would (will?) need a 400mm f2.8 if/when I switch to Sony I find that a bit annoying.
What is interesting is that most of the answers to my question were not “yes, I love this bokeh” or “no, it’s ugly”, but “bokeh is not important for such a lens”.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What is interesting is that most of the answers to my question were not “yes, I love this bokeh” or “no, it’s ugly”, but “bokeh is not important for such a lens”.
Actually, about half the replies have been along the lines of “about the same as the other 400/2.8s”, including three of the first four responses on bokeh.
-
Biggest most expensive “compact” lens I have ever heard of.
-
I love smooth & unobtrusive OOF areas as much as the next guy, but I also love weird bokeh. :) Haven't seen anything from the Sony, compared to its competitors, that would concern me in a photojourno context.
-Dave-
-
This is an example of what I call a nice bokeh.
It's not a lens I can see myself ever buying, Bernard, so this topic is of very limited interest to me: but that's a damn fine shot.
Jeremy
-
It's not a lens I can see myself ever buying, Bernard, so this topic is of very limited interest to me: but that's a damn fine shot.
Thanks Jeremy, very kind of you! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's not a lens I can see myself ever buying, Bernard, so this topic is of very limited interest to me: but that's a damn fine shot.
Jeremy
and she was at full gallop ! Even the dirt spray is smooth !
i watched one of these horsemanship/warrior performances when i was up at Sendai many years ago. Remarkable skills.
-
Yes, I read that comment but I just don’t see the same in the samples, at least in some of them.
Now some situations can be challenging for any lens, so it’s hard to say. It may be ok, but it’s not a lens I would buy without renting it and doing some thorough testing. Since I would (will?) need a 400mm f2.8 if/when I switch to Sony I find that a bit annoying.
What is interesting is that most of the answers to my question were not “yes, I love this bokeh” or “no, it’s ugly”, but “bokeh is not important for such a lens”.
Cheers,
Bernard
Until someone establishes an apples to apples comparison it is impossible to say how Nikon or Canon 400mm models would render the same shots. Matt Granger shot all three lenses at the event and I am challenged to find even the smallest difference in those shots - bokeh and all. Granted he was parsing out shots to each setup on an ad-hoc basis where conditions changed, but it's still the same approx time and place with similar lighting.
Sony deserves criticism where it's appropriate (MAP pricing, native lens cost, a-mount support, etc...), but lets not kid ourselves, this lens is major achievement. When Sony introduces the 600mm f4 and 500mm f4 they will have closed the long lens gap in the lineup. I would then expect to see a 300mm 2.8 and a zoom with a built in TC similar to what Canon and Nikon have. At that point they will have a lineup that is formidable.
-
Until someone establishes an apples to apples comparison it is impossible to say how Nikon or Canon 400mm models would render the same shots. Matt Granger shot all three lenses at the event and I am challenged to find even the smallest difference in those shots - bokeh and all. Granted he was parsing out shots to each setup on an ad-hoc basis where conditions changed, but it's still the same approx time and place with similar lighting.
Sony deserves criticism where it's appropriate (MAP pricing, native lens cost, a-mount support, etc...), but lets not kid ourselves, this lens is major achievement. When Sony introduces the 600mm f4 and 500mm f4 they will have closed the long lens gap in the lineup. I would then expect to see a 300mm 2.8 and a zoom with a built in TC similar to what Canon and Nikon have. At that point they will have a lineup that is formidable.
Personally I find the Sony along with all other lenses available for the e-mount very formidable for my needs as I never would shoot with the big telephotos. These large expensive lenses service a very small niche market, to the point that Sony will build to order the 400mm.
-
These large expensive lenses service a very small niche market, to the point that Sony will build to order the 400mm.
You mean after they're sold a couple hundred world wide at the initial release and have a back stock they'll manage production numbers to meet demand. All manufacturers do that.
-
You mean after they're sold a couple hundred world wide at the initial release and have a back stock they'll manage production numbers to meet demand. All manufacturers do that.
No, my understanding is when you order one, they'll build it for you.
-
Bernard, your bokeh love seems very Japanese. At times, do you value subtle intangibles in rendering over perfect sharpness?
-
Bernard, your bokeh love seems very Japanese. At times, do you value subtle intangibles in rendering over perfect sharpness?
Nancy,
Yes, I do. But in fact recent Nikon lenses (including the 4 years old current 400mm f2.8 E FL) manage to combine both remarkable sharpness and beautiful bokeh.
I just hope that the same can be said of this new Sony.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No, my understanding is when you order one, they'll build it for you.
I think you're going to see it as an in-stock item at several retailers for the first year at least. Then when demand drops, if it does, they'll build a number of them to have on hand for backup of their pro services. I seriously doubt it will come down to a build to order but I could be wrong. Typically the production workforce is re-tasked only when there is back stock.
-
Nancy,
Yes, I do. But in fact recent Nikon lenses (including the 4 years old current 400mm f2.8 E FL) manage to combine both remarkable sharpness and beautiful bokeh.
I just hope that the same can be said of this new Sony.
Cheers,
Bernard
Regarding bokeh I compared my old Canon 1.8 and the current Nikon and Canon 200 and the old one wins. If Bokeh or tele sharpness and fast focus is what one wants then I don't think the camera system should make the choice, one should get the lens and use an old-generation pro body to drive it.
I have a 200/1.8 Canon, I've compared it to the other 200mm lenses out there, it clearly does better. I think the lens will outlive me, or at least outlive my ability to handhold long lenses. I think that with a teleconverter it can make a decently fast and sharp 300 or 400, but I don't have a use for those.
Edmund
-
Regarding bokeh I compared my old Canon 1.8 and the current Nikon and Canon 200 and the old one wins. If Bokeh or tele sharpness and fast focus is what one wants then I don't think the camera system should make the choice, one should get the lens and use an old-generation pro body to drive it.
I have a 200/1.8 Canon, I've compared it to the other 200mm lenses out there, it clearly does better. I think the lens will outlive me, or at least outlive my ability to handhold long lenses. I think that with a teleconverter it can make a decently fast and sharp 300 or 400, but I don't have a use for those.
Yes, it’s interesting that Canon regressed on that one. I have seen beautiful results from the 200mm f1.8.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
hi bernard
i don't think the bokeh on the sony 400mm looks nice, and was about to get the 70-200 until i saw the pictures on steve huffs review.
however huff recons that the examples on his review are 'beautiful' so i it's in the eye of the beholder it would seem.
however, i am not with the detractors, it is a very important aspect of the image for me, 50mm has been almost impossible to resolve until the sony 50 1.4 came along... with my nikon i used to use the hasselbald distagon 50 with an adaptor, the sony 1.4 weighs about the same, but dosen't have the build quality of the old 'blad! still, it's got to the point where these electronic cameras are like domestic appliances.
adrian
-
You can't judge the bokeh until you shoot all three lenses side-by-side, with identical settings, against the same subject and background, at the same distance. Some backgrounds just make for bad bokeh, no matter the lens.
The closest we have are the samples on Matt Granger's blog http://mattgranger.com/sony400 (http://mattgranger.com/sony400), specifically the full-body, front-on portrait against the street; even there, it looks like the Canon/Nikon shots were taken from a closer distance (she takes up more of the frame) and/or with a wider aperture (the size of the bokeh balls in the background appear larger), so the settings weren't identical. If you look at the close-up headshots from all three lenses, the background is blown way out of focus, but that isn't exactly a bokeh stress test. Try a chain-link fence, long grasses, leaves or rows of seats as a background, with a subject distance far enough that the background isn't completely blown out of focus, for a real stress test.
-
I am re-assured, bokeh seems very nice in these samples. Great news!
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0035702226/dpreview-tv-the-sony-400mm-f2-8-is-a-pretty-sweet-lens
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The bokeh in here is quite good as is the AF speed and eye AF. Interested to what Canon comes out with next month
Sony 400mm f2.8 Review (https://youtu.be/-OcMZF06yBA)