Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on July 11, 2016, 10:14:20 am
-
You know, Sony seems to be doing a great thing by bringing out more and new lenses for its impressive-sensored, under-usable cameras ... which seems to be nice, on the surface.
However, they're always charging more for their lenses, than either Nikon or Canon, which I think is shooting themselves in the foot.
Take a look at their new 50mm f/1.4 prime (http://www.dpreview.com/news/3395784467/sony-announces-fe-50mm-f1-4-za-prime-lens). Nice-looking lens, appears to have good specs ... but $1,500? Really? :o ::)
And how about their telephotos?
The Sony 300mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892394-REG/Sony_sal300f28g2_300mm_F_2_8_G_Super.html) is $7,500 compared to Nikon's 300mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/672200-USA/Nikon_2186_AF_S_NIKKOR_300mm_f_2_8G.html) (which is only $5,500) and Canon's 300mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732108-USA/Canon_4411B002_EF_300mm_f_2_8L_IS.html) (which is $6,100), and yet the Sony lens is the lowest-ranking on LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) (1146, compared to 1367 for Nikon and 1333 for Canon).
Same with the Sony 500mm lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845555-REG/Sony_SAL500F40G_500mm_f_4_0_G_Lens.html) ($13,000!!) compared to Nikon's 500mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1166858-REG/nikon_af_s_nikkor_500mm_f_4e.html) ($10,300) and Canon's 500mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754507-USA/Canon_5124B002_500mm_f_4L_EF_IS.html) ($9,000) ... and here again the Sony ranks 200 marks lower than the big boys LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) (1132 for Sony, compared to 1354 for the Nikon and 1322 for the Nikon).
What is Sony thinking?
Just because its sensors are good, doesn't mean their camera functions and lenses are good.
You would think, if they're the new kids on the block, and they're creating inferior lenses, that they would at least offer a value for them, rather than over-charging for inferior products. :o
Just a rant, sorry.
-
Check out the new 24-70 and 85 GM lenses.
Those are insane - they make non-Otus Zeiss lenses look soft. No test data available yet, though.
-
The Sony 24-70 and 85 G look comparable to the Canon 24-70L II and 85mm, in both price and specs.
But their super-telephoto lenses are significantly sub-par, yet significantly more expensive.
-
Wouldn't surprise me. It's not like they have an action camera yet to go with them, although the A9 may change things (the A7r2's AF is even more accurate than the 1Dx2 or D5 - just a good deal slower). So there's not much demand for fast superteles on Sony E-mount yet.
-
The Sony 24-70 and 85 G look comparable to the Canon 24-70L II and 85mm, in both price and specs.
I'd rate them a cut above in terms of optical quality. Maybe it's improved manufacturing leading to a smoother surface or more precise shape, but they seem sharper. Need some definitive data, though.
-
Exactly.
What is there to tempt the consumer to give them a shot?
They have under-functioning cameras, they produce lower-level prime telephotos ... and then they charge 30% more for them :o
Hence my rant ;D
They're shooting themselves in the foot IMO.
I could see if their 1100-rated 300mm lens was, say, $3000. Then I might want to try one overtop of a Sony camera for wildlife.
But they charge $7500. Why would I want to spend that kind of money to put a so-so lens over an under-functioning camera ... when I could spend $2K less, get a better Nikon lens, and put it over a highly-functional camera that gives me field advantages, not disadvantages?
Their pricing makes no sense ...
-
I'd rate them a cut above in terms of optical quality. Maybe it's improved manufacturing leading to a smoother surface or more precise shape, but they seem sharper. Need some definitive data, though.
Well, let's see what the data says.
For portraiture and such, I can see the attraction. (Plus their pricing is more comparable.)
But their sports telephoto price points are insane, given the inferior optical quality + under-functional cameras.
-
However, they're always charging more for their lenses, than either Nikon or Canon, which I think is shooting themselves in the foot.
you a lot of 5x mm AF lenses for FE... 3 from Sony, 1 from Samyang, etc plus with adapters (for Canon and A-mount) you have even more... and if you consider a non AF options - everything is on the table ...
-
The cameras are hardly under-functional.
How else can you get a Canon TS-E or zoom, or any Leica lens, in front of an Exmor sensor?
The AF is also incredibly accurate (no 'within 1/3 of the DOF' garbage like Canon/Nikon), especially with eye focus (which, unfortunately, only works with human eyes). It just isn't fast enough for action. But that's what the 1Dx/1Dx2 are for.
-
What is Sony thinking?
Just a rant, sorry.
I think Sony is thinking that they want to make high end AF lenses that'll work well on high MP count cameras.
The think is that these days "we" can look really closely and nit pick on screen at 100%, 200% or higher and "we" expect across the frame goodness and an almost total lack of optical nasties but sadly achieving all this means big and heavy and expensive lenses.
As for the rant, there's a simple answer. Don't look at what Sony are doing, don't care and go and buy a Canon DSLR :D
-
The cameras are hardly under-functional.
Maybe not compared to a cell phone, but compared to the modern Nikon cameras the Sony's are 1-trick ponies.
How else can you get a Canon TS-E or zoom, or any Leica lens, in front of an Exmor sensor?
I don't want a Canon TS-E lens, and I could get a mount for a Nikon camera for a Leica.
Also, the highest-functional sports sensor is a Nikon sensor, not an Exmoor.
The AF is also incredibly accurate (no 'within 1/3 of the DOF' garbage like Canon/Nikon), especially with eye focus (which, unfortunately, only works with human eyes). It just isn't fast enough for action.
Exactly my point: under-functional.
But that's what the 1Dx/1Dx2 are for.
Nice troll attempt (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/emoticons/trollthumb.png)
Although the new Canon 1Dx II is the fastest at 14 fps, fast is a poor substitute for accurate ... which is what the D5/D500 are for ... better sensors ... better primes ... better functionality ... and better price tag ;)
Jack
-
but compared to the modern Nikon cameras the Sony's are 1-trick ponies.
but what is your issue then ? you get modern Nikon cameras and whatever lenses you can mount there and you live happily ever after... why so much concern about Sony Imaging well being ?
-
but what is your issue then ? you get modern Nikon cameras and whatever lenses you can mount there and you live happily ever after... why so much concern about Sony Imaging well being ?
My issue is price versus value.
Though I have made my own purchase decision, I still have an eye out of (and appreciate) great products at great prices.
For this reason, I laud the Pentax K1, as it seems to be an outstanding product at a modest price.
By contrast, the Sony telephoto lenses are so-so products at ridiculous prices.
That's all ...
-
I don't want a Canon TS-E lens, and I could get a mount for a Nikon camera for a Leica.
Not for a Leica M, which are the really sharp lenses (designed as they are for modern full-frame and crop sensors, unlike the R or S lines).
Also, the highest-functional sports sensor is a Nikon sensor, not an Exmoor.
Actually, the best sensor for action is probably either the A7r2 or 1Dx2, not the D5. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2)
1Dx2 - same high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance (for daytime matches, etc.).
A7r2 - similar high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance, twice as much resolution for cropping.
That's just the sensor, not counting the rest of the camera (e.g. the fact that the A7r2 has no decent native long telephotos and tracks slowly).
Exactly my point: under-functional.
So, it's not optimal for shooting action.
The D5 has low resolution and poor DR for landscapes.
-
My issue is price versus value.
which is not an issue all - as noted, get Nikon mount system which has better modern cameras and better price vs value lenses... why worry about Sony Imaging and keep an eye out for it as it does not offer better modern cameras for you ? I can understan when you see better cameras for your work from Sony and then moan about lenses - but Sony does not offer you anything at all .. no ?
-
Actually
I suggest to use http://photonstophotos.net, even the man behind it a Nikon shooter... sports oriented sensor is low mp, many FPS, competetive @ high gains in low light typically... D5 is a good one, Sony Imaging does not have a camera for Sony Semi to design such FF sensor and Nikon does not offer to pay for design / to buy one on acceptable terms (or on whatever terms)... when Nikon offers then Sony Semi delivers something like a sensor in D500, certainly D5 with Sony Semi sensor 'd be better than D5 with a non Sony Semi sensor ;D
-
Not for a Leica M, which are the really sharp lenses (designed as they are for modern full-frame and crop sensors, unlike the R or S lines).
Leica aren't action lenses, though.
Actually, the best sensor for action is probably either the A7r2 or 1Dx2, not the D5. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2)
Not so.
If you're shooting action/speed, you need high ISO.
In wooded conditions, ISO 2000+.
The D5 kicks butt here, and beyond, and has better AF accuracy. It isn't even a contest.
If you're talking Base ISO, the Nikon D500 and D810 are better.
1Dx2 - same high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance (for daytime matches, etc.).
A7r2 - similar high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance, twice as much resolution for cropping.
You mean, less and much less, right? ;)
That's just the sensor, not counting the rest of the camera (e.g. the fact that the A7r2 has no decent native long telephotos and tracks slowly).
You exaggerate on the sensor, but have to concede on the camera ... which brings us full circle to my point: Sony charges more, but gives you less in their lenses + under-equipped cameras.
The D5 has low resolution and poor DR for landscapes.
Um, guess what? The Nikon D5 is not a landscape camera. If you need the best Base ISO scores, try the Nikon D810 ;)
No one needs to make a billboard-sized photo of an action shot: magazines and online publications are all that matters: and this is where the Nikon D5 trumps anything a Sony combo could produce, will get you the shots a Sony combo will miss, and will save you thou$and$ in the process ;)
-
Just a rant, sorry.
Feel better now?
Just buy that Nikon stuff you find better at cheaper prices and be happy, basically no need for rants then 8)
-
Feel better now?
I do, Pieter, thank you :)
Just buy that Nikon stuff you find better at cheaper prices and be happy, basically no need for rants then 8)
I did, Pieter, thank you again ;)
However, as a fan of cameras and lenses in general, and especially of new and better technology ... I am a self-appointed "watchdog" of sorts ... and I give praise to those camera/lens combos that offer the best bang for the buck ... and I vilify and condemn those who offer "substandard for more" (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/angry.gif)
Unfortunately, Sony telephotos qualifies for the latter ... while the Pentax K1 qualifies for the former.
-
... I am a self-appointed "watchdog" of sorts ...
and a highly appreciated one, judging by how most discussions turn out on these posts you make ;)
-
Leica aren't action lenses, though.
I never mentioned Leica in the context of action shooting.
You can't put a Leica M lens in front of your D810 either.
Not so.
If you're shooting action/speed, you need high ISO.
Not for daytime sports. You're going to be shooting wide-open for subject isolation. On a sunny day, you're getting 1/1600 or so at f/4 and ISO 100. Maybe bump it up to ISO 400 when it's overcast. It's not every match or every event, but frequent enough for low-ISO performance to matter.
In wooded conditions, ISO 2000+.
What sort of sport do you shoot in a forest?
The D5 kicks butt here, and beyond, and has better AF accuracy. It isn't even a contest.
Note the word 'sensor', not 'camera'. AF was never part of the argument.
The 1Dx2's AF also kicks ass. It can track a drone flying erratically, weaving through long grass and through branches against a backdrop of trees, shooting at 14fps and hitting 90% of shots.
If you're talking Base ISO, the Nikon D500 and D810 are better.
At base ISO, the D500 isn't even competitive against the A7r2 and D810. Not only does it have less DR, it's also nowhere near as sharp, because a crop sensor demands so much more of the lens in front of it than a full-frame sensor.
You mean, less and much less, right? ;)
The numbers speak for themselves. Real measurements, taken at every native ISO setting, not some overall, derived figure that doesn't even tell us what it's measuring.
You exaggerate on the sensor, but have to concede on the camera ... which brings us full circle to my point: Sony charges more, but gives you less in their lenses + under-equipped cameras.
They give you the one thing the Exmor sensor really needed and which Nikon/Pentax/other Exmor users couldn't provide - a lens mount compatible with all the best landscape lenses available, as well as any other lens you might want to use.
Um, guess what? The Nikon D5 is not a landscape camera. If you need the best Base ISO scores, try the Nikon D810 ;)
And try sticking the sharpest landscape lenses in front of that D810.
That's right - except at the few focal lengths which coincide with Zeiss Otus lenses and Sigma Art primes, you can't.
No one needs to make a billboard-sized photo of an action shot: magazines and online publications are all that matters: and this is where the Nikon D5 trumps anything a Sony combo could produce, will get you the shots a Sony combo will miss, and will save you thou$and$ in the process ;)
And which idiot uses a Sony to shoot action?
If you're spending $3k on an A7r2, you know exactly what you're getting and what you need. Criticising a body not designed for action for shooting it badly is as dumb as criticising the IQ280 for not being able to shoot birds in flight and having no suitable lenses for the job.
-
I never mentioned Leica in the context of action shooting.
You can't put a Leica M lens in front of your D810 either.
No, but I did.
Why do I need Leica M lenses, when the Zeiss Otus series provide better options?
Not for daytime sports. You're going to be shooting wide-open for subject isolation. On a sunny day, you're getting 1/1600 or so at f/4 and ISO 100. Maybe bump it up to ISO 400 when it's overcast. It's not every match or every event, but frequent enough for low-ISO performance to matter.
Nobody measures DR in an action shot, they look at the moment frozen with perfect timing.
The better lens + more accurate AF are therefore far more important than "DR" on an incompetent camera.
What sort of sport do you shoot in a forest?
Wildlife, genius.
Note the word 'sensor', not 'camera'. AF was never part of the argument.
Excuse me, but this is my thread topic, and I originated it with "lens" and "camera" ...
You're confusing your own proclivity for changing the topic with mine.
The fact is, AF is always a part of the deal in sports/wildlife (action) photography.
The 1Dx2's AF also kicks ass. It can track a drone flying erratically, weaving through long grass and through branches against a backdrop of trees, shooting at 14fps and hitting 90% of shots.
I agree.
It kicks ass against everything else ... except the Nikon D5 and D500 ;)
At base ISO, the D500 isn't even competitive against the A7r2 and D810. Not only does it have less DR, it's also nowhere near as sharp, because a crop sensor demands so much more of the lens in front of it than a full-frame sensor.
Again ... the right tool for the job.
At Base ISO, the D810 is king: which is what I grab, if needed.
If I need reach + good low ISO, I grab the D500, which is better than the A7RII, the 1Dx 2, or even the D5.
The numbers speak for themselves. Real measurements, taken at every native ISO setting, not some overall, derived figure that doesn't even tell us what it's measuring.
Real numbers, Base IS0 = Nikon D810.
They give you the one thing the Exmor sensor really needed and which Nikon/Pentax/other Exmor users couldn't provide - a lens mount compatible with all the best landscape lenses available, as well as any other lens you might want to use.
But a lousy, slow, dysfunctional camera for action.
And only the second-best for Base ISO ;)
And try sticking the sharpest landscape lenses in front of that D810.
That's right - except at the few focal lengths which coincide with Zeiss Otus lenses and Sigma Art primes, you can't.
The Zeiss 15mm ... the Zeiss 20mm ... the Zeiss Otus 28mm ... the Zeiss Otus 55mm ... all of these fit on a D810, do they not?
And which idiot uses a Sony to shoot action?
The same idiot who suggested using the D5 for landscape? (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
If you're spending $3k on an A7r2, you know exactly what you're getting and what you need. Criticising a body not designed for action for shooting it badly is as dumb as criticising the IQ280 for not being able to shoot birds in flight and having no suitable lenses for the job.
Changing the subject to make a point is as dumb as suggesting to use a D5 for landscape.
The subject was Sony lenses ... and what was criticized to high-end were their sport/wildlife telephoto lenses ... that ONLY fit on their substandard, non-action cameras ... and fail miserably, stats-wise, compared to both Nikon and Canon.
Any other questions, or do you think you can stay on-topic now? ::)
-
No, but I did.
Why do I need Leica M lenses, when the Zeiss Otus series provide better options?
Because Zeiss Otus only exists at three focal lengths, and those three lenses alone would take up half your pack already.
Nobody measures DR in an action shot, they look at the moment frozen with perfect timing.
The better lens + more accurate AF are therefore far more important than "DR" on an incompetent camera.
You were the one who brought up sensor performance. Which is what I argued on. Not camera performance.
And DR is inversely proportional to noise/SNR. The better the DR, the less noisy.
If DR doesn't matter in an action body, then the sensor itself barely matters. Which, for many applications of action cameras, is probably true.
Wildlife, genius.
You mentioned 'sport'.
Excuse me, but this is my thread topic, and I originated it with "lens" and "camera" ...
You're confusing your own proclivity for changing the topic with mine.
Direct quote I was responding to. I even quoted it earlier.
Also, the highest-functional sports sensor is a Nikon sensor, not an Exmoor.
The fact is, AF is always a part of the deal in sports/wildlife (action) photography.
Obviously. But you had to say that 'the highest-functional sports sensor is a Nikon sensor, not an Exmoor'
It kicks ass against everything else ... except the Nikon D5 and D500 ;)
Test results? You've mentioned this time and time again, without showing a single comparison of production models of the two cameras.
Basically, you're saying 'it's better because I say it's better.' Guess which camera will be more commonly carried by the sports photographers at Rio in August. Hint: it's not the Nikon.
Again ... the right tool for the job.
At Base ISO, the D810 is king: which is what I grab, if needed.
Your comment was, 'At base ISO, the D500 and D810 are better.' This was in relation to my earlier quote, 'Actually, the best sensor for action is probably either the A7r2 or 1Dx2, not the D5,' which you had quoted directly before you made that statement.
There's no way the D500 sensor stacks up to the A7r2 or 1Dx2 (at any ISO) or the D810 (at base ISO).
The D500 has much less SNR (5dB less) at ISO 100 than the A7r2 and D810, and less than the 1Dx2.
Real numbers, Base IS0 = Nikon D810.
Yep, only just. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7R) Certainly not the yawning gulf you're claiming it is. And your lens selection is much more limited, outside of a few third-party primes.
I'll take the sharper lenses in exchange for the 1/3 stop of DR, and pocket the extra 6MP as spare change.
But a lousy, slow, dysfunctional camera for action.
As you said, 'the right tool for the job'. It's a perfect camera for non-action work. And a low-resolution action camera with limited base ISO performance is a lousy tool for landscapes.
The Zeiss 15mm ... the Zeiss 20mm ... the Zeiss Otus 28mm ... the Zeiss Otus 55mm ... all of these fit on a D810, do they not?
So, what's your solution at 45mm, or 70mm, or 160mm? Crop large chunks out of your image to achieve the desired composition? Or fly 150m into the air and 500m off a cliff in order to re-frame a landscape so that you can shoot it at one of your few available focal lengths?
Changing the subject to make a point is as dumb as suggesting to use a D5 for landscape.
The subject was Sony lenses ... and what was criticized to high-end were their sport/wildlife telephoto lenses ... that ONLY fit on their substandard, non-action cameras ... and fail miserably, stats-wise, compared to both Nikon and Canon.
From the OP: 'Take a look at their new 50mm f/1.4 prime. Nice-looking lens, appears to have good specs ... but $1,500? Really?'
In what world is a 50/1.4 prime a sport/wildlife telephoto lens?
-
If you're like me, and you're about to pull the trigger on some Otus lenses for the A7R2, the new Sony lenses are really, really cheap, especially after looking at the sharpness capabilities.
I just finished looking at the Sony 50mm 1.4 RAW samples in Capture One, most of them shot at 1.4 or 2.0, and what can I say? The lens is really, really, really good!
If it's as sharp as the Otus, even wide open, the deciding factor would be if you care about the cyan/green fringing or not. With the Otus, there's probably less, or close to zero thanks to the APO, while the Sony is going to have some fringing. Also sample variation and corner to corner sharpness will probably put the Otus on top, but the Sony is probably the best non-third party standard lens I've seen so far. Far, far better than anything from Nikon or Canon...so far.
It looks similar to how the Zeiss Milvus 50mm 1.4 would perform, but somehow seems to have less fringing from the samples I've seen. Of course I haven't seen anything scientific.
-
I don't see where the novelty is, really. I have never seen a sports or animal life pro using Sony system. Plus, are we confusing things?
Sony A mount system has a more complete lens system, compared to the more recent E mount system.
So you have found out that Sony A mount telephotos are more expensive, and less performing compared to Canon and Nikon. Good, nothing new here.
-
Take a look at their new 50mm f/1.4 prime (http://www.dpreview.com/news/3395784467/sony-announces-fe-50mm-f1-4-za-prime-lens). Nice-looking lens, appears to have good specs ... but $1,500? Really? :o ::)
Just a rant, sorry.
The new 50mm lens follows the trend of the 55 f1.8 ZA lens; rather than producing a "me too" cheap standard lens, Sony has produced a really high quality lens. No doubt the new 50 1.4 comes from the same staple: lots of exotic glass and 11 bladed iris. Quality comes at a price.
I am sure your Nikon system does not have such high quality 50mm lenses, unless you get a Zeiss Otus or Zeiss Planar 50 FE:)
-
My issue is price versus value.
Though I have made my own purchase decision, I still have an eye out of (and appreciate) great products at great prices.
For this reason, I laud the Pentax K1, as it seems to be an outstanding product at a modest price.
By contrast, the Sony telephoto lenses are so-so products at ridiculous prices.
That's all ...
Do you also have the same angst when looking at Farraris or $3,000,000 homes? If something is too expensive for my taste, I just move on. Not worth the time lamenting over it.
-
Do you also have the same angst when looking at Farraris or $3,000,000 homes? If something is too expensive for my taste, I just move on. Not worth the time lamenting over it.
Chez, as soon as I wish to emulate "you," I will send for information.
But until then, I will pretty much do as I wish, thanks.
It is my belief that Sony's prices for their so-so telephoto lenses are a joke, especially considering their optics are inferior to existing Nikon/Canon glass, and that they deserve to be publicly-derided for it.
If you disagree, and believe I should keep this on the down-lo, I will have to learn to live without your approval. For that matter, Chez, some people might have just moved on and not have lamented my post ;)
-
Chez, as soon as I wish to emulate "you," I will send for information.
But until then, I will pretty much do as I wish, thanks.
It is my belief that Sony's prices for their so-so telephoto lenses are a joke, especially considering their optics are inferior to existing Nikon/Canon glass, and that they deserve to be publicly-derided for it.
If you disagree, and believe I should keep this on the down-lo, I will have to learn to live without your approval. For that matter, Chez, some people might have just moved on and not have lamented my post ;)
Just an observation. Seems to me like you were getting all worked up on the price of equipment you don't even use. If that is what floats your boat...go for it...who am I to say otherwise.
-
Hi,
I would agree that Sony lenses are a bit overpriced and underperforming. But that wouldn't hurt you being a Nikon shooter or a former Canon shooter.
Best regards
Erik
You know, Sony seems to be doing a great thing by bringing out more and new lenses for its impressive-sensored, under-usable cameras ... which seems to be nice, on the surface.
However, they're always charging more for their lenses, than either Nikon or Canon, which I think is shooting themselves in the foot.
Take a look at their new 50mm f/1.4 prime (http://www.dpreview.com/news/3395784467/sony-announces-fe-50mm-f1-4-za-prime-lens). Nice-looking lens, appears to have good specs ... but $1,500? Really? :o ::)
And how about their telephotos?
The Sony 300mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892394-REG/Sony_sal300f28g2_300mm_F_2_8_G_Super.html) is $7,500 compared to Nikon's 300mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/672200-USA/Nikon_2186_AF_S_NIKKOR_300mm_f_2_8G.html) (which is only $5,500) and Canon's 300mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732108-USA/Canon_4411B002_EF_300mm_f_2_8L_IS.html) (which is $6,100), and yet the Sony lens is the lowest-ranking on LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) (1146, compared to 1367 for Nikon and 1333 for Canon).
Same with the Sony 500mm lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845555-REG/Sony_SAL500F40G_500mm_f_4_0_G_Lens.html) ($13,000!!) compared to Nikon's 500mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1166858-REG/nikon_af_s_nikkor_500mm_f_4e.html) ($10,300) and Canon's 500mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754507-USA/Canon_5124B002_500mm_f_4L_EF_IS.html) ($9,000) ... and here again the Sony ranks 200 marks lower than the big boys LenScore (http://www.lenscore.org) (1132 for Sony, compared to 1354 for the Nikon and 1322 for the Nikon).
What is Sony thinking?
Just because its sensors are good, doesn't mean their camera functions and lenses are good.
You would think, if they're the new kids on the block, and they're creating inferior lenses, that they would at least offer a value for them, rather than over-charging for inferior products. :o
Just a rant, sorry.
-
Sounds like a great lens!
Sony can only be praised for understanding the market's expectation for premium lenses at reasonnable price points. They apparently choose a classical approach with a high performing lens featuring a good balance btwn technical qualities and look as opposed to the route chosen by Canon and Nikon to put a higher emphasis on look with their 50mm f1.2 and 58mm f1.4.
I would not confuse this with an inability to produce high quality lenses at competitive prices. The super tele produced by Sony currently sell in very small numbers because pretty much everybody needing one shoots Canon or Nikon. That explains the pricing.
If Sony were willing to tackle the sports/action segment they would have to release 2 high speed bodies (one APS and one FF) and to realease 4 super teles. I am pretty sure that they could come up with something great at competitive prices, but I seriously doubt it would be an economically sound move for them.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would agree that Sony lenses are a bit overpriced and underperforming. But that wouldn't hurt you being a Nikon shooter or a former Canon shooter.
Maybe he needs to hear happy Sony users admitting: "Yep I pay more for less" or so.
www.guillermoluijk.com
-
Hi,
I would agree that Sony lenses are a bit overpriced and underperforming.
Yep.
But that wouldn't hurt you being a Nikon shooter or a former Canon shooter.
Best regards
Erik
Who said anything about being hurt?
I review alternatives to see where they're at.
If I see a great deal (like the Pentax K1) I will say so. Doesn't hurt me, doesn't help me.
If I see over-priced, mediocre offerings I will say so. They only way I could be "hurt" would be to buy one, which I would never do.
The quality of their lenses indicates they should be 2/3rd the price of the competition, not 1/3rd more.
-
The super tele produced by Sony currently sell in very small numbers because pretty much everybody needing one shoots Canon or Nikon. That explains the pricing.
I am surprised they could sell even one.
If Sony were willing to tackle the sports/action segment they would have to release 2 high speed bodies (one APS and one FF) and to realease 4 super teles. I am pretty sure that they could come up with something great at competitive prices, but I seriously doubt it would be an economically sound move for them.
Cheers,
Bernard
They already have super-tele lenses, so it would at least make sense for them to create bodies to match.
Stated in the reverse, why bother making very expensive super-tele lenses at all, if they are not going to have bodies to match, and are going to perform worse and yet cost more?
I am also not sure what makes you think they could make a great action body. Their existing bodies are quite far behind the functionality of other offerings. They essentially offer housing with a sensor inside, and a few buttons to make it work.
I am sure any attempt to create an equal what the D5 can do would take years to achieve, if they could.
-
They already have super-tele lenses, so it would at least make sense for them to create bodies to match.
Stated in the reverse, why bother making very expensive super-tele lenses at all, if they are not going to have bodies to match, and are going to perform worse and yet cost more?
I am also not sure what makes you think they could make a great action body. Their existing bodies are quite far behind the functionality of other offerings. They essentially offer housing with a sensor inside, and a few buttons to make it work.
I am sure any attempt to create an equal what the D5 can do would take years to achieve, if they could.
Unless I am mistaken, these super teles were designed for a mount and I see them as statement lenses. Lenses that you have to have as the leaders of a company producing photographic equipment. They are probably the result of the dreams of a small number of people in an era when product planning was less of a science. IMHO.
Companies like Sony can do pretty much anything they want if they decide to focus their resources on that. There is no doubt in my mind they could produce a D5 competitor from a technology standpoint (it would take a couple of years, yes), but in terms of opportunity cost I don't think it would be the wisest way to assign their resources.
But I could be wrong and would in fact love Sony to put pressure on Nikon and Canon in that segment. Nikon did IMHO innovate more with the D5 than Canon did with the 1DxMkII (in terms of AF mostly), but I am sure they could still do more...
And, since this thread is about lenses, I do think that Sony is making many right choices with their lenses release (schedule, specs, price point,...), a lot more than Nikon who seems to be selecting their lens line-up roll out using a random number generator...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Unless I am mistaken, these super teles were designed for a mount and I see them as statement lenses. Lenses that you have to have as the leaders of a company producing photographic equipment. They are probably the result of the dreams of a small number of people in an era when product planning was less of a science. IMHO.
I don't think Sony is a leader in this segment. Or, really, any segment.
Companies like Sony can do pretty much anything they want if they decide to focus their resources on that. There is no doubt in my mind they could produce a D5 competitor from a technology standpoint (it would take a couple of years, yes), but in terms of opportunity cost I don't think it would be the wisest way to assign their resources.
Canon hasn't been able to equal the AF of Nikon for a long time, behind every year.
Sony's AF is even worse than Canon's (not even close to Canon).
So I don't think Sony will ever equal Nikon's specs. They are a jack of all trades; master of none.
Well, they're masters of sensors, for landscape, and that's about it.
But I could be wrong and would in fact love Sony to put pressure on Nikon and Canon in that segment. Nikon did IMHO innovate more with the D5 than Canon did with the 1DxMkII (in terms of AF mostly), but I am sure they could still do more...
Put pressure on Nikon ... or buy Nikon and incorporate them.
But they won't beat them, that's for sure.
And, since this thread is about lenses, I do think that Sony is making many right choices with their lenses release (schedule, specs, price point,...), a lot more than Nikon who seems to be selecting their lens line-up roll out using a random number generator...
Cheers,
Bernard
I have to agree that Sony's new zoom and short primes look nice, but was taken aback looking at the price vs. quality of their telephotos :-\
Oh well, I will stop talking about gear now and concentrate on using my own :D
-
I could get a mount for a Nikon camera for a Leica.
that sounds rather expensive, given you are "ranting" about the cost of sony lenses...
-
Or, really, any segment.
How about the mirrorless Full Frame segment?
-
If, as you say, Canon's AF is grossly inferior to Nikon's, and Canon's superteles are also inferior, then explain why >90% of the photographers at any major sporting event are shooting Canon bodies and lenses (with the occasional Sigma 120-300 for some court sports).
They're not stupid, nor lacking in resources - they can afford to shoot whatever gives them the best results. And they're often using new gear, not gear left over from when Canon had no credible rival.
Non-action and landscape photography? Sure, Nikon/Sony dominate here, judging by the gear I've seen being used at various remote vantage-points around the world these last few years. The lack of low ISO DR really hurt them in this area from 2012 onwards, when the D800 was released. Wedding photography? Depends where you are, but probably 60:40 in favour of Nikon here (a lot of them seem to really appreciate the DR advantage of the D810/D750 over the 5D3 when shooting white dresses). But sports/action photography is Canon's bastion - the area that plays to its strengths while minimising the impact of its weaknesses - and it shows no sign of losing ground here.
-
How about the mirrorless Full Frame segment?
Indeed, in the last 3 years, Sony have put their strengths and resources behind this product line. And today there is a serious option to those who dream of using some of the best lenses (e.g. Zeiss Otus), but don't have the cash, or don't want to have the weight.
You can transition from a DSLR with top quality glass, to a FF MILC with top quality glass, for a reasonable cost, and very significant size and weight reduction. Loxia 21 vs. Milvus 21; Otus 85 vs. Batis 85 (or GM 85); Otus 55 vs. Zony 55 and new Sony 50 f1.4, just as a few examples.
It is clear that Sony has all but abandoned the A mount, so I fail to see why they should invest in revamping that platform to shoot action... if you want to shoot action with Sony, you would be much better off getting an E mount APSC A6300 (blazing fast AF) and say the new G 70-300 zoom, or new GM70-200 f2.8 zoom with TCs.
Of course they will never be able to compete with Canikon, but the option is there, no need to get stuck with past lenses; even in the best days of the Minolta, and then Sony A mount, the system was never an alternative to Canikon in that field, so why it should be now?
Creating a top quality MILC system for enthusiasts, and some pros, is where they are now, they have moved on. And I think that by doing this, they pose a larger threat to Canikon, than trying to compete in the super telephoto/action area. With the current lenses in the system, plus the new wireless flash system, they are a serious contender in the event/studio area.
-
If, as you say, Canon's AF is grossly inferior to Nikon's, and Canon's superteles are also inferior, then explain why >90% of the photographers at any major sporting event are shooting Canon bodies and lenses
Care to share your sources?
What I see in international events such as Wimbledon and the Euro 2016 is a domination of Canon on the sidelines, but more like 65-35 than 90-10.
Most of those guys work for agencies and they standardize on a single brand through large corporate contracts. Nikon's IMHO superior AF doesn't mean at all that the AF of Canon bodies is poor. It is obviously excellent. Add that to the cost of switching and to the risk of going away from familiar equipment and you understand that the continued domination of Canon is in no way proof that the AF of the latest Nikon bodies isn't on top.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, in the last 3 years, Sony have put their strengths and resources behind this product line. And today there is a serious option to those who dream of using some of the best lenses (e.g. Zeiss Otus), but don't have the cash, or don't want to have the weight.
You can transition from a DSLR with top quality glass, to a FF MILC with top quality glass, for a reasonable cost, and very significant size and weight reduction. Loxia 21 vs. Milvus 21; Otus 85 vs. Batis 85 (or GM 85); Otus 55 vs. Zony 55 and new Sony 50 f1.4, just as a few examples.
It is clear that Sony has all but abandoned the A mount, so I fail to see why they should invest in revamping that platform to shoot action... if you want to shoot action with Sony, you would be much better off getting an E mount APSC A6300 (blazing fast AF) and say the new G 70-300 zoom, or new GM70-200 f2.8 zoom with TCs.
Of course they will never be able to compete with Canikon, but the option is there, no need to get stuck with past lenses; even in the best days of the Minolta, and then Sony A mount, the system was never an alternative to Canikon in that field, so why it should be now?
Creating a top quality MILC system for enthusiasts, and some pros, is where they are now, they have moved on. And I think that by doing this, they pose a larger threat to Canikon, than trying to compete in the super telephoto/action area. With the current lenses in the system, plus the new wireless flash system, they are a serious contender in the event/studio area.
Exactly.
Produce the best sensor on the market and base your system around that. Use a lens mount that allows users to adapt any lens to your system, and design your AF system so that you can AF (at least to some degree) with any of them. After all, your strength - and income - is in electronics, not optics, and this capability gives you a significant competitive edge over your rivals, who have all tried to lock users into proprietary mounts. Just doing this is enough to get you a secure foothold in the market, and a large user base among non-action photographers who don't care about AF. Which Sony did, with the A7r (helped in no small part by Canon's weakness at low ISO at the time and by Nikon's long flange distance).
Then continue to improve your AF system, both in terms of raw speed and power and by introducing features which are impractical on an SLR (e.g. eye focus/tracking, AI-based subject recognition and tracking), while introducing other useful features which keep you ahead of the game (e.g. IBIS, pixel shift technology, sensor-shift AF, movable sensors for tilt and shift capability, improved video and frame-stacking capability, etc.). Your market share grows with each iteration, while that of your rivals shrinks, as your product becomes more and more capable, doing things which are impossible in a purely optical system without through-the-sensor composition and with fewer and fewer things each time that require an optical system to do adequately. The A7r2 was a lot more capable than the A7r, despite being released less than two years after the first version - and it's not even a full-sized camera, still being strongly constrained by size. Eventually, after a few iterations, you'll end up with a system that can do everything an SLR can plus more, while your rivals are stuck with a a system that, by then, will be antiquated, with little development of new-generation technologies.
No, mirrorless technology isn't mature enough to replace optical technology for action photography just yet. But it will be - and it's advancing in leaps and bounds. Digital sensors weren't ready to displace film in 1998 either. But look at what happened to Kodak over the next ten years.
-
Care to share your sources?
What I see in international events such as Wimbledon and the Euro 2016 is a domination of Canon on the sidelines, but more like 65-35 than 90-10.
Most of those guys work for agencies and they standardize on a single brand through large corporate contracts. Nikon's IMHO superior AF doesn't mean at all that the AF of Canon bodies is poor. It is obviously excellent. Add that to the cost of switching and to the risk of going away from familiar equipment and you understand that the continued domination of Canon is in no way proof that the AF of the latest Nikon bodies isn't on top.
Cheers,
Bernard
Just a quick perusal of the cameras situated on the sidelines at any cricket, tennis or football match I've been to. Big white lenses everywhere, with the occasional black or camo-wrapped one. I'm not sure anyone actually keeps statistics on percentage use - just number of sales. It's either that or sports photographers are painting their Nikon lenses white...
Agencies turn over their gear quickly, through attrition or just planned replacement - as frequently, or more so, than the four-year, Olympic-based cycle of the top-line action cameras. It would not be a great expense or difficulty to change from one system to another if there was a significant difference in performance as far as shooting sports were concerned.
-
If, as you say, Canon's AF is grossly inferior to Nikon's, and Canon's superteles are also inferior, then explain why >90% of the photographers at any major sporting event are shooting Canon bodies and lenses (with the occasional Sigma 120-300 for some court sports).
I would imagine that the Sigma 120-300 would be great for indoor sports.
I don't have the stats on sports photographers, but I know the wildlife photographers whose work I admire most shoot Nikon, particularly
- Daniel Cox (http://naturalexposures.com)
- Thomas Mangelsen (http://mangelsen.com)
- Thomas Marent (http://www.thomasmarent.com)
I am not sure how many times I have to compare Toyotas and Porsches to Canons and Nikons, before it sinks in with you, but the fact "more people drive Toyotas" does not make Toyota cars the better-performing vehicles ... nor the more desirable automobiles to own and to use yourself.
By the same reasoning, I am sure most businesses purchase Toyotas (Fords and Chevys) for "their employees" as well, in probably far greater numbers than they put their employees in Porsches, too, but that does not make Toyotas, Fords, and Chevys the better-performing vehicles or more desirable cars to own either ;)
This will be my last post on the subject.
Jack
-
I am not sure how many times I have to compare Toyotas and Porsches to Canons and Nikons, before it sinks in with you, but the fact "more people drive Toyotas" does not make Toyota cars the better-performing vehicles ... nor the more desirable automobiles to own and to use yourself.
I think this is a flawed comparison. Porsche's might be the more desirable cars, but they're also multiple times the price vs. a Toyota. Comparable Canon and Nikon systems are much more even in price.
This will be my last post on the subject.
We'll see if you can keep your word ;)
-
Try to move a 3m-long rolled-up paper backdrop, then tell me again that a Porsche (non-SUV) is better than a Toyota.
A Toyota is a workhorse, like a 1D or D4/4s/5 body. A Porsche is for showing off, like Hasselblad's leather-bound, jewel-encrusted bodies.
-
A Porsche is for showing off, like Hasselblad's leather-bound, jewel-encrusted bodies.
All other issues in this thread aside, that's a damning indictment of what is probably the very best all-around vehicle on the road today. At least the Porsche offers real, tangible advantages in performance.
-
All other issues in this thread aside, that's a damning indictment of what is probably the very best all-around vehicle on the road today. At least the Porsche offers real, tangible advantages in performance.
I agree that was not a very sensible remark. However with cars it's just like with cameras. Sports Porsche's certainly have advantages in speed and road handling, but several Toyota's have more capacity for payload and volume (eg. for a 5 person vacation through the back roads off Iceland). Just choose the tool that's right for the task at hand, the "best" camera nor "best" car for handling every situation doesn't exist.
-
All other issues in this thread aside, that's a damning indictment of what is probably the very best all-around vehicle on the road today. At least the Porsche offers real, tangible advantages in performance.
What performance advantage? It might be a bit faster and handle better on a flat, controlled racetrack. It still doesn't go any faster when stuck in city traffic, doesn't let you ignore speed limits, doesn't carry much payload (particularly for large or oddly-shaped cargo) and doesn't have great off-road performance. And, when it needs servicing, you need to wait three months for parts to arrive from Europe and pay $1000 for a Porsche-branded gasket. For actual, practical use, a Toyota is much better, while the downsides hurt if you're driving anywhere other than sealed roads in a first-world country or carrying anything other than people.
-
What performance advantage? It might be a bit faster and handle better on a flat, controlled racetrack. It still doesn't go any faster when stuck in city traffic, doesn't let you ignore speed limits, doesn't carry much payload (particularly for large or oddly-shaped cargo) and doesn't have great off-road performance. And, when it needs servicing, you need to wait three months for parts to arrive from Europe and pay $1000 for a Porsche-branded gasket. For actual, practical use, a Toyota is much better, while the downsides hurt if you're driving anywhere other than sealed roads in a first-world country or carrying anything other than people.
I'm mainly just goofing with ya, but I'm happy to talk cars :) To answer your question, better braking, handling and acceleration are huge advantages in safety and accident avoidance, for example, and it just takes one "use" of those abilities to pay off, in my opinion. But look, I shoot Canon AND Sony, so my judgment may be suspect. ;)
-
Sony is not the system if you are a wildlife photographer. They don't have the long lenses that work well with the A7 line cameras and the auto focus isn't good enough. Landscape, event, street, portrait, and reportage photography is where Sony is strong. If I was making my living off sports and wildlife images I'd pop for a top o' the line Nikon or Canon.
-
Sony has gone from Walkmans, phones and consumer goods to Pro photo gear. They are doing a very good job of changing brand perception, far better than I had ever imagined them to do. Their products, while not perfect, obviously, are disrupting the industry and they are actually really very good. It may take another 5-10 years to cement their position in the Pro markets, but they are likely to become even with Nikon and Canon, where as once they were nothing close.
-
Sony has gone from Walkmans, phones and consumer goods to Pro photo gear. They are doing a very good job of changing brand perception, far better than I had ever imagined them to do. Their products, while not perfect, obviously, are disrupting the industry and they are actually really very good. It may take another 5-10 years to cement their position in the Pro markets, but they are likely to become even with Nikon and Canon, where as once they were nothing close.
Don't forget Sony's video gear have been the choice for professional work for years so it's not like new territory for Sony.
-
Sony has gone from Walkmans, phones and consumer goods to Pro photo gear. They are doing a very good job of changing brand perception, far better than I had ever imagined them to do. Their products, while not perfect, obviously, are disrupting the industry and they are actually really very good. It may take another 5-10 years to cement their position in the Pro markets, but they are likely to become even with Nikon and Canon, where as once they were nothing close.
I would say Sony's brand and the business tactics that go with it have done a poor job of targeting the professional market thus far. They bought out Minolta who had a decent professional system with the A-mount that Sony largely failed to support in favour of targeting consumer electronics with "eye catching" new products.
-
I would say Sony's brand and the business tactics that go with it have done a poor job of targeting the professional market thus far. They bought out Minolta who had a decent professional system with the A-mount that Sony largely failed to support in favour of targeting consumer electronics with "eye catching" new products.
No, they just chose to play the long game rather than the short game.
When Sony decided to pursue the still camera industry, they had two choices.
They could have gone with what they got from Minolta - an old system designed for the film days, with lenses not up to taking advantage of modern, high-resolution sensors and an SLR-based AF system wel behind what Nikon and Canon had already produced. This would have seen them starting from well behind in the race, butting heads directly with the two frontrunners in their area of greatest strength and trying to capture an already-established market. Not really a winning strategy.
Instead, they decided to capitalise on their strengths - electronics - while making use of Minolta's (and Zeiss's) experience in optics, without necessarily carrying over old and outdated designs just because they already existed. They built a first-generation car rather than a better horse-drawn carriage. They realised that, while SLR systems were established and effective technologies, they had certain hard limitations that could never be bypassed in a mechano-optical system and would, eventually, likely be displaced by mirrorless, through-the-sensor systems. In doing so, they would start off small (as they would had they pursued the SLR route) but on even ground with the market leaders - and, importantly, could capitalise on their vast experience with electronics and video cameras, taking advantage of the capabilities of their Exmor sensor while Canon was hobbled in certain areas by low-ISO performance and making use of the short flange distance possible on a mirrorless camera to negate the lens advantage of the big players, at least with non-action shooters (here in Australia, Sony was giving out a Metabones adapter with each A7r or A7 body sold). They essentially created a new market, initially out of those for whom SLR systems were poorly suited - those who needed great image quality, but did not need the AF capabilities of an SLR system and could benefit from features only possible from a through-the-sensor approach - capturing these first, while working on improving their AF and other features to later expand their audience. Since the initial A7r, they've been working hard on improving their AF and lens lineup, while maintaining their superiority in sensor technology. They may not have matched Canon/Nikon's action AF capabilities yet, but even the current second-generation, miniature-size system works well for all non-action, slow-moving subjects. When - and it's a case of when, not if - they catch up with the action cameras, they will have a system that can do everything the SLRs can, plus more (tracking eyes, intelligent subject recognition and many other AI-based focus technologies just aren't feasible without a through-the-sensor AF approach), while the others will barely have an AF system that works without a mirror. Then Sony becomes the market leader, while Canon and Nikon become the dinosaurs - the IBM, Kodak and Yahoo - of the camera world. It's a 10- to 15-year game, not a 5-year game, and, so far, Sony appear to be doing very well.
-
Good analysis, except for one point, both Nikon (1 series) and Canon (a bit more video centric) have very good expertize in mirrorless AF technology.
At the risk of over simplifying a bit, all it would take is an executive decision to put an EVF in the D850/5DmkIV for Sony to loose their lead in the mirrorless market. Especially so now that Sony has acknowledged with their recent lens releases that the size advantaged they had was mostly the result of proposing less ambitious lens designs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At the risk of over simplifying a bit, all it would take is an executive decision to put an EVF in the D850/5DmkIV for Sony to loose their lead in the mirrorless market.
But they aren't, so it's not more then a nice hypothesis. And if they did I think the quest for the lead is still open.
-
But they aren't, so it's not more then a nice hypothesis. And if they did I think the quest for the lead is still open.
We don't know that. There are no products yet, it doesn't mean they aren't being developped.
But I agree, they are late. What we probably have is talented engineers led by a bunch of over conservative executives mostly taking inputs from mostly over aged Japanese photographers still wondering why they have to shoot digital.
Again, over simplifying. ;)
To be fair, I still prefer OVFs and a majority of DSLR owners still prefer OVFs. But they could have released 2 versions, one OVF, one EVF.
Those executives are a lot easier to replace/influence than the engineers/technological assets.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We don't know that. There are no products yet, it doesn't mean they aren't being developped.
What do you mean with "We don't know", that it is a hypothesis or that they aren't being developed ? ;)
My guess is we know the former, i.e. it is a hypothesis but not the latter, they could be developed and we don't know yet but it also might not be the case, but for me that's the definition of a hypothesis.
-
All I have to say about Sony is:
- They are a consumer electronics company,
- Beta max,
- NEX, and
- A-mount
Rand
-
All I have to say about Sony is:
- They are a consumer electronics company,
- Beta max,
- NEX, and
- A-mount
Rand
How about adding "Pro-Video" to that list :)
-
All I have to say about Sony is:
- They are a consumer electronics company,
- Beta max,
- NEX, and
- A-mount
Rand
Oh dear, such snobbery but you forgot to mention video games.
-
Oh dear, such snobbery but you forgot to mention video games.
Not a snob, just someone who has been burned badly by Sony's marketing strategy.
I have a lovely Sony TV. And their video gaming is still going strong. All the things in my list have one thing in common. They were platforms that were abandoned by Sony.
Rand
-
Neither NEX nor A-mount are abandoned by Sony. The NEX name has been replaced by Axxxx but the concept is alive and kicking.
-
To be fair, I still prefer OVFs and a majority of DSLR owners still prefer OVFs.
I am not sure about this. I think a majority of mirrorless users prefer EVF, otherwise they wouldn't have switched to a mirrorless system.
But I also think a good amount of DSLR users would prefer an EVF too, but are trapped in Canikon stubborness. These three cases of DSLR users could prefer an EVF over OVF if they tried the EVF, but they don't know it or this preference is insufficient to provoque a system change:
- Those with an important investment in Canikon gear
- Those that prefer Canikon lenses
- Those P&S novice users still in the "I want my first DSLR camera" stage (this group is quickly being decimated since mirrorless systems have finally become known by retail salesmen).
Regards
-
regarding the OVF vs EVF, having grown up using LF and thus a ground glass for viewing, it seems the
EVF is more like being there, and the additional benefit of variable illumination of the EVF is really great for geezers like me. My main reason for Sony A7x use is the size.
-
It does not have to be either EVF or OVF. DSLRs could feature both by providing add-on EVFs which could be fixed on hotshoes. Canon does that for some of their G Series cameras (G3X, G1X, etc.) and I am puzzled as to why they do not offer similar solutions to DSLR owners.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
That's indeed a good point, even if it would be a bit clunky.
Or... they think that a large majority of their customers buy DSLRs because of their OVFs and not in spite of their OVFs?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not sure about this. I think a majority of mirrorless users prefer EVF, otherwise they wouldn't have switched to a mirrorless system.
But I also think a good amount of DSLR users would prefer an EVF too, but are trapped in Canikon stubborness. These three cases of DSLR users could prefer an EVF over OVF if they tried the EVF, but they don't know it or this preference is insufficient to provoque a system change:
- Those with an important investment in Canikon gear
- Those that prefer Canikon lenses
- Those P&S novice users still in the "I want my first DSLR camera" stage (this group is quickly being decimated since mirrorless systems have finally become known by retail salesmen).
Regards
I think EVF/OVF preference is very personal. I am shooting with EVF (Sony, mu43, Leica Q) and with OVF (Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica M) and enjoy using OVF much, much more. With OVF I feel more engaged with the subject than with EVF. Some EVF users may have never enjoyed a really good OVF and some OVF users may have never given EVF a chance. I cannot speak for others, but for me the size is the only reason to use an EVF camera.
-
I cannot speak for others, but for me the size is the only reason to use an EVF camera.
I use both, but also enjoy using both. Next to camera size for me the biggest advantage of EVF's is focus magnification.
-
I use both, but also enjoy using both. Next to camera size for me the biggest advantage of EVF's is focus magnification.
That's definitely a major potential plus if you use MF lenses (which I do most of the time), but I personnally dislike the current Sony implementation. Loosing the full frame view when you go into focus magnification mode is a poor solution in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's definitely a major potential plus if you use MF lenses (which I do most of the time), but I personnally dislike the current Sony implementation. Loosing the full frame view when you go into focus magnification mode is a poor solution in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, it would be nice to have an option to only magnify a part and still see the outline of the entire shot around it. Most of the times I don't need it but it would be useful in some cases for me. Wouldn't want it as the only magnify option though, since using the whole EVF for the magnified view is useful as well.
-
Speaking of OVF and EVF, Sony makes an add on EVF that I used to hook up to my 800E, mounts in the hot shoe, and got a large EVF right away. It was only feasible on a tripod, but it worked great. Now if I can find it......
-
Not a snob, just someone who has been burned badly by Sony's marketing strategy.
I have a lovely Sony TV. And their video gaming is still going strong. All the things in my list have one thing in common. They were platforms that were abandoned by Sony.
Rand
Fair enough but you described Sony as a consumer electronics company and I assume you meant this as a derogatory comment.
I see this kind of post too often and I do wish people would move on and I do wonder who you and others posting similar comments think should have the temerity to produce camera equipment.
-
I am not sure about this. I think a majority of mirrorless users prefer EVF, otherwise they wouldn't have switched to a mirrorless system.
Regards
Since moving to mirrorless I've come to love the advantages that come with the evf including the in view focus and exposure aids. The only thing I dislike is that the light output of every evf I've tried is too high for night time shooting but of course in the same situation an ovf may be utterly useless.
-
The 5 brightness options for the A7Rii feel limited - I don't understand why it doesn't have 10 or 12, taking it from blinding to virtually nothing (and the auto could be calibrated to suit, too, by giving it a range to work in). Seems like a firmware requirement, but probably low on the list.
-
That's definitely a major potential plus if you use MF lenses (which I do most of the time), but I personnally dislike the current Sony implementation. Loosing the full frame view when you go into focus magnification mode is a poor solution in my book.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, it would be nice to have an option to only magnify a part and still see the outline of the entire shot around it. Most of the times I don't need it but it would be useful in some cases for me. Wouldn't want it as the only magnify option though, since using the whole EVF for the magnified view is useful as well.
Since moving to mirrorless I've come to love the advantages that come with the evf including the in view focus and exposure aids. The only thing I dislike is that the light output of every evf I've tried is too high for night time shooting but of course in the same situation an ovf may be utterly useless.
The 5 brightness options for the A7Rii feel limited - I don't understand why it doesn't have 10 or 12, taking it from blinding to virtually nothing (and the auto could be calibrated to suit, too, by giving it a range to work in). Seems like a firmware requirement, but probably low on the list.
All this is missing the point that, while the ergonomics of EVF/live view implementation may be questionable depending on your preferences (I think it works just fine), with an OVF, you can neither adjust the brightness nor magnify the image for critical focus in the first place.
-
All this is missing the point that, while the ergonomics of EVF/live view implementation may be questionable depending on your preferences (I think it works just fine), with an OVF, you can neither adjust the brightness nor magnify the image for critical focus in the first place.
I don't think anybody is missing a point here. These are just some suggestions to make EVF's more to the liking of some users.
-
Yup, what Pieter said. I've got an A7Rii with EVF, and it's great, but it could be even better.
-
Yup, what Pieter said. I've got an A7Rii with EVF, and it's great, but it could be even better.
Isn't this the same with anything in life.
-
Anything? No, not really. In this particular case, it would seem that the hardware is capable, it just needs a change in firmware. There may be reasons why it can't be done, but they're not apparent. So in a general discussion of EVF, it's a valid point that whilst excellent, it seems like a relatively simple change could improve it significantly.
-
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-manager-otake-says-next-comes-camera-launch-lens-launch-camera-launch/ (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-manager-otake-says-next-comes-camera-launch-lens-launch-camera-launch/)
So, does this mean a new body every few months, or one lens every two years?
-
Bumping this thread back up now that we have a real camera with real nice specs to talk about. I have to admit that the A99II looks on paper like the body I have been waiting for, but the OP makes legitimate points not only about the cost of lenses but also the lack of quality of the lenses especially compared with Canon.
-
Hi,
To some extent I agree. On the other hand, most lenses are quite OK for what they are used for.
Best regards
Erik
Bumping this thread back up now that we have a real camera with real nice specs to talk about. I have to admit that the A99II looks on paper like the body I have been waiting for, but the OP makes legitimate points not only about the cost of lenses but also the lack of quality of the lenses especially compared with Canon.
-
Firstly, Sony sells such highly specialized lens dozen times less than Canon and Nikon so they want to nake it profitable. The law is simple - more production - less cost.
Secondly, i assume you are the real user of this lens and lensscore (and other one-number* ratings) data correlate with you experience?
As far as i know, real users of 4/500 and 2.8/300 has different opinion, not matched with lensscore.
There is some on dyxum.com forum.
People i know tested 4/500 with Canon and Nikon counterparts as wild-life lens.
It was few years ago on real-life with 22-24mp bodies.
Only significant flaw of the Sony 4/500 for wildlife and photorep usage they found is a little smaller magnification on closest focus distance. Sharpness and CAs even on infinity (landscape) was on the same level.
Anyway, one-number-score is integral value and sharpness is only part of it.
For wildlife shooter maximum magnification will be much significant than corner sharpness, for example.
But how we count all this "score" center sharpness and sharpness distribution across the frame, - 'cause we have also CA, flatness of the fieild, coma, vignetting, flare-resistance (better for Sony 'cause much less lens lements due lack of IS) and so on, to say nothing 'bout weight, IS, focus...