Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony Lenses  (Read 24998 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2016, 04:46:45 am »

If, as you say, Canon's AF is grossly inferior to Nikon's, and Canon's superteles are also inferior, then explain why >90% of the photographers at any major sporting event are shooting Canon bodies and lenses

Care to share your sources?

What I see in international events such as Wimbledon and the Euro 2016 is a domination of Canon on the sidelines, but more like 65-35 than 90-10.

Most of those guys work for agencies and they standardize on a single brand through large corporate contracts. Nikon's IMHO superior AF doesn't mean at all that the AF of Canon bodies is poor. It is obviously excellent. Add that to the cost of switching and to the risk of going away from familiar equipment and you understand that the continued domination of Canon is in no way proof that the AF of the latest Nikon bodies isn't on top.

Cheers,
Bernard

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2016, 04:54:52 am »

Indeed, in the last 3 years, Sony have put their strengths and resources behind this product line. And today there is a serious option to those who dream of using some of the best lenses (e.g. Zeiss Otus), but don't have the cash, or don't want to have the weight.

You can transition from a DSLR with top quality  glass, to a FF MILC with top quality  glass, for a reasonable cost, and very significant size and weight reduction. Loxia 21 vs. Milvus 21; Otus 85 vs. Batis 85 (or GM 85); Otus 55 vs. Zony 55 and new Sony 50 f1.4, just as a few examples.

It is clear that Sony has all but abandoned the A mount, so I fail to see why they should invest in revamping that platform to shoot action... if you want to shoot action with Sony, you would be much better off getting an E mount APSC A6300 (blazing fast AF) and say the new G 70-300 zoom, or new GM70-200 f2.8 zoom with TCs.

Of course they will never be able to compete with Canikon, but the option is there, no need to get stuck with past lenses; even in the best days of the Minolta, and then Sony A mount, the system was never an alternative to Canikon in that field, so why it should be now?

Creating a top quality MILC system for enthusiasts, and some pros, is where they are now, they have moved on. And I think that by doing this, they pose a larger threat to Canikon, than trying to compete in the super telephoto/action area. With the current lenses in the system, plus the new wireless flash system, they are a serious contender in the event/studio area.

Exactly.

Produce the best sensor on the market and base your system around that. Use a lens mount that allows users to adapt any lens to your system, and design your AF system so that you can AF (at least to some degree) with any of them. After all, your strength - and income - is in electronics, not optics, and this capability gives you a significant competitive edge over your rivals, who have all tried to lock users into proprietary mounts. Just doing this is enough to get you a secure foothold in the market, and a large user base among non-action photographers who don't care about AF. Which Sony did, with the A7r (helped in no small part by Canon's weakness at low ISO at the time and by Nikon's long flange distance).

Then continue to improve your AF system, both in terms of raw speed and power and by introducing features which are impractical on an SLR (e.g. eye focus/tracking, AI-based subject recognition and tracking), while introducing other useful features which keep you ahead of the game (e.g. IBIS, pixel shift technology, sensor-shift AF, movable sensors for tilt and shift capability, improved video and frame-stacking capability, etc.). Your market share grows with each iteration, while that of your rivals shrinks, as your product becomes more and more capable, doing things which are impossible in a purely optical system without through-the-sensor composition and with fewer and fewer things each time that require an optical system to do adequately. The A7r2 was a lot more capable than the A7r, despite being released less than two years after the first version - and it's not even a full-sized camera, still being strongly constrained by size. Eventually, after a few iterations, you'll end up with a system that can do everything an SLR can plus more, while your rivals are stuck with a a system that, by then, will be antiquated, with little development of new-generation technologies.

No, mirrorless technology isn't mature enough to replace optical technology for action photography just yet. But it will be - and it's advancing in leaps and bounds. Digital sensors weren't ready to displace film in 1998 either. But look at what happened to Kodak over the next ten years.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2016, 05:04:08 am »

Care to share your sources?

What I see in international events such as Wimbledon and the Euro 2016 is a domination of Canon on the sidelines, but more like 65-35 than 90-10.

Most of those guys work for agencies and they standardize on a single brand through large corporate contracts. Nikon's IMHO superior AF doesn't mean at all that the AF of Canon bodies is poor. It is obviously excellent. Add that to the cost of switching and to the risk of going away from familiar equipment and you understand that the continued domination of Canon is in no way proof that the AF of the latest Nikon bodies isn't on top.

Cheers,
Bernard

Just a quick perusal of the cameras situated on the sidelines at any cricket, tennis or football match I've been to. Big white lenses everywhere, with the occasional black or camo-wrapped one. I'm not sure anyone actually keeps statistics on percentage use - just number of sales. It's either that or sports photographers are painting their Nikon lenses white...

Agencies turn over their gear quickly, through attrition or just planned replacement - as frequently, or more so, than the four-year, Olympic-based cycle of the top-line action cameras. It would not be a great expense or difficulty to change from one system to another if there was a significant difference in performance as far as shooting sports were concerned.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2016, 01:25:53 pm »

If, as you say, Canon's AF is grossly inferior to Nikon's, and Canon's superteles are also inferior, then explain why >90% of the photographers at any major sporting event are shooting Canon bodies and lenses (with the occasional Sigma 120-300 for some court sports).

I would imagine that the Sigma 120-300 would be great for indoor sports.

I don't have the stats on sports photographers, but I know the wildlife photographers whose work I admire most shoot Nikon, particularly


I am not sure how many times I have to compare Toyotas and Porsches to Canons and Nikons, before it sinks in with you, but the fact "more people drive Toyotas" does not make Toyota cars the better-performing vehicles ... nor the more desirable automobiles to own and to use yourself.

By the same reasoning, I am sure most businesses purchase Toyotas (Fords and Chevys) for "their employees" as well, in probably far greater numbers than they put their employees in Porsches, too, but that does not make Toyotas, Fords, and Chevys the better-performing vehicles or more desirable cars to own either ;)

This will be my last post on the subject.

Jack
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2016, 01:43:27 pm »

I am not sure how many times I have to compare Toyotas and Porsches to Canons and Nikons, before it sinks in with you, but the fact "more people drive Toyotas" does not make Toyota cars the better-performing vehicles ... nor the more desirable automobiles to own and to use yourself.
I think this is a flawed comparison. Porsche's might be the more desirable cars, but they're also multiple times the price vs. a Toyota. Comparable Canon and Nikon systems are much more even in price.

This will be my last post on the subject.
We'll see if you can keep your word  ;)
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2016, 04:12:02 pm »

Try to move a 3m-long rolled-up paper backdrop, then tell me again that a Porsche (non-SUV) is better than a Toyota.

A Toyota is a workhorse, like a 1D or D4/4s/5 body. A Porsche is for showing off, like Hasselblad's leather-bound, jewel-encrusted bodies.
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2016, 05:40:29 pm »

A Porsche is for showing off, like Hasselblad's leather-bound, jewel-encrusted bodies.

All other issues in this thread aside, that's a damning indictment of what is probably the very best all-around vehicle on the road today.  At least the Porsche offers real, tangible advantages in performance.

Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #47 on: July 15, 2016, 04:22:43 am »

All other issues in this thread aside, that's a damning indictment of what is probably the very best all-around vehicle on the road today.  At least the Porsche offers real, tangible advantages in performance.
I agree that was not a very sensible remark. However with cars it's just like with cameras. Sports Porsche's certainly have advantages in speed and road handling, but several Toyota's have more capacity for payload and volume (eg. for a 5 person vacation through the back roads off Iceland). Just choose the tool that's right for the task at hand, the "best" camera nor "best" car for handling every situation doesn't exist.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #48 on: July 15, 2016, 04:52:32 am »

All other issues in this thread aside, that's a damning indictment of what is probably the very best all-around vehicle on the road today.  At least the Porsche offers real, tangible advantages in performance.

What performance advantage? It might be a bit faster and handle better on a flat, controlled racetrack. It still doesn't go any faster when stuck in city traffic, doesn't let you ignore speed limits, doesn't carry much payload (particularly for large or oddly-shaped cargo) and doesn't have great off-road performance. And, when it needs servicing, you need to wait three months for parts to arrive from Europe and pay $1000 for a Porsche-branded gasket. For actual, practical use, a Toyota is much better, while the downsides hurt if you're driving anywhere other than sealed roads in a first-world country or carrying anything other than people.
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2016, 01:58:34 pm »

What performance advantage? It might be a bit faster and handle better on a flat, controlled racetrack. It still doesn't go any faster when stuck in city traffic, doesn't let you ignore speed limits, doesn't carry much payload (particularly for large or oddly-shaped cargo) and doesn't have great off-road performance. And, when it needs servicing, you need to wait three months for parts to arrive from Europe and pay $1000 for a Porsche-branded gasket. For actual, practical use, a Toyota is much better, while the downsides hurt if you're driving anywhere other than sealed roads in a first-world country or carrying anything other than people.

I'm mainly just goofing with ya, but I'm happy to talk cars :)  To answer your question, better braking, handling and acceleration are huge advantages in safety and accident avoidance, for example, and it just takes one "use" of those abilities to pay off, in my opinion.  But look, I shoot Canon AND Sony, so my judgment may be suspect.  ;)
Logged

jhemp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
  • Glad to be alive and a photographer
    • Jay Hemphill Photography
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2016, 08:04:45 pm »

Sony is not the system if you are a wildlife photographer. They don't have the long lenses that work well with the A7 line cameras and the auto focus isn't good enough.  Landscape, event, street, portrait, and reportage photography is where Sony is strong.  If I was making my living off sports and wildlife images I'd pop for a top o' the line Nikon or Canon.

Bo Dez

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2016, 05:53:20 am »

Sony has gone from Walkmans, phones and consumer goods to Pro photo gear. They are doing a very good job of changing brand perception, far better than I had ever imagined them to do. Their products, while not perfect, obviously, are disrupting the industry and they are actually really very good. It may take another 5-10 years to cement their position in the Pro markets, but they are likely to become even with Nikon and Canon, where as once they were nothing close.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2016, 09:03:10 am »

Sony has gone from Walkmans, phones and consumer goods to Pro photo gear. They are doing a very good job of changing brand perception, far better than I had ever imagined them to do. Their products, while not perfect, obviously, are disrupting the industry and they are actually really very good. It may take another 5-10 years to cement their position in the Pro markets, but they are likely to become even with Nikon and Canon, where as once they were nothing close.

Don't forget Sony's video gear have been the choice for professional work for years so it's not like new territory for Sony.
Logged

MoreOrLess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2016, 02:13:35 am »

Sony has gone from Walkmans, phones and consumer goods to Pro photo gear. They are doing a very good job of changing brand perception, far better than I had ever imagined them to do. Their products, while not perfect, obviously, are disrupting the industry and they are actually really very good. It may take another 5-10 years to cement their position in the Pro markets, but they are likely to become even with Nikon and Canon, where as once they were nothing close.

I would say Sony's brand and the business tactics that go with it have done a poor job of targeting the professional market thus far. They bought out Minolta who had a decent professional system with the A-mount that Sony largely failed to support in favour of targeting consumer electronics with "eye catching" new products.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #54 on: July 30, 2016, 04:07:25 am »

I would say Sony's brand and the business tactics that go with it have done a poor job of targeting the professional market thus far. They bought out Minolta who had a decent professional system with the A-mount that Sony largely failed to support in favour of targeting consumer electronics with "eye catching" new products.

No, they just chose to play the long game rather than the short game.

When Sony decided to pursue the still camera industry, they had two choices.

They could have gone with what they got from Minolta - an old system designed for the film days, with lenses not up to taking advantage of modern, high-resolution sensors and an SLR-based AF system wel behind what Nikon and Canon had already produced. This would have seen them starting from well behind in the race, butting heads directly with the two frontrunners in their area of greatest strength and trying to capture an already-established market. Not really a winning strategy.

Instead, they decided to capitalise on their strengths - electronics - while making use of Minolta's (and Zeiss's) experience in optics, without necessarily carrying over old and outdated designs just because they already existed. They built a first-generation car rather than a better horse-drawn carriage. They realised that, while SLR systems were established and effective technologies, they had certain hard limitations that could never be bypassed in a mechano-optical system and would, eventually, likely be displaced by mirrorless, through-the-sensor systems. In doing so, they would start off small (as they would had they pursued the SLR route) but on even ground with the market leaders - and, importantly, could capitalise on their vast experience with electronics and video cameras, taking advantage of the capabilities of their Exmor sensor while Canon was hobbled in certain areas by low-ISO performance and making use of the short flange distance possible on a mirrorless camera to negate the lens advantage of the big players, at least with non-action shooters (here in Australia, Sony was giving out a Metabones adapter with each A7r or A7 body sold). They essentially created a new market, initially out of those for whom SLR systems were poorly suited - those who needed great image quality, but did not need the AF capabilities of an SLR system and could benefit from features only possible from a through-the-sensor approach - capturing these first, while working on improving their AF and other features to later expand their audience. Since the initial A7r, they've been working hard on improving their AF and lens lineup, while maintaining their superiority in sensor technology. They may not have matched Canon/Nikon's action AF capabilities yet, but even the current second-generation, miniature-size system works well for all non-action, slow-moving subjects. When - and it's a case of when, not if - they catch up with the action cameras, they will have a system that can do everything the SLRs can, plus more (tracking eyes, intelligent subject recognition and many other AI-based focus technologies just aren't feasible without a through-the-sensor AF approach), while the others will barely have an AF system that works without a mirror. Then Sony becomes the market leader, while Canon and Nikon become the dinosaurs - the IBM, Kodak and Yahoo - of the camera world. It's a 10- to 15-year game, not a 5-year game, and, so far, Sony appear to be doing very well.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #55 on: July 30, 2016, 08:19:42 am »

Good analysis, except for one point, both Nikon (1 series) and Canon (a bit more video centric) have very good expertize in mirrorless AF technology.

At the risk of over simplifying a bit, all it would take is an executive decision to put an EVF in the D850/5DmkIV for Sony to loose their lead in the mirrorless market. Especially so now that Sony has acknowledged with their recent lens releases that the size advantaged they had was mostly the result of proposing less ambitious lens designs.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 08:24:04 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #56 on: July 30, 2016, 08:55:25 am »

At the risk of over simplifying a bit, all it would take is an executive decision to put an EVF in the D850/5DmkIV for Sony to loose their lead in the mirrorless market.
But they aren't, so it's not more then a nice hypothesis. And if they did I think the quest for the lead is still open.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2016, 12:12:34 pm »

But they aren't, so it's not more then a nice hypothesis. And if they did I think the quest for the lead is still open.

We don't know that. There are no products yet, it doesn't mean they aren't being developped.

But I agree, they are late. What we probably have is talented engineers led by a bunch of over conservative executives mostly taking inputs from mostly over aged Japanese photographers still wondering why they have to shoot digital.

Again, over simplifying. ;)

To be fair, I still prefer OVFs and a majority of DSLR owners still prefer OVFs. But they could have released 2 versions, one OVF, one EVF.

Those executives are a lot easier to replace/influence than the engineers/technological assets.

Cheers,
Bernard

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2016, 01:48:16 pm »

We don't know that. There are no products yet, it doesn't mean they aren't being developped.
What do you mean with "We don't know", that it is a hypothesis or that they aren't being developed ? ;)
My guess is we know the former, i.e. it is a hypothesis but not the latter, they could be developed and we don't know yet but it also might not be the case, but for me that's the definition of a hypothesis.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 01:51:22 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Sony Lenses
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2016, 03:24:16 pm »

All I have to say about Sony is:

  • They are a consumer electronics company,
  • Beta max,
  • NEX, and
  • A-mount

Rand
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 03:27:25 pm by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up