Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Manoli on June 21, 2015, 01:12:35 pm
-
Interesting interview on Imaging Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-future) with Sony's Kimio Maki discussing the new tech in the A7rII and commentary on EOSHD by Andrew Reid (http://www.eoshd.com/2015/06/interesting-insights-into-the-new-sony-a7r-ii-and-rx-sensor-technology/)
-
Too much "full frame" fetishism from Mr. Reid IMO. I think Super 35 offers an excellent balance of DOF control without gimmicky extremes, along with the high DR and low noise characteristics of the A7r2's sensor. I'm looking forward to exploring it.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
Avoiding subsampling is in my view most important. Using information from all pixels. That should reduce noise and keep down aliasing, even if aliasing may still be a problem at the pixel size of the A7r. I don't really like the idea of dropping the OLP filter, but I will soon find out as I have an A7rII on order any day this week.
I would agree that full frame doesn't have the importance attributed to it. Smaller formats will do just fine, provided the lenses are good, which seems to be the case with high end Oly and Panasonic lenses. With Sony lenses, I don't know..., my impression is that Sony is lagging in that department.
Best regards
Erik
Too much "full frame" fetishism from Mr. Reid IMO. I think Super 35 offers an excellent balance of DOF control without gimmicky extremes, along with the high DR and low noise characteristics of the A7r2's sensor. I'm looking forward to exploring it.
-Dave-
-
With Sony lenses, I don't know..., my impression is that Sony is lagging in that department.
it all depends on what kind of lenses and how many one want... there are people out there who use just few primes
-
Hi,
My impression is that Sony lenses are a bit below say Canon and Nikon in performance (MTF) and a bit above in price. There are obviously a lot of variables and I cannot compare all lenses.
I must say that I don't see much reason to complain about the lenses I have. Will be interesting how they stack up with new A7rII I have on order. I will also buy a Zeiss Batis 1.8/85 and a Canon 24/3.5 TSE to be used with that camera, so I will get some more reference.
Personally I have the 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA, 24-70/2.8 ZA, the 70-300/4.5-5.6 G and the 70-400/4-5.6G plus a bunch of older Minolta lenses like the 100/2.8 Macro and the 400/4.5 APO.
Best regards
Erik
it all depends on what kind of lenses and how many one want... there are people out there who use just few primes
-
Fortunately, Sony bodies give you the option not to use Sony lenses.
And, the further they develop their AF in this direction, the greater Sony's advantage will be. Concentrate on the bodies, sensors and other electronics (after all, Sony is primarily an electronics company) while leeching off all the good glass already out there. It's like Sigma in reverse.
-
Fortunately, Sony bodies give you the option not to use Sony lenses.
And, the further they develop their AF in this direction, the greater Sony's advantage will be. Concentrate on the bodies, sensors and other electronics (after all, Sony is primarily an electronics company) while leeching off all the good glass already out there. It's like Sigma in reverse.
I love this freedom, but I'm not sure the business model works. Isn't the usual camera manufacturer's pricing similar to Epson's printer pricing or Gillette's razor pricing? Ink, blades....lenses?
Jim
-
I love this freedom, but I'm not sure the business model works. Isn't the usual camera manufacturer's pricing similar to Epson's printer pricing or Gillette's razor pricing? Ink, blades....lenses?
Jim
Printer ink and razor blades are consumables. Not lenses. If anything, it's the bodies that are the consumables.
I replace bodies much more often than I replace lenses - a lens may be updated every 10 years, but a body every 2 years. In addition, I only have one of each lens, but carry multiple bodies around to put behind them.
-
It's the huge number of "legacy" lenses from Canikon that are keeping them in business, largely. The inertia of those with a collection of branded mount specific glass slowed the leak to other brands/formats. Sony appear now, with the flange advantage, to be exploiting what was the strength of the big two against them. Look at the thirst for a Leica M equivalent that plays well with the glass.
Why are Sony only "looking at", "considering" changing or allowing an alternative in their firmware to their compression which whilst it isn't killing every shot is a niggle, do they get such an advantage from using it that it outweighs the internet groundswell against it? Would they loose 1fps if they did? Is that worth the noise it is generating?
-
It's the huge number of "legacy" lenses from Canikon that are keeping them in business, largely. The inertia of those with a collection of branded mount specific glass slowed the leak to other brands/formats. Sony appear now, with the flange advantage, to be exploiting what was the strength of the big two against them. Look at the thirst for a Leica M equivalent that plays well with the glass.
Why are Sony only "looking at", "considering" changing or allowing an alternative in their firmware to their compression which whilst it isn't killing every shot is a niggle, do they get such an advantage from using it that it outweighs the internet groundswell against it? Would they loose 1fps if they did? Is that worth the noise it is generating?
I am sure the lossless RAW format is coming. IMO, they put in all their resources in getting the new bodies out of the door and now that this has been done, they will start working on value addition.
-
I am sure the lossless RAW format is coming. IMO, they put in all their resources in getting the new bodies out of the door and now that this has been done, they will start working on value addition.
I think it is remarkable that their seem to have been surprised by the internet noise over lossy raw. It was there for all of the predecessors for what, years?
If this really is a matter of "changing a few lines of code" and accepting somewhat reduced framerates, I am really surprised that they did not do it before the A7rII (pre) release. Thus, I am speculating that "the fix" might be more involved than that.
Given Sonys reluctance (?) to support previous cameras with firmware updates, I would be sceptical about buying this camera if lossless raw was critical to me, until the test is actually released and tested.
Happily, I don't think that the present file formats would be a big issue for me.
-h
-
Personally, I think the issue has the usual internet amplification effect.
I've worked on a few A7R RAW files and it doesn't seem to me that they are giving much away to my Nikon D800 files. At least for my workflow.
-
It's the huge number of "legacy" lenses from Canikon that are keeping them in business, largely. The inertia of those with a collection of branded mount specific glass slowed the leak to other brands/formats. Sony appear now, with the flange advantage, to be exploiting what was the strength of the big two against them. Look at the thirst for a Leica M equivalent that plays well with the glass.
Why are Sony only "looking at", "considering" changing or allowing an alternative in their firmware to their compression which whilst it isn't killing every shot is a niggle, do they get such an advantage from using it that it outweighs the internet groundswell against it? Would they loose 1fps if they did? Is that worth the noise it is generating?
I think the compression -delta encoding- a necessity for some reason related to architecture, bandwidth and thermal effects.
The question is rather do users actually care?
As for the lens system, it's clear that Canikon have needed a stable mount precisely to lock in users, and that this means their patents have run out. I'd expect them to try something like ink cartridge locking in reverse soon. It own't work and will make suers angry, but they'll do it anyway.
Edmund
-
Personally, I think the issue has the usual internet amplification effect.
I've worked on a few A7R RAW files and it doesn't seem to me that they are giving much away to my Nikon D800 files. At least for my workflow.
I would be inclined to agree with you.
I have heard it said that the D800/A7R sensor can work in a Sony and in a Nikon mode.
Edmund
-
I have heard it said that the D800/A7R sensor can work in a Sony and in a Nikon mode.
Edmund, I would be surprised if that were the case. The Sony a7x's go to 12 bit precision in continuous and bulb modes, while the D800x's do not. If the a7x's could stay in higher precision in those modes, I can't see why they wouldn't.
The a7x's don't just throw away a bit in 12 bit mode; the read noise increases, too, indicating that there's something going on with the ADCs.
Jim
-
Printer ink and razor blades are consumables. Not lenses. If anything, it's the bodies that are the consumables.
+100500... indeed the bodies are what you can sell like razor blades, in addition to everything else... and more so when you can sell them bodies to Canon lens owners or else as a 2nd system even better for Sony.
-
My impression is that Sony lenses are a bit below say Canon and Nikon in performance (MTF) and a bit above in price. There are obviously a lot of variables and I cannot compare all lenses.
what is the point to include their consumer zooms in that math for example ? plus manual focusing Canon TS-Es are as Sony lens and they are Canon's... even if Canon will get the money from the lenses, Sony will still make the sell at least of the body and then may be some native E-mounts of their own too.
-
I love this freedom, but I'm not sure the business model works. Isn't the usual camera manufacturer's pricing similar to Epson's printer pricing or Gillette's razor pricing? Ink, blades....lenses?
Jim
It will be interesting to see. I agree with others that lenses are not directly comparable to razor blades. But there is definitely some lock-in for the camera platform (camera, lenses, flashes, proprietary raw developer etc). If some of these components are kept for a few years while others are kept for 10 years and they are all updated asynchronously, then you have effectively created an obstacle for changing systems. Not an insurmountable one, but enough to keep me using Canon for 10 years even though I advice others to check out the competition.
Perhaps Sony are introducing a new business model? If they can continually innovate on cameras and persuade their customers to replace cameras every 18 months (like cellphones) instead of every 5 years (like DSLRs?), perhaps they can be profitable without the ecosystem-advantage that Canon and Nikon seem to rely on?
It would be interesting to see what profits Sony have on the A7 series vs the profits that Canon/Nikon have on DSLRs in the same price range.
-h
-
Open systems are not a guarantee for commercial success.
Look at M43. Open, but hardly the best selling mirrorless system out there.
While I understand that sometimes customers will get frustrated at the closed nature of some systems, a certain amount of lock in is necessary for long term success in most business models.
-
Open systems are not a guarantee for commercial success.
Look at M43. Open, but hardly the best selling mirrorless system out there.
While I understand that sometimes customers will get frustrated at the closed nature of some systems, a certain amount of lock in is necessary for long term success in most business models.
It depends what you make, what you are good at making and where your position in the market is. Sony is an electronics company without much of a background in making lenses (hence the reliance on Carl Zeiss) and they're starting from a position where no-one has Sony lenses and most people are 'locked in' to either Canon-mount or Nikon-mount lenses. If they want to sell bodies to professionals who use multiple lenses (beyond those who are simply using them as digital backs and manual-focusing everything) they will need to let them use their existing lenses at full capability. If they don't do it, then Panasonic, Samsung or someone else will, once they have the technology to do so.
It's how it works in the large format and MFDB world. You can stick pretty much any large-format lens in front of any large format technical back or medium-format digital back, so long as the image circle is wide enough to cover your sensor. You may have to adjust a few things (e.g. mount board) but it still works normally.
Besides, there are still accessories such as flashes, batteries, etc. Not as strong a lock-in as a suitcase full of lenses, but still something.
-
Open systems are not a guarantee for commercial success.
Look at M43. Open, but hardly the best selling mirrorless system out there.
at the same time imagine it being "closed"... so being "open" makes it at least better performing
-
Sony is an electronics company without much of a background in making lenses
nowadays you don't design lenses manually - software and databases with optics properties do - you just make a decision what will be the cost to make vs price to sell... do you really think that Sony can't design a lens and assemble/QA it for $5000-10000K price tag that is not as good as any "Leica" ? but they can't sell it - hence they have to design/manufacture/QA for a much lesser cost and much lesser price.
-
at the same time imagine it being "closed"... so being "open" makes it at least better performing
It has a huge disadvantage in terms of small sensor size and lack of pro-level lenses designed with such a small sensor in mind, so it was never going to win over professionals and advanced amateurs - only people who stepping up from point-and-shoots and attracted by the low price, as well as those who emphasise 'small' above all other considerations.
-
nowadays you don't design lenses manually - software and databases with optics properties do - you just make a decision what will be the cost to make vs price to sell... do you really think that Sony can't design a lens and assemble/QA it for $5000-10000K price tag that is not as good as any "Leica" ? but they can't sell it - hence they have to design/manufacture/QA for a much lesser cost and much lesser price.
Anyone with the right software can design a lens. But you need huge, high-tech fabrication and assembly plants to produce the individual optical components and put it all together. Sony's fabrication and assembly lines are all about producing electronics, not growing and shaping optical-grade crystals on an industrial scale, so they can't produce the same lens at the same price as other, more established players (Nikon, Sigma, Canon, Zeiss).
-
lack of pro-level lenses
there is no lack of pro-level lenses in m43 system... points like smaller sensor area, less MP and CDAF still not at the speed level of 1Dx/D4* PDAF are valid of course, but quality of image that m43 lenses project on the sensor assembly surface to be resolved by 16mp m43 sized sensor is very much pro-level... we are not talking about dark kit zooms, albeit even they are OK - smaller sensor/less MP - less issues... plus EFCS in E-M1 with hand held/through EVF viewfinder usage (name one dSLR that has EFCS and no mirror slap when used with OVF) and CDAF precision for sub 2.8 aperture focusing with greater relatively DOF again help them
-
But you need huge, high-tech fabrication and assembly plants to produce the individual optical components and put it all together.
tell that to Leica again... about huge plants... and Sigma... did you read reports from their plant (Imaging-Resource visited it)... it is anything but huge (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/09/19/a-geeks-tour-of-sigmas-aizu-lens-factory-precision-production-from-the-insi) = 50,000 square feet... Sony will not even blink to make 10 times bigger filled with the same equipment, that's not a question of the size - but the question of what you can sell to your market.
-
there is no lack of pro-level lenses in m43 system... points like smaller sensor area, less MP and CDAF still not at the speed level of 1Dx/D4* PDAF are valid of course, but quality of image that m43 lenses project on the sensor assembly surface to be resolved by 16mp m43 sized sensor is very much pro-level... we are not talking about dark kit zooms, albeit even they are OK - smaller sensor/less MP - less issues... plus EFCS in E-M1 with hand held/through EVF viewfinder usage (name one dSLR that has EFCS and no mirror slap when used with OVF) and CDAF precision for sub 2.8 aperture focusing with greater relatively DOF again help them
Image quality is only one part of it.
There's also build quality, the availability of fast lenses (a M43 lens needs to be f/1.4 just to match the depth of field of f/2.8 on full frame, and they won't be bringing out any f/0.7 m43 lenses any time soon...), focus speed (yes, Zeiss and Leica get away with it, but those lenses are specifically designed for manual focus and you know what you're buying).
-
tell that to Leica again... about huge plants... and Sigma... did you read reports from their plant (Imaging-Resource visited it)... it is anything but huge (http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/09/19/a-geeks-tour-of-sigmas-aizu-lens-factory-precision-production-from-the-insi) = 50,000 square feet... Sony will not even blink to make 10 times bigger filled with the same equipment, that's not a question of the size - but the question of what you can sell to your market.
One thing's for sure - breaking into an established market with a captive audience is very difficult. People are already locked in to Canon and Nikon, so Sony can't simply rely on doing the same thing and expecting people to jump ship. People aren't about to dump $10-$50k worth of lenses to jump to a new system, for almost any reason.
They do produce a great sensor, though, and there's no technical reason they can't make third-party lenses focus just as fast on a Sony body as a native Sony lens. Indeed, it seems they've made strides in this direction on the A7rII. After all, all the camera needs to do is tell the lens to go forward or go back, and provide enough power for it to do so quickly - all the computing is done in the body using information from the sensor(s), with no input from the lens.
Sony is not going to win a market share of lenses by releasing bodies which only work properly with Sony lenses - that will just ensure that no-one buys the bodies either, with the exception of beginners and those who don't care about AF. They're only going to win it as current Nikon/Canon lenses gradually become obsolete and people replace them with Sony lenses. In order to do this, they'll have to release bodies which can use Canon/Nikon lenses to their full potential (in order to attract Canon/Nikon shooters into buying Sony bodies) and gradually release a comprehensive, high-quality set of lenses to go with it. Not just the common ones, not just lightweight/miniature lenses, but also specialised and larger lenses such as supertelephotos, f/2.8 zooms, f/1.4 primes and tilt-shifts, so that the Sony lineup becomes a credible alternative to Nikon/Canon for professional users. That way, people will start with Sony bodies, taking advantage of their features without having to replace their entire lens lineup, then gradually replace their Canon/Nikon lenses with Sony lenses as they become obsolete and as Sony becomes a more-and-more credible player in the camera business. You're never going to win market share by erecting a huge barrier for current users of other systems to switch to your new system - you need to make it as easy as possible.
-
I think of Sony as the new, top electronic "film" maker.
As to the open v. lock-in approach, Sony can have the best of both. I use Leica, Canon and Sony glass on my Sony, but Canon and Leica can't use the Sony glass. So, if Sony has Zeiss make a super optic for its short-flange mount, the others are locked out unless they come out with even a shorter flange camera.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
… but also specialised and larger lenses such as supertelephotos, f/2.8 zooms, f/1.4 primes and tilt-shifts …
I always wonder how many 500mm F4 G SSM Super Tele (http://store.sony.com/500mm-f4-g-ssm-super-telephoto-prime-lens-zid27-SAL500F40G/cat-27-catid-All-Full-Frame-A-Mount-Lenses?_t=pfm%3Dcategory)'s they've sold, and whether they make a profit.
-
There's also build quality
which is excellent
, the availability of fast lenses
which are available and unlike dSLR will not suffer from PDAF design precision issues where even AF focusing sensors for center points are at best aimed @ 2.8 aperture or darker
, focus speed (yes, Zeiss and Leica get away with it, but those lenses are specifically designed for manual focus and you know what you're buying).
m43 does not compete so far with 1Dx/D4*s in action, that's true...
-
One thing's for sure - breaking into an established market with a captive audience is very difficult.
yes, just like Kodak found out...
People are already locked in to Canon and Nikon, so Sony can't simply rely on doing the same thing and expecting people to jump ship. People aren't about to dump $10-$50k worth of lenses to jump to a new system, for almost any reason.
people can use their Canon lenses on Sony cameras, and in many areas Sony bodies are way better with Canon lenses then Canon bodies... granted fast action with 1Dx is not that area (yet).
Sony is not going to win a market share of lenses by releasing bodies which only work properly with Sony lenses
and Sony does not... we heard a lot of issues of 3rd party makes with Canon or Nikon - did you ever hear about issues between them and Sony ?
-
which are available and unlike dSLR will not suffer from PDAF design precision issues where even AF focusing sensors for center points are at best aimed @ 2.8 aperture or darker
'Fast' is a relative term - f/1.4 or f/1.8 is 'fast' for a full-frame lens (and f/2.8 or even f/4 are fast for medium format) but even f/1.4 does not allow for much subject isolation in M43 format, which is one of the main reasons people want fast lenses. And I don't see too may f/1.0 or faster M43 lenses being made, which would truly be 'fast' for M43.
-
yes, just like Kodak found out...
No-one was ever captive to Kodak. Sure, people bought Kodak film (although my preferred films were all Fujifilm) but they didn't have a large investment in equipment that could only be used with Kodak products. It was easy to jump to digital - all they had to do was buy a digital camera and put it behind their existing lenses, not buy an entirely new set of equipment.
people can use their Canon lenses on Sony cameras, and in many areas Sony bodies are way better with Canon lenses then Canon bodies... granted fast action with 1Dx is not that area (yet).
and Sony does not... we heard a lot of issues of 3rd party makes with Canon or Nikon - did you ever hear about issues between them and Sony ?
That's why the A7 series has been so successful - it's an open system. If it were a closed system, I doubt it would be seeing that much success.
-
No-one was ever captive to Kodak. Sure, people bought Kodak film (although my preferred films were all Fujifilm) but they didn't have a large investment in equipment that could only be used with Kodak products. It was easy to jump to digital - all they had to do was buy a digital camera and put it behind their existing lenses, not buy an entirely new set of equipment.
And all the Kodak DSLRs that I ever used took Nikon lenses.
Jim
-
No-one was ever captive to Kodak. Sure, people bought Kodak film (although my preferred films were all Fujifilm)
but they didn't have a large investment in equipment that could only be used with Kodak products. It was easy to jump to digital - all they had to do was buy a digital camera and put it behind their existing lenses, not buy an entirely new set of equipment.
just like C&N = K&F... the number of people with huge (for them) investment in C&N everything is miniscule... most of people outside cell phones and P&S cameras are with one body, may be 2 kit lenses max and may be one TTL flash... for them to dump C&N is not a problem - C&N is there not because those people invested in the system - but just because C&N have name recognition... just like K&F had name recognition in film era for a mass market... once the new tech emerges no name recognition alone helps forever...
That's why the A7 series has been so successful - it's an open system.
being sufficiently open is just one variable with dSLMs be it E/FE or m43... once OVF crowd will eventually die off hopefully dSLRs will end up like bigger formats, but that only if off sensor PDAF still keep an advantage over on sensor PDAF/CDAF/DFD combo in dSLMs
-
'Fast' is a relative term - f/1.4 or f/1.8 is 'fast' for a full-frame lens (and f/2.8 or even f/4 are fast for medium format) but even f/1.4 does not allow for much subject isolation in M43 format, which is one of the main reasons people want fast lenses.
and then they can't focus them with dSLRs properly... well, may be one out of 10 times by pure luck with the precision and sharpness of CDAF & EFCS, but nobody shows those 9 wasted shots :D and when they claim that it was artistic intent.
-
...Sony will not even blink to make 10 times bigger filled with the same equipment, that's not a question of the size - but the question of what you can sell to your market.
I tend to think that any company can make anything given enough time and money.
The question is if it makes sense to recruit people, build factories and throw yourself at a steep learning curve.
If you have an established position, with products selling in the market place, a solid set of IP and engineering organization in place, you know what you have. If you do not have these things, but others do, why would you start from scratch? Perhaps because the existing players are too expensive and/or hard to work with. Or because you have identified a niche that no-one else have.
-h
-
Sony is an electronics company without much of a background in making lenses (hence the reliance on Carl Zeiss) and they're starting from a position where no-one has Sony lenses and most people are 'locked in' to either Canon-mount or Nikon-mount lenses.
You're forgetting something very important here.
Sony effectively bought Minolta back in 2006.
That was the genesis for Sony's Alpha camera line.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta)):
On January 19, 2006 the company announced that it was quitting the camera business due to high financial losses. SLR camera service operations were handed over to Sony starting on March 31, 2006 and Sony has continued development of cameras that are compatible with Minolta autofocus lenses.
-
You're forgetting something very important here.
Sony effectively bought Minolta back in 2006.
That was the genesis for Sony's Alpha camera line.
That Sony doesn't know how to make lenses is one of the boogyman stories of the Internet. That they have Minolta technology is of course correct, and their G series of lenses (their equivalent of Leica "L") are top ranked. Even their kit lenses are as decent (or not) as those from Nikon and Canon.
And just as importantly, all the big companies use third-party lens makers to built many of their lenses, and this includes Nikon and Canon. It's just economics and load sharing.
Lenses from all companies are as good, or not, as their companies wish them to be for the price. Lens design is no longer a black art, and manufacturing is global. Even companies like Zeiss use OEM's from time to time. Buyers would be shocked to learn from where and by whom many of their lenses come.
I just bought a Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 lens in FE mount (Chinese company). It is absolutely first rate. This is not Mitakon's first lens by a long shot, just the beginning of self-labeling. They've been making lenses for others for years. It's just a repeat of the Cosina story. Large numbers of Zeiss lenses were made by Cosina (and still are) until they started to sell them under the Voigtlander name.
Michael
-
You're forgetting something very important here.
Sony effectively bought Minolta back in 2006.
That was the genesis for Sony's Alpha camera line.
That is very true, but the rumor in Japan is that few of the Minolta good folks are still on board the current Sony team.
This doesn't have any negative connotation regarding the quality of Sony lenses of course. They have certainly retained most of the IP.
As far as Cosina goes, they still manufacture the current 2 Otus for Zeiss which says a lot about their manufacturing abilities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Everything that Michael said, plus Sony is a part owner of Tamron.
They can do lenses just fine.
-
You're forgetting something very important here.
Sony effectively bought Minolta back in 2006.
That was the genesis for Sony's Alpha camera line.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta)):
On January 19, 2006 the company announced that it was quitting the camera business due to high financial losses. SLR camera service operations were handed over to Sony starting on March 31, 2006 and Sony has continued development of cameras that are compatible with Minolta autofocus lenses.
That still doesn't give them the ability to make lenses precise enough for today's high-resolution sensors. Minolta's lenses from 10-20 years ago may have been sharp enough for the cameras of the day, but fall down flat compared with modern lenses in front of a 36MP sensor (or a 24MP crop sensor).
The E-mount 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 aren't particularly great optically, with a general lack of corner sharpness and the 24-70 showing significant distortion. Sure, they'll do the job, but I'd much rather put a razor-sharp Canon, Nikon or other lens in front of the camera.
-
Of those three zooms you listed, only the FE 24-70/4 is a disappointment. The 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are very much of comparable optical quality to CaNikon lenses, including in the corners.
And of course the Sony 35/1.4, 55/1.8, and 90/2.8 macro are class-leading lenses, better than competitor's glass. The 35/2.8 is a worthy lens as well, as is the 28/2 for a small, lightweight, fast wide.
The 24-240 is a class-leading superzoom (if that's your cup of tea), and the FE 28-135/4 is a spectacular video lens (also for photography, but quite large and expensive for that purpose).
Not sure why you are complaining about the FE lenses. Other than the 24-70, I can't think of any other FE lenses that Sony has released that are often regarded as disappointing. Should I go through the Canon and Nikon lens catalogs and start pointing out all the stinkers?
-
Hi,
I don't think so. Progress has been made in the last 10 years but many of the older lenses are still pretty OK. Performance at large aperture may stink a bit, however.
On the other hand, Canon and Nikon produce some really good lenses, AFAIK, and so does Sigma. Some of the new FE mount lenses may be stellar according to reviews, like the 16-5/4, the 90/2.8 Macro, the 35/1.4 and also the 28/2. Personally, my two new lenses for A77rII I have on order are the Canon 24/3.5 TSE and the Batis 85/1.8.
BTW, Zeiss is definitively saying the 24-70/2.8 ZA is good enough for 50 MP. Personally, I cannot tell as I don't have a 50 MP camera. But, my guess is that it depends…
Many older Zeiss lenses have a huge sweet spot but not really good corners. Just to take an example. Comparing my Zeiss Distagon 50/4 FLE on the P45+ with my Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA the Zeiss/P45+ is very sharp in the centre but the Sony zoom on the Sony Alpha 99 SLT outperforms it easily on the edges. Corners? I don't know!
Real world is a bit complex, it is not like there is a single truth. Some lenses have a large sweet spot and weak corners. That may have been quite typical of older lenses by Zeiss. Newer designs utilise new technologies like AD glass and moulded aspherics and may perform more uniformly over the field.
Best regards
Erik
That still doesn't give them the ability to make lenses precise enough for today's high-resolution sensors. Minolta's lenses from 10-20 years ago may have been sharp enough for the cameras of the day, but fall down flat compared with modern lenses in front of a 36MP sensor (or a 24MP crop sensor).
The E-mount 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 aren't particularly great optically, with a general lack of corner sharpness and the 24-70 showing significant distortion. Sure, they'll do the job, but I'd much rather put a razor-sharp Canon, Nikon or other lens in front of the camera.
-
Of those three zooms you listed, only the FE 24-70/4 is a disappointment. The 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are very much of comparable optical quality to CaNikon lenses, including in the corners.
And of course the Sony 35/1.4, 55/1.8, and 90/2.8 macro are class-leading lenses, better than competitor's glass. The 35/2.8 is a worthy lens as well, as is the 28/2 for a small, lightweight, fast wide.
The 24-240 is a class-leading superzoom (if that's your cup of tea), and the FE 28-135/4 is a spectacular video lens (also for photography, but quite large and expensive for that purpose).
Not sure why you are complaining about the FE lenses. Other than the 24-70, I can't think of any other FE lenses that Sony has released that are often regarded as disappointing. Should I go through the Canon and Nikon lens catalogs and start pointing out all the stinkers?
I didn't say they were terrible. Just that the Sony 16-35 isn't in the same league as the class-leading Nikon 14-24 (or Canon 11-24) and the 70-200 doesn't quite match the Canon 70-200. Sure, the 16-35 matches the Nikon 16-35 and is better than Canon's 16-35 or 17-40. But those aren't top-of-the-class lenses, and both Canon and Nikon have alternatives to them.
No need to point out the stinkers in the Canon/Nikon lineup - I think we all know which ones they are. But very few of them were designed recently, and, in many cases (with the exception of Nikon tilt-shifts) there are alternatives.
-
Hi,
I don't think so. Progress has been made in the last 10 years but many of the older lenses are still pretty OK. Performance at large aperture may stink a bit, however.
That's the thing. Many of them don't do well wide open, especially in the corners. This is a shortcoming which has been corrected to a huge extent in the last few years (pretty much since the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II was released) but which still exists in the FE-mount 24-70 and 70-200, for instance.
Was it due to price constraints or lack of technical capability? I'm not sure - an f/4 zoom isn't exactly a taxing design. But either way, the current Sony E-mount lens lineup really needs to improve before people will start replacing their Nikon/Canon lenses with them as they become obsolete or break - faster zooms/primes for pro users who don't prioritise small size (f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, not f/4 zooms) and better corner sharpness and wide-open sharpness in their zooms.
They have Zeiss on hand - surely it's not too much to release a standard line of lenses, plus a 'pro' line (a bit like Canon's 'L' line) of no-compromises, Otus-quality lenses for those prepared to pay the price for them.
-
I didn't say they were terrible. Just that the Sony 16-35 isn't in the same league as the class-leading Nikon 14-24 (or Canon 11-24) and the 70-200 doesn't quite match the Canon 70-200. Sure, the 16-35 matches the Nikon 16-35 and is better than Canon's 16-35 or 17-40. But those aren't top-of-the-class lenses, and both Canon and Nikon have alternatives to them.
No need to point out the stinkers in the Canon/Nikon lineup - I think we all know which ones they are. But very few of them were designed recently, and, in many cases (with the exception of Nikon tilt-shifts) there are alternatives.
Funny how I spent a few weeks touring both New Mexico and Prague with my 16-35 and made some fantastic prints with sizes up to 30x40. Time to stop pixel peeping and start doing photography.
-
I didn't say they were terrible. Just that the Sony 16-35 isn't in the same league as the class-leading Nikon 14-24 (or Canon 11-24) and the 70-200 doesn't quite match the Canon 70-200. Sure, the 16-35 matches the Nikon 16-35 and is better than Canon's 16-35 or 17-40. But those aren't top-of-the-class lenses, and both Canon and Nikon have alternatives to them
The Nikon and (especially!) Canon ultrawide zooms (14-24 and 11-24) are absolutely f'n enormous, and don't take front filters.
They are not in a comparable class at all to the very reasonably-sized Sony 16-35.
The Sony FE mount lineup needs to have some reasonably-sized zooms to meet the desire for portability.
The bottom line for me is that if you want to really take advantage of 36-42MP+ sensors you are better off using primes, and FE mount has some of the absolute best AF primes available (35/1.4 Sony Zeiss, 90/2.8 Sony G macro, 85/1.8 Zeiss Batis, 25/2 Zeiss Batis, 55/1.8 Sony Zeiss). If Sony and Zeiss Batis continue on the roll they have been with these primes, the A7R2 is exactly where I want to be...
-
The Nikon and (especially!) Canon ultrawide zooms (14-24 and 11-24) are absolutely f'n enormous, and don't take front filters.
They are not in a comparable class at all to the very reasonably-sized Sony 16-35.
The Sony FE mount lineup needs to have some reasonably-sized zooms to meet the desire for portability.
The bottom line for me is that if you want to really take advantage of 36-42MP+ sensors you are better off using primes, and FE mount has some of the absolute best AF primes available (35/1.4 Sony Zeiss, 90/2.8 Sony G macro, 85/1.8 Zeiss Batis, 25/2 Zeiss Batis, 55/1.8 Sony Zeiss). If Sony and Zeiss Batis continue on the roll they have been with these primes, the A7R2 is exactly where I want to be...
Some of the latest zooms have been measured to be as sharp as primes. Maybe not with the same maximum aperture or the same bokeh qualities, but if sharpness for landscapes is what you're after, they certainly do the job. I agree about the FE primes - the 55/1.8, for example, is fantastic (not quite Otus, but a lot cheaper, not sure about how it compares with the Sigma 50/1.4).
Yes, Sony needs a compact line of lenses for E-mount. But they also need a no-holds-barred, f/2.8 zoom/f/1.4 prime range, as well as superteles and tilt-shifts, to win the pro audience. And this group won't come quickly or easily - they'll only buy Sony lenses if they already have Sony bodies, and only to replace older lenses as they become obsolete or old. It just doesn't make business sense to do otherwise and dump all your lenses for a new system And they'll only buy Sony bodies if they can continue to use their current lenses with them. Sony was late to the game, so they need this open platform to attract users from other systems. If they had started back in 2002, as digital photography was taking off, things might be different.
-
Sony can only do what they can do.
I would rather they focus on willing younger people and those older people interested in something different from what Canon and Nikon have to offer. The OVF forever crowd and those who insist on OVF, 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms regardless of whether they are needed to accomplish the photographic task at hand - better off not trying to spend too much effort courting them.
Sony is making cameras that can seamlessly capture video, still footage, autofocus in liveview, provide focusing aids, AF on the sensor and lots of other things that Canon and Nikon aren't doing and their technology platforms aren't set up to provide. The ones who want what Sony has to offer can and will buy Sony. The ones who want to do it the old way will stick with Canon or Nikon.