I read the articles and watched the videos like two hours ago.
I've been thinking that if Canon don't have their new sensor technology and ready to dump their old fabs, they will certainly begin to jeopardize their entire client emporium if they don't adopt Sony sensors soon.
Canon is quickly becoming a 70's Detroit-like car manufacturer: Spitting cars with powerful V8's that sold but completely ignoring that the world was changing. It was not easy to see but the change was very real.
Now this time, the change is faster.
Eduardo
On the other hand, a lot of tourists in Paris sport huge useless dSLRs which seem a requisite fashion accessory, just like flashy fashion sneakers.
Edmund
Sony went into the phone sensor business, and this is where they get their R&D money from. And of course, soon it will be car sensors etc. The cameras are more of a byproduct of their sensor component operation than a driving force, so in a way Canon is faced with competition with a bottomless R&D budget, and in fact we can see how Sony has upped the competition in 3 years.
As you point out, this looks very much like Detroit vs. Japan Inc. with Canon stuck in the role of Detroit.
On the other hand, a lot of tourists in Paris sport huge useless dSLRs which seem a requisite fashion accessory, just like flashy fashion sneakers.
Edmund
And they are anything but useless... fashion accessories, really?
Personally I had a rather dreadful time when attempting to use both optical and electronic view finder cameras at the same time. OK the newest EVF are an improvement but can still be a bother to long term OVF users.
I stuck with using the EVF cameras only and things gradually got easier. It was a case of wanting all the advantages of a god EVF, then I had to accept some difficulties as well.
As a fan of EVFs from the very beginning (I enjoyed and suffered the Olympus VF-2), yours is the kind of experience that makes me think EVFs are the one and only possible future. I explain why: even if long term OVF users like you, finally manage to get used and enjoy the advantages of EVFs over OVFs, who could imagine that the next generation of photographers (who are today instagramming the world with their smartphones) will prefer a little glass window which doesn't even show them how the picture they're taking will look like before shooting, over the bright and huge EVFs coming?.
The only thing that is potentially holding me back is that I really like viewing the world through a big pro optical viewfinder.
are you not able to view it with your own nakes eyes with a primitive light robbing optical device (OVF in dSLRs ??? a joke even in the best cameras from pre digital era) ? why do not need to distort your view & imagination with OVF :D
with the correct DOF preview as determined by the aperturecorrect DOF preview for say f1.4 ? and with which focusing screen exactly may I ask ?
For me it is very distracting at times.worrying about BF/FF when using bright primes wide open & PDAF or mirror slap/shutter shock in a certain range of exposure times are much more distracting things for some people...
correct DOF preview for say f1.4 ? and with which focusing screen exactly may I ask ?
I am not denying that EVF have some advantages, but to me the ability to anticipate how the A/S/ISO parameters will turn a 3D live scene into a static 2D photograph, and the resulting look thereof, is pretty much the most important photographic skill.
I am not sure that enabling our finders to preview more of that is going to result in better photographs because what matters is the ability to scan a scene and identify photographic opportunities in the scene. Removing the need to perform this mental exercise when taking the picture may result in the creation of photographers enable to see photographically.
correct DOF preview for say f1.4 ? and with which focusing screen exactly may I ask ?
I welcome the opportunity to see in real-time where feather detail in white plumage will be clipped. I do not often have the luxury of re-taking a photograph.(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/bubulcus/caegre04.jpg)
I use the Canon Ec-S Super Precision Matte focus screen. Optimized for wide-aperture lenses, specifically those that have a maximum aperture wider than f/2.8.let us see... what the manufacturer says = http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_FocusingScreens_QuickGuide.pdf
Nikon F or F2 with E screen. Certainly not an AF SLR, film or digital.so where are the official spec from Nikon for this screen ?
so where are the official spec from Nikon for this screen ?
Maybe the OVF provides a fast high resolution preview without lag, and with the correct DOF preview as determined by the aperture?I think OVF have certain advantages, but accurate DOF preview is not one of them in my mind.
I think OVF have certain advantages, but accurate DOF preview is not one of them in my mind.
Bart, I agree EVF's are not ideal either but especially for smaller apertures the OVF becomes so dark that you can hardly see anything, neither composition nor dof.
Also focussing "wide open" for instance with a 2.8 lens my OVF (Sony A850) seems to give much more DOF then the final result, even when shooting at f 4.0
let us see... what the manufacturer says = http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_FocusingScreens_QuickGuide.pdf
"...A Super Precision Matte screen such as the Ec-S is optimized for wide-aperture lenses, specifically those that have a maximum aperture of f/1.8 – f/2.8. ..""
so even they are not willing to bet on 1.4 :D ... but of course one can always say that beyond the spec of his own focusing screen the DOF magically disappears, no ?
the truth is very simple - there are no focusing screens designed to nail focus at 1.4 and faster through OVF in dSLR, that's it.
With an EVF I have to zoom in to the pixel level to compensate for the lack of LCD resolution, but then I'd lose the overview of the full image.
Cheers,
Bart
I assume that the focus screen of the A850 is designed for brightness rather than for focus/DOF accuracy. That's why high-end DSLRs offer the option of interchangeable screens (the A850 has optional Type M screen (super spherical acute matte for fast lenses) to replace the generic G screen).Thanks Bart, and I was aware of these M screens. I tried them once with a borrowed A900 which had it, but then found the viewfinder for dark scenes is getting too dark for me and less ideal for for instance stage photography.
I am not sure that enabling our finders to preview more of that is going to result in better photographs because what matters is the ability to scan a scene and identify photographic opportunities in the scene. Removing the need to perform this mental exercise when taking the picture may result in the creation of photographers unable to see photographically.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe the OVF provides a fast high resolution preview without lag ...That might for now still be an advantage, but as sensor read-out and EVF refresh rates get up to 120fps and beyond, I expect the EVF lag to become negligible within a technology generation or two.
... and with the correct DOF preview as determined by the aperture (and not crippled by the limited number of pixels of the EVF)?Again probably true for now, with the XGA (1024 x 768 x 3 colors) EVFs of the latest models, but note that the secondary OVF image scattered off a frosted glass/plastic screen is limited in resolution to the equivalent of under 2 MP, so again, EVFs are getting close to matching that. [Edit: and so when you can use even modest 2x magnification, EVFs clearly win for detail over any SLR OVF.] And as others have said, OVF DOF preview is often impossible at small apertures due to dimness, and is overestimated at larger apertures (f/2 and under?) again due to the way that secondary image is produced.
And that's one of the EVF advantages...you can zoom in to ensure the eye lashes are precisely focused at 1.4. Not so much with an OVF.
Thanks Bart, and I was aware of these M screens. I tried them once with a borrowed A900 which had it, but then found the viewfinder for dark scenes is getting too dark for me and less ideal for for instance stage photography.
Like all things, incl. EVF vs. OVF, vs. different screens etc. it's always a compromise.
The "ideal" camera still has to be invented (for me at least).
It's not only the viewscreen. The Nikon F and F2, unlike AF SLR cameras, have a fully-silvered mirror instead of semi-silvered so the viewscreen does not need to compensate for the dim image. Furthermore, the bean counters apparently have instructed the AF cameras' engineers that since the camera's users will be using AF, designing the cameras so that the viewscreen image plane can be easily adjusted to coincide with the sensor image plane is an unwarranted expense.
What i notice is that it is the first time Sony brings out a camera with more pixels than Nikon- If we consider that the sensor technology is Sony's that could mean their contract has finished or is altered.
Nah, that's what Live View is for, or better yet a (lightning fast) micro-adjusted Phase Detect Focus system which doesn't take the full view away, so one can properly compose and focus, and even follow/predict motion if the subject moves. I recommend trying it if your shooting style/subject could benefit from it. There are of course many shooting scenarios, and even more photographers, where the result is not that critical. But for professional results, one best uses the proper tools (which can differ by subject), sometimes EVF, sometimes OVF (with additional Life View).
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, but to use Liveview you need to take away your eye from the viewfinder and look at your composition holding the camera away from your body. You call this better than just looking through the viewfinder and zooming in for fine focus.
I think you are just stretching things to point towards OVF.
In reality, it has become a pleasure to manually focus my A7R using the EVF. I tried a different screens in my 5d2 with not much luck in manually focusing. It is truly night and day using the A7R.
It's not only the viewscreen.
but especially for smaller apertures the OVF becomes so dark that you can hardly see anything, neither composition nor dof.and even more when you put inside a coarser screen which is designed so to work with fast primes
the OOF part from apertures wider than f/1.8 is accurate...(although the screen is not optimized for that, it does work)...
(there are few lenses that are wider than f/1.8, so that makes less sense to concentrate on).
but note that the secondary OVF image scattered off a frosted glass/plastic screen is limited in resolution to the equivalent of under 2 MPand again -> more so when you have a coarser focusing screen designed for brighter lenses focusing
right, the broken watch shows the correct time twice a day and manufacturer itself does not want to take credit for what is reliably accurate in their own materials... what an honestly on their part ! now I believe in 2nd coming too
surely it makes no sense to concentrate on what your equipment is not spec'd for ;) , it seems that not only DOF magically disappears there, but lenses too ...
No, I call the Phase detect focusing better, because it allows to remain a full overview over the composition, without the need to zoom in.
I think you suffer from selective reading. I can see the benefits and drawbacks of both approaches, and neither one is the bees knee.
I'm happy for you.
Cheers,
Bart
Newer generations of mirrorless camera have phase detection on sensor, so they can combine phase detection with contrast sensing.
I don't know if on sensor PD is as good as the traditional AF. There is a lot of hype.
I think we can answer "Yes" to the question - Is the Sony A7R II the first "universal body"?
I don't know if on sensor PD is as good as the traditional AF. There is a lot of hype.
"as good" meaning …?
If speed is the goodness you want, further development of PDAF in mirrorless cameras will erase any differences sooner or later. If accuracy is the goodness you want, let's just say that with mirrorless you can dump the AF micro adjustment kludge in the trash where it belongs.
I am also guessing that 42MP was a design choice that took into consideration the bandwidth requirements of live-view streaming into the EVF.I seem to recall reading that 42mpx was chosen because it is easier to generate 4k video without additional interpolation.
I seem to recall reading that 42mpx was chosen because it is easier to generate 4k video without additional interpolation.
Hi,
I am honestly interested in your experience with focusing on todays cameras. I do know that you are a great expert in manual focusing, have you found something that works for you with today's digital cameras?
I suspect VF preferences largely boil down to what we started off with.
Every AF SLR I've ever owned has driven me to distraction with its PDAF focusing inconsistencies & inaccuracies. The CDAF systems in current EVF cameras are IMO worlds better. If I want an uncluttered view I can just turn off all the info displays. I don't need swift AF tracking as I rarely use continuous focusing modes. But this is me. Let's not make the error of assuming our personal preferences are universal mandates.
I don't think anyone knows yet. But certainly many of us (me included) are hoping for that. Given the reported sensor design I think we can say it won't be worse. A lot of the analysis in regards to the a7r was around the cover glass, which was thicker than the M cameras. I have not heard any discussions about the glass thickness of the a7rII sensor, just that the design has shallower wells. That may mean color cast and vignetting will be better but not necessarily corner sharpness. I don't know...
Dave
From the press release:
"The impressive video credentials of Sony’s new α7R II camera include the ability to record movies in 4K quality (QFHD 3840x2160) in either Super 35mm crop mode or full-frame mode.
In Super 35mm mode, the camera collects a wealth of information from approximately 1.8x as many pixels as 4K by using full pixel readout without pixel binning and oversamples the information to produce 4K movies with minimal moire and ‘jaggies’."
I am still anxiously awaiting a comprehensive review of this sensor and body....
There is no "universal" anything.
In theory, this sounds like a fine camera for current Canon users (shooting non-"action"subjects) and for collectors of old and new manual focus lenses to consider. I resemble that group of users, so I am very interested, but biding my time until the reviews come out. Is the A7R shutter shock really gone? Could IBIS effectively handle 1:2 magnification with a 125mm macro lens? (dream on) Or 135mm at "portrait" distances? And then, after the reviews, does the camera/adapter/lens feel comfortable to my hands?
I am still anxiously awaiting a comprehensive review of this sensor and body....
There is no "universal" anything.
In theory, this sounds like a fine camera for current Canon users (shooting non-"action"subjects) and for collectors of old and new manual focus lenses to consider. I resemble that group of users, so I am very interested, but biding my time until the reviews come out. Is the A7R shutter shock really gone? Could IBIS effectively handle 1:2 magnification with a 125mm macro lens? (dream on) Or 135mm at "portrait" distances? And then, after the reviews, does the camera/adapter/lens feel comfortable to my hands?
A RAW file at ISO6400 has appeared:
The capture seems to be about 1 stop underexposed, so it can be considered a ISO12800 RAW file in terms of SNR.
and the flash system lags behind A mount
how does flash system lags behind "A mount" exactly ?
I for example using both old minolta shoe TTL flashes and new Sony style shoe TTL flashes together and they work, including optical remote TTL between what is mounted on camera and remote flashes ? granted you need an adapter to mount old flashes on camera with a new mount... but otherwise what is lagging ?
as for other systems - C&N do enjoy broader support based on their historical marketshare, so no wonder you have more 3rd parties supporting their TTL systems, that's not because A-mount or E-mount bodies - that's because Sony share not yet as big as C&N...
The only A mount Sony with built in flash I have is the A77 ( can't remember using it), although perhaps a couple of early 1990 film cameras may have had flash. With the cameras on hand neither the Minolta film 7or Sony A850 have built in flash. Neither did the Olympus OM-2, various Contax or Nikon film cameras.
And who takes a compact camera to get some family snaps these days ?
I do own a modest flash system of 2 F58 flash guns and a couple of RX 2 flash heads for the occasional specialist shot but that's it.My needs are not your needs as the last wedding I had a hand in shooting was my sisters - my niece will be 25 in November and my nephew will be 23 in March next year.