Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: eronald on October 27, 2015, 08:49:27 pm
-
Half the posts on the forums seem to be Sony-linked now, since the A7II, R, S came out.
And it looks as if a lot of these posts are made by people who own one of their cams.
Canon profits are down 21% (http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-releases-q3-2015-results/)
WTF is going on? I think Sony still has momentum, and as they say they're on a 6 months product release cycle (!) things are going to get even more interesting.
Edmund
-
All the interviews with Sony staffers indicate that they are full steam ahead and are looking to out innovate everyone else in digital photography. It's interesting to see them iterating their technology as quickly as they are. It's much more exciting than the 3-4 years for Canon to get a couple of new features that should have been firmware updates.
-
All the interviews with Sony staffers indicate that they are full steam ahead and are looking to out innovate everyone else in digital photography. It's interesting to see them iterating their technology as quickly as they are. It's much more exciting than the 3-4 years for Canon to get a couple of new features that should have been firmware updates.
I agree with you that the mainstream makers should be doing firmware updates for functionality; this would help their models compete.
Edmund
-
As someone who has an emotional connection with Sony as an innovator for many years, it is really great to see them getting back to form overall, and in particular in photography!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon hasn't released a game-changing model since the 5D2. The 5D3 was a mere evolution, while the 5Ds almost seems like a 'me too' response to high resolution requirements.
Nikon had the D800/D810, which set a new benchmark price for 1Ds3/D3x-level high-resolution, high-performance AF bodies and introduced Exmor in a full-frame format (apart from a few, early, specialised 24MP bodies).
Sony had the A7r, A7s and now the A7rII, which, building on the foundation of the NEX-7 (and the lens collections of everyone else), have really allowed Sony to start competing at the top level (native lens collections notwithstanding).
With regards to still photography, however, Canon appears to have rested on its laurels after the success of the 5D2.
-
I'm really pleased to see a camera manufacturer not sitting twiddling their thumbs and pushing some boundaries. If the industry is getting a shake-up then Canon/Nikon have brought it on themselves.
The difficulty for me is keeping up with what Sony is doing without forgetting that my XT-1 is actually doing the job I purchased it for, and the combination of lenses and body is giving me the results I want.
A few times this year I've had to remember not to rush in to have the latest and best gear without also developing the vision to use it. Don't want to end up turd polishing.
-
Eronald, Canon profits are down because they've delayed the 5DIV too long and Sony profits are up because they release a new model every other day.
If I was a Canon user I would be happy knowing my investment in the latest and greatest will be relevant for a few years and if I was with Sony, I might get a bit tired of the quick change-over.
As a Nikon user I'm happy to sit here on the fence with the 800's and get my happy snaps while enjoying the race.. ;D
Seriously, it's all a pretty god problem to have from a photographers point of view.
-
Hi,
The wait between my Sony full frames was quite long. The cycle between the A7r and the A7rII was over two years, and between the A900 and the A99 it was four long years. Clearly, Sony has several lines of cameras so releases are frequent. Let's just say the wait for the A99 was painful and so was the wait for the A7rII. It was painful enough to seriously consider switching Canon or Nikon several times.
My feeling with Canon is that they have a tendency to keep the horses in the stable as long as possible. With the 5Ds/5DsR they have revamped much of their lens line up before releasing the 5Ds/5DsR. The new cameras were also refined to reduce vibration. The 5Ds/5DsR was released so it hit the shelves just before the Sony A7rII.
What we see is that the market gets saturated. Most cameras are simply good enough for most things we need to do. Digital cameras sensors are analogue devices, and among those possibly the most complex ones. Developing a new sensor takes say about 3 years. A company that dominates the CMOS sensor market has several generations of sensors in development simultaneously. Canon can not keep up with that.
Canon could of course put their new 50 MP sensor in a 6D style body and sell a lot of them at a lower price.
In general both DSLR and compact sales are going down, that applies to both Canon and Nikon. With mirrorless the market is still in development and gains are possible.
Sony is in a sense well positioned in the mirrorless market as they have several lines of cameras, both APS-C and full frame. It could be argued that Fuji, Oly and Panasonic make better cameras, but neither of those have full frame cameras.
Nikon D800 users are well positioned, although I understand that the D810 is a major upgrade in many ways, and the D800 has been around a long time. But happy D800 users don't earn a lot of Yens for Nikon unless they buy a lot of new lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Eronald, Canon profits are down because they've delayed the 5DIV too long and Sony profits are up because they release a new model every other day.
If I was a Canon user I would be happy knowing my investment in the latest and greatest will be relevant for a few years and if I was with Sony, I might get a bit tired of the quick change-over.
As a Nikon user I'm happy to sit here on the fence with the 800's and get my happy snaps while enjoying the race.. ;D
Seriously, it's all a pretty god problem to have from a photographers point of view.
-
I agree with you that the mainstream makers should be doing firmware updates for functionality; this would help their models compete.
Edmund
I am all for firmware updates. The problem is how to ask for continual product development _without_ accepting lowering the quality at product introduction?
It seems that rapid software updates motivates any commercial actor to release products "as soon as the hw is done". Then early customers gets to be beta testers while the software team gets things sorted out. I don't want too much of that in a camera.
I'd like a camera that is thoroughly tested and tuned at release. And I want my manufacturer to respond to changes in customer behaviour, new knowledge etc with relevant added functionality over the product lifespan.
I will perhaps be crucified for saying this, but perhaps the software model used by Apple for their iPhones is appropriate: run (ostensibly) the "same" software across a span of product generations. Owners of new products gets better performance and added hw features. Owners of older products gets bug-fixes and added features where possible, but possibly more "sluggish" operation. The art then is to define the "cutoff point" of when and for what feature a platform is moved from "actively supported". If done correctly (and if the model suits the particular product), you get to release new hardware at a rapid pace, you keep the software implementation costs in check, and you get (hopefully) happy and loyal customers. Both software and hardware development is visibly a part of doing well in the market place, and may thus be expected to get the needed resources internally.
I expect that internally, Canon and Sony and friends re-use code and modules heavily. But there is no expectation that a new software feature (say, one that does not rely on particular hardware to run well) will be included in older products. Software innovation is (more or less) intrinsically coupled to the push for buying new products.
-h
-
Eronald, Canon profits are down because they've delayed the 5DIV too long and Sony profits are up because they release a new model every other day.
If I was a Canon user I would be happy knowing my investment in the latest and greatest will be relevant for a few years and if I was with Sony, I might get a bit tired of the quick change-over.
As a Canon user, knowing that my 7D was "top of the line APS-C" for many years meant nothing to me. Why should I care if Canon release improved models every 6 months or 4 years if I don't buy them? And if I end up buying them, then that is a conscious decision where I seem to be happy that something is offered?
I have to defend spending some money on a camera because of what it can do now and while I own it. My assumption is that it will be worth zero when I am done with it. Then I will sell it cheaply, and the images that it has helped me produce will be the remaining value of the original investment.
If I was into investment I would purchase stocks or (perhaps) Leica gear.
-h
-
For years, Mirrorless was pretty much as Asia only thing (Far east, that is). But Sony has managed to turn the tide in Europe (And maybe in North America, I wouldn't know). This is why Mirrorless sales are increasing.
For most who post here who are leaning towards DSLRs for various reasons, nothing has really changed. But for a lot of mom and pops who buy their latest vacation trip special, entry level DSLRs are no longer the default option. This is where the sales are dropping in favor of the Mirrorless options. Not in the 5DS/ D810/ A7R2 stratosphere.
In my case for example, I do and intend to do my highest quality work with an MFDB and don't foresee that to change anytime soon, but my travel work, which was previously done with an APSC DSLR is now done with a Fuji kit. I am sure I am not the only one. There's not a lot DSLR makers can do to curb this trend other than release their own competent Mirrorless alternatives. The EOS M is a disgrace and the Nikon 1 series is a good platform which is destined for a niche status because of the sensor size. Canon and Nikon definitely have the right products sitting in the basement labs, the beancounters just need to be convinced that they need to sell them, YESTERDAY. Hopefully, numbers like these would be the wake up call.
-
Canon is unhappy.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicame-info.com%2F2015%2F10%2Fpost-743.html%23more&edit-text=&act=url
My japanese is really bad. Can someone translate this accurately? "業績の足を引っ張らない事業にする"
Edmund
-
I can understand that Canon is unhappy:
- First Sony sold Apple and all the Android cloners superb camera modules that killed all the compacts.
- Then Sony sold Nikon, Olympus and Pentax sensors and made them nasty competitors while increasing its revenue
- Lastly Sony brought out lens-compatible (adaptable) AF systems on their cameras, and turned Canon into a third party lens maker.
I suspect there is more of the same to come on the lens side. If you don't need an optical finder, lens design gets much easier. And cheaper.
Edmund
-
If you don't need an optical finder, lens design gets much easier. And cheaper.
Why is that? Are you thinking about register distance of mirrorless vs SLR or something else?
While an ultra-wide angle for the A7rII may be expected to be smaller and lighter than an ultra-wide angle for a 5Dr, I am not sure how much cheaper it would be for a given "quality of results"?
For tele lenses, I guess that the difference would be close to zero?
-h
-
Why is that? Are you thinking about register distance of mirrorless vs SLR or something else?
While an ultra-wide angle for the A7rII may be expected to be smaller and lighter than an ultra-wide angle for a 5Dr, I am not sure how much cheaper it would be for a given "quality of results"?
For tele lenses, I guess that the difference would be close to zero?
-h
I think completely different designs become possible. Only you cannot see/use the image directly, it needs to be electronically processed. Which of course is the case for an EVF non-film camera.
Edmund
-
There is a balance at play, a company can either:
1. Replace cameras on a shorter cycle, say 6 mo or 1 y
2. Replace cameras every 3 y to 5 y
If you are in case #1, you may be able to create more "enthusiasm" and momentum. If you are in case #2, you may be perceived as a non-innovative company, that is boring, etc. But in case #1, you may also be perceived as a company that lacks focus, and is just taking pot shots randomly to see what sticks (I think that Sony is now more focused than before).
Some well known Canon cameras (e.g. 5D and 7D) have had life spans of what 5 years or more? Perhaps they lasted longer because they were really good to start with? Because in spite of other lawns having greener grass, their users were happy with them? Don't know.
What I know is that in every brick and mortar photo store I go to, in several countries, EVF cameras occupy space on the back shelves, up front I still see DSLRs from Canon and Nikon. Lisbon, and Portugal in general, is now a place that has seen a large increase in tourist influx; the majority of tourists I see carry DSLRs, not EVF based cameras.
In the end, I still see a dissonance between what I read from users in this site, and the real world. It seems that a large part of consumers still prefer to stick with what is well known and perceived as traditional camera brands?
-
I believe that the OP question of the topic, should be rather "Is FF mirrorless taking over our corner of the world?"... IMO, Sony's success has little to do with the sensor quality, or resolution, or size... It has mainly to do with "fullfiling creative photographer's needs that other makers can't at the moment"...
FF mirrorless has advantages and disadvantages over traditional DSLRs... the main disadvantage is that it has no optical VF... This is a major disadvantage for creative photographers that use their cameras handheld as one is unable to visualize the outcome from an artistic point of view - the most important of photography's fundumentals for directing a capture... OTOH, a very small percentage of camera users are photo-graphers as to realize the problem... one can tell, by them comparing OVF cameras with EVF cameras and mostly by them confusing how good an EVF maybe for framing, with the ability of the human brain to visualize properly by having direct contact with lighting...
OTOH, there are many advantages... to start with there are many cases that the "visualization study (and thus directing)" of a scene is done without one looking through the VF, (most cases where a tripod is used) where one uses the VF only for framing... For these cases, the absence of mirror box gives a huge (technical) advantage to the user since....
1. The camera can be used with a variety of lenses that are no where near to what a DSLR line offers,
2. The camera can be used instead of an MFDB on a view camera with a much wider range of movements than a DSLR would ever have (and many less aberrations or vignetting involved),
3. The camera can be integrated into any DSLR system via adapters with the minimum possible requirement for new lenses and used in parallel to it,
4. The camera can do video much better (for all the above reasons)...
Because of the above reasons, I believe that (FF) mirrorless sales have little to do with Sony itself, but rather with filling the marketing needs with important aspects that where absent before Sony introduced the A7 series...
That said, I believe that FF mirrorless sales will continue to grow for as long as there is enough marketing saturation (which the DSLRs have achieved), but I also think that there will be more players involved in that (separate to mirrorbox DSLR) market... In fact I believe that the rest of the makers are late... something that shows how smart the "golden boys of crap" that run major firms are.... Unfortunately, the people that run photography makers companies have little to do with photographer's needs and thus their judgement is always wrong on marketing needs...
-
Some well known Canon cameras (e.g. 5D and 7D) have had life spans of what 5 years or more? Perhaps they lasted longer because they were really good to start with? Because in spite of other lawns having greener grass, their users were happy with them? Don't know.
In my view, Canon waits for 5 years, then introduce too little innovation. I.e. they take both small steps and seldom steps.
What I know is that in every brick and mortar photo store I go to, in several countries, EVF cameras occupy space on the back shelves, up front I still see DSLRs from Canon and Nikon.
At my supermarket, the food companies have to "pay" for superior spots on the shelves. Thus, visibility in the shop tells ut nearly nothing about how popular a product is.
Lisbon, and Portugal in general, is now a place that has seen a large increase in tourist influx; the majority of tourists I see carry DSLRs, not EVF based cameras.
In the end, I still see a dissonance between what I read from users in this site, and the real world. It seems that a large part of consumers still prefer to stick with what is well known and perceived as traditional camera brands?
99% of the consumers (including all of my "non-enthusiast" friends) have abandoned their camera a long time ago and use their iPhone/Samsung mobile exclusively. When asking if they would like a better camera they reply dryly something like "why would I waste time, money and effort on a camera when this thing does all that I need"?
The question then is what is left for the camera-only manufacturers. I guess that the "pro" marked is still here. Some people will buy relatively expensive stills/video cameras to use for work or pleasure. The Sony A7 series seems to really make some buzz in that segment. Then you have the "prosumer", typically buying low-end Canon DSLRs, m43 and the like. It seems that US, European and Asian markets really differ in that segment.
-h
-
Looking at the Americans visiting more famously scenic spots in the US (not kitschy tourist traps) over the past few months, I have to say at least half of those taking pictures came with a late model DSLR with kit lenses.
It seems to me the percentage of people with a real camera goes up dramatically the further off the main highway the scenic location happen to be. It needn't be far at all. 2 miles seems enough to weed out 75% of the iphone snappers.
-
Lets see the following scenario: average photographer wants to buy a camera and lens. Say he has several options, of course, and compares a FF DSLR and 24-105 f4 zoom kit, with a EVF FF and 24-70 f4 zoom kit. The former costs around EUR 2500, the latter around EUR 3000 (say a Canon 6D vs. Sony A7II). For some, that is a significant difference. Plus, traditional DSLR systems offer an incomparable variety of lens for expanding one's system. Remember, the photographer in case does not care about using adapters and so on. All he wants is to leave the shop with the feeling and guarantee that he made a good choice for his/her money. Arguably, DSLR systems are a very compelling option for our customer. If you go APSC format, the gap is even larger in favour of the DSLR. I mean, the other day I saw a kit with two zooms being sold by EUR 300...
Another scenario is the pro photographer, who only changes if he/she sees and feels there is a compelling reason to do so. Most pros I know actually value stability, which is a reason why Canon ergonomics have changed little since say the days of the Canon T90... if it works, don't mess with it. For Sony, this is a big challenge, as they are perceived as a company that changes products lines too much, without hardly ever completing one line, or fully committing to a product line. Canon EOS and Nikon have been around for decades, they offer reliability. Sony offers "innovation" and "fun" (or does it), but all could be over in 2 or 3 years (see Sony NEX line for example). Look at Samsung NX1 as another example; is anyone using it?
Finally, a third scenario is the "enthusiast" photographer, who wants to downsize the gear, but without compromising on quality. This is where Sony is having a success with the A7 series. A great combination of size, sensor quality, and some top quality lenses (with the help from ZEISS). And with (now) reasonable menu systems and ergonomics. This is what I have changed to in the last year or so, and it is working fine for me. I can carry the same quality with less bulk and weight. But to be honest, in the back of my mind, I still have a lingering doubt that Sony will "innovate" something in the future, and drop the A7 system... Again, look at Sony NEX line, it went the way of the Dodo for Sony APSC, not to mention the A mount system...
-
Looking at the Americans visiting more famously scenic spots in the US (not kitschy tourist traps) over the past few months, I have to say at least half of those taking pictures came with a late model DSLR with kit lenses.
It seems to me the percentage of people with a real camera goes up dramatically the further off the main highway the scenic location happen to be. It needn't be far at all. 2 miles seems enough to weed out 75% of the iphone snappers.
I concur with that after a recent trip to Venice. Stupendous numbers of people with a camera, and the ones from the Far East especially tended to have big Canon DSLRs. A surprisingly high number had big Canon full-frame DSLRs and L lenses, too. Masses of iPhone snappers, of course, but a lot of them were the same people. The same is true walking around where I live which happens to be one of the country's main tourist spots. I am sure that some kind of shakeout is going on in the photography market but it's not as end-of-the-world as the internet might lead one to believe. Canon, after all, still made a profit even if a smaller one.
A lot of people, I suspect, are still interested in photography and a "good camera", especially for those big far-away vacation trips. I guess one could argue that so far the camera industry hasn't been very good at identifying exactly what many buyers actually want and then giving it to them, instead of iterating the same old stuff, but that if the industry was better at it then more cameras might be sold. Who knows.
-
Lets see the following scenario: average photographer wants to buy a camera and lens. Say he has several options, of course, and compares a FF DSLR and 24-105 f4 zoom kit, with a EVF FF and 24-70 f4 zoom kit. The former costs around EUR 2500, the latter around EUR 3000 (say a Canon 6D vs. Sony A7II). For some, that is a significant difference. Plus, traditional DSLR systems offer an incomparable variety of lens for expanding one's system. Remember, the photographer in case does not care about using adapters and so on. All he wants is to leave the shop with the feeling and guarantee that he made a good choice for his/her money. Arguably, DSLR systems are a very compelling option for our customer. If you go APSC format, the gap is even larger in favour of the DSLR. I mean, the other day I saw a kit with two zooms being sold by EUR 300...
That's a pricing and market segmentation issue, not an inherent advantage of SLR bodies. If anything, an SLR body is more difficult to construct than a mirrorless sytem, having more moving parts.
Another scenario is the pro photographer, who only changes if he/she sees and feels there is a compelling reason to do so. Most pros I know actually value stability, which is a reason why Canon ergonomics have changed little since say the days of the Canon T90... if it works, don't mess with it. For Sony, this is a big challenge, as they are perceived as a company that changes products lines too much, without hardly ever completing one line, or fully committing to a product line. Canon EOS and Nikon have been around for decades, they offer reliability. Sony offers "innovation" and "fun" (or does it), but all could be over in 2 or 3 years (see Sony NEX line for example). Look at Samsung NX1 as another example; is anyone using it?
For me, the better sensor was a compelling enough reason to swap (ergonomics and AF mattering little for landscape and non-action photography). For others I know (wedding photographers), it was the better video functionality compared with Canon.
The NEX line has not been discontinued - rather, it's been continued as the full-frame A7 series. Full-frame FE lenses are just as usable on the NEX-7 as crop lenses. And crop lenses can be used on full-frame bodies in crop mode, with no loss of function - the lens is still being used to its maximum capability.
Finally, a third scenario is the "enthusiast" photographer, who wants to downsize the gear, but without compromising on quality. This is where Sony is having a success with the A7 series. A great combination of size, sensor quality, and some top quality lenses (with the help from ZEISS). And with (now) reasonable menu systems and ergonomics. This is what I have changed to in the last year or so, and it is working fine for me. I can carry the same quality with less bulk and weight. But to be honest, in the back of my mind, I still have a lingering doubt that Sony will "innovate" something in the future, and drop the A7 system... Again, look at Sony NEX line, it went the way of the Dodo for Sony APSC, not to mention the A mount system...
No doubt they will drop the A7 system at some point. But probably not the E-mount. And, ultimately, that's what matters.
Camera bodies are short-term, disposable items. If Canon decided to discontinue the 1D series and make a 5Ds, 5D and 5Dx line (for resolution, general use and action/high ISO), for instance, it would make little difference. Dropping the EF-mount, on the other hand, would be a much bigger deal.
-
Canon had it coming. As a current Canon user and one who has been a Canon-only user for many years, until the last couple of years, I'm sorry to say I don't feel Canon's pain.
Nothing surprising here.
Win for all consumers.
-
I believe that the OP question of the topic, should be rather "Is FF mirrorless taking over our corner of the world?"
Theodoros, I wouldn't wish to argue with your beliefs, as beliefs are very personal. Thus you may continue to believe.
To me, it seems that what we are seeing with the A7R2 and S2 is not bare "mirrorless", but carefully crafted Sony tech, with the combination of on-sensor phase detect, reversed back-thinned sensors that can accept lenses that have reduced nodal distances and thus smaller flange distances, impressive 5 axis stabilisers that can still dissipate heat and allow video, on-chip A/D conversion, and of course stacked electronics that hugely increase the bandwidth.
When it comes to sensors, I would argue that Sony is using the spinoffs from its phone sensor business in the camera sensor segment and cross-subsidising the phone module development with the turnover from the large sensors.
So what I think we are seeing is a company, Sony, who very carefully and methodically drew up a strategic plan, identified tech enablers and implemented them. The only thing they couldn't do quickly was create a lens range, so there they broke the usual manufacturers Omerta' and poached.
I don't think this is the coming of mirrorless, I think it is Sony becoming a tier 1 prosumer camera supplier.
Edmund
-
Canon hasn't released a game-changing model since the 5D2. The 5D3 was a mere evolution, while the 5Ds almost seems like a 'me too' response to high resolution requirements. ...
Interesting. I see it the other way. The change from the 5D to the 5DII was evolutionary. The 10-12Mpx range of cameras was a plateau for a while. To reach the next plateau one needs a 4x multiplier (double the linear resolution). The 5DS is it.
Re Sony... I have a NEX-series camera and it is OK. I try to love the Sony images (7-series) but I still think the Canon images are better - more photographic.
-
I don't think this is the coming of mirrorless, I think it is Sony becoming a tier 1 prosumer camera supplier.
Edmund
Who cares on the company that leads the market? ...if Sony will become No1, so much the better for photographers since the rest of the makers have to work as to catch up...
But one has to admit that Sony entered a "virgin area" because the rest of the makers couldn't see that there is one... Nikon for instance developed mirrorless with tiny sensors & interchangeable lenses (now that's something that proves the icon that marketeers have about the market needs !!!!!!! :o :'( ) because they thought that mirrorless is for tourists (that would bring their cell phone with them on their vacations and couldn't care less for interchangeable lenses)...
-
Sony are the only ones really doing anything of note. Canon and Nikon go on making similar bodies but with updated sensors and Fuji are quiet presumably filling out their lens line.
Canon profits are down 21% (http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-releases-q3-2015-results/)
WTF is going on? I think Sony still has momentum, and as they say they're on a 6 months product release cycle (!) things are going to get even more interesting.
I'm sure the dslr will die but not quite yet:
The yen fell 8%
DSLRs outsold mirrorless by 3.1-fold in units and 3.2-fold in revenue
Their yearly profit estimates have been raised
The camera market as a whole is in bad shape
-
DSLRs outsold mirrorless by 3.1-fold in units and 3.2-fold in revenue
Source ?
That looks suspiciously like USA-only data, certainly not CIPA figures.
-
Canon attributes this drop in profits partly to digital cameras. How does this help us compare to Sony? Canon's camera sales are dominated by "fixed lens compact cameras that aren't phones", and that category is shrinking for everyone, not just Canon. Last, year, Canon seemed to be performing "least badly" amongst the pandemic of pain for camera makers – has that changed?
Does anyone have break-outs for interchangeable lens cameras? Again looking at last years results, it seemed that mirrorless was doing "less badly" than DSLR, so it could well be that Sony is closing the [big] gap between it and Canon and Nikon for ILC's, but I do not see the evidence yet.
UPDATE: I found some more details, and deleted comments about exchange rated because I had misunderstood that part. According to DPReview, Canon's Q3 ILC unit sales were down 17% YOY, and "compacts" were down 29%.
-
Sony are the only ones really doing anything of note. Canon and Nikon go on making similar bodies but with updated sensors and Fuji are quiet presumably filling out their lens line.
Canon and Nikon release similar bodies with up-dated sensors because the bodies are pretty well sorted from a users perspective. I think the ergonomics of the 5 series and 800's are very good so why make big changes ?
Both companies are also smoking Sony for lens development and upgrades as well, but Sony seem to get all the press.
That said, I can see Sony is gathering momentum and the E mount is clearly on the radar of third party lens manufactures now as well, so it's an advantage that Canon/Nikon may not have forever.
I really like the idea of the Sony A7 system and find it very very tempting, but little things hold me back from switching.
The main is that the D810 is pretty awesome as are the lens options both old and new so why spend the money ?
(I'm sure a Canon user could argue the same)
The next is that Sony as a brand for pro use is still untested as far as I'm concerned and as much as I see great reviews for the A7's around the traps, there's not enough feedback about after sales service (here in Oz anyway) to make a clear decision.
Again, all this is a good problem to have.
-
Eronald, Canon profits are down because they've delayed the 5DIV too long and Sony profits are up because they release a new model every other day.
If I was a Canon user I would be happy knowing my investment in the latest and greatest will be relevant for a few years and if I was with Sony, I might get a bit tired of the quick change-over.
As a Nikon user I'm happy to sit here on the fence with the 800's and get my happy snaps while enjoying the race.. ;D
Seriously, it's all a pretty god problem to have from a photographers point of view.
What would force you to need to upgrade to the latest greatest Sony...and what makes your existing Sony less functional than the day you bought it.
We get new cars every year...do we buy the latest and greatest car every year?
-
I like the Sony A7x series mainly because I can use nearly all my SLR (and all my longer rangefinder) lenses with it. Now I can do this with m43 too, but the Sonys make "normal" use of the lens' image circles…and also with certain lenses the outer zone rendering is part of the charm but is lost with a smaller image area. That's pretty much it. I have no emotional stake in Sony as a camera maker, and if Canon or Nikon or Fuji or whomever were making a 35mm format EVF camera I might well be using one of those instead.
-Dave-
-
What would force you to need to upgrade to the latest greatest Sony...and what makes your existing Sony less functional than the day you bought it.
We get new cars every year...do we buy the latest and greatest car every year?
+1...
Sony found the mirrorless FF market underestimated by the other makers and succeeded in feeling the empty space... This created a success (the more the skill, the more the success - right up to pros that could use the cameras instead of an MFDB on view cameras) and even had pro view cameras designed exclusively for it (call me Cambo Actus & Arca Universalis). That had very little to do with the sensors, but had a lot to do with the extra abilities mirrorless was fulfilling to the creative photographer's needs...
Now this success continues by Sony correcting the (ergonomical & software) mistakes of their first offerings having the photographers replacing their first cameras, yet again, the replacement is not due to the (little) improvements on sensors... With OVF DSLRs there is very little to justify replacement since neither there are significant ergonomical improvements that can be applied, nor there is significant difference in IQ during the later 3 years... With FF mirrorless, (it being newer) there is still room until "market saturation" and also for ergonomical improvements (but like the OVF DSLRs, none for sensors)... It should be another 2-3 years before the ball settles for the balance to stabilize and safe conclusions to be extracted...
Aaaah... and the megapixel war is long over... (again, the more the skills, the more the war is over).
-
Aaaah... and the megapixel war is long over... (again, the more the skills, the more the war is over).
Tell that to anyone who prints at huge sizes, or anyone shooting scenes for use in 3Dfx in cinema/animation/computer graphics.
The latter often require images of several hundred megapixels, if not gigapixels.
The higher the camera resolution and dynamic range, the simpler the workflow, since you need to align and stitch fewer images together.
-
Is Sony taking over the world?
Well, maybe... but maybe not.
As a long time Canon user who still uses a Canon 5D mark III and many very good Canon lenses I do value what I would call the maturity of the system (bodies come and go but interfaces and lenses remain).
Sony does not have a mature system (with any lens mount), yet.
However they do seem to have struck a rich seam of gold with the mirrorless FE combination.
I am using the Sony A7R and the sibling mark II version as well.
Both these bodies produce excellent IQ when used well but the interface is definitely not as well established and thought through as Canon (or Nikon?) and the native lens line up is still very definitely limited.
More lenses are coming from Sony and also third party manufacturers are getting behind the FE mount. Hopefully this will mean a good selection of lenses in the next year or two.
Unlike my Canon 5D mark III which is an excellent all-round camera (substitute other bodies from Canon or or other brands as appropriate) mirrorless cameras do have significant limitations in some areas of use. High volume shooters and those that require ability to shoot high action will find that mirrorless is not there yet. Small batteries, limited buffer size (file size doesn't help here), focusing limitations related to the mirrorless technology, all cramp their style. Customisation also has some quixotic limitations that will not please everyone.
It is possible, in the future, that Sony, and other makers, will iron out these limitations.
Why then did I buy into the Sony mirrorless system?
First up I accepted what these bodies could NOT do.
I got these bodies for the combination of high resolution and great dynamic range (call it a poor mans solution to a MF system!).
I am able to use nearly all my Canon lenses (super telephotos are a notable exception) including my Canon 100-400mm mark II, which works really well, with the Metabones IV adaptor (with up to date firmware of course).
This ability to use most of my Canon glass made the FE system very attractive. I can fill in the blanks in the Sony lens line up - including using my tilt-shift lenses that seem to work well with the latest Metabones firmware update.
When I need to shoot wildlife, birds, etc then I pull out my 5D mark III and my big lenses and this will probably continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
However, when my shooting needs are more static the Sony's are plonked on the tripod to lever every ounce of IQ from those spectacular sensors.
Perhaps with different budget constraints I would have made different choices.
Nonetheless, despite the limitations of the Sony system, I have been able to use these bodies effectively. Because of the Metabones adaptors I now have an almost seamless crossover from action/wildlife ability to high resolution/high dynamic range/ high IQ tripod level photography as a really affordable system.
Despite the fact the I use, and like, this Sony system, I fully agree agree with all the posts in various threads expressing reservations about the general applicability of the FE mirrorless system as a ubiquitous professional camera.
However, if Sony's management are not complete blockheads, they will be aware of the various boxes that need ticking.
I cannot believe that Sony will abandon the FE mount in the foreseeable future - after all their goose has just laid the golden egg - so a lot more work will still go into the whole system.
They must also be aware of the fact that, with the various adaptors available that the FE mount has become a de facto universal mount making a move to the FE mount a practical proposition for almost all photographers.
The sensible commercial approach would be to make the FE mount an even more attractive proposition.
So, while Sony has the potential with FE mount mirrorless system to make a huge impact this will not be completely realised as things stand now. If, however, Sony can continue to adapt and improve then this system may prove to be even more than, in the words of Michael Reichmann, a game changer!
My $0.02 worth
Tony Jay
-
Tell that to anyone who prints at huge sizes, or anyone shooting scenes for use in 3Dfx in cinema/animation/computer graphics.
The latter often require images of several hundred megapixels, if not gigapixels.
The higher the camera resolution and dynamic range, the simpler the workflow, since you need to align and stitch fewer images together.
No need... :o there very few on this forum that print as big (or as much) as I do... ;) The mp war is long over.... and unfortunately the per pixel quality war hasn't started yet... ;)
-
No need... :o there very few on this forum that print as big (or as much) as I do... ;) The mp war is long over.... and unfortunately the per pixel quality war hasn't started yet... ;)
It's not over until you can shoot a 96"x32", 300dpi image in one shot. Or a cinematic backdrop for CGI use.
Quality per pixel doesn't matter. It's just a matter of sampling. For any sensor, you can sample more densely and have more noise per pixel (but the same overall), or you can sample less densely and not see the noise (not tnat it's not there - just that the resolution's too low to see it). It would be very easy to make a 4MP camera with near-perfect pixels. It also wouldn't be very useful outside of scientific/technical applications.
Quality per square millimetre of sensor area - now, that matters a lot, and is independent of sampling density.
-
Quality per pixel doesn't matter. It's just a matter of sampling.
It would be very easy to make a 4MP camera with near-perfect pixels. It also wouldn't be very useful outside of scientific/technical applications.
Quality per square millimetre of sensor area - now, that matters a lot, and is independent of sampling density.
Exactly — and that "4MP camera with near perfect pixels" is not hypothetical; it has in fact been around for years, and as you say, it is only used for those scientific and technical applications. I am referring to the 2000x2000 Kodak CCD sensor with huge per pixel dynamic range due to having huge 24 micron photosites on a roughly 50x50mm sensor. Great for X-rays and some machine vision, but not for the sort of photography that this forum is about.
-
I go back to what, for me, is still the crux of the matter: the E mount system is not mature enough to be "convincing" to many potential users or buyers. Perception plays a very important role in this too. People in general do not yet perceive Sony as a "photographic name"; they may know that Sony makes some nice cameras, but it is actually difficult to understand what works with what... A mount, E mount, APSC, FF, adapters... is it NEX, Alpha, E, FE... it's almost like a deterrent:)
They need to sort out this mess, and instil confidence. A mount users and E mount APSC users are feeling a little like left overs and abandoned, to say the least... Sony is skilled at riding the "flavour of the moment", but people also like long term stability. After all, it can not be easy to switch from a well established system, to a system that feels like "half baked". It certainly was not easy for me; I waited 2 years before moving from Canon to Sony. I was of course attracted by a system that offered FF in a compact and high quality package. I do not shoot anything demanding in terms of action, my main interest is landscape and travel. Again, smaller, lighter, and no quality compromise.
It would be nice to see Sony cleaning out their house; it would be nice to see Sony completing at least one of their lens lines, be it f1.8, f1.4, or f2.0 lenses... at the moment, it is just a pot shot strategy, launching several lens lines concurrently, but failing, after 2 years, to complete even one of them. Thankfully, I do not demand a lot of lenses, and the ones I want, are available...
-
It's not over until you can shoot a 96"x32", 300dpi image in one shot. Or a cinematic backdrop for CGI use.
Quality per pixel doesn't matter. It's just a matter of sampling. For any sensor, you can sample more densely and have more noise per pixel (but the same overall), or you can sample less densely and not see the noise (not tnat it's not there - just that the resolution's too low to see it). It would be very easy to make a 4MP camera with near-perfect pixels. It also wouldn't be very useful outside of scientific/technical applications.
Quality per square millimetre of sensor area - now, that matters a lot, and is independent of sampling density.
I never print at 300dpi... and I avoid printing from cell phone size pixels... but I do often print larger than 96"X32"....
-
I never print at 300dpi... and I avoid printing from cell phone size pixels... but I do often print larger than 96"X32"....
I normally interpolate to 720ppi myself, or 600ppi, depending on the printer. 32x96" isn't that big, but it's a nice benchmark size for a panorama going up on an average wall, above a couch or mantlepiece, etc. At that size, it's still something that people will stick their nose into and view at 6". It'd be nice to have at least 300 native pixels per inch up to that size. Above that, I don't mind letting the resolution slide a little.
Cellphone size pizels don't matter if you have enough of them. You can bin 16 small pixels into one huge one and end up with the same resolution for low-contrast details, while having higher resolution of higher-contrast details visible in the noise. And it makes for less moire and 'jaggies', smoother transitions, etc. You're not losing data by sampling more finely.
-
It'd be nice to have at least 300 native pixels per inch up to that size.
It depends on how good they are...
Cellphone size pizels don't matter if you have enough of them. You can bin 16 small pixels into one huge one and end up with the same resolution for low-contrast details, while having higher resolution of higher-contrast details visible in the noise. And it makes for less moire and 'jaggies', smoother transitions, etc. You're not losing data by sampling more finely.
Yes it does matter... even if you have enough of them...
-
It depends on how good they are...
Yes it does matter... even if you have enough of them...
Rhetoric, not evidence.
You can mathematically demonstrate that 16 smaller pixels can be added to give the same data as 1 larger pixel of the same overall area, but that data from 1 larger pixel can't be subdivided to get back data that wasn't collected in the first place, and that, with a back-illuminated sensor, there's no longer a quantum efficiency penalty with smaller pixels (since all the electronics lies behind the collecting surface anyway).
-
Rhetoric, not evidence.
You can mathematically demonstrate that 16 smaller pixels can be added to give the same data as 1 larger pixel of the same overall area, but that data from 1 larger pixel can't be subdivided to get back data that wasn't collected in the first place, and that, with a back-illuminated sensor, there's no longer a quantum efficiency penalty with smaller pixels (since all the electronics lies behind the collecting surface anyway).
16 (or nine, or four) pixels can't be added to give the same data as one larger pixel, but only in theory... Practically one can't remove the artifacts as they are not exactly the same as to be removed with a process similar to that of an (ideal) balanced (or push-pull) signal where subtracting a negative adds a positive and removes noise... In fact, (as with single ended signals) in most cases it is best to care for artifacts to be absent in the first place for each individual pixel... I don't want to be rude, but I would really like not to continue with this conversation as it is obvious that we have different views on the matter... Never the less my conclusions are based on comparisons (for single shot) are made with a reference to absolute quality pixels that are the results of my every day experience with multishot... MY opinion is that for single shot interpolated use, the optimum size pixels for todays technology is between 6min and 7.2max μm... It is my opinion and as I said before, I don't want to argue on the matter with somebody else opinion...
-
16 (or nine, or four) pixels can't be added to give the same data as one larger pixel, but only in theory...
So, multishot is useless?
-
So, multishot is useless?
Multishot doesn't add pixels dude... it creates a perfect one with no artifacts present and no color interpolation involved... Multishot only depends on mechanical accuracy... dude...
-
...I don't want to argue...
Wait, WHAT???!!! LOL
Seriously, go back and read most of your posts when someone doesn't agree with you. ::)
-
Opinion has no place when something can be objectively proven. It only counts when there's no proof and the evidence is equivocal.
You can hold an opinion that 5 is a larger number than 9. That doesn't make it valid in any way - objective proof trumps any opinion or authority.
-
Wait, WHAT???!!! LOL
Seriously, go back and read most of your posts when someone doesn't agree with you. ::)
Can we please go back to insulting brands and brand reps rather than fellow photographers?
Edmund
-
Can we please go back to insulting brands and brand reps rather than fellow photographers?
Edmund
Who is insulting whom? In my corner of the world, calling someone argumentative is hardly an insult. I've lived in your country, and it was hardly considered an insult among my circle there too. YMMV.
Feeling left out? Go back to the brand insulting that we are so used to from you. I am one of those guys that likes them all and tend to look at the good in things and how they can make my life better, happier or easier. Again, YMMV.
-
Who is insulting whom? In my corner of the world, calling someone argumentative is hardly an insult. I've lived in your country, and it was hardly considered an insult among my circle there too. YMMV.
Feeling left out? Go back to the brand insulting that we are so used to from you. I am one of those guys that likes them all and tend to look at the good in things and how they can make my life better, happier or easier. Again, YMMV.
Acting like a young punk maybe alright in "your circle", but in this circle it isn't.
-
Acting like a young punk maybe alright in "your circle", but in this circle it isn't.
However, acting like aged trolls is highly encouraged.
-
16 (or nine, or four) pixels can't be added to give the same data as one larger pixel, but only in theory... Practically one can't remove the artifacts as they are not exactly the same as to be removed with a process similar to that of an (ideal) balanced (or push-pull) signal where subtracting a negative adds a positive and removes noise... In fact, (as with single ended signals) in most cases it is best to care for artifacts to be absent in the first place for each individual pixel... I don't want to be rude, but I would really like not to continue with this conversation as it is obvious that we have different views on the matter... Never the less my conclusions are based on comparisons (for single shot) are made with a reference to absolute quality pixels that are the results of my every day experience with multishot... MY opinion is that for single shot interpolated use, the optimum size pixels for todays technology is between 6min and 7.2max μm... It is my opinion and as I said before, I don't want to argue on the matter with somebody else opinion...
What is meant by todays technology?CCD? CMOS? BSI? Reflective walls between pixels?
-
However, acting like aged trolls is highly encouraged.
Good try but no cigar :)
-
Hi,
CCD, charge coupled device. Readout is by popping charges from pixels to pixels like a bucket line. So in a 24 MP sensor the most unfortunately placed pixel is moved about 10000 times before reaching the readout amplifier, 4000 vertical pops and 6000 horisontal pops. CCDs have often up to 6 readout channels. I don't know how they are interleaved.
CMOS, Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, means in essence that voltages are measured on each pixel in situ. That means that the charge can be measured multiple times. This is used for a technique called correlated double sampling that can be used to reduce noise.
With CMOS it is possible to use column analogue to digital converters (ADCs). There is a converter for each column. 6000 converters handling 4000 pixels each on a typical 24 MP sensor. That allows simple ADC-designs. Sony and some others use it. Canon does not. That is the reason Canon cannot match Sony in DR.
BSI, back side illuminated sensor. Normally the wiring and junctions are in front of the sensor. So wiring and junction shade some parts of the pixel. With BSI the wiring is on the back side. This has several benefits. Light sensivity is higher, but the pixel is also physically less tall, reducing "crosstalk" effects.
Best regards
Erik
What is meant by todays technology?CCD? CMOS? BSI? Reflective walls between pixels?
-
Good try but no cigar :)
Not even a bent match!
;-)
Rob C
-
Hi,
CCD, charge coupled device. Readout is by popping charges from pixels to pixels like a bucket line. So in a 24 MP sensor the most unfortunately placed pixel is moved about 10000 times before reaching the readout amplifier, 4000 vertical pops and 6000 horisontal pops. CCDs have often up to 6 readout channels. I don't know how they are interleaved.
CMOS, Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, means in essence that voltages are measured on each pixel in situ. That means that the charge can be measured multiple times. This is used for a technique called correlated double sampling that can be used to reduce noise.
With CMOS it is possible to use column analogue to digital converters (ADCs). There is a converter for each column. 6000 converters handling 4000 pixels each on a typical 24 MP sensor. That allows simple ADC-designs. Sony and some others use it. Canon does not. That is the reason Canon cannot match Sony in DR.
BSI, back side illuminated sensor. Normally the wiring and junctions are in front of the sensor. So wiring and junction shade some parts of the pixel. With BSI the wiring is on the back side. This has several benefits. Light sensivity is higher, but the pixel is also physically less tall, reducing "crosstalk" effects.
Best regards
Erik
Right. Not all pixels are created equal. What size design rules, copper?, microlens. It just goes on and on. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/27/photokina-interview-samsung-nx1-redefine-pro-performance-quantum-leap-tech
-
Hi,
We are not that far from quantum limits. We can collect half of the photons (or so) and readout noise is perhaps 3-6 photons. With present CMOS technology shot noise, that is the square root of incident photons will dominate over readout noise mostly. That essentially means that sensitivity is not going that much higher with current Bayer designs.
We can increase full well capacity, allowing for lower ISOs.
Best regards
Erik
Right. Not all pixels are created equal. What size design rules, copper?, microlens. It just goes on and on. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/27/photokina-interview-samsung-nx1-redefine-pro-performance-quantum-leap-tech
-
Technologically the (photo) world keeps moving. Creatively IMO you've gotta draw lines in the sand at various points, otherwise you're just continually chasing after the latest advancement. Always testing (or waiting for the next thing to test), never creating. Always imagining what you could do with y rather than doing something with x. This is the main reason why—when it comes to the 35mm format—I'm so insistent on using (mostly) lenses I'm familiar with and have grown fond of over years & even decades. I know how they work and what they can do.
Camera bodies are more creatively problematic in that tech advances are more pronounced and come faster. So much more of a distraction. I pretty much ignored camera tech stuff between 2008 & 2012 and am now set to do so again for awhile. Let's see what 2020 brings! :)
-Dave-
-
Hi,
CCD, charge coupled device. Readout is by popping charges from pixels to pixels like a bucket line. So in a 24 MP sensor the most unfortunately placed pixel is moved about 10000 times before reaching the readout amplifier, 4000 vertical pops and 6000 horisontal pops. CCDs have often up to 6 readout channels. I don't know how they are interleaved.
CMOS, Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, means in essence that voltages are measured on each pixel in situ. That means that the charge can be measured multiple times. This is used for a technique called correlated double sampling that can be used to reduce noise.
Actually, while we are defining things, that use of the name "CMOS" for modern sensor types is widespread but rather misses the point, since all sensors are MOS devices, and "CMOS vs n-MOS vs p-MOS" is not the significant design difference. The far more informative description used in technical documents is Active Pixel Sensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor), which is often abbreviated to "APS" – but I can see why that could be confusing, given the weird tradition of using that failed film format as an indication of sensor size. Active pixel sensor designs are usually implemented as CMOS devices, but Panasonic has made some with n-MOS, and CCD's are built with p-MOS or n-MOS.
The key distinction of the active pixel sensor design is that the signal (the charge on a tiny capacitor, aka electron well) is read out via the voltage induced by that charge without moving the charge, allowing for amplification in the transfer (the "active" part) as well as direct transfer photosite-to-edge, and repeated reading of the charge, for noise reduction.
Also, about "interleaving": the CCD hop count is often halved by having read-out of each quadrant of the sensor to the nearest corner, with an ADC at each corner. So on a 6000X4000 sensor, each line does up to 3000 hops to the nearest edge, and then each charge on each half line does up to 2000 hops along the edge to the nearest corner (or with 2000 and 3000 swapped.)
-
Actually, while we are defining things, that use of the name "CMOS" for modern sensor types is widespread but rather misses the point, since all sensors are MOS devices, and "CMOS vs n-MOS vs p-MOS" is not the significant design difference. The far more informative description used in technical documents is Active Pixel Sensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor), which is often abbreviated to "APS" – but I can see why that could be confusing, given the weird tradition of using that failed film format as an indication of sensor size. Active pixel sensor designs are usually implemented as CMOS devices, but Panasonic has made some with n-MOS, and CCD's are built with p-MOS or n-MOS.
The key distinction of the active pixel sensor design is that the signal (the charge on a tiny capacitor, aka electron well) is read out via the voltage induced by that charge without moving the charge, allowing for amplification in the transfer (the "active" part) as well as direct transfer photosite-to-edge, and repeated reading of the charge, for noise reduction.
Also, about "interleaving": the CCD hop count is often halved by having read-out of each quadrant of the sensor to the nearest corner, with an ADC at each corner. So on a 6000X4000 sensor, each line does up to 3000 hops to the nearest edge, and then each charge on each half line does up to 2000 hops along the edge to the nearest corner (or with 2000 and 3000 swapped.)
Thank you for this luminous explanation.
One *could* have more (parallel) readouts at the edges in a CCD, and in fact one could have on-chip A/D as well.
Quantum dot technology seems to be the new kid on the block ...
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.fr/2015/10/invisage-to-unveil-quantumcinema.html
Edmund
-
Here are some
cats to help the optical finder dSLR pigeons maintain an active fitness régime videos to inform photographers about the benefits of Sony technology :)
https://vimeo.com/143360346
https://vimeo.com/143326652
https://vimeo.com/143654155
Edmund
-
There is no "our" corner. It may be your corner but so far they don't come close the image quality I get with my Phase One IQ180. I traded up from the IQ140 and it's a whole new dimension. Seems more than just a pixel increase, the files are thicker and richer.
-
There is no "our" corner. It may be your corner but so far they don't come close the image quality I get with my Phase One IQ180. I traded up from the IQ140 and it's a whole new dimension. Seems more than just a pixel increase, the files are thicker and richer.
I get that from a friend who shoots with an 8x10 view camera. 8)
-
There is no "our" corner. It may be your corner but so far they don't come close the image quality I get with my Phase One IQ180. I traded up from the IQ140 and it's a whole new dimension. Seems more than just a pixel increase, the files are thicker and richer.
Where stitching is an option, I prefer Sony FF output to the IQ180 - at the same focal length, you get far more pixels in the same angle of view.
If they can reduce the base ISO of CMOS sensors to 25, they should far outstrip CCDs, due to greater quantum efficiency.
Of course, single-frame output is no contest at the moment.
-
Very wrong.
Yeah, I just saw your post here
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104939.msg864442#msg864442
I understand that the Sonycams don't track their prey like you'd like them to, and of course I'd hate to fall off a helicopter while wearing one but they still seem to be doing pretty well with the landscape shooters and I guess the image quality should suffice for studio shooters without an MF budget.
So you think Sony has a beachhead, but it's not yet an occupation :)
Edmund
-
So you think Sony has a beachhead, but it's not yet an occupation :)
Edmund
You forget how small "our" market is in the big wide world, out there the occupation is by a 'phone. In "our" world ever more are deciding good enough is good enough and 6/12 months update cycles aren't improving their output, unless the output is talking about the very latest which they have just bought, to to do precisely that!!
-
Yeah, I just saw your post here
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104939.msg864442#msg864442
I understand that the Sonycams don't track their prey like you'd like them to, and of course I'd hate to fall off a helicopter while wearing one but they still seem to be doing pretty well with the landscape shooters and I guess the image quality should suffice for studio shooters without an MF budget.
So you think Sony has a beachhead, but it's not yet an occupation :)
Edmund
I'd say Sony is about one generation - or a larger body - away from a mirrorless body that matches SLR bodies in all aspects of performance (note: bodies and not lenses).
The first generation A7r was essentially a manual focus machine - 5D2-level AF with native lenses, pretty much just focus confirmation with adapters. The second generation has made progress in leaps and bounds - AF with native lenses may not be quite D4s/1Dx/5D3/D810 level, but certainly matches the 6D, for instance, and other mid-range SLRs. There's no reason the third generation can't match top-end SLRs AF-wise - after, PDAF is based on the same technology in either case, whether it's on-sensor or off-sensor.
The big issue is processor and battery power - processor power to allow for fast AF and lag-free viewfinders (common in professional camcorders, but not used in small mirrorless cameras due to power requirements), and battery power to drive all of this (heavy lenses take a lot of power to move at high speed, and you can only AF as fast as you can move the glass). They could do it now if they made a larger body - say, a D810-sized body to accommodate larger batteries and a more powerful processor. For mirrorless to be a true competitor to SLR systems (outside certain areas such as studio and landscape work where the modus operandi is 'IQ über alles) rather than a lesser option, they'll have to do so at some stage. After all, mirrorless systems have largely supplanted mirrrored (translucent mirror) systems in cinematography - but only after mirrorless camcorders increased in both size and performance to match mirrored ones.
-
I'd say Sony is about one generation - or a larger body - away from a mirrorless body that matches SLR bodies in all aspects of performance (note: bodies and not lenses).
The first generation A7r was essentially a manual focus machine - 5D2-level AF with native lenses, pretty much just focus confirmation with adapters. The second generation has made progress in leaps and bounds - AF with native lenses may not be quite D4s/1Dx/5D3/D810 level, but certainly matches the 6D, for instance, and other mid-range SLRs. There's no reason the third generation can't match top-end SLRs AF-wise - after, PDAF is based on the same technology in either case, whether it's on-sensor or off-sensor.
The big issue is processor and battery power - processor power to allow for fast AF and lag-free viewfinders (common in professional camcorders, but not used in small mirrorless cameras due to power requirements), and battery power to drive all of this (heavy lenses take a lot of power to move at high speed, and you can only AF as fast as you can move the glass). They could do it now if they made a larger body - say, a D810-sized body to accommodate larger batteries and a more powerful processor. For mirrorless to be a true competitor to SLR systems (outside certain areas such as studio and landscape work where the modus operandi is 'IQ über alles) rather than a lesser option, they'll have to do so at some stage. After all, mirrorless systems have largely supplanted mirrrored (translucent mirror) systems in cinematography - but only after mirrorless camcorders increased in both size and performance to match mirrored ones.
Interesting thoughts.
Tony Jay
-
If the body needs to be large for heat dissipation, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier in a way to move the sensor rather than the lens elements - at least for small movements.
Go from 5 axis to 6 axis stabilisation, and also turn all that nice new Zeiss MF glass into AF glass :)
Edmund
I'd say Sony is about one generation - or a larger body - away from a mirrorless body that matches SLR bodies in all aspects of performance (note: bodies and not lenses).
The first generation A7r was essentially a manual focus machine - 5D2-level AF with native lenses, pretty much just focus confirmation with adapters. The second generation has made progress in leaps and bounds - AF with native lenses may not be quite D4s/1Dx/5D3/D810 level, but certainly matches the 6D, for instance, and other mid-range SLRs. There's no reason the third generation can't match top-end SLRs AF-wise - after, PDAF is based on the same technology in either case, whether it's on-sensor or off-sensor.
The big issue is processor and battery power - processor power to allow for fast AF and lag-free viewfinders (common in professional camcorders, but not used in small mirrorless cameras due to power requirements), and battery power to drive all of this (heavy lenses take a lot of power to move at high speed, and you can only AF as fast as you can move the glass). They could do it now if they made a larger body - say, a D810-sized body to accommodate larger batteries and a more powerful processor. For mirrorless to be a true competitor to SLR systems (outside certain areas such as studio and landscape work where the modus operandi is 'IQ über alles) rather than a lesser option, they'll have to do so at some stage. After all, mirrorless systems have largely supplanted mirrrored (translucent mirror) systems in cinematography - but only after mirrorless camcorders increased in both size and performance to match mirrored ones.
-
If the body needs to be large for heat dissipation, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier in a way to move the sensor rather than the lens elements - at least for small movements.
Go from 5 axis to 6 axis stabilisation, and also turn all that nice new Zeiss MF glass into AF glass :)
Edmund
Not for heat dissipation, but in order to hold a powerful enough processor to both AF quickly and drive a lag-free viewfinder, and a battery powerful enough to run the processor.
Moving the sensor certainly makes sense as a tool for AF, though.
-
Not for heat dissipation, but in order to hold a powerful enough processor to both AF quickly and drive a lag-free viewfinder, and a battery powerful enough to run the processor.
Processors are in all likelihood not the problem. Ample processing power for crunching digital numbers is available at low cost and low energy. If more is needed, one (at least Canon and Sony) can design an ASIC that does even more for less.
Physics are a problem. Whenever you do anything involving mechanics, light,... stuff like that does not progress at the rate predicted by Moores law. In order to get great AF performance you need to move heavy glass fast and accurately and read a physical, analog image sensor many times a second. Without overheating. Without killing battery. Similar for liveview.
-h
-
Processors are in all likelihood not the problem. Ample processing power for crunching digital numbers is available at low cost and low energy. If more is needed, one (at least Canon and Sony) can design an ASIC that does even more for less.
You need a processor fast enough to take a constant stream of data from the sensor and convert it into an image to be displayed on an LCD so fast as to be imperceptible. Plenty of such processors around, yes - but generally in things such as notebook computers and camcorders plugged into mains power, which are much bigger than a camera and may not have t rely on a battery.
Physics are a problem. Whenever you do anything involving mechanics, light,... stuff like that does not progress at the rate predicted by Moores law. In order to get great AF performance you need to move heavy glass fast and accurately
Same as in any other camera. Mirrorless is not unique in having to do this.
But moving heavy glass takes lots of energy. So you need a more powerful battery, which means either a larger camera, a more advanced, denser power source or shorter battery life.
and read a physical, analog image sensor many times a second.
Not a problem. Top-level camcorders already do this. That's why they have imperceptible lag times when filming with them.
Also, 3D circuitry allows for pixel-parallel readouts and A/D conversion, instead of the current column-parallel approach. That is, independent readout and A/D conversion behind each pixel, rather than at the end of each column. This, naturally, is much faster on a physical level.
-
Recent generations of ARM-based processors in phones are doing some very fancy processing for camera phones, so in far bigger devices like an ILC with lens, especially in 36x24mm format, I doubt that the weight and cost of a powerful processor and the battery to run it are much of an issue. (And for the EVF vs OVF comparison, note that the weight and space saved by eliminating the mirror and pentaprism allow for a lot of additional battery capacity within them same "size and weight envelope"!)
BTW, the idea of adding auto-focus to a manual focus lens by moving the sensor was tried in the Contax AX (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/film-cameras/35mm/contax/ax/prd_83354_3105crx.aspx), back when the sensor was a chemical emulsion on a polymer film. It made for a very bulky camera body.
-
Recent generations of ARM-based processors in phones are doing some very fancy processing for camera phones, so in far bigger devices like an ILC with lens, especially in 36x24mm format, I doubt that the weight and cost of a powerful processor and the battery to run it are much of an issue. (And for the EVF vs OVF comparison, note that the weight and space saved by eliminating the mirror and pentaprism allow for a lot of additional battery capacity within them same "size and weight envelope"!)
BTW, the idea of adding auto-focus to a manual focus lens by moving the sensor was tried in the Contax AX (http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/cameras/film-cameras/35mm/contax/ax/prd_83354_3105crx.aspx), back when the sensor was a chemical emulsion on a polymer film. It made for a very bulky camera body.
You have to move a lot more stuff, including film take up spool, film canister, pressure plate, and mirror, the PDAF sensor, and also the pentaprism, etc, with the focal plane when you move the focal plane of a film camera. That's part of the reason Contax AX was so bulky. It is literally a full sized 35mm film camera inside an outer body, with the outer body big enough to give plenty of room for the inner camera to move around.
This reason doesn't apply as much to a Digital. In a Digital, all you have to move is the sensor, the shutter, and the wire ribbon leading to it. That's why you can have in-body stabilization with DSLR, and almost certainty not with film camera.
In addition, If you use mirrorless and PDAF and EVF, you don't need to move the mirror or the pentaprism. You might even get away with not moving the shutter, or even not having a shutter, if you can get your sensor to flush fast enough.
The other part of the reason why moving focal planes inside the body makes for bulky and thick bodies is with some lenses, the focal plane has to move quite a lot to cover the entire focus range of the lens. If you don't give the sensor enough range of front-back movement inside the body, then it will never find a good focus on its own. So the body would have to be much thicker than the maximum range of focus movement of any lens you plan to use with it in AF mode. Otherwise you have to manually prefocus before the autofocus will work.
So I think with a digital camera, if you do something creative, such as make the camera body deep but slim, like a compact camcorder, instead of the DSLR shape or the current SONY mirrorless shape, which is wide, tall and thin front and back, you can produce a good digital full frame camera with in-body focusing and in-body stabilization, that never needs AF lenses.
-
You have to move a lot more stuff, including film take up spool, film canister, pressure plate, etc, with the focal plane when you move the focal plane of a film camera. That's why Contax AX was so bulky.
With a DSLR, all you have to move is the sensor, the shutter, and the wire ribbon leading to it. You might even get away with not moving the shutter, or even not having a shutter, if you can get your sensor to flush fast enough. That's why you can have in-body stabilization with DSLR, and almost certainty not with film camera.
True, it might be less bad, but not by much (see below!)
But always the first question to ask is:
It is a simple idea, that has even been publicly tried before, so why are none of the multiple competing camera companies doing this now?
Usually the answer is the same as when outsider political candidates – free from any record or failure due to being free from any record at all – offer simple one-line solutions to persistent problems: when you look at the details, it would not actually work very well.
So it is mostly pointless to try to refute such unproven ideas; it make more sense to challenge the proposers to explain the details of how it could work. But I will try anyway! One likely problem is that a very large amount of movement of the focal plane (the sensor) relative to the lens would be needed for longer focal lengths. Close focusing down to a modest 1:4 magnification requires a lens extension (or focal plane movement) of about (focal length)/4, so for a focal length of 100mm, already 25mm or one inch of sensor movement would be needed.
And on the other hand, modern internal focusing designs only require moving a few relatively light intermediate lens elements, not the big heavy ones at the front.
-
I would say no one has tried it before because no one is yet ready to break completely away from the traditional camera form factor for a "serious" camera. Although some smartphone camera attachment has already moved in this direction
A really workable in-body focusing camera will have to be shaped like a camcorder, long in the lens axis, and trim in the other two axis. It might even look like a short monocular telescope, or a detached rifle scope, with the user looking into a EVF eye piece that is directly behind and in line with the interchangible objective lens. Traditional serious camera is the other way around, skinny in the lens axis, and long in the other two axis, broadly like a flat plate bolted perpendicularly to the lens. That form doesn't work very well with a focal plane that has to move quite a bit. I think it will take some doing to move serious users accustomed to the traditional form factor to this new one. The first models won't sell too well. That's why no one wants to be the first to try, unless they have nothing to lose.
-
Hi,
Camcorders have small sensors, so they have very large DoF. Professional video cameras don't have AF. Have you seen any PL-mount lens with AF. They use a "focus puller" an extra guy doing just the focusing…
In video, fast AF is not wanted because they don't want jumpy AF. Sony actually has a slow AF mode just for video. Video is different, so leave it out.
Modern lenses use internal focusing, just moving a single group of elements, that reduces the mass to focus. Modern AF lenses to be used with CDAF need to have fast movements, that is the reason Sony uses linear motors on the new lenses.
Very clearly, Sony cameras may not be able to match fast focusing Canons and Nikons, and I think this may to have a bit to do with limitations in on sensor PDAF.
I cannot comment really from my own experience, as I don't have a Canon camera and mostly use Sony A-mount lenses on my A7rII. The 90/2.8G has very fast AF but I had no opportunity to compare with classic PDAF.
Canon has a lot of new focusing technology in the 5D3 and the 1DX.
Best regards
Erik
You need a processor fast enough to take a constant stream of data from the sensor and convert it into an image to be displayed on an LCD so fast as to be imperceptible. Plenty of such processors around, yes - but generally in things such as notebook computers and camcorders plugged into mains power, which are much bigger than a camera and may not have t rely on a battery.
Same as in any other camera. Mirrorless is not unique in having to do this.
But moving heavy glass takes lots of energy. So you need a more powerful battery, which means either a larger camera, a more advanced, denser power source or shorter battery life.
Not a problem. Top-level camcorders already do this. That's why they have imperceptible lag times when filming with them.
Also, 3D circuitry allows for pixel-parallel readouts and A/D conversion, instead of the current column-parallel approach. That is, independent readout and A/D conversion behind each pixel, rather than at the end of each column. This, naturally, is much faster on a physical level.
-
What's interesting is that by the time Sony releases an A9 with a correctly sized battery,... in a package similar to that of the Leica SL, the size disadvantage of what a D820/5Dx fitted with a EVF instead of an OVF would be would be mostly gone... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have started a related to FF mirrorless future forum in the MF forum... http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=105069.msg864580#new...
It aims to discuss the FF mirrorless + view camera applications related to the future of imaging... The usual winners of "not even a bent match to light a cigar" are kindly requested NOT to participate...
-
Hi,
The lenses can be about 2cm shorter, otherwise I share the size argument. An EVF sort of makes little sense on a DSLR, or let's say, the mirror makes little sense once you have an EVF.
I feel there os a lot of hype about the Sonys and I actually feel that they are good cameras, but I don't think they are going to steal Nikon's and Canon's lunch. But they are nice enough to keep Sony having it's own lunch.
Best regards
Erik
What's interesting is that by the time Sony releases an A9 with a correctly sized battery,... in a package similar to that of the Leica SL, the size disadvantage of what a D820/5Dx fitted with a EVF instead of an OVF would be would be mostly gone... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those of us who were never bothered much by having to change film after every 24 to 36 shots, the frequent internet agonizing over battery life seems like a case of "let's find a small disadvantage in some edge case of a product alternative that I do not prefer, and blow it up into an allegedly major problem for serious photographers".
What's interesting is that by the time Sony releases an A9 with a correctly sized battery . . .
What is your criterion for a "correctly sized battery"? For my needs, I get plenty of shots per change on the modestly size battery of the EM5, with the worst case scenario covered by carrying one extra battery for a single mid-day change. In almost any multi-day trip away from electricity, the food and such that one would have to transport would vastly outweigh any additional batteries needed. There are those (like some wedding photographers?) who wish to avoid even pausing for a single change amidst taking many hundreds of photographs, but for such usage, there are of course add-on battery packs (vertical grips and such). Those certainly add bulk, but that need only affects a small minority of ILC using photographers, and even for many of them only in some usages, so the "battery pack" can be left at home or in the car on other occasions. The idea that an EVF camera body needs to have the bulk and weight for a worst-case-scenario extreme of battery capacity is implausible.
-
An EVF sort of makes little sense on a DSLR . . .
Actually I wonder why no maker of a video-and-stills oriented SLR has not offered an add-on EVF for video usage (where the OVF is useless), given that these cameras already have live view?
- Is it because there are adequate third party EVF options?
- Is it because most videography is done with the more comfortable two-eyed view of the rear screen, or on a large add-on viewfinder screen?
-
True but don't matter much now as (we learned) hr lenses are good equalizers.
What's interesting is that by the time Sony releases an A9 with a correctly sized battery,... in a package similar to that of the Leica SL, the size disadvantage of what a D820/5Dx fitted with a EVF instead of an OVF would be would be mostly gone... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Actually I wonder why no maker of a video-and-stills oriented SLR has not offered an add-on EVF for video usage (where the OVF is useless), given that these cameras already have live view?
- Is it because there are adequate third party EVF options?
- Is it because most videography is done with the more comfortable two-eyed view of the rear screen, or on a large add-on viewfinder screen?
market segmentation. Make them buy the same thing several times.
-
For those of us who were never bothered much by having to change film after every 24 to 36 shots, the frequent internet agonizing over battery life seems like a case of "let's find a small disadvantage in some edge case of a product alternative that I do not prefer, and blow it up into an allegedly major problem for serious photographers".
It's just part of a larger phenomenon, where the gear itself has become the primary reason for being involved with photography. To put it bluntly: the more capable the equipment the more frenzied the measurbating and the more intense the fanboyism.
Maybe better is really better only to a point…after which it becomes an increasingly efficient conduit for neurosis.
-Dave-
-
For those of us who were never bothered much by having to change film after every 24 to 36 shots, the frequent internet agonizing over battery life seems like a case of "let's find a small disadvantage in some edge case of a product alternative that I do not prefer, and blow it up into an allegedly major problem for serious photographers".
...
At the end of my film days I was shooting wildlife with a 10 FPS Canon EOS 1V. A 36 exposure roll can go pretty fast, and on numerous occasions changing film at inopportune times bothered the heck out of me, and lost some photos too. Oddly, I don't recall any issues with battery life.
For a long time I've had cameras that provide over 1100 shots on a single battery pack and come with a charger that recharges one in 1.25 hours and handles two battery packs. I recently got another camera that provides half as many shots per charge and comes with a charger that handles just one battery and takes twice as long (2.5 hours) to charge it. That means either getting up in the middle of the night to swap batteries (no way that's happening) or carrying two chargers. It's not the end of the world, but I'd be happier if the manufacturer had considered the issue.
-
It's just part of a larger phenomenon, where the gear itself has become the primary reason for being involved with photography. To put it bluntly: the more capable the equipment the more frenzied the measurbating and the more intense the fanboyism.
Maybe better is really better only to a point…after which it becomes an increasingly efficient conduit for neurosis.
-Dave-
Be careful, Dave: you are in danger of stealing my curmudgeon crown! Thing is, you are absolutely right in yur diagnosis. Even a brief journey into one's own images reveals the fact - if we can face it - that we could have made almost any of them with low-cost equipment. That's not to deny the real challenges that some photograhers face, but for the amateur... really?
Rob C
-
At the end of my film days I was shooting wildlife with a 10 FPS Canon EOS 1V. . . .
For a long time I've had cameras that provide over 1100 shots on a single battery pack and come with a charger that recharges one in 1.25 hours and handles two battery packs. I recently got another camera that provides half as many shots per charge and comes with a charger that handles just one battery and takes twice as long (2.5 hours) to charge it. That means either getting up in the middle of the night to swap batteries (no way that's happening) or carrying two chargers. It's not the end of the world, but I'd be happier if the manufacturer had considered the issue.
This sounds like a case where you and some small fraction of photographers need to have an extra charger, some extra batteries, a battery/vertical grip, or to choose a model with a battery+charger design better suited to your particular needs – none of which is much of a bulk problem when one is already carrying the fast telephoto lenses used for wildlife photography. More to my original point, none of that forces EVF cameras to become as heavy and big as SLRs in order to have adequate battery capacity.
-
What is the power consumption of "live view" on the Sonys? Comparable to other mirrorless and DSLR cameras? Individuals who compose via live view on tripod might want more batteries.
-
.... that we could have made almost any of them with low-cost equipment...
Rob C
That may be true, but many people would not have made them were it not for the fancy equipment, or would not have started making them.
-
Hi,
Camcorders have small sensors, so they have very large DoF. Professional video cameras don't have AF. Have you seen any PL-mount lens with AF. They use a "focus puller" an extra guy doing just the focusing…
Two different issues here. I'm using pro video cameras as an example of lag-free viewfinders, not AF. The AF on mirrorless cameras is much better than is often given credit for, but is held back in its utility by horrendous viewfinder lag which makes them underperform on moving targets.
Also, pro-level camcorders, such as those I've seen on wildlife shoots, certainly do have AF, and are capable of narrow DOF.
In video, fast AF is not wanted because they don't want jumpy AF. Sony actually has a slow AF mode just for video. Video is different, so leave it out.
Modern lenses use internal focusing, just moving a single group of elements, that reduces the mass to focus. Modern AF lenses to be used with CDAF need to have fast movements, that is the reason Sony uses linear motors on the new lenses.
Very clearly, Sony cameras may not be able to match fast focusing Canons and Nikons, and I think this may to have a bit to do with limitations in on sensor PDAF.
The technology behind on-sensor and off-sensor PDAF is exactly the same - just that one uses pixels on a separate sensor and the other uses pixels on the main sensor. And PDAF on Sony with native E-mount lenses is still faster than basic and many mid-range Canons and Nikons. The high-end models have dedicated AF processors and the like, and Canon 1-series batteries operate at a higher voltage and can also drive lenses more quickly. These are the aspects that the miniature Sonys lack - add them on and there's no reason AF can't be just as fast, and more accurate, as Canon/Nikon action cameras.
Of course, even the fastest AF may be unusable for action shooting due to viewfinder lag, which gives the perception of AF being much slower than it really is, 200ms is just unacceptable. Pro video cameras have reduced viewfinder lag to an imperceptible level. But this requires power - processor power and battery power - that can be fitted into a large video camera, or even an SLR-sized body (whether D4s size or D810 size) but not a minaturised design.
-
Exactly how does on-sensor PDAF work? Normal PDAF requires a separate lens in front of the AF sensor to refocus out of focus images into two separate sub-images. The AF sensor the measure the distance between, or the phase difference, of the two sub-images.
For on-sensor PDAF?, how does that work? Does the camera have to extend an lens array in front of the imaging sensor?
-
Exactly how does on-sensor PDAF work? Normal PDAF requires a separate lens in front of the AF sensor to refocus out of focus images into two separate sub-images. The AF sensor the measure the distance between, or the phase difference, of the two sub-images.
For on-sensor PDAF?, how does that work? Does the camera have to extend an lens array in front of the imaging sensor?
I think some pixels have directional acceptance angles
-
Exactly how does on-sensor PDAF work? Normal PDAF requires a separate lens in front of the AF sensor to refocus out of focus images into two separate sub-images. The AF sensor the measure the distance between, or the phase difference, of the two sub-images.
For on-sensor PDAF?, how does that work? Does the camera have to extend an lens array in front of the imaging sensor?
Several ways to do it. You can put a lens in front of it. You can use dual-photosite pixel technology (like Canon). You can use microlenses to do it. You can use two adjacent rows of pixels.
-
For those of us who were never bothered much by having to change film after every 24 to 36 shots, the frequent internet agonizing over battery life seems like a case of "let's find a small disadvantage in some edge case of a product alternative that I do not prefer, and blow it up into an allegedly major problem for serious photographers".
What is your criterion for a "correctly sized battery"?...
I can try giving a real-world example:
With my Canon 7D I can go on a 2 week trip with my single battery and one CF card happily snapping pictures. I don't need a charger, provided that I avoid LV/video. I don't need to buy extra batteries. I don't need to buy a car charger or disrupt my trip by (unnecessarily) stopping somewhere to charge batteries. For me that is great ergonomy.
Could I work around having 1/2 or 1/10 of my current battery life? Sure. But that would be cost and/or inconvenience that would be have to be weighted in the pros and cons of camera upgrading.
-h
-
I can try giving a real-world example:
With my Canon 7D I can go on a 2 week trip with my single battery and one CF card happily snapping pictures. I don't need a charger, provided that I avoid LV/video. For me that is great ergonomy.
I understand that others have other usage patterns than myself, but I cannot understand this lack of understanding for my needs (and others like me).
-h
Ever considered that you can carry an A7rII (or any other mirrorless camera), a memory card and a stack of spare batteries, and still end up carrying far less weight and volume than a 7D with one battery?
Or that the lack of battery capacity in mirrorless cameras isn't due to them being mirrorless, but rather them being designed to be small, thus necessitating weak, small, batteries? Make an SLR that size and you'd also run into battery life issues.
-
Ever considered that you can carry an A7rII (or any other mirrorless camera), a memory card and a stack of spare batteries, and still end up carrying far less weight and volume than a 7D with one battery?
Or that the lack of battery capacity in mirrorless cameras isn't due to them being mirrorless, but rather them being designed to be small, thus necessitating weak, small, batteries? Make an SLR that size and you'd also run into battery life issues.
That's why my 7D rarely makes its way out of the roller case these days. When I'm going shooting now I grab my Fuji X-T1 and a few lenses and I'm good to go. For the record I have 4 batteries for the Fuji and I'm happy. The 7D hasn't been sold (yet) because there are rare cases in sports where it makes sense.
-
Ever considered that you can carry an A7rII (or any other mirrorless camera), a memory card and a stack of spare batteries, and still end up carrying far less weight and volume than a 7D with one battery?
Sure.
Battery life of A7Rii (according to cipa): 290
Cost of a Sony A7rII: 32.995,00 KR ($3888)
Cost of NP-FW50 battery: 795,00 KR ($94)
Cost of AC-PW20 charger: 1.395,00 KR ($164)
Battery life of 7D (according to cipa): 800 (I believe every 1/2 images using flash?)
Cost for keeping my 7D: 0
I don't know how many batteries are needed to get my personal "lasts for 2 weeks without charging", and how many chargers would be needed in order to make that setup viable, but it would add significant cost to an allready expensive upgrade.
I'd say that my original statement still holds well:
Could I work around having 1/2 or 1/10 of my current battery life? Sure. But that would be cost and/or inconvenience that would be have to be weighted in the pros and cons of camera upgrading.
Or that the lack of battery capacity in mirrorless cameras isn't due to them being mirrorless, but rather them being designed to be small, thus necessitating weak, small, batteries? Make an SLR that size and you'd also run into battery life issues.
I'd suggest that it is mainly the "mirrorlessness" that makes these cameras have low battery capacity.
My 7D have a "mirrorless" mode (Liveview). It has horrible battery life (using the same battery).
Canon offers smaller DSLRs (the 6D and the 100D) with what I believe to be decent battery life (small DSLRs can have decent battery life).
I believe that running a sensor continously "on" (feeding the low-latency AF and viewfinder), doing continous image processing (feeding the viewfinder) and powering an EVF/LCD, in sum, makes for significant power draw. Perhaps in time, this draw will be small enough so as to be insignificant. Certainly the current development in cellphone cameras and mirrorless system cameras got to help.
-h
-
It takes a good deal of processor power to provide an image to the EVF or LCD from the sensor at a refresh rate that is acceptable. Another factor is how fast you can read data from the sensor.
-
Hi,
Just to say my A7rII came with two batteries and an external charger and this is AFIK the normal delivery package.
I would not argue on the battery issue in general. EVF cameras are battery hungry and the A7RII has small batteries. DSLRs use less batteries. I would have preferred a larger battery with the A7rII.
In recent shooting, I did carry four batteries, but never used more than two in a day. I had two chargers with me, but I only used one of them.
On the other hand I am not a rapid shooter. Don't make that many exposures, perhaps around 100 each day, but a lot of deliberation goes into those images, so I am a bit power hungry.
I won't argue on the economy of keeping your 7D, or for that matter any camera. I would think it is reasonable for Canon shooters to stay with Canon. The only major benefit Canon users get from the A7rII is the cleaner shadow reproduction of the Sony sensor.
Now, I feel that the A7rII is a great camera at least if you can live with it's foibles. For me the camera is just an imaging device, so I can put up with some issues in the user interface if the images are great. But, I don't think that Sony beats Canon on image quality.
Canon has a lot of nice lenses. Sony's lenses are often more expensive and may offer less image quality. You can uses Canon lenses on Sony, with adapters. But I would bet that almost all Canon lenses work better on a Canon than on a Sony.
Best regards
Erik
Sure.
Battery life of A7Rii (according to cipa): 290
Cost of a Sony A7rII: 32.995,00 KR ($3888)
Cost of NP-FW50 battery: 795,00 KR ($94)
Cost of AC-PW20 charger: 1.395,00 KR ($164)
Battery life of 7D (according to cipa): 800 (I believe every 1/2 images using flash?)
Cost for keeping my 7D: 0
I don't know how many batteries are needed to get my personal "lasts for 2 weeks without charging", and how many chargers would be needed in order to make that setup viable, but it would add significant cost to an allready expensive upgrade.
I'd say that my original statement still holds well: I'd suggest that it is mainly the "mirrorlessness" that makes these cameras have low battery capacity.
My 7D have a "mirrorless" mode (Liveview). It has horrible battery life (using the same battery).
Canon offers smaller DSLRs (the 6D and the 100D) with what I believe to be decent battery life (small DSLRs can have decent battery life).
I believe that running a sensor continously "on" (feeding the low-latency AF and viewfinder), doing continous image processing (feeding the viewfinder) and powering an EVF/LCD, in sum, makes for significant power draw. Perhaps in time, this draw will be small enough so as to be insignificant. Certainly the current development in cellphone cameras and mirrorless system cameras got to help.
-h
-
With regard to using Canon lenses on the A7R II, apart from the known limitations regarding AF, I can say that the IQ is fantastic.
I have mounted Canon TS lenses as well as super telephoto zooms (100-400mm II) with excellent results.
Even the AF on the 100-400mm works fine at 400mm with the new firmware upgrades on the Metabones IV adaptor.
The only Canon lens in my current line-up that will not work on the A7R II (as far as AF is concerned) is my first generation 500mm f4.0.
As for the comparison between Sony FE lenses and Canon EF lenses as far as IQ goes, in a non-technical comparison, they are impossible to separate.
I have not come across a technical expose of Canon lenses mounted on the A7R II as yet.
My whole rationale for moving to the A7R and the mark II was to lever the advantages of the IQ possible with these Sony sensors yet still being able to use (almost) any Canon lens I want (including some of the newer Canon mount Sigma lenses that far outperform their Canon OEM counterparts).
I am shortly to leave for a trip to Southern Africa (RSA, Namibia, and Botswana) with my motley combination of Canon and Sony equipment so we will see how things turn out in rather tough field conditions.
Tony Jay
-
Sure.
Battery life of A7Rii (according to cipa): 290
Cost of a Sony A7rII: 32.995,00 KR ($3888)
Cost of NP-FW50 battery: 795,00 KR ($94)
Cost of AC-PW20 charger: 1.395,00 KR ($164)
Battery life of 7D (according to cipa): 800 (I believe every 1/2 images using flash?)
Cost for keeping my 7D: 0
You can't compare the cost of the cameras. For one, one is a modern full-frame camera, whereas the other is a six-year-old crop model.
I don't know how many batteries are needed to get my personal "lasts for 2 weeks without charging", and how many chargers would be needed in order to make that setup viable, but it would add significant cost to an allready expensive upgrade.
I'd say that my original statement still holds well: I'd suggest that it is mainly the "mirrorlessness" that makes these cameras have low battery capacity.
A few years ago, when shooting my 5D2, I took six fully-charged LP-E6 batteries on a three-and-a-half week hike in Nepal (remote area, so no opportunities for charging), and used every one of them. I didn't even take that many frames.
Last year, I did a trip of similar length with the A7r and took twelve fully-charged batteries. I only went through ten.
The ten Sony batteries still weigh less than the six LP-E6s
That said, the Sony does have horrible battery life - each battery is just too small. But, weight-for-weight, they last just as long as Canon batteries.
-
Hjulenissen,
by your example with CIPA testing data, the battery life ratio is a factor of between two and three; by my experience with a comparison with the same brand and sensor size between several Olympus Four Thirds SLR's and then an EM5 (and very little flash usage) the ratio is far less than two. So for one thing, it seems likely that the A7R2 has other disadvantages like aiming for small size through a smaller battery (or rather two smaller baterries, it seems) and its larger sensor. But anyway, the compensation needed is clear: at most one or two spare batteries in the bag to double or triple the shot count. And probably no extra batteries need be carried most of the time, because in the more common case of coming home to the charger at the end of each day, with that CIPA 800 shots is enough for a week or more, even a low 200-300 looks more than enough for a day.
Note that the needs of running the big rear LCD rather than the EVF are irrelevant, since whe one opts for LCD over EVF, one would presumably also opt for LCD over OVF in the SLR. It is only OVF vs EVF where the power consumption is different. So how much is the power drain of the far smaller EVF panel? Note that the EVF and the whole live view system is going to "sleep" when the camera is idle, so not running all the time that the camera is turned on.
(And of course cost comparisons will always favor the gear one already owns over what one does not; that is irrelevant to the comparisons that we have been discussing.)
Update: I just read more on the CIPA standard DC-002, and indeed as applied to non-SLRs including EVF cameras, power consumption is heavily effected by the requirement to have the rear screen on almost all the time, with 30s of screen activity per shot (it dates back to 2003 and is oriented to the typical usage of the "point and shoot" cameras of that era). As an indication of the effect, with the EM5ii, using instead its quick sleep mode to reduce viewfinder activity while keeping everything else to CIPA specs changes the measured battery life from 310 to 750 shots.
-
You can't compare the cost of the cameras. For one, one is a modern full-frame camera, whereas the other is a six-year-old crop model.
Sure I can. If I am a rational person (I try to be), I try to weigh the cost and benefits of my choices.
A new camera would bring (potential) image quality benefits. That is a pro. This particular model would also have less battery life and/or more cost and cumbersome battery usage. That is a con. By weighing pros and cons, one decide to go for it or not.
-h
-
...
(And of course cost comparisons will always favor the gear one already owns over what one does not; that is irrelevant to the comparisons that we have been discussing.)
Sorry, I don't follow your argument.
Me and most people on this forum owns a camera, but not the Sony A7Rii. Many of us would like to have the A7Rii. For that (presumably) significant amount of people, why should we not consider reality when considering an upgrade?
The sensible question (to me) is: "will the improved image quality/size/ergonomy/... outweigh the monetary cost of upgrading, loss of battery life and/or more cost for batteries and chargers".
-h
-
Sorry, I don't follow your argument.
Me and most people on this forum owns a camera, but not the Sony A7Rii. ...
-h
I have no problem with you considering that question of "is it worth me adding an A7Rii to my collection?"
And I have not the slightest inclination to try to persuade you to add that very different camera in a different format requiring different lenses. (For one thing, I see advantages both to the smaller format of the 7D, and to the OVF for some sorts of photography, and have no desire for a 35mm format EVF camera that requires big expensive lenses to get most of the advantages that many people falsely credit to the larger sensor alone.)
But surely you know that this was not the subject being discussed until you interjected it!
This sub-thread started with a claim by Bernard that to get adequate battery life, an EVF camera would need a battery so big that it would be as bulky as a DSLR in the same format with the same battery life, and related speculations about the cost of EVF vs OVF kits in the same format size. All that those of us "on the EVF side" are arguing is that Bernard's size comparison is wrong.
-
I think completely different designs become possible. Only you cannot see/use the image directly, it needs to be electronically processed. Which of course is the case for an EVF non-film camera.
Sony and Olympus in particular have been known (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests) to pre-cook visual information rolling off the sensor before writing it into the raw file.
Notice to manufacturers: I will not by a camera that does that. The raw file should contain unadulterated visual information period. Feel free to do whatever you want with that data thereafter.
Jack
PS I do mean to differentiate between Information and data.
-
This sub-thread started with a claim by Bernard that to get adequate battery life, an EVF camera would need a battery so big that it would be as bulky as a DSLR in the same format with the same battery life, and related speculations about the cost of EVF vs OVF kits in the same format size. All that those of us "on the EVF side" are arguing is that Bernard's size comparison is wrong.
… and spurious, at best.
Sorry, I don't follow your argument.
Because you're incapable of rational thought or being obtuse ? I doubt the former so I can but presume the latter.
This whole thread and tiresome undercurrent of trying to nitpick deficiencies in EVF cams purely based on a dubious power requirement, is becoming tiring and turning this forum into a dpreview variant.
You want, need or prefer to use a DSLR, that's fine – go right ahead. But complaining about battery capacity, with no thought as to how to circumvent, what for many is a minor limitation, borders on cognitive impotence.
My original Eriksson mobile lasted days on a single charge, my iPhone doesn't get through a whole day without a top-up. So ?
A Nikon D3/D4 battery is about 2600mAh, the Nikon EN-EL314a: 1230mAh ( up from 1030mAh) and a Sony NP-FW50 Lithium-Ion: 1020mAh. The last two are about 1/10th the capacity of a Mophie Powerstation XL (12,000 mAh) – which not only recharges in situ (even in your handbag) but can also power the A7x series directly. It'll charge your IPhone and iPad as well - no extra chargers required.
Can you do that on a dslr ? - nope.
So which one now is the more disadvantaged ?
The attraction of this new breed of diminutive CSC's is, IMO, similar to the original appeal of the first Leica M's – they were small, discreet, quiet and, at the time, unobtrusive.
Pretty much the same today, except now, far more accomplished and versatile than one could ever have imagined then and now with vastly improved IQ, even over many current DSLR's. A certain aesthetic appeal, reminiscent of the early 70's slimline Nikon and Canons ( a particular nod to Olympus in this department) didn't do any harm either – particularly to those of us tired of the ubiquitous, modern 'polycarbonate blob' look. Tie that to vastly improved IQ and a winning breed was created.
The Leica M's were not a panacea for every photographic 'requirement' any more than this new breed is. But as the new kid on the block – they're here to stay.
Your choice.
(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/070924_r16606_p646-320.jpg)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/09/24/candid-camera
Edit:
For the record, some advantages of the A7x series compared to dslr's:
Free of lens calibration.
Quiet, discreet, unobtrusive (add weight to this one).
Canon lenses on a Nikon, let alone autofocus with them ?.
Ditto Leica M's.
Ditto any number of legacy and modern lenses.
Superior 'motion' capability.
IBIS with ALL lenses.
Focus Peaking.
Live View, EFCS ? - ( yes, I know Nikon has it, but you need to get used to pressing the shutter button , twice – great!)
All a bit more substantive than CIPA battery data, IMO.
-
There have been diverse speculatons about battery size differences:
Ever considered that you can carry an A7rII (or any other mirrorless camera), a memory card and a stack of spare batteries, and still end up carrying far less weight and volume than a 7D with one battery?
Or that the lack of battery capacity in mirrorless cameras isn't due to them being mirrorless, but rather them being designed to be small, thus necessitating weak, small, batteries?
and the reply
I'd suggest that it is mainly the "mirrorlessness" that makes these cameras have low battery capacity.
In the concrete case of "7D vs A7", we do not need to speculate:
The Canon 7D uses the Canon LP-E6N battery, 1800mAh, 80g.
The Sony A7Rii uses the Sony NP-FW40 battery, 1020mAh, 42.5g (though as Erik mentions, it comes with two of them, so 2040mWh in the bag – but only 1020mWh in the CIPA test.)
So the 7D gets 76% more CIPA-measured battery life just from its larger battery. (By the way: for my tastes, Sony goes a bit too far in its emphasis on reducing the size of its mirrorless bodies: the last 40g or 2cc squeezed out of the battery only helps with "complete camera bulk" when pairing the body with short primes or small, slow zoom lenses.)
-
Sony has made a very nice camera in the Sony A7rII, however they still have to come up with a camera, lens, accessories and service system to compete with Nikon or Canon.
It seems like early days in this battle.
Cheers,
-
There have been diverse speculatons about battery size differences:and the replyIn the concrete case of "7D vs A7", we do not need to speculate:
The Canon 7D uses the Canon LP-E6N battery, 1800mAh, 80g.
The Sony A7Rii uses the Sony NP-FW40 battery, 1020mAh, 42.5g (though as Erik mentions, it comes with two of them, so 2040mWh in the bag – but only 1020mWh in the CIPA test.)
So the 7D gets 76% more CIPA-measured battery life just from its larger battery.
Pretty much what I found. Weight-for-weight, the Sony battery contains more power, which translates to a similar number of shots per 100g after taking into account the added power requirements of an EVF and full-frame sensor (vs the crop on the 7D). Probably more on the Sony if you mostly shoot using live view, more on the 7D if you mostly shoot through the viewfinder.
(By the way: for my tastes, Sony goes a bit too far in its emphasis on reducing the size of its mirrorless bodies: the last 40g or 2cc squeezed out of the battery only helps with "complete camera bulk" when pairing the body with short primes or small, slow zoom lenses.)
Definitely.
I'd have preferred an A7rII that was significantly larger (not that I like size, but performance comes at a price), with a battery four times the capacity in order to power dedicated processors to drive a lag-free viewfinder and super-fast AF.
But that may be getting a little close to the A9...
-
Sony and Olympus in particular have been known (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests) to pre-cook visual information rolling off the sensor before writing it into the raw file.
Notice to manufacturers: I will not by a camera that does that. The raw file should contain unadulterated visual information period. Feel free to do whatever you want with that data thereafter.
Jack
PS I do mean to differentiate between Information and data.
They all precook, CMOS has a lot of fixed patterns AFAIK. But anyway, EVF cameras should be "codesigned", with lenses minimizing defects you cannot correct, and leaving anything correctable to software. There is no reason anymore to waste expensive lens designs on stuff like distorsion that can be fixed by code.
Edmund
-
Sony and Olympus in particular have been known (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests) to pre-cook visual information rolling off the sensor before writing it into the raw file.
What is this Olympus pre-cooking? Your link is only about Sony, along with a side reference to the way that some Olympus lenses handle focusing. Not that I am much worried; I prefer to assess the results of the process as a whole, rather than insisting on the purity of any one component in the chain. For example, it seems likely that in some situations it is best to handle a problem (like noise) as early as possible, maybe with on-sensor signal processing, while in others it is better to be able to throw the greater processing power of a computer at it.
-
I am not a rapid shooter. Don't make that many exposures, perhaps around 100 each day, but a lot of deliberation goes into those images, so I am a bit power hungry.
This might be a positive ?
Spray and pray photography is a lot of work in editing.
Frame numbers on my shoots have gone through the roof over the years, and I can't help but think when editing that a slower, more considered approach might be in order.
-
There have been diverse speculatons about battery size differences:and the replyIn the concrete case of "7D vs A7", we do not need to speculate:
The Canon 7D uses the Canon LP-E6N battery, 1800mAh, 80g.
The Sony A7Rii uses the Sony NP-FW40 battery, 1020mAh, 42.5g (though as Erik mentions, it comes with two of them, so 2040mWh in the bag – but only 1020mWh in the CIPA test.)
So the 7D gets 76% more CIPA-measured battery life just from its larger battery.
If we assume that battery numbers can be idealized to estimate energy, I think the number is close to 78%:
(7.2*1865)/(7.4*1020)
Keep in mind that the CIPA rating use flash for every 1/2 images, like I mentioned in my post. The 7D has a flash, the A7 series does not.
http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-002_e.pdf
The 7D has the ability to operate in LiveView. Using the same battery, battery life is quite bad. This is a kind of mirrorless implementation (granted, an old one and probably not something that the components are optimized for).
If we compare the A7RII to (mostly flashless) FF DSLRs (a comparision that may make sense to more people than my personal situation), the differences are even more visible (see attachement) where I have scaled CIPA numbers to 2000 shots (simply picking some round number larger than the best-in-class).
I'd suggest that _if_ the impressive battery life (on paper at least) of the Nikon D750 is a big attraction to you, then having to purchase 2.2 extra batteries (in addition to the 2 included with the camera) and charge 4.2 batteries to reach similar (on paper) battery life is probably going to be an annoyance. As to if this tips the weight one way or the other I guess is highly personal. I guess most of us value image quality very highly, and are willing to live with ergonomic/economic flaws in order to get that image quality.
My understanding of the CIPA ratings is that it is essentially a simple model for "tourist with compact camera" usage. While that is a lot better than manufacturer specified ratings, it may or may not be a good model for Bernards or mine or your usage. Ideally the camera should auto power off the minute I have stopped using it (drawing minimal sleep power), while instantly powering up the minute I want to take another image. At the same time, battery consumption during continous usage (either recording a long exposure or continually focusing/firing images at e.g. a sports event) should also be kept in check. I think that there is great room for individual usage patterns where CIPA numbers are off (of course, this could favour either mirrorless or DSLR). There is also the possibility that creative engineers optimize their product for the CIPA rating (rather than what they know about typical users).
I am not a Canon apologist nor a DSLR apologist. I have been vocally dissatisfied with Canons offerings for several years and I have been welcoming better EVF tools (such as focus peaking). I own a Sony RX100-series and I think it is likely that my next camera will be a Sony FF mirrorless. But I do believe that it makes sense to talk about pros and cons, even if that means being a party-pooper.
-h
-
On the other hand I am not a rapid shooter. Don't make that many exposures, perhaps around 100 each day, but a lot of deliberation goes into those images, so I am a bit power hungry.
Erik
I find that amazing.
When I was shooting fashion and/or calendars, I felt delighted if I got what I imagined to be one or even two good images in a day. I had from maybe a week to two weeks to shoot calendars - usually - and getting thirteen good images was quite difficult. Those came out of perhaps fifty or sixty 36 exp. cassettes. Getting one 'possible', not a 'definite!', out of each cassette felt quite gratifying. And I thought I knew my job.
On the other hand, I also shot three one-day calendars of seven images, but they were more or less all made in single, tiny locations.
Rob C
-
This might be a positive ?
Spray and pray photography is a lot of work in editing.
Frame numbers on my shoots have gone through the roof over the years, and I can't help but think when editing that a slower, more considered approach might be in order.
Yes, but spray 'n' pray has the secondary/primary? function of keeping models awake and enthusiasm flowing. Doing nothing makes for awkward silences and inactivity that breeds no good. Better to keep shooting and maybe get something, than let the job die on the vine...
Rob C
-
i like manoli's leica analogy above as this is precisely what i feel. in fact i picked up a collapsible 90mm f4 macro elmar for the a7r ii and the results are beyond any expectation i would have had up to now. i can use it handheld at 1600asa 90-125 sec and get a 9/10 hit rate, the nearest thing i have in my archive to files that resemble this are from drum scanned kodak 400NC in 4x5 format.
the only thing is i don't have to carry a tripod, 20 dark slides, batman hood, etc... etc...
i do, however, take a spare battery.
these are as above about f.5.6. minimum ACR.
-
The 7D has the ability to operate in LiveView. Using the same battery, battery life is quite bad. This is a kind of mirrorless implementation (granted, an old one and probably not something that the components are optimized for).
I'd suggest that _if_ the impressive battery life (on paper at least) of the Nikon D750 is a big attraction to you, then having to purchase 2.2 extra batteries (in addition to the 2 included with the camera) and charge 4.2 batteries to reach similar (on paper) battery life is probably going to be an annoyance. As to if this tips the weight one way or the other I guess is highly personal.
My understanding of the CIPA ratings is that it is essentially a simple model for "tourist with compact camera" usage.
But I do believe that it makes sense to talk about pros and cons, even if that means being a party-pooper.
All good points, so it's probably best to focus mostly on where we agree:
1) Having live view on all the time (or at least for 30 seconds per shot as in the CIPA test) will substantially reduce "shots per mWh of battery capacity", and this might well dominates the CIPA measurements. For example, Olympus reports a better than doubling of shots per charge in the EM5 ii by use of a more efficient power management strategy (quick sleep between shots) than the CIPA testing protocol requires.
2) If one favors fewer battery changes, or prefers to carry an OVF camera and fewer spare batteries over an EVF camera with more, even if the latter is still a lighter kit overall, an OVF camera has some advantage. (The data suggests that the weight of a couple of those 42.5g Sony batteries will be less than the extra weight of an OVF prism and mirror system.)
-
Adrian,
Stay with those trees, you're doing great :)
Edmund
i like manoli's leica analogy above as this is precisely what i feel. in fact i picked up a collapsible 90mm f4 macro elmar for the a7r ii and the results are beyond any expectation i would have had up to now. i can use it handheld at 1600asa 90-125 sec and get a 9/10 hit rate, the nearest thing i have in my archive to files that resemble this are from drum scanned kodak 400NC in 4x5 format.
the only thing is i don't have to carry a tripod, 20 dark slides, batman hood, etc... etc...
i do, however, take a spare battery.
these are as above about f.5.6. minimum ACR.
-
Yes, but spray 'n' pray has the secondary/primary? function of keeping models awake and enthusiasm flowing. Doing nothing makes for awkward silences and inactivity that breeds no good. Better to keep shooting and maybe get something, than let the job die on the vine...
Rob C
seems we’re comparing apples to oranges here ... fashion photography has always employed a large number of captures, with top photographers having multiple cameras handed to them while someone else changes the film. Same with many other types of photography, such as news, sports, and sometimes wildlife photography.
Personally I’ve never felt this was “spray” and “pray”, but just good and necessary technique.
I believe Erik’s comments are based on his preference of shooting landscape photography, which finds many new photographers employing the spray and pray method, but where many experienced photographers choose a more deliberate approach. I often only take a handful of image in a single day. That may involve many captures since most are stitched, but on many occasions shooting 8 to 10 compositions in a day is a good day for me.
-
Hi,
Thanks for chiming in. The 100-200 images a day is coming from when I am shooting on travel. In many cases I take quite a few pictures on each setting. I may try different focal lengths. I also try to expose ETTR, so I shoot, chimp, adjust and reshoot. In many cases I just wait for better light. Usually there are some images for stitching and sometimes for focus stacking.
To that comes some spontaneous shooting. I like to shoot on tripod, but my last trip about half of my images were hand held, shooting folks or street.
Here are images from a complete day of shooting: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OneDaysShots/
And here is another one: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OneDaysShots/AnotherDay in this case I revisited a historic church in Innichen, wanted some images of the town a cold autumn day and visited a small lake nearby.
Best regards
Erik
seems we’re comparing apples to oranges here ... fashion photography has always employed a large number of captures, with top photographers having multiple cameras handed to them while someone else changes the film. Same with many other types of photography, such as news, sports, and sometimes wildlife photography.
Personally I’ve never felt this was “spray” and “pray”, but just good and necessary technique.
I believe Erik’s comments are based on his preference of shooting landscape photography, which finds many new photographers employing the spray and pray method, but where many experienced photographers choose a more deliberate approach. I often only take a handful of image in a single day. That may involve many captures since most are stitched, but on many occasions shooting 8 to 10 compositions in a day is a good day for me.
-
I believe Erik’s comments are based on his preference of shooting landscape photography, which finds many new photographers employing the spray and pray method, but where many experienced photographers choose a more deliberate approach. I often only take a handful of image in a single day. That may involve many captures since most are stitched, but on many occasions shooting 8 to 10 compositions in a day is a good day for me.
An experienced photographer (usually!) knows much better which pictures not to take than a new photographer. Even in say fashion, where many frames is part of the process there will be many of very small variations because there is clear intent and the elements in the shot just have to come together in one frame. I don't see this as spray 'n pray as there is clear deliberate intent.
-
Yes, but spray 'n' pray has the secondary/primary? function of keeping models awake and enthusiasm flowing. Doing nothing makes for awkward silences and inactivity that breeds no good. Better to keep shooting and maybe get something, than let the job die on the vine...
Rob C
Tires them out till they look natural.
-
Tires them out till they look natural.
You know too much; it can ruin your illusions!
Rob C
-
You know too much; it can ruin your illusions!
Rob C
When I was dabbling in fashion, an old AD with lots of hours on the clock setting up shoots told me: "Your pictures are good but you are ugly and the girls don't respect you, and it shows in their expressions. Hire a pretty assistant who chats up the girls, keep him around while you shoot. But keep doing the pictures yourself, you are good at doing the pictures. "
I did as he suggested, and it did change the results. But that was the end of my illusions...
He was a nice guy, with real artistic ability, and an uncanny imaginative way to see the crop. Damaged retinas (surgical mistake), no job, stuck in a hotel garrett drawing a frog comicbook, ended up committing suicide about a year after I met him; that didn't make me any happier ...one realises one is now an adult when friends or acquaintances start leaving.
Edmund
-
In the world of serious landscape photographers, yes, I think Sony is doing well**. However I think Sony is very minor player elsewhere. From my viewpoint, Canon is still killing it. About 90% of my local photo group use Canon. The rest mostly use Nikon. I know of only one acquaintance with a Sony and he moved from Nikon. I was just helping a novice with a touch screen Rebel. It was actually pretty slick.
** By "doing well" I mean selling some products and generating lively conversations like these. Long term profitability is another story. Some Sony users are really pumped about the high number of new cameras being released by Sony. I think the novelty of buying a new camera every year (and watching the old one depreciate) will get tiring fast. How many Sony users will continue to upgrade every year? I'd guess not many.
-
I'm older and somewhat cynical - by the time user groups / photo clubs start showing Sony users then the statistics will be 20 years out of date.
-
Hi,
Canon and Nikon release a lot of new cameras, too. The cycle between A7 and A7II generations at Sony has been pretty short, but II generation was really badly needed.
There are a lot of improvements between the A7r and A7rII, technology that was not there when the A7/A7r was released. Personally I did not jump on the A7/A7r, because I felt that they were not as advanced I wanted them to be. But the A7rII has a feature set I can live with so I think it is a keeper.
Attachment below shows release dates for > 20MP cameras from Canon and Sony. Left out Nikon because it would not fit within the screenshot.
In the same time frame Nikon released:
D3X, D4, D4s, D800/D800E, D600, D610, D810 and D750 (and perhaps some that I missed)
Best regards
Erik
** By "doing well" I mean selling some products and generating lively conversations like these. Long term profitability is another story. Some Sony users are really pumped about the high number of new cameras being released by Sony. I think the novelty of buying a new camera every year (and watching the old one depreciate) will get tiring fast. How many Sony users will continue to upgrade every year? I'd guess not many.
-
When I was dabbling in fashion, an old AD with lots of hours on the clock setting up shoots told me: "Your pictures are good but you are ugly and the girls don't respect you, and it shows in their expressions. Hire a pretty assistant who chats up the girls, keep him around while you shoot. But keep doing the pictures yourself, you are good at doing the pictures. "
I did as he suggested, and it did change the results. But that was the end of my illusions...
He was a nice guy, with real artistic ability, and an uncanny imaginative way to see the crop. Damaged retinas (surgical mistake), no job, stuck in a hotel garrett drawing a frog comicbook, ended up committing suicide about a year after I met him; that didn't make me any happier ...one realises one is now an adult when friends or acquaintances start leaving.
Edmund
Edmund,
I always though that I was cute when I was young - well, right up until I was hinting at fifty. Then I realised: nope, it's not you, baby, it's the work that's attractive! Such is life and the reality we have to live with.
As for departing friends: comes the time when you imagine that it's you that's next on that departure list. I don't know it makes one feel adult, but it sure makes one see the futility of knocking your balls off to achieve this, that or the other: in the end, as long as you can eat well and feel relatively comfortable, that's the meaning of success. It always depends on things other than just how good you are yourself: who you know, who likes you and, as importantly, who hates the sight of you.
One very great business loss I suffered came about because a client's wife became pregnant. He decided that he didn't want to travel anymore during her term, and so the job was handed to somebody lower down the corporate ladder to continue... new brooms, their own familiar power structures... exit one photographer. 'Twas ever so.
Rob
-
When I was dabbling in fashion, an old AD with lots of hours on the clock setting up shoots told me: "Your pictures are good but you are ugly and the girls don't respect you, and it shows in their expressions. Hire a pretty assistant who chats up the girls, keep him around while you shoot. But keep doing the pictures yourself, you are good at doing the pictures. "
I did as he suggested, and it did change the results. But that was the end of my illusions...
I am guessing Terry Richardson has an endless supply of these pretty assistants, then.
No other explanation on why women keep posing for him.
-
I am guessing Terry Richardson has an endless supply of these pretty assistants, then.
No other explanation on why women keep posing for him.
See the above: it's the work he can give. When he can't, it'll stop immediately the word gets round. The girls don't give a flying fig for you - it's their own progress that's king, to the level of obsession. And why ever not? Why else do we network - becaue we like some of the assholes we have to deal with? Those girls can find a boyfriend anywhere, any time, even the skinny, sexless ones: it's the reflected glory of bedding a star.
Rob C
-
See the above: it's the work he can give. When he can't, it'll stop immediately the word gets round. The girls don't give a flying fig for you - it's their own progress that's king, to the level of obsession. And why ever not? Why else do we network - becaue we like some of the assholes we have to deal with? Those girls can find a boyfriend anywhere, any time, even the skinny, sexless ones: it's the reflected glory of bedding a star.
Rob C
Yes I agree.
Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the Internet. :)
-
See the above: it's the work he can give. When he can't, it'll stop immediately the word gets round. The girls don't give a flying fig for you - it's their own progress that's king, to the level of obsession. And why ever not? Why else do we network - becaue we like some of the assholes we have to deal with? Those girls can find a boyfriend anywhere, any time, even the skinny, sexless ones: it's the reflected glory of bedding a star.
Rob C
I just found a profile.
It's funny to think of all these engaged feministic magazine editors and women-empowering brands commissioning *precisely this guy* for their images. Sex, drugs and rock and roll do sell product.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/terry-richardson-interview.html#
Edmund
-
I just found a profile.
It's funny to think of all these engaged feministic magazine editors and women-empowering brands commissioning *precisely this guy* for their images. Sex, drugs and rock and roll do sell product.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/terry-richardson-interview.html#
Edmund
Thanks for the link, Edmund.
It's actually sort of sad, in its own way... fame, yet predicated upon noteriety. Then you (he) get stuck with it, and it won't go way when it's no longer convenient.
First thing I saw of his was a Kate Moss shoot where she's walking along a beach wearing a coat that ¡s open to show her wearing no pants. (I remember this because I had to buy myself a new electric razor today - the old one stopped functioning right after I recharged it.) It was a bit of a shock (the Moss pic) - it did nothing for the clothes - she was already a legend and needed none of this... I have always felt those kinds of things just smack of desperation. Buy hey, I suppose if people are on drugs, then they can't keep a sense of what's right and what's not, and I come round to thinking that the editors who let it through might be in difficult situations themselves and can't afford to get stroppy. Who knows where the bodies are buried? Maybe Terry does? If there are bodies buried.
So many casualties in fashion - both sides of the camera. Far better doing calendars; relatively clean, and most all the chicks I shot were friendly in a pleasant, undemanding way.
Rob
-
Rob,
I think we may be the ones who don't get it. Drug excess in itself is probably fascinating for that generation; and being "bad" and sticking it to "the man" by self-destructive behaviour. Look at Kate Moss - officially she got benched for her notorious drug antics, in fact when she came "back" her income was multiplied. Look at the Miley Cyrus traincrash and the way her pendulum swing from "good girl" to "bad girl" has been rewarded by the industry. I think I should shut up, "Cooter" will be around in a minute to explain that we are lacking in respect to the great fashion artiste Richardson, that I defame fashion muse Moss, and trendsetter Cyrus.
Edmund
Thanks for the link, Edmund.
It's actually sort of sad, in its own way... fame, yet predicated upon noteriety. Then you (he) get stuck with it, and it won't go way when it's no longer convenient.
First thing I saw of his was a Kate Moss shoot where she's walking along a beach wearing a coat that ¡s open to show her wearing no pants. (I remember this because I had to buy myself a new electric razor today - the old one stopped functioning right after I recharged it.) It was a bit of a shock (the Moss pic) - it did nothing for the clothes - she was already a legend and needed none of this... I have always felt those kinds of things just smack of desperation. Buy hey, I suppose if people are on drugs, then they can't keep a sense of what's right and what's not, and I come round to thinking that the editors who let it through might be in difficult situations themselves and can't afford to get stroppy. Who knows where the bodies are buried? Maybe Terry does? If there are bodies buried.
So many casualties in fashion - both sides of the camera. Far better doing calendars; relatively clean, and most all the chicks I shot were friendly in a pleasant, undemanding way.
Rob
-
At this age, the only calendar I will be involved in is the "group of cleverly posed naked middle-aged women posing for a charity gag calendar". ;D
The only calendar I have hopes for submission is the state conservation department calendar ("November 3 - Scaup and ring-necked duck populations peak").
-
I think people are enamored with Sony simply because of the sensors. I hate to say it, but a camera system is far more than sensors -- even giving Sony Zeiss for their lenses. Personally, I hate the A7 et al cameras. They are worthless for my style of shooting. The blackout of the viewfinder when shooting is totally unacceptable. And this is why I will never use an EVF. Some people love them. I hate them. I used a friend's A7r for all of 5 minutes while doing a studio shoot recently. God did I hate the camera and it's handling. Ergonomics are awful. The friend just tried the out the latest Sony A7r2 at B&H over the weekend. He said he is so disappointed with the camera's handling, and the fact that the viewfinder blackout hasn't been addressed, that he's seriously thinking of going back to Canon, or perhaps Nikon. (He's been shooting professionally for almost 20-years doing corporate work. For that matter, I've shot professionally, 100% of my income, for almost 40, so I've used a few cameras.)
I'll take the handling of my 1Dx or 5Ds over the Sonys any day. I think they were onto something with the Alpha series (like the A99). I considered buying into that a while back, but now I'm VERY glad I stuck with a mature, comprehensive system like Canon. (The same could be said for Nikon.) Sony reminds me of an ADD kid -- onto a new lens mount before you can say "boo".
-
seems we’re comparing apples to oranges here ... fashion photography has always employed a large number of captures, with top photographers having multiple cameras handed to them while someone else changes the film. Same with many other types of photography, such as news, sports, and sometimes wildlife photography.
Personally I’ve never felt this was “spray” and “pray”, but just good and necessary technique.
I believe Erik’s comments are based on his preference of shooting landscape photography, which finds many new photographers employing the spray and pray method, but where many experienced photographers choose a more deliberate approach. I often only take a handful of image in a single day. That may involve many captures since most are stitched, but on many occasions shooting 8 to 10 compositions in a day is a good day for me.
Agree completely. I think you summed it up well. As a fashion shooter, on a week long catalog, I'll shoot 15,000 frames. If I go out and shoot landscapes for myself, I'm happy with 10, if I feel they're good.
-
I think people are enamored with Sony simply because of the sensors. I hate to say it, but a camera system is far more than sensors -- even giving Sony Zeiss for their lenses. Personally, I hate the A7 et al cameras. They are worthless for my style of shooting. The blackout of the viewfinder when shooting is totally unacceptable. And this is why I will never use an EVF. Some people love them. I hate them. I used a friend's A7r for all of 5 minutes while doing a studio shoot recently. God did I hate the camera and it's handling. Ergonomics are awful. The friend just tried the out the latest Sony A7r2 at B&H over the weekend. He said he is so disappointed with the camera's handling, and the fact that the viewfinder blackout hasn't been addressed, that he's seriously thinking of going back to Canon, or perhaps Nikon. (He's been shooting professionally for almost 20-years doing corporate work. For that matter, I've shot professionally, 100% of my income, for almost 40, so I've used a few cameras.)
I'll take the handling of my 1Dx or 5Ds over the Sonys any day. I think they were onto something with the Alpha series (like the A99). I considered buying into that a while back, but now I'm VERY glad I stuck with a mature, comprehensive system like Canon. (The same could be said for Nikon.) Sony reminds me of an ADD kid -- onto a new lens mount before you can say "boo".
Yet, for anyone who primarily shoots using live view and values the real-time exposure simulation and ease of precise (usually manual) focusing only a direct sensor readout can bring, the A7r is probably the best thing that ever happened. Obviously it's not optimal for action shooting - it wasn't designed for that. It's like taking an old SLR without live view and wondering why it's not particularly good for precise focusing using tilt-shift lenses.
And, for some fields of photography (mostly of things that don't move), sensor (and lens selection) pretty much is everything.
-
I think people are enamored with Sony simply because of the sensors.
I have no disagreement with your preference for OVF cameras, but the sensors can't be the only reason why some people like EVF cameras, since Nikon (and Pentax) offer Sony sensors in OVF bodies, and often, Nikon has got the new sensors first, probably in part due to buying far more of them than Sony's own camera division does.
I would hope that we can agree that the OVF and EVF options for ILCs each have legitimate appeal, with the choice at least partly depending on differences in intended usage. Along with other factors like the effects of decades of Canon/Nikon dominance of the ILC market, back to the film era, which gives them advantages from AF and metering technology, to the big array of lenses thay can offer, to the many millions of such lenses that owners want to keep using, and want to use wih the AF system they were designed for.
The most that I predict for EVF cameras is a rise to dominance in the mainstream sub-35mm formats, where Camon and Nikon have already established small beachheads. The future mix in 35mm format is very unclear to me.
-
I think people are enamored with Sony simply because of the sensors.
Not in my case. I just wanted a nice platform for all my favorite older 35mm format lenses. Multiple brands, mostly pre-1990. Being able to accurately focus said lenses was the key factor. Enter the EVF with its superior focusing assistance…and a sale was made.
While you may never buy an EVF camera I will most certainly never buy another SLR. I think there's room in the world for both, though.
-Dave-
-
... Nikon has got the new sensors first, probably in part due to buying far more of them than Sony's own camera division does.
Although this doesn't seem to have been the case with the new BSI sensor in the A7rII - unless of course they (Nikon) decided to pass.
I would hope that we can agree that the OVF and EVF options for ILCs each have legitimate appeal, with the choice at least partly depending on differences in intended usage. Along with other factors like the effects of decades of Canon/Nikon dominance of the ILC market [...]
I'd agree with that too, but in adopting the FE mount cams, most users will want to use legacy lenses. The FE mount has one major disadvantage in that it can't be 'adapted' - so even if the option was there (which it isn't, yet), no-one in their right mind would invest in a full set of Sony/ZEiSS lenses from the 'go', dumping a dozen or so CanNikon lenses in the process. The kick-off for the FE mount came mainly from sensor-deprived Canon users who were suddenly presented with the option of using their existing lenses via an adapter on higher spec sensors. Nikon users followed, but for differing reasons.
If you were of the same frame of mind as Nemo, then little damage was done - just switch bodies. Hence, the uptick in interest of the FE v A mount. Without the interchangeability of lenses, the cam would have been dead in the water before it had even got off the ground. The pickup was certainly greater than Sony (and Zeiss) ever expected.
Andrew Reid has just published a review of the A7sII on EOSHD [link] (http://www.eoshd.com/2015/11/sony-a7s-ii-review-part-1-major-sunspot-defect/). Motion centric but interesting reading, though for the full picture you'll need to read through to the comments in his forum.
-
I am pretty happy with the live view implementation of the Canon DSLRs (6D, in my case). The only time exposure simulation fails is for long-exposure night photography (typically 10 sec or longer), where there simply isn't enough light at the desired ISO of 1600 or 3200 to see your image on LV. Typically I crank to 12800 or 25600 and find a particularly bright star to use for focusing those lenses that don't have true infinity hard stop (that's most of them). Precise framing of the shot is usually done by iteration from photos, not directly from live view (assuming moonless dark rural night).
But I have to say that for daytime, unless you attach reporting chips to all of your old lenses/adapters, or use live view with Magic Lantern, focusing fast old manual lenses on a modern DSLR can be a bit of a crap shoot, even with a superfine screen. Nevertheless, I have had some fun with the old AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 focused through optical viewfinder - just not huge accuracy ;)
-
Hi,
I have little doubt EVF will take over from OVF question is just how long it will take.
- Both SLR and EVF try to solve the same issue, what you see is what you get.
- SLR technology has been around for 70 years (or so) EVF just a few years. SLR technology is mature while EVF is still adolescent.
- EVF doesn't need two mirrors doing complex motion in as few milliseconds as possible.
- EVF focusing using the sensor itself, while SLR focuses on a proxy image projected by the moving mirrors mentioned above.
- EVF cameras can have shorter response times than SLRs if electronic first curtain is used
- With SLR the mirrors needs to be flipped out of the optical path before exposure this takes time and will cause vibrations.[/li|
- With EVF the manufacturers can get rid of a lot of mechanical complexity.
SLR technology has at least two basic advantages:
- There is no viewfinder delay. The image is visible in nanosecond accurate real time. EVF will always have some lag, even if it can be very short. Milliseconds vs. pico seconds.
- Not dependent on electric power
I am pretty sure that evolution of technology will reduce the disadvantages of EVFs.
Best regards
Erik
I have no disagreement with your preference for OVF cameras, but the sensors can't be the only reason why some people like EVF cameras, since Nikon (and Pentax) offer Sony sensors in OVF bodies, and often, Nikon has got the new sensors first, probably in part due to buying far more of them than Sony's own camera division does.
I would hope that we can agree that the OVF and EVF options for ILCs each have legitimate appeal, with the choice at least partly depending on differences in intended usage. Along with other factors like the effects of decades of Canon/Nikon dominance of the ILC market, back to the film era, which gives them advantages from AF and metering technology, to the big array of lenses thay can offer, to the many millions of such lenses that owners want to keep using, and want to use wih the AF system they were designed for.
The most that I predict for EVF cameras is a rise to dominance in the mainstream sub-35mm formats, where Camon and Nikon have already established small beachheads. The future mix in 35mm format is very unclear to me.
-
I think people are enamored with Sony simply because of the sensors. I hate to say it, but a camera system is far more than sensors -- even giving Sony Zeiss for their lenses. Personally, I hate the A7 et al cameras. They are worthless for my style of shooting. The blackout of the viewfinder when shooting is totally unacceptable. And this is why I will never use an EVF. Some people love them. I hate them. I used a friend's A7r for all of 5 minutes while doing a studio shoot recently. God did I hate the camera and it's handling. Ergonomics are awful. The friend just tried the out the latest Sony A7r2 at B&H over the weekend. He said he is so disappointed with the camera's handling, and the fact that the viewfinder blackout hasn't been addressed, that he's seriously thinking of going back to Canon, or perhaps Nikon. (He's been shooting professionally for almost 20-years doing corporate work. For that matter, I've shot professionally, 100% of my income, for almost 40, so I've used a few cameras.)
I'll take the handling of my 1Dx or 5Ds over the Sonys any day. I think they were onto something with the Alpha series (like the A99). I considered buying into that a while back, but now I'm VERY glad I stuck with a mature, comprehensive system like Canon. (The same could be said for Nikon.) Sony reminds me of an ADD kid -- onto a new lens mount before you can say "boo".
So the A7 system does not work for you, good. I am glad it works for me, I shoot landscapes and travel. Because it allows me to save weight and space, while surpassing me previous Canon 6D system. It is liberating to go out into the woods, or beaches, or travelling, with an A7II, and 3 lenses, all carried in a small backpack.
-
So the A7 system does not work for you, good. I am glad it works for me, I shoot landscapes and travel. Because it allows me to save weight and space, while surpassing me previous Canon 6D system. It is liberating to go out into the woods, or beaches, or travelling, with an A7II, and 3 lenses, all carried in a small backpack.
Or two A7r bodies, a heavy tripod and C1 cube head, 15kg of lenses and a 5Ds, 200-400 and monopod for those two days of wildlife shooting in the middle of a three week landscape trip, as the case may be...
Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean light weight.
-
Or two A7r bodies, a heavy tripod and C1 cube head, 15kg of lenses and a 5Ds, 200-400 and monopod for those two days of wildlife shooting in the middle of a three week landscape trip, as the case may be...
Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean light weight.
I can commiserate.
Just about to leave for Southern Africa - combination of wildlife and landscape shooting ahead.
Packing a combination of Sony kit and Canon kit.
Canon mostly for the super telephoto end and Sony for the rest.
The kit is lighter than the last trip (just with Canon kit) but not by much...
Tony Jay
-
I can commiserate.
Just about to leave for Southern Africa - combination of wildlife and landscape shooting ahead.
Packing a combination of Sony kit and Canon kit.
Canon mostly for the super telephoto end and Sony for the rest.
The kit is lighter than the last trip (just with Canon kit) but not by much...
Tony Jay
The next generation of camera will be a clip-on sensor for the glass, with a feed to the VR glasses which everybody is now going to wear.
Edmund
-
The next generation of camera will be a clip-on sensor for the glass, with a feed to the VR glasses which everybody is now going to wear.
Edmund
Maybe the next generation of air travel will be a form of teleportation to save on time!
Tony Jay
-
Maybe the next generation of air travel will be a form of teleportation to save on time!
Tony Jay
Heaven forbid: remember The Fly?
Rob C
-
Heaven forbid: remember The Fly?
Rob C
Actually no!
Not sure whether to laugh or cry now!
Tony Jay
-
Or two A7r bodies, a heavy tripod and C1 cube head, 15kg of lenses and a 5Ds, 200-400 and monopod for those two days of wildlife shooting in the middle of a three week landscape trip, as the case may be...
Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean light weight.
Agreed: clearly, when one needs big, fast lenses, body bulk is rather irrelevant. On the other hand, one thing that is pushing many photographers towards using EVF cameras at least part of the time is the great increases in sensitivity (reduction in noise at a given ISO speed; higher usable ISO speeds, getting the same usable ISO speed in a smaller format) compared to sensors from some years ago, and even more so compared to film. Because one way or another, this leads many of us to sometimes take photographs in ways that deliver far less light to the sensor, and hence less light to the OVF. An EVF camera can keep the VF image as big and bright as ever by increasing the amplification (allowed by the lower noise in the newer sensors) but with an OVF, the image must get dimmer, or smaller, or some mix of both.
The situations I am thinking of include:
1) Shooting in lower light with a given lens.
2) Shooting in the same light at the same shutter speed with a higher ISO speed and higher f-stop, allowing the use of a lighter lens through the lens having a higher minimum f-stop.
3) Pushing telephoto reach further by using the same-sized lenses with a smaller format (or using them with heavier cropping, which I count as using a smaller effective format).
4) Pushing telephoto reach further by using a tele-convertor or a longer but slower lens, offsetting the f-stp with the higher usable ISO speed.
I am often in case (3): I ver owned a lens longer than 300mm for my film cameras, but the relatively lightweight MFT 75-300/4.8-6.7 gives telephoto reach as good as (actually better than) a mythical 150-600mm on those film cameras. It would not work well on a Four Thirds SLR, because at f/6.7, the VF image would be uncomfortably dim or small, depending on the OVF magnification.
Of course, one can also use rear-screen Live View on a DSLR in this situation, but the disadvantages of doing that, especially with hand-held long lenses, have been much discussed around here!
-
Help me, help me!!! bzzzzzzz ;D
-
Or two A7r bodies, a heavy tripod and C1 cube head, 15kg of lenses and a 5Ds, 200-400 and monopod for those two days of wildlife shooting in the middle of a three week landscape trip, as the case may be...
Mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean light weight.
Yes of course, we all know that, that is not the point... In my case, I never shot with the big white teles. I am sure that for most users, they never did also. My point is that until recently, if one wanted FF and Zeiss glass for landscapes, on a DSLR, that meant say two 6D, with a Distagon 21. Add a couple of L lenses to cover standard and telephoto, and all of a sudden I am schlepping around 6+ kgs of gear.
Today, I carry two A7, both Batis, and the 55 1.8, for less than half the weight. A significant change for me, and I believe for many.
-
Help me, help me!!! bzzzzzzz ;D
Sweet drrrreams!
;-)
Rob C
-
Yes of course, we all know that, that is not the point... In my case, I never shot with the big white teles. I am sure that for most users, they never did also. My point is that until recently, if one wanted FF and Zeiss glass for landscapes, on a DSLR, that meant say two 6D, with a Distagon 21. Add a couple of L lenses to cover standard and telephoto, and all of a sudden I am schlepping around 6+ kgs of gear.
Today, I carry two A7, both Batis, and the 55 1.8, for less than half the weight. A significant change for me, and I believe for many.
I tried the Leica S, the Sony A7RII and the SL today, and found I just like optical viewfinders.
Edmund
-
I tried the Leica S, the Sony A7RII and the SL today, and found I just like optical viewfinders.
Edmund,
Perfect timing, but before you lay out for the 'S', you'll be pleased to know that Sony have announced a firmware upgrade for the 'vanilla' A7II - uncompressed RAW and Phase/CD AF much as the A7R, albeit with reduced focus points. Release date: Nov-18.
M
-
Edmund,
Perfect timing, but before you lay out for the 'S', you'll be pleased to know that Sony have announced a firmware upgrade for the 'vanilla' A7II - uncompressed RAW and Phase/CD AF much as the A7R, albeit with reduced focus points. Release date: Nov-18.
M
Manoli,
I am too poor anyway; the problem seems to be that my 1Ds3 has the best viewfinder outside MF, and I have been spoilt.
The A72 is selling for about 1800 E at FNAC, and I suspect the price will fall quickly. The A7RII is not on sale in France in high-volume stores AFAIK.
I suspect that a surplus sub $1K H3D Hassy is in my future, about 2 years away. When I got the 1Ds3 it was already 5 years old. Of course at that point, the A7R2 will probably be something I'll fish out of a dustbin in front of one of the posh apartments near Trocadéro :)
Edmund
-
Agreed: clearly, when one needs big, fast lenses, body bulk is rather irrelevant. On the other hand, one thing that is pushing many photographers towards using EVF cameras at least part of the time is the great increases in sensitivity (reduction in noise at a given ISO speed; higher usable ISO speeds, getting the same usable ISO speed in a smaller format) compared to sensors from some years ago, and even more so compared to film. Because one way or another, this leads many of us to sometimes take photographs in ways that deliver far less light to the sensor, and hence less light to the OVF. An EVF camera can keep the VF image as big and bright as ever by increasing the amplification (allowed by the lower noise in the newer sensors) but with an OVF, the image must get dimmer, or smaller, or some mix of both.
The situations I am thinking of include:
1) Shooting in lower light with a given lens.
2) Shooting in the same light at the same shutter speed with a higher ISO speed and higher f-stop, allowing the use of a lighter lens through the lens having a higher minimum f-stop.
3) Pushing telephoto reach further by using the same-sized lenses with a smaller format (or using them with heavier cropping, which I count as using a smaller effective format).
4) Pushing telephoto reach further by using a tele-convertor or a longer but slower lens, offsetting the f-stp with the higher usable ISO speed.
I am often in case (3): I ver owned a lens longer than 300mm for my film cameras, but the relatively lightweight MFT 75-300/4.8-6.7 gives telephoto reach as good as (actually better than) a mythical 150-600mm on those film cameras. It would not work well on a Four Thirds SLR, because at f/6.7, the VF image would be uncomfortably dim or small, depending on the OVF magnification.
Of course, one can also use rear-screen Live View on a DSLR in this situation, but the disadvantages of doing that, especially with hand-held long lenses, have been much discussed around here!
Noise performance hasn't really changed THAT much, you compare say the a7R II to the D700 and your talking about 1/2 a stop difference. I would guess as well that noise performance is one area lots of people are always hunger for more, it really doesn't take that low light before your having to move to flash if you want decent sized noise free prints.
To me as well it just seems like your giving up a lot of the advantages of moving to FF in the first place with Sony, lenses are slow enough that low light ability and DOF control isn't any better than ASPC and there more expensive so you don't even have the advantage of cheap good performers with AF as you do with FF DSLRs.
-
Can you please provide your evidence for stating that there is only about 1/2 a stop difference between the D700 and the A7r II ? Even allowing for the fact that Sony has traditionally sacrificed a certain amount of noise control for improvements in other areas.
I ask as although I am neither a pixel peeper, engineer or in any way technically pre disposed, I do happen to have owned both cameras. And yes for quite a few things the D700 will produce decent results and prints. But then again noise results by themselves are far from being some sort of ultimate truth.
And noise like many things depends on your PP software as much as anything.
And if we are speaking subjectively, my vision is as valid to me as yours is to you. And they would appear to definitely differ.
-
"We were clearing customs the other day and one of the world's past most famous models and sometimes actress was stuck in the back of customs needing money for some duty and she offered my producer her laptop for the $500 she needed.
I don't find any joy in this, just kind of sad because this business is very unforgiving and there is no union, advocate group of government that will step in as a safety net.
It's a tough gig."
We should all be made aware of how Dame Fortune swings her affections around.
However, there could be many resons for this particular girl's predicament: no ready cash in pocket; lost/expired credit card, who knows? But it could all be true at face-value, the result of hopeless management skills and drink, drugs 'n' rock 'n' roll.
When you are hot you don't think one day you're going to be not, you think it can only go one way, and there's a lot more way to go. That's if you can think at all, with all that's happening to you and all the forever lovin' crap people whisper in your ears.
I'd have hated anybody in my family to have taken up modelling as a job.
Rob C
-
Can you please provide your evidence for stating that there is only about 1/2 a stop difference between the D700 and the A7r II ? Even allowing for the fact that Sony has traditionally sacrificed a certain amount of noise control for improvements in other areas.
I ask as although I am neither a pixel peeper, engineer or in any way technically pre disposed, I do happen to have owned both cameras. And yes for quite a few things the D700 will produce decent results and prints. But then again noise results by themselves are far from being some sort of ultimate truth.
And noise like many things depends on your PP software as much as anything.
And if we are speaking subjectively, my vision is as valid to me as yours is to you. And they would appear to definitely differ.
I'm going from DxO mark scores...
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D700-versus-Nikon-D800-versus-Sony-A7R-II___441_792_1035
D700 is about half a stop behind the A7R II and a quarter stop behind the D800, makes sense if you consider the D800 sensor came out between the two of them.
Whatever the hype around them the reality is that CMOS sensors have not advanced that much over the last decade in terms of pure noise performance, other areas have improve though like dynamic range.
-
Noise performance hasn't really changed THAT much, you compare say the a7R II to the D700 and your talking about 1/2 a stop difference.
I was looking on a longer time scale, back to early DSLRs where usable ISO 1600 was amazing progress, and also comparing back to film, from where the gain is probably four stops or more. And I am certainly not saying that everyone is or should be using higher ISO speed options to downsize their lenses or increase telephoto reach form lenses of given size. But a great number of us are, and for that usage, an EVF (or some form of "steadily hand-holdable live view") can a great advantage over a small and/or dim OVF image. Shooting long telephoto shots with a plan to crop heavily is one example.
One threshold I see it that, from the film era to now, the upper limit on weight and cost in telephoto lenses for a great majority of photographers is a slowish 300mm, as in something like a 75-300/3.4-5.6 zoom, whereas for a lot of bird and beast photography in un-cropped 35mm format, "wild-life begins at 500mm". Those same 300/5.6 and slower zoom lenses now give far more reach, comparable to 35mm film with a 500mm or even far longer lens when you allow for the cropping latitude of newer sensors, but a rather poor OVF experience.
-
J,
Those stabilised images are great; I think mainstream in-camera stabilisers and in-camera video are the greatest real advance in twenty years.
Canon have made great rangefinders which were used a lot by war reporters , great rugged film bodies (think F1), and now great dSLRs. I really like them but they're a bit slow to change. BTW - if anyone wants to do a straight swap of my D4 for a 1Dx, I'd be interested.
I'm impressed the Sony body survived for the duration of the shoot.
Edmund
Optical finders in the pro motion world are limited to the Arri and then it's only the operator that sees it.
Everyone else looks at the screens.
In regards to Sony taking over the camera world, I guess you'll have to define what world.
It's a good camera, though the menus and tactile functions are still not that intuitive to me, but hey, it's a small camera.
The A7sII we just purchased is a good for low light motion imagery, though really stops at 5,000 asa which is still quite high.
In very early looks of the dailies Sony does have a sensor that covers a lot of range and can be pretty or kind of video looking, though I assume post work will correct some of this, but it's range is quite impressive.
For stills and moving subjects it just doesn't hold up in use like a professional Canon, Nikon, RED or Arri, but the project we are on isn't normal due to it's physical brutality, volume of imagery and hours worked.
For battery life we started with 6, bought 6 more with three extra chargers and were constantly charging v locks and sony batteries.
The 1dx would get through a day usually on one battery and we only changed due to safety.
But this isn't a typical shoot. (At least I hope not.)
We had one scene where we staged and LZ on top of a sandy mountain flat top and ad the blackhawk come in low then blasted out.
The blast was more than we expected and flipped me and the B camera operator 200 degrees over.
The Canon lenses held up, the Sony zoom I rented was shreaded. The front glass has a crack and looks sandblasted.
(the reason we didn't have a filter on the sony was we were using faders but the light dropped and the b operator just yanked the fader along with the protective UV filter.)
In other words he did what he had to do and we didn't have time to anticipate the blast.
I am now the proud owner of a zoom I never really wanted, (including a scar on my forehead that I hope heals over) so if anybody is looking for a deal on a e mount lens let me know.
Anyway, if you want to see how well the floating sensor performs at speed click on the link below. It's somewhat amazing how well the floating sensor works because the crash at hitting the foreground boats wake is like hitting a wall at 15mph in a car.
This clip is one light graded in resolve, and the banding comes from h264 low bit rate compression. The leveling of the horizion line comes mostly from my brain and arms as a gimble, but the smoothness of the main image is due to the Sony camera.
http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/fast_skifs.mov
BTW: I shot this with a 1dx for the same project.
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/blackawk1.jpg)
I had the Sony on board, but tossed it to the B operator, because it didn't do the stills as effective as a large 1dx which is totally tuned for still action.
Keep in mind these are violent settings and the power and bounce of these vehicles are eye opening. The Blackhawk bounced me around like a ball in a the lottery drawing but when the 1dx was on, it was on.
Now I have to admit, I'm not enamored yet by the Sony look, but totally blown away by the range the sensor holds and how well it holds up in first light grading.
_____________________
Of the photographer mentioned, he MAY be part of a small subsection of people who excerpt power over people that can't say no.
I say may because I don't personally know first hand, I just know how he presents himself and his work
Manoli excluded because he seems to have inside information, but we seem to live in a culture where we love to build people up, (usually for the wrong reasons) then tear them down, (usually without the full story).
This has gone on forever in every industry and I'm not defending and excusing anyone and if true I find it distasteful.
I've known photographers, producers, even clients that have attempted to use their position for some very awful purposes and even though the thought is you can just say no, sometimes no is not as easy to say as it seems especially for people that are entering the industry.
In regards to Ms. Moss I've never photographed her, but find her an amazing talent. Some people may "judge" some of her images to be lacking in morals, but celebreties walk a fine line of staying in the public eye, being bold and being chastised, not to mention being paid, all at the same time.
It's a very difficult position to be in, regardless of their pay grade.
I am always fascinated and dissapointed by the arm chair pundits that feel compelled to judge just because they've feel like they can, or maybe they're just bored.
Image making probably isn't the hardest job in the world, but it's very far from easy to have success.
The crews and on camera talent I work with are hard working beyond what most people could endure, creative and put their bodies and their personal lives at risk to do the job without complaint.
We were clearing customs the other day and one of the world's past most famous models and sometimes actress was stuck in the back of customs needing money for some duty and she offered my producer her laptop for the $500 she needed.
I don't find any joy in this, just kind of sad because this business is very unforgiving and there is no union, advocate group of government that will step in as a safety net.
It's a tough gig.
IMO
BC
-
Noise performance hasn't really changed THAT much…
I personally don't care whether it has or hasn't. The noise/grain-free "ideal" holds little interest for me. I like texture in my photos…not always but most of the time. A lot of what I've done with the A7r2 has involved ISOs at & above 12800. I use a bit of chroma NR but none of the luma variety. Looks great, and I can snap away in near darkness (with EVF amplification!) if I so desire.
-Dave-
-
Thanks. I think it's good,not great, but I just did a quick 10 minute correction in resolve from the out of camera file. For real work we will transcode everything to prores and then see what shakes out.
The camera was hard to get and Samys pulled a lot of strings to get one to me. We had about 4 hours to check it out before we started shooting with it. For safety we had it in a wooden camera cage, (which I think is the best) and Ill buy an Odessy for hdmi out recording to see if that makes any difference.
I still think the Sony looks a little "video like", but with proper post it will probably come out good.
IMO
BC
Maybe you could try the Sound Devices Pix E5 or one of its cousins - some people say it is MUCH LESS FIDDLY than the Odyssey, just gets the job done, and it IS smaller. Carts plug straight into the comp. Does less formats, for sure.
This may be worth reading:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?341485-DVX200-External-Recorder-Odyssey-7Q-and-Sound-Devices-PIX-E5H-reviewed&p=1986588535#post1986588535
I really really would like an Odyssey, but on the other hand I think it's more trouble than it's worth. It's not even the money, it's the fiddle factor. Size, carts, readers, batteries, connectors, complex menus (yes I did earn that PhD). Wonderful screen though, universal ability.
Edmund
-
Maybe you could try the Sound Devices Pix E5 or one of its cousins - some people say it is MUCH LESS FIDDLY than the Odyssey, just gets the job done, and it IS smaller. Carts plug straight into the comp. Does less formats, for sure.
This may be worth reading:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?341485-DVX200-External-Recorder-Odyssey-7Q-and-Sound-Devices-PIX-E5H-reviewed&p=1986588535#post1986588535
I really really would like an Odyssey, but on the other hand I think it's more trouble than it's worth. It's not even the money, it's the fiddle factor. Size, carts, readers, batteries, connectors, complex menus (yes I did earn that PhD). Wonderful screen though, universal ability.
Edmund
Just to stay off-topic for a moment...
I just rented an Atomos Shogun last week (to use mostly as a directors monitor) bit I tried it out on my a7s (original version) and it's really very good. Recording out to 2160p ProRes makes a significant difference in the files. And I like the device a lot. Beautiful screen, lots of exposure tools, LUTs, hdmi/SDI cross-conversion, understands record signals from both my Epic and the a7s, ProRes or DNxHD 10-bit recording with no Odessy license fees, runs a long time on a battery, and it uses plain old SSDs that I can buy at Best Buy in a pinch (with no proprietary media tax), and that can just be given to the client if they're in a rush (not that I advocate doing that without backups--but backups are at 6g SATA speeds). I'm truly impressed. It's climbed right to the top of my "want to have it" list.
Considering what I know about the Odessy--lower-res screen, very pricy proprietary media, expensive codec licenses--I can't see how I'd ever come to prefer it. I will say the VideoDevices e7 does interest me. The e5 less so. I think the screens matter. Smaller isn't always better--for me.
-
I was looking on a longer time scale, back to early DSLRs where usable ISO 1600 was amazing progress, and also comparing back to film, from where the gain is probably four stops or more. And I am certainly not saying that everyone is or should be using higher ISO speed options to downsize their lenses or increase telephoto reach form lenses of given size. But a great number of us are, and for that usage, an EVF (or some form of "steadily hand-holdable live view") can a great advantage over a small and/or dim OVF image. Shooting long telephoto shots with a plan to crop heavily is one example.
One threshold I see it that, from the film era to now, the upper limit on weight and cost in telephoto lenses for a great majority of photographers is a slowish 300mm, as in something like a 75-300/3.4-5.6 zoom, whereas for a lot of bird and beast photography in un-cropped 35mm format, "wild-life begins at 500mm". Those same 300/5.6 and slower zoom lenses now give far more reach, comparable to 35mm film with a 500mm or even far longer lens when you allow for the cropping latitude of newer sensors, but a rather poor OVF experience.
This is surely an argument for APSC over FF rather than mirrorless over DSLR? with even moderate tele use even on APSC or even m43 flange distance savings become meaningless.
It also I'd say exposes that todays FF market is not the same as the previous 35mm DSLR market, a lot of the cheaper end of the market buys APSC due to as you say the advantages of modern digital sensors in noise and crop factor. The FF digital market that remains tends to be naturally higher end users(including previous medium format film users) looking to maximise performance and as I said I think its a mistake to class low light performance of the film era as a standard people were "happy" with.
As I said even today its not as if noise isn't a problem in lower light even with an F/2.8 zoom is it? your not needing to shoot in a coalmine before it becomes a significant issue and I think it would take an extra 2-3 stops of performance at least before a lot of people were willing to give up performance on there zooms.
Honestly a lot of the hype behind Sony's FF mirrorless for me is really based on the fantasy of this wondrous thing that was coming(that a lot of people had argued for years in advance) rather than what actually arrived. People had this vague idea based on manual focus prime based rangefinders and film cameras were wideangles could be smaller without light angles being an issue that FF mirrorless would be a massive revolution in size when the reality has turned out to be much more limited. What we've actually seen IMHO is evidence of why mirrorless tech has previously been focused mostly on APSC and smaller sensors.
-
This is surely an argument for APSC over FF rather than mirrorless over DSLR? with even moderate tele use even on APSC or even m43 flange distance savings become meaningless.
It also I'd say exposes that todays FF market is not the same as the previous 35mm DSLR market, a lot of the cheaper end of the market buys APSC due to as you say the advantages of modern digital sensors in noise and crop factor. The FF digital market that remains tends to be naturally higher end users(including previous medium format film users) looking to maximise performance and as I said I think its a mistake to class low light performance of the film era as a standard people were "happy" with.
As I said even today its not as if noise isn't a problem in lower light even with an F/2.8 zoom is it? your not needing to shoot in a coalmine before it becomes a significant issue and I think it would take an extra 2-3 stops of performance at least before a lot of people were willing to give up performance on there zooms.
Honestly a lot of the hype behind Sony's FF mirrorless for me is really based on the fantasy of this wondrous thing that was coming(that a lot of people had argued for years in advance) rather than what actually arrived. People had this vague idea based on manual focus prime based rangefinders and film cameras were wideangles could be smaller without light angles being an issue that FF mirrorless would be a massive revolution in size when the reality has turned out to be much more limited. What we've actually seen IMHO is evidence of why mirrorless tech has previously been focused mostly on APSC and smaller sensors.
All the shortcomings you've described are problems associated with small size and (up until recently) the lack of backside illuminated sensors, not problems due to the lack of a mirror.
Make a mirrorless camera a similar size to an SLR and all these problems go away, while retaining all the functional advantages of through-the-sensor visualisation over an optical viewfinder. Make the sensor moveable and you'd even have adjustable flange distance, to suit any lens.
That mirrorless cameras have so many limitations at the moment is a function of this obsession with small size and the lack of space, power and everything else that small size entails, not a function of them lacking a mirror.
-
All the shortcomings you've described are problems associated with small size and (up until recently) the lack of backside illuminated sensors, not problems due to the lack of a mirror.
Make a mirrorless camera a similar size to an SLR and all these problems go away, while retaining all the functional advantages of through-the-sensor visualisation over an optical viewfinder. Make the sensor moveable and you'd even have adjustable flange distance, to suit any lens.
That mirrorless cameras have so many limitations at the moment is a function of this obsession with small size and the lack of space, power and everything else that small size entails, not a function of them lacking a mirror.
Call me sceptical that backside illuminated sensors are going to give a massive boost to performance.
I would not say that many of the weaknesses of mirrorless today are down to looking to create small cameras(obviously some handling issues are) but rather the reverse, mirrorless looks to sell itself on small size because the tech hasn't advanced enough to sell it purely on performance ti most users.
That does also I'd say hint at a logical fallacy we often see from those pushing mirrorless or rather pushing small flange distance mirrorless mounts. That is the idea that because mirrorless currently looks to sell itself on size(honestly or not) if mirrorless tech takes over the market then everyone will desire a very small camera body. Now there is obviously a market for very small cameras(although again I think FF mirrorless can't deliver this with a larger lens system) of course BUT again the reason why mirrorless is targeting this is because it can't beat the DSLR at its own game at the moment.
-
I'm not even going to try to convince anyone about ILC vs DSLR or even EVF vs OVF. But what I do object to those who describe cameras such as the Sony A7r II as small cameras or for that matter light cameras. To me and many others who grew up with film cameras these are normal sized cameras.
Just because to you they aren't the " right " size or look with a 600/4.0 does not make them small. They are quite at home with a 300/4.0 or even a well designed 75-300 zoom lens. Just because a very small minority loves their Fat Alberts or Big Bastards doesn't make those lens /camera combinations normal. Not being f 2.8 doesn't in itself make the lenses inadequate especially when photographers can get the same results at EI 1600 instead of ISO 100 slide film or if really desperate ISO 400 negative film and prayed for something decent.
-
I'm not even going to try to convince anyone about ILC vs DSLR or even EVF vs OVF. But what I do object to those who describe cameras such as the Sony A7r II as small cameras or for that matter light cameras. To me and many others who grew up with film cameras these are normal sized cameras.
Just because to you they aren't the " right " size or look with a 600/4.0 does not make them small. They are quite at home with a 300/4.0 or even a well designed 75-300 zoom lens. Just because a very small minority loves their Fat Alberts or Big Bastards doesn't make those lens /camera combinations normal. Not being f 2.8 doesn't in itself make the lenses inadequate especially when photographers can get the same results at EI 1600 instead of ISO 100 slide film or if really desperate ISO 400 negative film and prayed for something decent.
The film cameras you describe were not suitable for fast action and not great for macro work - action film cameras and macro shooters (those who weren't using view cameras) also used the SLR mechanism, since that was the only way to get through-the-lens composition and eliminate parallax error, and bodies were large to accommodate automatic winders and (where it existed) AF. Sure, you could shoot action and macro with them, but it was a crapshoot. They were great for everything else, though, up to the limitations of the film itself. So are current mirrorless cameras - great for everything except action, and better than SLRs for things that don't move. And, unlike the old film cameras, no parallax issues either.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about bodies that can replace an SLR in all its functions - one of which is shooting fast action up to equal standard. For that, current mirrorless offerings are too small. Not from an ergonomic point of view (I'd rather a small camera myself, since you can always stick on a grip if you're ham-fisted or like to work out your biceps while shooting) but too small because they can't accommodate the power supply, multiple processors (for AF, lag-free viewfinders, frame in all rate and the like), dual cards and other features that would allow them to compete on an equal footing as an all-purpose camera. Not that these things can't be miniaturised, but, as yet, they haven't been, which means that the only way to get a mirrorless camera to match an SLR in all applications at the moment is to make it the same size as one.
-
Call me sceptical that backside illuminated sensors are going to give a massive boost to performance.
They've already delivered a huge boost to performance with UWA lenses and lenses with a short flange distance, particularly those of a retrofocus design. BSI will only deliver a small boost to ISO performance, but are far less sensitive to angle of incidence than standard sensors.
You won't get much better high-ISO noise performance without a leap in sensor technology anyway (e.g. something that generates photoelectrons more efficiently than silicon) - read noise is already minimal, with noise dominated by photon shot noise, and microlenses are already very efficient at directing all the incoming light onto the photosites. Without a new, more sensitive material, the only way you're going to get much better quantum efficiency is by weakening the Bayer filter and sacrificing colour sensitivity.
I would not say that many of the weaknesses of mirrorless today are down to looking to create small cameras(obviously some handling issues are) but rather the reverse, mirrorless looks to sell itself on small size because the tech hasn't advanced enough to sell it purely on performance ti most users.
The tech's there. I use lag-free electronic viewfinders every day in a medical setting. Fast-focusing on-sensor AF systems are commonplace in top-level single-operator camcorders. But these things don't fit in an A7-sized body. A D810-size body, maybe.
That does also I'd say hint at a logical fallacy we often see from those pushing mirrorless or rather pushing small flange distance mirrorless mounts. That is the idea that because mirrorless currently looks to sell itself on size(honestly or not) if mirrorless tech takes over the market then everyone will desire a very small camera body. Now there is obviously a market for very small cameras(although again I think FF mirrorless can't deliver this with a larger lens system) of course BUT again the reason why mirrorless is targeting this is because it can't beat the DSLR at its own game at the moment.
I'd say it is a flow-on effect of the initial marketing push of mirrorless cameras ('SLR image quality for the size of a large point-and-shoot') that led to the current situation, rather than any deficiency in the technology. There are mirrorless systems out there - used in industry, scientific and pro cinematography settings - that are just as fast as SLRs and have imperceptible levels of viewfinder lag. But they're all SLR-sized or larger. Mirrorless was sold on its small size, so that's where they've been pushing consumer models. After all, that's an area where SLRs can never compete - from a sales perspective, why not fill the product gap first before tackling the competition head-on in their own turf?
For me, I don't care about size - I want capability. If they can deliver that in a small package, great (e.g. A7rII for landscapes and non-action). If they can't (e.g. for wildlife) then I'll take a bigger camera that can deliver. Small and light is good insofar as performance is not sacrificed. But, given the choice between a small, light camera and another camera that's larger, but more capable in the areas I need, I'll take the larger one every time.
-
… they release a new model every other day.
I will absolutely believe everything you post from this day forth! Not.
Hyperbole |hīˈpərbəlē|
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
hyperbolical |ˌhīpərˈbälikəl| adjective.
hyperbolically |ˌhīpərˈbälik(ə)lē| adverb.
hyperbolism |-ˌlizəm| noun
late Middle English: via Latin from Greek huperbolē (see hyperbola)
-
Hi,
Has anyone ever measured the lag of the Sony viewfinder?
Best regards
Erik
They've already delivered a huge boost to performance with UWA lenses and lenses with a short flange distance, particularly those of a retrofocus design. BSI will only deliver a small boost to ISO performance, but are far less sensitive to angle of incidence than standard sensors.
You won't get much better high-ISO noise performance without a leap in sensor technology anyway (e.g. something that generates photoelectrons more efficiently than silicon) - read noise is already minimal, with noise dominated by photon shot noise, and microlenses are already very efficient at directing all the incoming light onto the photosites. Without a new, more sensitive material, the only way you're going to get much better quantum efficiency is by weakening the Bayer filter and sacrificing colour sensitivity.
The tech's there. I use lag-free electronic viewfinders every day in a medical setting. Fast-focusing on-sensor AF systems are commonplace in top-level single-operator camcorders. But these things don't fit in an A7-sized body. A D810-size body, maybe.
I'd say it is a flow-on effect of the initial marketing push of mirrorless cameras ('SLR image quality for the size of a large point-and-shoot') that led to the current situation, rather than any deficiency in the technology. There are mirrorless systems out there - used in industry, scientific and pro cinematography settings - that are just as fast as SLRs and have imperceptible levels of viewfinder lag. But they're all SLR-sized or larger. Mirrorless was sold on its small size, so that's where they've been pushing consumer models. After all, that's an area where SLRs can never compete - from a sales perspective, why not fill the product gap first before tackling the competition head-on in their own turf?
For me, I don't care about size - I want capability. If they can deliver that in a small package, great (e.g. A7rII for landscapes and non-action). If they can't (e.g. for wildlife) then I'll take a bigger camera that can deliver. Small and light is good insofar as performance is not sacrificed. But, given the choice between a small, light camera and another camera that's larger, but more capable in the areas I need, I'll take the larger one every time.
-
Hi,
Has anyone ever measured the lag of the Sony viewfinder?
Best regards
Erik
Not sure. But it's certainly more than 'imperceptible', unlike the cameras used in laparoscopic surgery (I can just imagine performing delicate surgery with lag...).
If I had to guess, I'd say 100-200ms, but don't quote me on that.
-
I've noticed that the EVF lag/refresh rate is not consistent. It seems much worse in low light with small apertures.
-
This is surely an argument for APSC over FF rather than mirrorless over DSLR? with even moderate tele use even on APSC or even m43 flange distance savings become meaningless.
Agreed that a lot of my considerations are factors that lead some people to prefer at least some of the time to prefer a smaller format like APS-C or 4/3" or 1" - and as a secondary consequence of that, OVF performance becomes poorer, so for such formats the balance often shifts towards an EVF camera. That is why I am unsure for now how the OVF vs EVF balance will evolve for 35mm format. But there is also the desirability of facilitating occasional heavy cropping or "loose framing" from a high-resolution 35mm format sensor by using a lens too short to fill the frame with the subject. (The 2x virtual teleconverter mode of the Olympus OMD series is fun sometimes; I do not know if any larger format cameras offers that.)
As I said even today its not as if noise isn't a problem in lower light even with an F/2.8 zoom is it? your not needing to shoot in a coalmine before it becomes a significant issue and I think it would take an extra 2-3 stops of performance at least before a lot of people were willing to give up performance on there zooms.
Let me say it again, as you seem to be misunderstanding me, or discussing a different question like "are EVFs ready to completely replace OVFs?" I am not saying that everyone, all the time, wants to move to smaller, lighter lenses, and so everyone should be moving to EVF cameras. I know that some photographers still take every improvement in sensitivity as an opportunity to push ever further into high speed and low light photography with lenses as big and bright as ever. This is another reason why I can imagine OVF cameras having more of a future in 35mm format than in the smaller formats (and ironically maybe more than in the larger formats, where that "extremely limited light photography" is far less common, so I can imagine high resolution low lag EVF's taking over, slowly.) On the the hand, there are plenty of people who prefer larger formats like 35mm primarily for advantages in IQ at lower ISO speeds, working primarily with slow-moving or stationary subjects and adequate lighting: for them, EVF cameras might be a better fit, now or soon.
-
The tech's there. I use lag-free electronic viewfinders every day in a medical setting. Fast-focusing on-sensor AF systems are commonplace in top-level single-operator camcorders. But these things don't fit in an A7-sized body. A D810-size body, maybe.
I'm not so sure the tech really is there for lag-free EVFs. And certainly not at a price many will be willing to pay in a stills camera.
I don't have any experience with the medical devices you mention, but in the digital conema world, there certainly is lag in the EVFs. But it matters less in a motion setting because you are shooting continuous motion. Everything is seen with the same delay. Compensation for a tenth of a second or less delay is pretty easy to work into your anticipation of an actor's motion as you shoot (or, I expect, the action you execute through a laparoscope) so the lag really doesn't seem apparent. But it's there if you want to measure it. I never think about it on my Red, but if I measure it it's somewhere between one and two frames.
When you shoot stills it's different. You are recording a moment that lasts a hundredth or a thousandth of a second. You could miss that moment ten times over during the duration of the EVF delay.
But the elephant in the room here is cost. Medical devices are famously expensive. So is digital cinema gear. The viewfinder on my Red is pretty good, but it costs more than the Sony A7rII body. And it only works when it's attached to a $30,000 camera. (Well, I guess it would work on a $14,000 Scarlet, but you get the point.) All that processing and bandwidth are expensive to make.
-
When you shoot stills it's different. You are recording a moment that lasts a hundredth or a thousandth of a second. You could miss that moment ten times over during the duration of the EVF delay.
Could you?
I had made the, probably naive, assumption that the full res stream to the sensor was buffered and that the still image stored to disc was the one at the exact moment of shutter release (delayed from the real action, but in sync with the delayed view of it offered by the viewfinder).
As a result, I was assuming that EVF had next to zero shutter delay.
Is it not implemented this way?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could you?
I had made the, probably naive, assumption that the full res stream to the sensor was buffered and that the still image stored to disc was the one at the exact moment of shutter release (delayed from the real action, but in sync with the delayed view of it offered by the viewfinder).
As a result, I was assuming that EVF had next to zero shutter delay.
Is it not implemented this way?
Cheers,
Bernard
I would certainly hope that it is implemented that way (not using a disk as a buffer, but some sufficiently fast ram.). As you say, any manufacturer might be tempted to not record/buffer full-resolution video, but only a subsampled deemed sufficient for the ~1 megapixel EVF. In that case, a "proper" recording would have to start when you hit the button and the recorded image would lag behind what was presented in the EVF.
The post from D Fuller could be interpreted in another way: when the sensor is grabbing frames at a rate of 60 frames/second (or 30 or 15 in low light), then the view presented to the viewfinder is actually an average of (up to, depending on "duty cycle") 16.7 (or 33.3 or 67) milliseconds of imagery. If you are looking at extremely time-sensitive phenomena ("a moment that lasts a hundredth or a thousandth of a second"), that information might be temporally blurred out by the capture irrespective of the latency from sensor to EVF.
So how high "temporal resolution" can we exploit? I don't know, but my experience from musicians and hearing is that 1) People tend to overestimate how good their timing is and 2) Somewhere on the order of 10-20ms seems to be fine. Now, I don't know how "ear-to-hand" timing is compared to "eye-to-hand" but in the absence of other knowledge, it seems fair to assume that they are similar?
-h
-
I was looking on a longer time scale, back to early DSLRs where usable ISO 1600 was amazing progress, and also comparing back to film, from where the gain is probably four stops or more. And I am certainly not saying that everyone is or should be using higher ISO speed options to downsize their lenses or increase telephoto reach form lenses of given size. But a great number of us are, and for that usage, an EVF (or some form of "steadily hand-holdable live view") can a great advantage over a small and/or dim OVF image. Shooting long telephoto shots with a plan to crop heavily is one example.
One threshold I see it that, from the film era to now, the upper limit on weight and cost in telephoto lenses for a great majority of photographers is a slowish 300mm, as in something like a 75-300/3.4-5.6 zoom, whereas for a lot of bird and beast photography in un-cropped 35mm format, "wild-life begins at 500mm". Those same 300/5.6 and slower zoom lenses now give far more reach, comparable to 35mm film with a 500mm or even far longer lens when you allow for the cropping latitude of newer sensors, but a rather poor OVF experience.
If you want lots of tele and good quality, the Sony RX10II seems to deliver quite a lot with state-of-the-art 1" BSI sensor. Not necessarily cheaper than larger formats though and not extremely small/light. If APS-C and m4/3 has benefits over 135-size, why stop there and not go all of the way to 1"?
For those of us who never really wanted tele, I think that the RX100 vs RX10 is an interesting case study in "what happens to system size when you go from high-quality wide/bright to high-quality bright telezoom":
http://camerasize.com/compare/#622,623
-h
-
When you shoot stills it's different. You are recording a moment that lasts a hundredth or a thousandth of a second. You could miss that moment ten times over during the duration of the EVF delay.
That's not my experience, in practice I find the shutter lag way more "limiting" then the EVF lag and that's there for both EVF as well as OVF cameras (at least on the EVF and OVF camera's I use).
And now that I'm here anyway my answer to the OP's question is no. I use and like Sony cameras, their A7 series is quite unique but in the end it's just a tool. And other brands provide great tools as well. Sometimes the Sony tools are better for a given situation, sometimes other brands are better.
For me part of the fun is to get the job done with the camera you have with you, even though it might not be the best one for the situation at hand, (but I don't have to make money with it).
-
Could you?
I had made the, probably naive, assumption that the full res stream to the sensor was buffered and that the still image stored to disc was the one at the exact moment of shutter release (delayed from the real action, but in sync with the delayed view of it offered by the viewfinder).
As a result, I was assuming that EVF had next to zero shutter delay.
Is it not implemented this way?
Cheers,
Bernard
I have no idea. But my experience with the A7s would suggest something less than the ideal design you suggest.
I find the camera's usability really pretty good for motion, if you're mindful of the rolling shutter. But I find it just frustrating to use for stills if the subject is moving or changing very much. It just does not feel responsive, and the exposure is often late. I attribute it to a combination of viewfinder lag and shutter delay. Both are important when shooting rapidly-changing subjects.
To be fair, viewfinder delay becomes a non-issue if you're tracking the subject with the camera--say you're following a race car on a bit of track--for the same reasons it's not an issue for motion cameras: you're working at that delayed timing. But shooting birds in flight, for example, you don't know which bird will be the subject until it starts to take off. You're not working with your eye in the viewfinder until it does. Then, the viewfinder delay matters a lot. So does the shutter lag. In those situations, my Nikons are equal to the task. The Sony just is not.
Red has an interesting stills mode that is always recording to a buffer and when you press the shutter release keeps a set of frames that includes some from the past. That may be a way for mirrorless cameras to mitigate the processing time hurdle. But it increases your post time significantly.
-
Agreed that a lot of my considerations are factors that lead some people to prefer at least some of the time to prefer a smaller format like APS-C or 4/3" or 1" - and as a secondary consequence of that, OVF performance becomes poorer, so for such formats the balance often shifts towards an EVF camera. That is why I am unsure for now how the OVF vs EVF balance will evolve for 35mm format. But there is also the desirability of facilitating occasional heavy cropping or "loose framing" from a high-resolution 35mm format sensor by using a lens too short to fill the frame with the subject. (The 2x virtual teleconverter mode of the Olympus OMD series is fun sometimes; I do not know if any larger format cameras offers that.)
Let me say it again, as you seem to be misunderstanding me, or discussing a different question like "are EVFs ready to completely replace OVFs?" I am not saying that everyone, all the time, wants to move to smaller, lighter lenses, and so everyone should be moving to EVF cameras. I know that some photographers still take every improvement in sensitivity as an opportunity to push ever further into high speed and low light photography with lenses as big and bright as ever. This is another reason why I can imagine OVF cameras having more of a future in 35mm format than in the smaller formats (and ironically maybe more than in the larger formats, where that "extremely limited light photography" is far less common, so I can imagine high resolution low lag EVF's taking over, slowly.) On the the hand, there are plenty of people who prefer larger formats like 35mm primarily for advantages in IQ at lower ISO speeds, working primarily with slow-moving or stationary subjects and adequate lighting: for them, EVF cameras might be a better fit, now or soon.
There are a lot of terms flying about here that probably need to be defined better, when you say "EVF camera" for example that suggests something that has removed the mirror(although SLT tech hasn't) BUT it does not automatically mean a camera that's swapped to a new lens mount with a smaller flange distance.
As I said I think a lot of the old 35mm market that doesn't(0r can't afford to) push performance in low light/DOF control has already migrated to APSC. The end result is that today the FF market is more focused on these things than it was in the 35mm era, just look at Canons lens releases over the past decade, almost everything has been an L lens and even those non L's we have seen have still tended to be quite high performance..
I would suggest that in terms of size as well even shifting from F/2.8 to F/4 does not really mean your going to have small zoom lenses unless you greatly limit performance. Even something like the Sony 24-70mm which many seem dissatisfied with in terms of range and performance(and price) is not a small lens, not small enough to really make the savings in flange distance count for much, indeed as I said I think theres evidence that designing for small flange distances actually increases lens sizes even when your talking wideangle rather than the more obvious tele. In order to make a small flange distance mirrorless camera really compact your basically limiting yourself to the 35mm F/2.8 and perhaps the 28mm F/2 although that lens isn't tiny.
A big issue for me that plays on the first point I brought up is that I think the size saving advantages of mirrorless differ between APSC and FF. With APSC and smaller reducing a flange distance that's already longer than it needs to be(as a legacy of 35mm) with DSLRs is a bigger advantage because lenses are smaller and the demand for higher end handling(EVF, lots of controls, etc) is smaller, just look at the failures of the Pentax K-01 that was needlessly bulky for what it was. When you move to FF though I would argue that reducing the flange distance is actually less of a size saver than removing the prism and AF sensor, with the larger format these things are also that much larger were as an EVF remains the same size(and considerably smaller. Added to that of course I mention above very few FF lenses will be short enough to make for a camera/lens combination that isn't that deep AND there's the argument that in a lot of causes your just exchanging a shorter flange distance for a longer lens.
With that in mind I would suggest Canon and Nikon could actually benefit from much of the size saving of mirrorless without moving lens mount at all. Indeed I think Sony could have as well staying with the A-mount but I think they knew the hype behind a smaller flange distance would help sell in the short term and if your feeling cynical perhaps they wanted to cut third party lens manufactures out of the market so they could get away with charging a larger premium on own brand lenses.
-
Sure, the camera is easily doing a full readout of the sensor and buffering it, all 42MP of it in 14bits @ 60Hz, back of the envelope that's 4GB/s and if you need the mechanical shutter to close and then fire, that needs zero time.
@4K rez -lower bit depth, 60Hz, now that might be possible.
Edmund
Could you?
I had made the, probably naive, assumption that the full res stream to the sensor was buffered and that the still image stored to disc was the one at the exact moment of shutter release (delayed from the real action, but in sync with the delayed view of it offered by the viewfinder).
As a result, I was assuming that EVF had next to zero shutter delay.
Is it not implemented this way?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If APS-C and m4/3 has benefits over 135-size, why stop there and not go all of the way to 1"?
For some people, 1" format is indeed a good choice, but a lot of people are going to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of smaller versus larger and come to a choice that is not at either extreme. Typically, at each step in either direction, the gain is smaller than at the previous step while the losses are larger, so at some stage the further losses outweigh the further gains, and you stop, rather than pushing on to either extreme. Price for example has a big jump between APC-C and 36x24mm format, but a far smaller gap between 1", 4/3" and APC-C alternatives. [If comparing fairly, not "cheapest in the larger format vs most expensive in the smaller".]
It's the same reason why a lot people choose a motor vehicle that is bigger than a Smart For2 or Piaggio Ape, but smaller than a Suburban or Hummer.
(If we were at DPReview, some people would reply sarcastically that "if 36x24mm format has benefits over APC-C or 4/3" or 1" size, why stop there and not go all of the way to 645?".)
-
With that in mind I would suggest Canon and Nikon could actually benefit from much of the size saving of mirrorless without moving lens mount at all.
Firstly "size and weight savings" are far from the only reason that some people prefer having an EVF (by which I mean an eye-level one, not a rear screen like most DSLRs have anyway.)
Secondly, I am puzzled by the argument for sticking with the old SLR mount, given that a new shallower "no mirror box" lens mount can be used with all the old mount lenses via a simple passive adaptor with pass-through of electrical signals, while accommodating more flexible designs for some lenses (wide-angles) and allowing adaptor mounting of other lenses. Nikon could accommodate Canon-mount SLR lenses, which its deeper SLR mount does not allow! (The same for Sony with its deep alpha SLR mount.) Rather clearly, no one starting with a completely blank page in designing a mirrorless camera (including film range-finder cameras!) would make the lens mount twice as deep as it needs to be, and thus impede the use, when appropriate, of lens designs with rear elements closer to the focal plane.
Notes on some common misunderstandings:
(1) Lens designs with rear elements close to the focal plane can still have a high exit pupil (and the lenses in fixed lens cameras tend to be like this) so there need be no problems of highly off-perpendicular light incidence on the sensor.
(2) Nothing about a shallower lens mount forbids the use of an "SLR friendly" lens design with rear elements far from the focal plane, if and when that is the best choice.
-
Red has an interesting stills mode that is always recording to a buffer and when you press the shutter release keeps a set of frames that includes some from the past. That may be a way for mirrorless cameras to mitigate the processing time hurdle. But it increases your post time significantly.
Wasn't Nikon doing something similar in the 1 series? Or is my memory just off a bit.
-
Wasn't Nikon doing something similar in the 1 series? Or is my memory just off a bit.
I think you are correct. There are mobile phones that does the same thing. Would be great for action if we could eliminate rolling shutter effects.
-
I think you are correct. There are mobile phones that does the same thing. Would be great for action if we could eliminate rolling shutter effects.
Indeed, the Nikon 1 captures 1 sec of full res images all the time at 60 img/s and enables you to pick which of the 60 you want to keep.
A great function when shooting kids!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, the Nikon 1 captures 1 sec of full res images all the time at 60 img/s and enables you to pick which of the 60 you want to keep.
A great function when shooting kids!
Cheers,
Bernard
Many pro video cameras can record to one card continuously, regardless of the trigger.
But the whole point of a still camera is to have huge resolution and bit depth, rather than continuous frame rate ...It's a tradeoff.
Edmund
-
Many pro video cameras can record to one card continuously, regardless of the trigger.
But the whole point of a still camera is to have huge resolution and bit depth, rather than continuous frame rate ...It's a tradeoff.
True, but the initial discussion was focused on the technical possibility to leverage a video camera like capability using fast memory for a short amount of time in order to remove competely the delay resulting from the EVF.
Nikon manages to do it for 1 sec at 60fps for their 18mp camera selling for 500 US$, it doesn't seem unreasonnable to think that Sony could do it for a shorter time for their 3500 US$ 42mp camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For some people, 1" format is indeed a good choice, but a lot of people are going to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of smaller versus larger and come to a choice that is not at either extreme.
I am asking because I am impressed with my tiny Sony RX100M2. Even my miniscule 1/2.3" (?) iPhone 6s can be used for useful images in some conditions. Improvements in technology seems to have allowed us to either increase quality or shrink system size (or some mix of the two), starting 100 years back. Camera users generally seems to have weighted size/weight reduction quite heavily.
It's the same reason why a lot people choose a motor vehicle that is bigger than a Smart For2 or Piaggio Ape, but smaller than a Suburban or Hummer.
This elegantly shows why DSLRs are popular in the US and mirrorless is popular in Asia...
(If we were at DPReview, some people would reply sarcastically that "if 36x24mm format has benefits over APC-C or 4/3" or 1" size, why stop there and not go all of the way to 645?".)
I am by training and nature interested in asymptotes, so I am probably "that guy". If anyone says that "bigger is better", then my natural reaction is to check if infinite is perfect. At the same time, I think that many (not you in particular) forget to add sensible conditions to such statements. Such as "somewhat bigger than APS-C has some benefits".
-h
-
...
(2) Nothing about a shallower lens mount forbids the use of an "SLR friendly" lens design with rear elements far from the focal plane, if and when that is the best choice.
Agreed. Some people seems to argue that giving the lens designer less choices leads to better lenses. I hope that is not true.
-h
-
Sure, the camera is easily doing a full readout of the sensor and buffering it, all 42MP of it in 14bits @ 60Hz, back of the envelope that's 4GB/s and if you need the mechanical shutter to close and then fire, that needs zero time.
@4K rez -lower bit depth, 60Hz, now that might be possible.
Edmund
I guess there are several questions here:
1) What is the mechanical capabilities of the sensor/shutter
2) What is the analog/thermal capabilities of sensor and supporting electronics
3) What is the bandwidth of the ADC
4) What is the bandwidth of the digital buffering/processing
As for the latter question, the 2014 generation iPad had a "memory bandwidth" of 25.6 GB/s. I don't know how camera manufacturers pipe their images from ADC and via DMA to general memory or some special cache and dedicated ASIC blocks or general purpose cpu, but it would seem that the bandwidths you mention are well within reach for even a generic device like that?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8666/the-apple-ipad-air-2-review/2
-
True, but the initial discussion was focused on the technical possibility to leverage a video camera like capability using fast memory for a short amount of time in order to remove competely the delay resulting from the EVF.
Nikon manages to do it for 1 sec at 60fps for their 18mp camera selling for 500 US$, it doesn't seem unreasonnable to think that Sony could do it for a shorter time for their 3500 US$ 42mp camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
Could you kindly point us at the Nikon docs so we can see exactly what Nikon is really doing?
Edmund
-
hjulenissen mentions the tiny 1" sensor Sony RX100 series. These have been incredibly popular among those long-distance hikers (especially through-hikers doing greater than 1 week long hikes) who can afford them. When ounces / grams are counted, and when the hiker wants more than a phone or tablet, the Sony RX100 is mentioned. That being said, the phone or tablet is also a map display device, ebook, alarm clock, naturalist ID manual (I have a North American bird app and a star map on my phone), low-level GPS device (only for areas with cell service - the true GPS devices operate from satellite signals), yep - phone and internet when in cell service range, and camera. So I expect a lot of people are going to just use their phone/tablet with the now-much-improved on-board cameras.
I confess that I have looked longingly at the RX100 series for an always-in-my-pocket camera for casual and street photography. And of course I have looked longingly at the A7Rii - but first I have to upgrade my computer and storage to deal with the much bigger files. I keep hanging on hoping for news of the next MacBookPro with the Skylake or Kaby Lake microprocessor (cooler running, uses less energy than current Haswell and way less than my i7 Nehalem-generation processor laptop with non-retina matte screen). That's OK, I enjoy using Canon 6D currently. Ergonomics are Just Right For Me. I don't need no stinkin' 61 AF points, I manual focus a lot. I am not through-hiking any time soon, that's a retirement gig.
-
I confess that I have looked longingly at the RX100 series for an always-in-my-pocket camera for casual and street photography.
A friend of mine wanted something small, yet very capable (and had the money), so I suggested her to grab a RX100m3. She's been using it a lot lately, learning all the functions, and I have to say I am very impressed with that camera. Especially the night shots, it manages noise very well and the fast lens make it possible to keep a shallow dof even with the tiny sensor. If I had the money I would totally get it as a third body!
-
I believe that you guys continue a pointless conversation... The success of Sony, has nothing to do with ....Sony (or its sensors), it has purely to do with Sony camera being the first FF sensor mirrorless and the (up to now) solutions that FF mirrorless provides that where absent (although demanded) up to the FF mirrorless introduction... In other words, who ever would have made an FF mirrorless before, with whatever maker sensor on it, he would enjoy the same level of success... Just my two cents.....
-
In other words, who ever would have made an FF mirrorless before, with whatever maker sensor on it, he would enjoy the same level of success... Just my two cents.....
by the same logic - who did the first FF dSLR... neither Nikon nor Canon.
-
by the same logic - who did the first FF dSLR... neither Nikon nor Canon.
Exactly! ...Nikon & Canon had the advantage for Dslrs than the rest...
-
Hi,
Just some kind of general comment…
I would say, in general, that it makes sense to use the smallest sensor that fulfils all your needs. Anything larger just brings complications. That optimal format may vary a lot, depending on perceived needs.
Going up in format mean higher cost, larger size and more weight. With larger size also come more pixels, unless you are happy with artefacts.
If we limit us to small prints like 16"x23" (or so), a 20+ MP 1" sensor may make a lot of sense. It can be a small camera with a capable lens, like the Sony RX10 or even the RX100.
Going next step up yields some modest improvements in print quality but at great cost in weight and possibly Dollars. A 24-200/2.8 for APS-C is nothing easy to come by.
You can make great images with any decent camera. Moving upscale has a penalty. If it is worth it or not depends on the photographers needs and perceptions.
Best regards
Erik
hjulenissen mentions the tiny 1" sensor Sony RX100 series. These have been incredibly popular among those long-distance hikers (especially through-hikers doing greater than 1 week long hikes) who can afford them. When ounces / grams are counted, and when the hiker wants more than a phone or tablet, the Sony RX100 is mentioned. That being said, the phone or tablet is also a map display device, ebook, alarm clock, naturalist ID manual (I have a North American bird app and a star map on my phone), low-level GPS device (only for areas with cell service - the true GPS devices operate from satellite signals), yep - phone and internet when in cell service range, and camera. So I expect a lot of people are going to just use their phone/tablet with the now-much-improved on-board cameras.
I confess that I have looked longingly at the RX100 series for an always-in-my-pocket camera for casual and street photography. And of course I have looked longingly at the A7Rii - but first I have to upgrade my computer and storage to deal with the much bigger files. I keep hanging on hoping for news of the next MacBookPro with the Skylake or Kaby Lake microprocessor (cooler running, uses less energy than current Haswell and way less than my i7 Nehalem-generation processor laptop with non-retina matte screen). That's OK, I enjoy using Canon 6D currently. Ergonomics are Just Right For Me. I don't need no stinkin' 61 AF points, I manual focus a lot. I am not through-hiking any time soon, that's a retirement gig.
-
I just think it's interesting.
We have these tiny little cameras but huge F4 zoom lenses.
I can see tricking out a medium sized camera with lenses to match, but if your gonna stik a 2.3 lb lens on a one pound camera it seems sort of a mismatch, considering a camera that small has tiny dials and grips and at the end of the day your still limited to F4.
IMO
BC
Because of this and modern sensor performance I think Fuji have made a smart move sticking with aps-c and building a lens line for it.
Conversely I think we'll also see top end full frame mirrorless bodies getting bigger once their advantages over dslrs really start to be realised, right now they need to stay small to be a compelling alternative.
-
Because of this and modern sensor performance I think Fuji have made a smart move sticking with aps-c and building a lens line for it.
Conversely I think we'll also see top end full frame mirrorless bodies getting bigger once their advantages over dslrs really start to be realised, right now they need to stay small to be a compelling alternative.
I would not be surprised if Sony comes out with a bigger pro body once the lens line is somewhat complete. They are still expanding it and if we are to believe the rumors f/2.8 zooms are coming. Zeiss has said they are working on more specialty lenses as well, that could be tilt-shifts or macros.
-
I believe that you guys continue a pointless conversation... The success of Sony, has nothing to do with ....Sony (or its sensors), it has purely to do with Sony camera being the first FF sensor mirrorless and the (up to now) solutions that FF mirrorless provides that where absent (although demanded) up to the FF mirrorless introduction... In other words, who ever would have made an FF mirrorless before, with whatever maker sensor on it, he would enjoy the same level of success... Just my two cents.....
It has everything to do with the performance of the sensor. After all, a good proportion of A7r adopters were ex-Canon non-action shooters who liked their Canon glass but were desperately in need of a better sensor (both in terms of resolution and DR). So much so that Metabones made a killing from selling EF-to-E-mount adapters, and that Sony was giving them away in a package deal with the A7r for a few months after the initial launch. Nikon-to-E mount and A-to-E mount hasn't seen the same level of demand, since they're already backed by high-performance sensors.
-
I would not be surprised if Sony comes out with a bigger pro body once the lens line is somewhat complete. They are still expanding it and if we are to believe the rumors f/2.8 zooms are coming. Zeiss has said they are working on more specialty lenses as well, that could be tilt-shifts or macros.
I don't think it will be macros - the Sony 90mm is already the best macro out there, from any manufacturer.
Hoping for some tilt-shifts, since quality wide-angle ones are sorely lacking from anyone except Canon. 16, 24, 50 and 100mm tilt-shifts, with 12mm of shift, would be very nice.
-
I don't think it will be macros - the Sony 90mm is already the best macro out there, from any manufacturer.
Hoping for some tilt-shifts, since quality wide-angle ones are sorely lacking from anyone except Canon. 16, 24, 50 and 100mm tilt-shifts, with 12mm of shift, would be very nice.
Is it really the best? http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests
Better than MP-E 65? Coastal Optics? Depends on what your needs are I guess.
-
Ref. macros, there is clearly room for a 200mm or thereabouts macro lens. 90mm or 100mm is sometimes too short.
-
Is it really the best? http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests
Better than MP-E 65? Coastal Optics? Depends on what your needs are I guess.
Unless you need >1:1 magnification, the MP-E 65 is a terrible lens. Not only can it not focus further away than 1:1, but, even over its range, it's not very sharp. Of course, there aren't many options in that magnification range, being too great for most macros and too small for microscopes.
As far as 1:1 macros go, the Sony 90mm is just about the sharpest one out there. If only eye focus worked on animals and insects... potential firmware upgrade, I guess.
-
I just think it's interesting.
We have these tiny little cameras but huge F4 zoom lenses.
I can see tricking out a medium sized camera with lenses to match, but if your gonna stik a 2.3 lb lens on a one pound camera it seems sort of a mismatch, considering a camera that small has tiny dials and grips and at the end of the day your still limited to F4.
IMO
BC
I think that Sony surprised everyone with the RX1 series putting a high-performance 24x36mm sensor in a tiny housing with a great wide-ish prime integrated. Of course having that kind of quality at that size comes at a price: price.
It is concievable that they might do something similar to their MF sensor. Just for the heck of it. To make a flagship to help sell compact cameras. Because such a model will probably sell several times as many Sony MF sensors as their combined current sensor customers can push. Who knows.
But judging by the RX1, such a "RX0.1" could be really compact, high quality and expensive (as compacts go).
-h
-
Because of this and modern sensor performance I think Fuji have made a smart move sticking with aps-c and building a lens line for it.
Conversely I think we'll also see top end full frame mirrorless bodies getting bigger once their advantages over dslrs really start to be realised, right now they need to stay small to be a compelling alternative.
Current mirrorless cameras can replace SLRs for anything except action photography, and do somewhat better than SLRs in many situations where the subject is nonmoving and the photographer has time to carefully set up and fine-tune the shot. Full-frame is what really makes it attractive - without full-frame, mirrorless bodies wouldn't be competitive with top-end SLRs (or Leicas) at all, and would only be able to compete for the lower-end amateur market.
At the moment, the larger SLR form factor buys you two things that mirrorless does not, which make them capable of action photography:
1: Fast AF for tracking moving targets
2: A lag-free viewfinder for accurate composition
Sure, there are other useful things that come out of the larger body (dual cards, larger battery, etc.) but those of themselves don't make the larger body capable of shooting action, nor the smaller body incapable.
At the same time, EVFs have a number of features which could be immensely useful in action photography, should the two aforementioned issues be overcome:
1: Real-time exposure simulation - no more wondering 'is this too dark' or 'is this too bright' and relying on automatic metering, which can be a crapshoot in some difficult lighting situations
2: For those shooting JPEG (for news, some journalistic use and other situations requiring immediate publication with minimal time for postprocessing) real-time WB simulation
3: Better visibility in very dark situations and/or with slow lenses. The brightness of an OVF is entirely limited by the optics. The brightness of an EVF, on the other hand, improves with every improvement in high-ISO capability. Optics haven't gotten any brighter in decades, and physically can't (at least not without drastically increasing the size of the viewfinder) but ISO capability has been making leaps and bounds.
4: Continuous recording - having a buffer that saves the last 0.5-1 second of footage every time you press the shutter button could save a lot of missed shots in action photography. Not that you can't shoot action without it, but it could do wonders for the keeper rate.
Therefore, having an action-capable mirrorless camera would be a very desirable thing.
To overcome these two issues, a number of things need to happen.
AF speed is the easy part - fundamentally, mirrorless and SLR cameras use the same method (PDAF) to achieve fast, reasonably-accurate focus, except that the on-sensor method eliminates microadjustment-correctable back/front focus, and mirrorless cameras (and Live View) also have the option of supplementary methods of AF (CDAF, AI-driven means such as eye focus) to achieve greater accuracy when time permits. The current slowness of mirrorless AF speed has nothing to do with the method used, but the AF processing and lens drive speed of mirrorless vs SLR cameras - with dedicated AF processors and more powerful batteries, current SLRs can track targets and move glass far faster than current mirrorless offerings (and the 1Dx, at least, can drive lenses even faster, due to its higher-voltage, higher-wattage battery). Boost the battery power of a mirrorless camera and add in a dedicated AF chip, to put the hardware on equal footing with SLRs, and there's no reason mirrorless focus speed and tracking ability should be any less than a top-end SLR. After all, the AF systems use identical technology.
A lag-free viewfinder is trickier, but hardly insurmountable. No EVF, of course, can be completely lag-free. But, by reducing viewfinder lag to 30ms or less, it can be rendered so fast as to be imperceptible to the human eye/brain (it takes longer than that for the brain to even register that the eye has seen something) and insignificant in comparison to human reaction time (which is in the order of hundreds of milliseconds, although anticipation can mitigate this if you're already looking at/tracking a subject) and, in the case of SLRs, mirror lag. Such viewfinders exist - you couldn't perform laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery without them. In fact, some surgical procedures, chiefly in neurosurgery, which used to be performed under direct visualisation only became laparoscopic after viewfinders/cameras became fast enough to mitigate viewfinder lag - prior to that, they were just too delicate and precise to be performed with laggy cameras. (obviously, an appendicectomy is far more forgiving, hence could be performed laparoscopically much earlier). They're also driven by powerful, power-hungry processors.
Of course, all these features take space, so I wouldn't expect an action-capable mirrorless camera to be any smaller in length and width (although possibly lighter and thinner) than an SLR - at least not until denser power sources or lower-energy chips and EVFs become available. But, due to the features possible with through-the-sensor acquisition and EVFs but not possible with mirrors, it could be far more capable.
-
So now Sony reports their camera sales are worse than Canon's slide of 24%. Sony sales demand down 27% Nikon 11%.
Sony reports camera sales slump of 27% (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/demand-for-sony-cameras-slides-27-65116#PgPtODcTDiQfFHll.99)
Canon sat a long time, but maybe people are holding onto them, Nikon too, and not moving their system over to Sony that quickly. Surprised that Sony's cellphone dropped by 3 million units in third quarter too since they seem to the be sensor king for now.
SG
-
Well of course the MP-E 65 is a terrible macro lens for under life-size photography. It only has focus between 1x and 5x. And the (your favorite macro lens, Sony 90 or Coastal Optics 60 or ...) is a terrible lens for the greater than 1x photography - too many extension rings needed, and soon your subject focal plane is inside the front element. ;D
But there's a reason why the MP-E is favored by field biologists - it is relatively compact and sturdy, and gets as good image quality as reasonable for the price. No one wants to take a bellows and low-power microscope-style objective (AKA "lens") into the rainforest. The MP-E is a field-use lens used by every insect photographer out there that can afford to own it.
-
It's interesting how those who consider themselves threatened somehow by Sony report on their financials.Unit sales down but operating income up by 5.8 %.
Funny how that seems to have escaped being reported. Less junk more quality ?
-
So now Sony reports their camera sales are worse than Canon's slide of 24%. Sony sales demand down 27% Nikon 11%.
Sony reports camera sales slump of 27% (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/demand-for-sony-cameras-slides-27-65116#PgPtODcTDiQfFHll.99)
Canon sat a long time, but maybe people are holding onto them, Nikon too, and not moving their system over to Sony that quickly. Surprised that Sony's cellphone dropped by 3 million units in third quarter too since they seem to the be sensor king for now.
SG
All these figures cover every type of camera - not just the mirrorless and SLR bodies we're most interested in - and, therefore, are so broad as to be meaningless without further breakdown of the figures.
We all know that the camera market is shrinking in terms of unit volume, since point-and-shoots (previously the most numerous body type) have all but disappeared, being displaced by phone cameras. And phones are also being replaced less often, since they have largely reached the point of being 'good enough' for the apps, software and bandwidth available at the moment. Finally, almost every point-and-shooter who wants something better than a phone camera or a Gopro now also has an entry-level SLR. So the sales are becoming more concentrated at the top end of the market - less volume, higher value.
I'd be interested to see what the breakdown looks like when just restricted to mirrorless and SLR cameras, especially broken down model-by-model. I'd be very surprised if Sony's dropped by 27% in that category, since Q3 2014 contained nothing for them body-wise, while Q3 15 saw the release of the A7rII (and the 5Ds for Canon, although that seems to have created far less excitement), or that Nikon's sales in that category didn't drop more in that period, since they've released essentially nothing in the past year.
-
Is it really the best? http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests
Better than MP-E 65? Coastal Optics? Depends on what your needs are I guess.
It's not the best. The Sony 90 macro only looks like the best because DxO ties its lens rankings to sensor resolution. LensRentals shows the Canon 100L is sharper, at least at infinity (they didn't test close-up) and has considerably less sample variation. And right now the better Canon is $300 cheaper.
-
It's not the best. The Sony 90 macro only looks like the best because DxO ties its lens rankings to sensor resolution. LensRentals shows the Canon 100L is sharper, at least at infinity (they didn't test close-up) and has considerably less sample variation. And right now the better Canon is $300 cheaper.
How do they compare when both are mounted on an A7r/A7rII?
-
It's interesting how those who consider themselves threatened somehow by Sony report on their financials.Unit sales down but operating income up by 5.8 %.
Funny how that seems to have escaped being reported. Less junk more quality ?
I wonder if it is do with the $1000 price hike on their recent A7 body releases or perhaps it is lens sales.
-
I wonder if it is do with the $1000 price hike on their recent A7 body releases or perhaps it is lens sales.
They also moved more interchangeable-lens bodies (bith SLR/SLT and mirrorless) in Germany during the quarter than either Canon or Nikon.
Not sure about worldwide, though.
-
So now Sony reports their camera sales are worse than Canon's slide of 24%. Sony sales demand down 27% Nikon 11%.
Sony reports camera sales slump of 27% (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/demand-for-sony-cameras-slides-27-65116#PgPtODcTDiQfFHll.99)
It seems to be the same story for everyone (Canon, Fujifilm, Sony and several others) in recent financial reports:
1. The total number of cameras sold is down yet again, due mostly to the continuing decline in the high-volume, low-priced, very low margin "point and shoot" market.
2. There is some compensating shift in product mix towards higher-margin products, so camera division profits can actually be holding up. I think that this is not mostly about selling more DSLRs, but a lot of higher-level fixed lens cameras like the big-sensor compacts and the super-zooms, both of which do something that no phone-camera comes close to, while still being distinctly more compact than a DSLR.
3. However, those P&S sales are still the biggest volume part of the market for "cameras that are not also phones and computers", just not a very profitable sector. So it is an exaggeration to say that compact P&S cameras are "dying".
4. Corporate financial reports to not break out sub-categories that are a tiny fraction of the total activity of the company, so I doubt there is any conspiracy in the news coverage of Canon, Fujifilm and Sony not reporting on the details of ILC sales. At most, the company will briefly mention any good news in such a category.
Surprised that Sony's cellphone dropped by 3 million units in third quarter too since they seem to the be sensor king for now.
Sony is doing great business selling camera modules that go into iPhones and such, but a bad job of persuading people to buy those modules wrapped in a Sony Android device instead of buying something from Apple or Samsung or various Chinese competitors.
Perhaps in the spirit of all those recurring suggestions that Sony could kill off Nikon by refusing to supply it with sensors, we will get the proposal that Sony Semiconductor Inc. can help is struggling sister corporation Sony Mobile Communications Inc. to kill off the iPhone and take over its market share by cutting off supplies of phone camera modules to Apple, its best customer for those modules. But in both cases, there is a lot more to a successful product than the sensor.
-
How do they compare when both are mounted on an A7r/A7rII?
I don't know. Neither DxO no LensRentals has that comparison. However, LensRentals tests them on an optical bench, so the results are irrespective of a camera sensor. On DxO, the Sony/Nikon/Zeiss/Sigma lenses get a boost because they're tested on a 36mp sensor, while all of the Canon lenses are held back by being tested on a 22mp sensor.
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that Roger's tests are a correct measure of lens sharpness at full aperture. Lens Rentals do not report MTF stopped down. That may be good as a means of quality assurance, but for a photographer like me - who is shooting stopped down 99% of the time - it may not be very relevant.
Something I have seen quite a few times is that lenses can improve quite a lot when stopped down a half stop.
It is definitively clear that the high rating at DxO is to a great deal caused by the higher resolution of the Sony A7r they test with compared to the 20+ MP Canons.
On the other hand, I have seen that my 90/2.8G is good enough to outresolve the Sony A7rII even fully open and it seems to perform best at f/4.
Roger has compared it to the Zeiss 100/2 Macro Planar, and the Planar was much better than the 90/2.8G, but the Macro Planar is known to have a lot of (secondary?) axial chromatic aberration which doesn't show up in the MTF curves but very much in out of focus images. I don't know if the Sony is better in that area.
Would be nice to be able to test all available lenses, but I can only test stuff I have payed for. And too much testing takes away time from making pictures.
Best regards
Erik
I don't know. Neither DxO no LensRentals has that comparison. However, LensRentals tests them on an optical bench, so the results are irrespective of a camera sensor. On DxO, the Sony/Nikon/Zeiss/Sigma lenses get a boost because they're tested on a 36mp sensor, while all of the Canon lenses are held back by being tested on a 22mp sensor.
-
...there are reports of a lot of black sunspot issues if shooting into lights or sun.
The Sony rumor site is reporting that Sony are working on a firmware fix for this.
I believe the Blackmagic had the same issue?
-
The Sony rumor site is reporting that Sony are working on a firmware fix for this.
I believe the Blackmagic had the same issue?
I'm sure they are. And yes, BM had this issue. So did Red, way back in 2007. Firmware fixed it within the first year, but there was a lot of hand wringing.
It seems odd that any CMOS camera gets released with this issue. Are they just not paying attention?
-
D Fuller,
Blackmagic silently fixed their issues, RED got to it pretty quick and by the time I bought my first R1 it had zero issues.
In fact, I'd heard so much neg stuff about RED I thought twice until I talked to RED saw some footage and how dedicated they were into making a cinema camera.
My first R1 I use more than my second R1, much more than the Scarlet and because I'm not a huge fan of the Scarlet I cancelled my Epic order.
On the project we just finished we started with the REDs, but conditions, number of setups, the run and gun nature of the project I went with the Sony A7sIi and a 70d.
I'm mixed about the Sony. In fact I think it's a work in progress. You really can't compare any 8 bit or 10 bit small camera shooting h264 even at a high bit rate to a cinema camera, so looking at RED footage next to the Sony probably isn't fair.
Then again, things like banding with just a slight pull of a curve with plenty of light freaks me out, which means it's not ready for pro work.
At least with my example, maybe I've got a fluke.
I'll give it one more try on something personal, using a 10 bit recorder, but I don't have high hopes and I really had thought it would perform, though I think it will be on the used section of my shelf soon.
I have to admit, I have a lot of respect for black magic. I don't know how well they're funded, but they have offered a lot of lower cost cinema quality cameras to a group that could never afford the rentals, much less the purchase of an kitted out Arri.
IMO
BC
Cooter,
Please don't misunderstand my comment. I'm not dissing Red at all. I think they handled the black sun issue very well. And at a time when what they were doing was truly hard, and truly breaking new ground. I owned Red One #172, so I went through a lot of those early firmware revisions. And I know how hard they worked to make that camera perform.
And I think Black Magic handled it OK too, though I wonder how they missed the noise around the issue that Red endured. But they were doing a lot of things in a short time, and those cameras were truly a work in progress when they were released.
Sony is a different story, and that was my point. Sony is a mature camera company (at least in the video worlds) with a lot of resources. And for them to release a camera with this issue is hard to understand. I'm sure they will issue a firmware fix, but really? It's 7 years on from the Red One release, shouldn't this just be a part of the standard list of things a CMOS firmware programmer has to check off? Maybe these companies don't watch each other the as much as I expect. And maybe that explains why the a7 cameras don't seem to have learned from anybody else's UI.
I'm as mixed as you are about the Sony. Ana I don't think your camera is a fluke.
I bought an a7s to compliment my Epic for low light, and for light-weight b-camera use. And to be honest, there was so much hype about it I had to see for myself. I want to like the camera, and I do like some things about it, but it frustrates me. It's slow to use, it's a PIA to focus, and the menus go on forever. And can I say this? The files just suck compared to to Red files. You better get everything the right color when you shoot, because grading is just an uphill slog. (Maybe I'm just spoiled by Redcode.)
The Sony performs well in available darkness, where pretty much nothing else works, or with plenty of light. But the high ISO stuff just seems to be a novelty. My Epic looks better at ISO 2000, and I don't shoot much that needs more ISO than that.
I do think your demos of stabilization are interesting, so there's that for the new version.
DAF
P.S. Between you and me, (and 1000 other people on this forum, I suppose) I think the Epic is a lot more camera than the Scarlet. It's not just the frame rates, though it's nice to have those, but I think the additional processing and better compression ratios matter. You can also shoot a bigger frame than you intend to use and have room for real post stabilization in Resolve or AE. And if you kit it out with an evf and not too much other gack, it makes a pretty nice run and gun camera. It's not light, really, but with Nikkors or Zeiss ZFs I can hand-hold it all day, and I'm not young. I loved the pictures my Red One made, but I'm just not strong enough to shoot with it the way I can with my Epic.
-
The Sony rumor site is reporting that Sony are working on a firmware fix for this.
I believe the Blackmagic had the same issue?
So did the 5D2.
-
So now Sony reports their camera sales are worse than Canon's slide of 24%. Sony sales demand down 27% Nikon 11%.
Sony reports camera sales slump of 27% (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/demand-for-sony-cameras-slides-27-65116#PgPtODcTDiQfFHll.99)
The first half financials from the Olympus camera division also fit the trend away from compacts, though with an overall improvement due to cutting losses on compacts by making less models and actual gains in sales of ILCs, so it went from losses to break-even. The bottom line of the summary at DPR is
"Olympus' net sales of compacts in the first half are down 11% compared to last year, while mirrorless sales are up 22%."
-
Hi,
Yes, camera sales are going down. That is totally expected when:
- Every potential buyer has a decent camera
- Almost any decent camera is essentially good enough
So camera makers scale down, cut costs and try to increase prices by adding perceived value.
Best regards
Erik
The first half financials from the Olympus camera division also fit the trend away from compacts, though with an overall improvement due to cutting losses on compacts by making less models and actual gains in sales of ILCs, so it went from losses to break-even. The bottom line of the summary at DPR is
"Olympus' net sales of compacts in the first half are down 11% compared to last year, while mirrorless sales are up 22%."
-
Hi,
Yes, camera sales are going down. That is totally expected when:
- Every potential buyer has a decent camera
- Almost any decent camera is essentially good enough
So camera makers scale down, cut costs and try to increase prices by adding perceived value.
Best regards
Erik
+1.
And pretty much the similar reasons PC sales has been going down. They are not obsolete, but they live longer despite some make poor quality to make up for it ;)
-
It's a sign of transition from an emerging to a mature market, nothing more. Now that everyone who wants one has a mirrorless or SLR camera, and all of them do a decent job for basic photography, one is onlyh driven to upgrade when a compelling new or improved feature is introduced, not with every single body. In my case that's IQ - hence I bought the 5D2 (transitioning from MF and 617 film) but not the 5D3, then the A7r series. For action photographers, that feature may be AF or low-light capability.
Just like in the case of PCs - people are driven to upgrade not by each new, faster processor or other component that comes out, but only when personal needs or software creep necessitate a faster system. For internet browsing and office use, that may be once in 5-10 years (usually due to breakdown rather than obsolescence). For those working intensively with graphics software or high-end gaming, this may be every cycle.
-
It's a sign of transition from an emerging to a mature market, nothing more. Now that everyone who wants one has a mirrorless or SLR camera, and all of them do a decent job for basic photography, one is onlyh driven to upgrade when a compelling new or improved feature is introduced, not with every single body.
Yes, this is the camera market shifting back to normal after the disruption the move to digital caused so declining sales are to be expected. The digital gravy train for camera companies is ending.
-
Yes, this is the camera market shifting back to normal after the disruption the move to digital caused so declining sales are to be expected. The digital gravy train for camera companies is ending.
There are three other competing factors here that will affect sales.
Firstly, back in the film days, anyone who wanted a camera of any sort needed a standalone model, 35mm or greater. This is no longer the case, with the proliferation of phone cameras and other 'tiny sensor' cameras, for those who just want snapshots. Therefore, the number of people who would potentially buy a dedicated camera (interchangeable lens or not) is significantly lower than in the film days.
Opposing this is the obsolescence of sensors and other aspects of digital cameras. A manual-focus film camera could serve you well for 20 years - the sensor was automatically upgraded every time a new film formulation was released, you were always up with the best of the time, and there was no AF to worry about. A digital camera, however, does not automatically keep up with the best and latest. As yet, no 35mm-format manufacturer has released a model with interchangeable or upgradeable sensors/backs. Therefore, the upgrade cycle is shorter than with film - although the proportion of people prepared to buy a camera may be lower, they are buying bodies more often.
Finally, there is the ongoing increase in the potential market size. The population is steadily increasing. Increasing wealth in developing nations, as their populations shift from poor to middle-income to wealthy, also increase the potential pool of buyers.
Whether the baseline sales of still cameras will be greater or less than in the film days is still uncertain, but, regardless, the future of digital imaging sensors has never been brighter everything from photocopiers, to fingerprint-linked technology, to 'smart' face-recognition security systems, to bionic eyes, to robotics, uses them in a multitude of sizes.
-
When it comes to digital cine, the prerequisite for film cam replacement was that no one should be thrown out of work, so bad sound and no wireless mic integration, no decent AF, no stabiliser, etc etc. This way the sound guy still has his job, the focus puller his, the steadicam guy his. And the whole thing must cost a fortune so the rental house can pay out the backhanders. If the above weren't true, the crew would have rushed to explain to the director that the Cinealtas or Arris or Reds were unusable for "real work". Compatibility with unionised working practice is the most important feature of new industrial tech introduced into an existing workplace.
Of course, now that film has gone the way of the dodo, cameras will become more integrated and flexible. For all I know, they might even make a gadget that turns an ipad into a decent monitor viewfinder with touch focus when appropriate, and add multichannel wireless mic receivers into the camera bodies, provide in-body stabilisation, allow standard industry SSDs to plug right in and do in-camera RAID and striping, rather than demand proprietary media, output Raw straight to a connector, and price these things like the latest batch of Sony FS*. I don't do any "professional" work but I find it amusing that cameras now look like cockroaches on life support with stuff sticking out at every angle.
Edmund
There are three other competing factors here that will affect sales.
Firstly, back in the film days, anyone who wanted a camera of any sort needed a standalone model, 35mm or greater. This is no longer the case, with the proliferation of phone cameras and other 'tiny sensor' cameras, for those who just want snapshots. Therefore, the number of people who would potentially buy a dedicated camera (interchangeable lens or not) is significantly lower than in the film days.
Opposing this is the obsolescence of sensors and other aspects of digital cameras. A manual-focus film camera could serve you well for 20 years - the sensor was automatically upgraded every time a new film formulation was released, you were always up with the best of the time, and there was no AF to worry about. A digital camera, however, does not automatically keep up with the best and latest. As yet, no 35mm-format manufacturer has released a model with interchangeable or upgradeable sensors/backs. Therefore, the upgrade cycle is shorter than with film - although the proportion of people prepared to buy a camera may be lower, they are buying bodies more often.
Finally, there is the ongoing increase in the potential market size. The population is steadily increasing. Increasing wealth in developing nations, as their populations shift from poor to middle-income to wealthy, also increase the potential pool of buyers.
Whether the baseline sales of still cameras will be greater or less than in the film days is still uncertain, but, regardless, the future of digital imaging sensors has never been brighter everything from photocopiers, to fingerprint-linked technology, to 'smart' face-recognition security systems, to bionic eyes, to robotics, uses them in a multitude of sizes.
-
When it comes to digital cine, the prerequisite for film cam replacement was that no one should be thrown out of work, so bad sound and no wireless mic integration, no decent AF, no stabiliser, etc etc. This way the sound guy still has his job, the focus puller his, the steadicam guy his. And the whole thing must cost a fortune so the rental house can pay out the backhanders. If the above weren't true, the crew would have rushed to explain to the director that the Cinealtas or Arris or Reds were unusable for "real work". Compatibility with unionised working practice is the most important feature of new industrial tech introduced into an existing workplace.
As the longer-term trend is for everything automatable to become automated, I suspect the situation as you describe it will be a short-term thing. Eventually it'll collapse under the tech onslaught, with IMO the usual combo of both good and not-so-good consequences.
I went for a long walk in the woods this morning as it's a lovely day, sunny & unusually warm for mid-November. At first I considered taking along my A7r2 and new 25mm Batis lens, but then decided against it as I wanted to just enjoy the walk unencumbered & maybe snap a pic or three, not do photography. A smartphone is more than good enough for this.
-Dave-