Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: MarkWelsh on April 07, 2008, 06:25:12 pm
-
It seems likely that by the end of the year, Sony will be established as a major alternative to Canon and Nikon in the professional market, so we're looking very hard at the full system at 16:9 with a view to assessing its viability. Initial observations, to be followed by lots of lens tests, here:
Speculating on Sony (http://www.16-9.net)
-
It seems likely that by the end of the year, Sony will be established as a major alternative to Canon and Nikon in the professional market, so we're looking very hard at the full system at 16:9 with a view to assessing its viability. Initial observations, to be followed by lots of lens tests, here:
Speculating on Sony (http://www.16-9.net)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark,
It's not working at present
Mike
-
Not working here still either.
I will be VERY interested in this review, as it is something I'm considering.
Waiting for the A900 myself before ponying up a 20mp+ body.
Mark.
-
Hi Mark,
It's not working at present
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry . . . temporary outage: back online in the next few minutes!
-
It's nice to read something an article like that. I don't think anybody can deny that this year will definantly be an exciting one for the 35mm format.
-
I agree, should be an interesting next 12 months.
I am currently having a huge tossup weather to get a 1Ds Mk iii, or wait and see whats comming with the A900 etc. (Upgrading from 5D, and replace the LF)
Have to jump in some time, but just trying to pick the best time !
Mark
-
Hi,
My guess is that the Alpha is intended as a "landscape" camera. High image quality, probably not very focused on high ISO performance, moderate frames per second.
For the intended audience a small set of high quality lenses would be just fine.
I'm not convinced that optical excellence is spelled "Zeiss" but hopefully the "G" and Carl Zeiss lenses will be good enough to make the 25 Mpicture sensor justice.
Best regards
Erik
-
No matter how good the camera and/or lenses are, getting over the "SONY" name might be an issue of perception VS reality. Don't get me wrong - all the more power to them if they can pull it off, but I see basic roadblocks in the way.
At one time, SONY meant the very best in TVs, VCRs, whatever, but over the recent few years, I've seen the SONY name used on some pretty poor quality electronics. Not to say the camera companies haven't had their duds and failures as well, but the SONY name has, IMO, lost some of it's shine. For me, seeing the SONY name on a camera turns me right off. They would of been better, IMO, to put back on the old Minolta or Konica name. Or even reuse one of the older medium format names like Bronica. Your mileage may vary.
The last issue, as I see it, as much as I love the new Canon DSLRs, one thing Nikon did right was make all thier DSLRs backwards compatible with almost every Nikon lens ever made. Personally I've been using Nikon for 25 years, and why would i dump 25 years worth of lenses that work just perfectly fine on my new Nikon DSLR unless SONY comes out with something truely exception and/or unique?
It will be interesting times
-
Still, it really is Minolta with a Sony badge on it for the most part. Sony certainly didn't raze Minolta's operations and fire everyone when they took over. So I expect good things from them provided they don't get distracted by the thousand other projects that they are doing right now.
-
Based on some lens tests in PopPhoto, the Carl Zeiss/Sony 24-70 f/2.8 has out-performed the new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 lens. And since it is a Carl Zeiss design, I would expect the same level of performance to be carried forward into the FF sensor too, corner-to-corner.
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/...-za-ssm-af.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/lens-test-sony-24-70mm-f28-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-za-ssm-af.html)
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5167/...8g-ed-af-s.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5167/lens-test-nikon-24-70mm-f28g-ed-af-s.html)
Not a bad "walkaround" lens for the upcoming FF Alpha, which rumors say will come as a pair. One of them with the already announced 24.6MP FF sensor and its companion with an as-yet-unannounced 14-16MP sensor with a higher Frame-rate (but with identical body and electronic internals of the larger MP-specced version).
-
It seems likely that by the end of the year, Sony will be established as a major alternative to Canon and Nikon in the professional market, so we're looking very hard at the full system at 16:9 with a view to assessing its viability. Initial observations, to be followed by lots of lens tests, here:
Speculating on Sony (http://www.16-9.net)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, excellent thought-provoking article.
I think one of the key advantages that Sony brings to the table, as far as lenses are concerned, is that they are designing and perfecting these in the digital age, with master craftsmen like Zeiss in the designer's chair. With AF to boot !
I am certain that these lenses are probably bench-tested using some internal ultra-high resolution Sony FF test sensors (unavailable/unannounced to the public) and hence will be expected to last the test of time, with excellent corner-to-corner performance on a high-res FF sensor.
I will be watching for your upcoming analyses.
-
The 24-70/2.8 ZA is an encouraging sign, continuing the trend of excellence set by the 135/1.8 and 85/1.4 designs. I like the way Sony is going about putting together its range: concentrating on delivering a small number of top quality (expensive) products targeted at uncompromising users. They'll need them with a full frame sensor with a 5.9 micron pixel pitch . . .
Mark, excellent thought-provoking article.
I think one of the key advantages that Sony brings to the table, as far as lenses are concerned, is that they are designing and perfecting these in the digital age, with master craftsmen like Zeiss in the designer's chair. With AF to boot !
I am certain that these lenses are probably bench-tested using some internal ultra-high resolution Sony FF test sensors (unavailable/unannounced to the public) and hence will be expected to last the test of time, with excellent corner-to-corner performance on a high-res FF sensor.
I will be watching for your upcoming analyses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The 24-70/2.8 ZA is an encouraging sign, continuing the trend of excellence set by the 135/1.8 and 85/1.4 designs. I like the way Sony is going about putting together its range: concentrating on delivering a small number of top quality (expensive) products targeted at uncompromising users. They'll need them with a full frame sensor with a 5.9 micron pixel pitch . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. I'm used to shooting Hasselblad with 2-3 lenses for a lot of my work, so having a Zeiss 24-70, 85mm and 135mm is already more range than I really need. Sony's decided to skip a lot of middle ground (like an 85mm 1.8, or 50mm 1.8) and go right for the high-end with these lenses. Most expect the "rumored" (we've seen pics of these potential lenses) Zeiss 16-35mm 2.8 and 24mm 1.4 to be released with the fullframe, and that'll be a nice, high end range of glass.
-
"The last issue, as I see it, as much as I love the new Canon DSLRs, one thing Nikon did right was make all thier DSLRs backwards compatible with almost every Nikon lens ever made. Personally I've been using Nikon for 25 years, and why would i dump 25 years worth of lenses that work just perfectly fine on my new Nikon DSLR unless SONY comes out with something truely exception and/or unique?"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I so can not disagree more with that statement about lenses which, by the way, leaves us all Pentax users with a funny "smirk" in our faces, and with no response.
The so called "backwards compatibility" of Nikon lenses with Nikon mounts is just that the lens fits in the body, full stop.
And not all of them.
Sony will add up the Minolta slr lenses [some of them unsurpassed] to those they can build alone.
Most importantly:
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY, which I guess they can quite lead it, now can´t they?
Cheers.
-
The so called "backwards compatibility" of Nikon lenses with Nikon mounts is just that the lens fits in the body, full stop.
-snip-
Your mileage may vary, as I always point out, but for me, at this present moment, I am using a 40 year old + 105mm Non- AI nikkor on my Nikon DSLR, and it works *great* for me. My previous "workhorse" 35mm cameras were the FM and FM2, so using my DSLR in manual mode is not a huge step up from the FM2.
another issue for me is I have a small fortune invested in adaptors & parts allowing me to hook up my Nikon film bodies to my telescopes (C8, 80mm ED and 145mm Mak-newt) for finding out that my Nikon DSLR fits just perfect with absolutely no messing around is a huge advantage for me. From first hand experience I can tell you the same is not true for other brands of DSLRs.
So for me, in my specific case, Nikon IS 100% backwards compatible. Again, your mileage may vary.
[/quote]
Most importantly:
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY, which I guess they can quite lead it, now can´t they?
Cheers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
That I agree with, and in fact, that was my first thought - if Nikon is going to brag about their high end SONY CCD sensor (or CMOS sensors) used in their DSLRs, and then SONY starts making DSLRs....hmmmm...... As others have pointed out, interesting times ahead.
My main point however is this - I believe most people on this forum will know of the Minolta/SONY connection. However, from a strickly business point of view, the SONY name, in my opinion, has been misused/tarnished over the past few years by allowing the name to appear on low end consumer products. It will take time to overcame that "loss" of face, or however you want to call it.
Also, putting the Zeiss name behind the SONY camera is not, IMO, a perfect guarantee of anything. Direct example- Kodak using the Schneider name on their lenses. On my 4x5 large format cameras, my Schenider lenses are some of the finest I own, but when I saw them appear on Kodak point & shoot digitals, my first thought was NOT -" hey, Kodak is getting better."
No, quite the opposite, my first thought was "hey, what the heck is wrong with Schneider? Better start moving over to Rodenstock LF lenses I guess."
Again - your milage may vary, but there's an old rule in business that was first termed in the day of Elizabeth the First that goes "bad money drives out good", which in this case means that using a good brand name with a lesser brand name does not always mean you go up, it may mean you go down in perception.
Last comment - I am looikng forward towards the new SONY, not bashing it at all, just pointing out that I bought a SONY DVD/VCR player that turned out to be a piece of complete crap a few years ago, and yes I know it's a different animal/thing altogether, but I think they will ahve some time overcoming perceptions like this, especillay outside this forum where people are not as well educated about the issues.
-
-snip-
another issue for me is I have a small fortune invested in adaptors & parts allowing me to hook up my Nikon film bodies to my telescopes (C8, 80mm ED and 145mm Mak-newt) for finding out that my Nikon DSLR fits just perfect with absolutely no messing around is a huge advantage for me. From first hand experience I can tell you the same is not true for other brands of DSLRs.
Last comment - I am looikng forward towards the new SONY, not bashing it at all, just pointing out that I bought a SONY DVD/VCR player that turned out to be a piece of complete crap a few years ago, and yes I know it's a different animal/thing altogether, but I think they will ahve some time overcoming perceptions like this, especillay outside this forum where people are not as well educated about the issues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My Canon DSLR work fine with my telescope using a simple t-ring. A much bigger issue for me is getting the mount tracking right:)
I think you may be right about the Sony image however - I recently was astounded at how poor the quality of my parents Bravia lcd tv was - though it had been bought unviewed because 'it's a sony'!!! If I'd ordered it it would have gone straight back.
However, it's seems likely that the new ff dslr will be a great camera and the zeiss lenses should be good, as well as some of the older minolta glass. Interesting times.
Mike
-
When the Sony A100 hit the market a couple (?) years ago, I got one and tested it very thoroughly. I then returned it within the 30 day window, and bought a Nikon D80. After testing the D80, I found (my personal observations, of course) that the Sony had equal or better ergonomics; I liked that the Sony allowed the rear LCD to be used for exposure info, etc instead of only the hard-to-see top LCD; the Sony in-body IS worked very well- every bit as well as lens-based IS (based on my use of a Nikon zoom w/VR); the Sony kit lens was decent.
HOWEVER:
The gotchas of the Sony were a shutter that sounded like a barn door closing, and the metering consistently blew out highlights. In comparison, the D80 shutter is silky-smooth and much quieter, and the D80 metering is hard to fool- it gives great results in a variety of conditions. So, I kept the D80.
I'm willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt that on the much higher-end A900, there will be no such issues. Obviously, when the camera hits the market, it will be used, abused and pixel-peeped until it screams for mercy. Then we will see. But eveyone knows there is a lot more to this than a high-rez sensor.
-
When the Sony A100 hit the market a couple (?) years ago, I got one and tested it very thoroughly. I then returned it within the 30 day window, and bought a Nikon D80. After testing the D80, I found (my personal observations, of course) that the Sony had equal or better ergonomics; I liked that the Sony allowed the rear LCD to be used for exposure info, etc instead of only the hard-to-see top LCD; the Sony in-body IS worked very well- every bit as well as lens-based IS (based on my use of a Nikon zoom w/VR); the Sony kit lens was decent.
HOWEVER:
The gotchas of the Sony were a shutter that sounded like a barn door closing, and the metering consistently blew out highlights. In comparison, the D80 shutter is silky-smooth and much quieter, and the D80 metering is hard to fool- it gives great results in a variety of conditions. So, I kept the D80.
I'm willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt that on the much higher-end A900, there will be no such issues. Obviously, when the camera hits the market, it will be used, abused and pixel-peeped until it screams for mercy. Then we will see. But eveyone knows there is a lot more to this than a high-rez sensor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Sony A100 was basically a massaged Minolta 5D, and shared the loud shutter sound of both the 5D and 7D. The Sony DSLRs following the A100 have all been built by Sony from the ground up (although still with a little Minolta DNA,) and don't have the loud shutter. Interestingly, the D80 is somewhat known for unreliable metering, so I'm glad you got a good one.
As far as seeing Sony as a consumer company is concerned, I guess it's really just about where you're coming from. I work on audio engineering and I do some work in broadcast, and Sony equipment is top notch in this regard. Having spent a lot of time with retail repairs/returns in my younger years, I became very aware of how people's perceptions of brand were formed by personal experience. One customer would come in with brand X for repair, and say that they'll never buy brand X again. The same thing would happen with brand Y and Z as well. I would snicker to myself, knowing that ALL of these companies will inevitably have problems with their stuff. There are so many faulty products from so many companies, that people rely on their personal experience rather than broad numbers, and because we spend our hard earned money on a brand X, Y or Z, when it fails we decide that is the last product from that company that we'll ever buy again. I personally had a Sony DVD player die after one year or so. Big deal. It happens with any brand, and Sony's is still one of the more reliable ones, and it didn't keep me from buying another one, which has lasted a long time.
That being said, I think it'll be a bit before Sony is seen as a proper DSLR name, but that was once the case with movie cameras, and they are on top of that game now. The Zeiss name helps (and the new Zeiss lenses are testing to be best in class, so they're more than just a name.)
p.s. I don't have a Bravia, but they're still one of the better tvs.
-
Maybe a Sony A900 with Zeiss lenses is as close to a modern Contax dslr as you can get. I too dislike the idea of the Sony name on the front of the camera - much better Contax, Minolta, or Uncle Harry's Pizza House for that matter.... But I'm sure we'll get over it when the price is announced!
Put my name down for one.
Quentin
P.S. Sony is a great name on the right product, but not on dslr's. I also own a Bravia HD TV.
-
Sony's pro lenses are impressive, not only Zeiss branded ones:
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30724 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30724)
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30725 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30725)
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24679 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24679)
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24688 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24688)
They are second to none here.
-
Well, for me, it is really not working.
When I bought the dSLR, I looked and considered changing from a Pentax system [having owned the Z1-p] into a Nikon system. But because I do mainly street photography, I realized that in order to get similar lens performance I would have to plunge quite some money for lenses that will not work as good as the old Takumars. I´m not talking about autofocus, I´m talking about not to have to do stop down metering.
All in all, I sticked with Pentax because I still can have a broad range of lenses. Even the shortage of long lenses is not such, as I can use 645 lenses with adapters which will keep the metering capability.
About the branding, I have to say that I´m very skeptical about it. I don´t stay loyal to any brand.
I don´t think that Sony has a bad reputation. And seeing the broader picture, I think that Sony is a pretty good brand name to start with. They will capture all the people upgrading from point and shoots. Then get the snowball rolling yourself: higher enthusiasts will get more expensive stuff, and at some point it will grow bigger, and bigger. They are starting building up the customer base, not as Kodak tried, starting from the very top and having nothing in between [and not improving what they had].
Bottom line, for me, is that now there are four major SENSOR manufacturers that RETAIL their own dSLR´s [not counting Fujifilm]:
Canon
Panasonic
Sony
and guess who is the uninvited guest?
Samsung.
That is an astounding news for us the consumers. More choice and more competition meaning faster developments and better price wars.
PS:
As you may know, I just purchased brand new lenses [FA 43 Limited and FA 50]. And guess what? This nostalgia thing of "all the past was far better" turns out to be not so true. Modern technology has got quite a leap forward. This FA50 is quite superior to my old Takumar.
-
Hi!
Me feeling is that the MTF curves by Sony are somewhat optimistic. Far to good to be true. Some have 10/20/40 lp/mm and some 10/30 lp/mm. I'm very much in doubt that any lens can reach an MTF of 90% at 30 lp/mm.
Erik
Sony's pro lenses are impressive, not only Zeiss branded ones:
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30724 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30724)
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30725 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=30725)
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24679 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24679)
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24688 (http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/dslr/lens/lens.cfm?PD=24688)
They are second to none here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Comparing MTF diagrams from different sources is a waste of time.
-- Olaf
-
Hi,
I don't agree on that, as long as they are correctly presented. The 10, 20, 40 lp/mm tagential and sagittal figures are pretty accepted standard.
Best regards
Erik
Comparing MTF diagrams from different sources is a waste of time.
-- Olaf
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I don't agree on that, as long as they are correctly presented. The 10, 20, 40 lp/mm tagential and sagittal figures are pretty accepted standard.
The problem is that some manufacturers (such as Canon) display theoretical MTF curves based on the lens design, and not actual measured curves. Then there's the issue of what equipment is used to measure the curves. Unless all that is specified, comparing the MTF curves won't tell you much.
-
The problem is that some manufacturers (such as Canon) display theoretical MTF curves based on the lens design, and not actual measured curves. Then there's the issue of what equipment is used to measure the curves. Unless all that is specified, comparing the MTF curves won't tell you much.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With all these issues such as the DR of cameras (sensors) and the resolution of lenses, we need an industry standard like the ISO standard to which Canon is now accurately adhering.
In this modern age, it's ridiculous there should be so much confusion about the 'real' performance of lenses, resulting in a situation where the fastidious consumer feels compelled to test lenses before buying.
-
Indeed. Still, the only way to be sure is to try them out: one sample at a time! I'm heartened by what I see from Sony thus far. At every level, though, it's a bootstrap situation: for instance, it's quite a challenge to get the best out of the RAW files, and Sony JPEGs are shoddy.
I've been spending a lot of time (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=27553393) over the last week experimenting with just about every combination of post-production tools to get to a point where I'm confident that I can get everything out of the Sony sensor. The next step is to fettle a lens system that gives me equal confidence in getting everything to the sensor . . . then we'll see what the Sony Flagship can do.
-
[snip]
In this modern age, it's ridiculous there should be so much confusion about the 'real' performance of lenses, resulting in a situation where the fastidious consumer feels compelled to test lenses before buying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That might be nice in lolipop wonderland, but it's not going to happen, I don't think, anytime during our stay on the planet.
It seems like a lot of folks, in this "immediate gratification" day and age where one can get cash out of an ATM, a meal from a drive through and shop online all within the time span of ten minutes (or less, depending on the # of brain cells functioning in your friendly local fast food workers noggin when he takes your order) want a simple "grade" or number that tells us, is perfect, and can thus be used as the "final answer" as to which lens (or camera system, etc) is better but in reality that can't happen.
In terms of lenses - MTF graphs have their use, but they really can't be compared between manufacturers, and then again they don't always tell us how a lens performs in that pesky thing called "the real world". Lenses are balancing acts - and there is more than just sharpness to the equation. A lot of people, particularly in the forums, seem to have sharpness as the only attribute of lens quality that matters, when there is actually quite a bit more. I don't personally believe any one lens design firm, whether it be Zeiss, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus etc has automatic and immediate superiority over the other brands in the same manner than Kenyan marathoners seem to kick everyone else's backsides in marathons - each firm has different objectives and philosophy, and I'm sure if you all went to each one of them and said "design me the sharpest lens and I don't care if it sucks at every other aspect of lens performance" they could end up with lenses that are actually rather similar. If you take a look at the Sony MTF's, you will see some family resemblance - like Nikon, they tend to like a contrasty lens, and they also seem to want to emphasize center sharpness over other aspects - at times you'll see more spread between the sagittal and tangential plots versus, say, Nikon for a similar lens, which may (or may not, being MTF is not a perfect indicator) indicate the Sony may have the very slightest edge in resolution here and there but maybe not do so well in bokeh or tonal transitions - there are tradeoffs in every design, and each company has their own philosophy how to do it, and most of us who are "into" lenses likely eventually has their own tastes somewhat aligned with what the manufacturer we have chosen's balance. (I'm, for instance, a Nikon lens fan - I do prefer Nikon glass in general over Canon and most of the Zeiss stuff, and there are others who likely feel the opposite, and we do so more more for the rendering differences as opposed to how the lenses test on a chart or how much sharpness they have.)
So there's really no way to test for that - and on top of that, lenses are often designed to task - certain things are "given up" to gain something else in an area that matches a task - so there's no really good way for a single "lens grade" to indicate that either, much to the dismay of the folks who can't handle the reality that subjective evaluation is neccessary for lens selection.
(we could go into tons of other factors - some lenses are better at distance, some better at closer range, some balanced - are you going to have 30 scores for a set of attributes in order for us to arrive at a conclusion? And then again, how are you going to test all of that?)
So at the end of the day, it's guys like Mark Welsh (on the canon centric side) and guys like Bjorn Rorslett (on the Nikon side) and personal evaulation that ultimately lets me know if a lens is going to cut it for what *I* do - no single MTF graph or brand zealot trumpeting some chart is going to tell me what I need to know.
--------------------
As far as the original thread goes, my contribution is thus (and I'm likely going to get some "heat" for this as here is where I get opinionated...)
* The way I see the industry, I currently only see two manufacturers dealing with the lens demands of FF bodies at the current time - Nikon and Sony. Witness the performance of the very latest Nikon zooms and the reviews on the Sony 24-70 and I think an argument can be made that while Canon took the FF route of making the camera bodies and sensors first, but perhaps leaving themselves a bit "short" in terms of ultimate lens quality for the highest resolving sensors, Nikon and Sony are taking the opposite approach - introducing very high performance lenses first and then the bodies will come later. Note that while most of you out there (who likely shoot Canon - let's be honest here - this is a very heavy Canon oriented site) are ready to skewer me in argument, I seriously don't think Canon is going to sit on the sidelines and not do anything about it - likely they will to introduce lenses in areas where they've traditionally been weak (wide zooms, etc) in order to fully utilize what their sensors are capable of - but as of now, Sony and Nikon are addressing this first. Which is good - it puts pressure on Canon and that's not a bad thing.
* related to the above, I see that quite soon, once the major players have hi-rez FF bodies available, that lens sharpness will just simply HAVE to be really good - and while maybe one might be a smidge better than the other, we may arrive at a time where ANY of the best lenses from any of the brands will most definitely be professionally sharp and quite excellent.
* The hurdle for Sony becoming a pro player is going to be related to two things (watch out, I'm going to get negative here)..
* Minolta bodies have been historically substandard. Sorry - in 30 years of photography I've seen/heard/witnesses more problems with Minolta gear than I ever have with Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Olympus. My own brief experience with Minolta left me with a sour taste as well. I'd happily use any of the other systems out there (well, not Olympus, but that's because 4/3rd is a dying game, but their bodies outside of that are ok) but I'd absolutely NEVER use a Minolta body, no matter what name is on it. (Interestingly, when I started out in the mid 70's, it was the same thing then - most of the pro's I talked to LOVED Rokkor-X glass, but none of them would touch a Minolta body with a 10 foot pole if they needed reliability and gear they could count on when the going got tough.)
* To be a pro player, one needs a FULL line of lenses, and only two players have that right now - Canon and Nikon. Sony has a ways to go to catch up.
Sony probably can get the support aspect settled - they have decently deep pockets, but I'd have to see a fully fleshed out lens line and a good 5-6 year period where their bodies are in use by pro's - not just by the twice a year landscape serious amateur, but by a large contingent of pros - before I'd consider them ready for the pro game. I personally don't see it happening, but hey, I'll absolutely eat my words if I'm proven wrong.
Enough controversy for today - back to lurk mode I go
-m
-
That might be nice in lolipop wonderland, but it's not going to happen, I don't think, anytime during our stay on the planet.
It seems like a lot of folks, in this "immediate gratification" day and age where one can get cash out of an ATM, a meal from a drive through and shop online all within the time span of ten minutes (or less, depending on the # of brain cells functioning in your friendly local fast food workers noggin when he takes your order) want a simple "grade" or number that tells us, is perfect, and can thus be used as the "final answer" as to which lens (or camera system, etc) is better but in reality that can't happen.
In terms of lenses - MTF graphs have their use, but they really can't be compared between manufacturers, and then again they don't always tell us how a lens performs in that pesky thing called "the real world". Lenses are balancing acts - and there is more than just sharpness to the equation. A lot of people, particularly in the forums, seem to have sharpness as the only attribute of lens quality that matters, when there is actually quite a bit more. I don't personally believe any one lens design firm, whether it be Zeiss, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus etc has automatically and immediate superiority over the rest in the same manner than Kenyan marathoners seem to kick everyone else's backsides in marathons - each firm has different objectives and philosophys, and I'm sure if you all went to each one of them and said "design me the sharpest lens and I don't care if it sucks at every other aspect of photograhy" they could end up with lenses that are actually rather similar. If you take a look at the Sony MTF's, you will see some family resemblance - like Nikon, they tend to like a contrasty lens, and they also seem to want to emphasize center sharpness over other aspects - at times you'll see more spread between the sagittal and tangential plots versus, say, Nikon for a similar lens, which may (or may not, being MTF is not a perfect indicator) indicate the Sony may have the very slightest edge in sharps but maybe not do so well in bokeh or tonal transitions - there are tradeoffs in every design, and each company has their own philosophy how to do it, and most of us who are "into" lenses likely eventually has their own tastes somewhat aligned with what the manufacturer we have chosen's balance. (I'm, for instance, a Nikon lens fan - I do prefer Nikon glass in general over Canon and most of the Zeiss stuff, and there are others who likely feel the opposite, and we do so more more for the rendering differences as opposed to how the lenses test on a chart or how much sharpness they have)
So there's really no way to test for that - and on top of that, lenses are often designed to task - certain things are "given up" to gain something else in an area that matches a task - so there's no really good way for a single "lens grade" to indicate that either, much to the dismay of the folks who can't handle the reality that subjective evaluation is neccessary for lens selection.
(we could go into tons of other factors - some lenses are better at distance, some better at closer range, some balanced - are you going to have 30 scores for a set of attributes in order for us to arrive at a conclusion? And then again, how are you going to test all of that?)
So at the end of the day, it's guys like Mark Welsh (on the canon centric side) and guys like Bjorn Rorslett (on the Nikon side) and personal evaulation that ultimately lets me know if a lens is going to cut it for what *I* do - no single MTF graph or brand zealot trumpeting some chart is going to tell me what I need to know.
--------------------
As far as the original thread goes, my contribution is thus (and I'm likely going to get some "heat" for this as here is where I get opinionated...)
* The way I see the industry, I currently only see two manufacturers dealing with the lens demands of FF bodies at the current time - Nikon and Sony. Witness the performance of the very latest Nikon zooms and the reviews on the Sony 24-70 and I think an argument can be made that while Canon took the FF route of making the camera bodies and sensors first, but perhaps leaving themselves a bit "short" in terms of ultimate lens quality for the highest resolving sensors, Nikon and Sony are taking the opposite approach - introducing very high performance lenses first and then the bodies will come later. Note that while most of you out there (who likely shoot Canon - let's be honest here - this is a very heavy Canon oriented site) are ready to skewer me in argument, I seriously don't think Canon is going to sit on the sidelines and not do anything about it - likely they will to introduce lenses in areas where they've traditionally been weak (wide zooms, etc) in order to fully utilize what their sensors are capable of - but as of now, Sony and Nikon are addressing this first. Which is good - it puts pressure on Canon and that's not a bad thing.
* related to the above, I see that quite soon, once the major players have hi-rez FF bodies available, that lens sharpness will just simply HAVE to be really good - and while maybe one might be a smidge better than the other, we may arrive at a time where ANY of the best lenses from any of the brands will most definitely be professionally sharp and quite excellent.
* The hurdle for Sony becoming a pro player is going to be related to two things (watch out, I'm going to get negative here)..
* Minolta bodies have been historically substandard. Sorry - in 30 years of photography I've seen/heard/witnesses more problems with Minolta gear than I ever have with Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Olympus. My own brief experience with Minolta left me with a sour taste as well. I'd happily use any of the other systems out there (well, not Olympus, but that's because 4/3rd is a dying game, but their bodies outside of that are ok) but I'd absolutely NEVER use a Minolta body, no matter what name is on it. (Interestingly, when I started out in the mid 70's, it was the same thing then - most of the pro's I talked to LOVED minolta rokkor-X glass, but none of them would touch a Minolta body with a 10 foot pole if you needed reliability and gear you could count on when the going got tough.)
* To be a pro player, one needs a FULL line of lenses, and only two players have that right now - Canon and Nikon. Sony has a ways to go to catch up.
Sony probably can get the support aspect settled - they have decently deep pockets, but I'd have to see a fully fleshed out lens line and a good 5-6 year period where their bodies are in use by pro's - not just by the twice a year landscape serious amateur, but by a large contingent of pros - before I'd consider them ready for the pro game. I personally don't see it happening, but hey, I'll absolutely eat my words if I'm proven wrong.
Enough controversy for today - back to lurk mode I go
-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I've got a couple of quibbles. The last Minolta film cameras, the Maxxum 9 and 7 were great. Also, Sony reps at PMA claim that the fullframe camera isn't going for a full on, pro system. It is aimed at independent pros and high amateurs. For a medium-format, portrait shooter like myself, their lens line-up is plenty, and that doesn't include the six other lenses high-end lenses coming soon. Sony implicitly said at PMA that they are NOT interested in the NFL, and there are a lot of smaller pro markets that the current lens line-up can cover.
-
(snip) Also, Sony reps at PMA claim that the fullframe camera isn't going for a full on, pro system. It is aimed at independent pros and high amateurs. For a medium-format, portrait shooter like myself, their lens line-up is plenty, and that doesn't include the six other lenses high-end lenses coming soon. Sony implicitly said at PMA that they are NOT interested in the NFL, and there are a lot of smaller pro markets that the current lens line-up can cover.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay, that explains some things - thanks for chiming in on this. Sony might have a very reasonable chance if they try to become the niche pro player, much like the Contax SLR system was in the mid 80's or so. Either way, more competition keeps the big boys busy in the lab, that's for sure, and that ultimately means more gear for us.
-
Okay, that explains some things - thanks for chiming in on this. Sony might have a very reasonable chance if they try to become the niche pro player, much like the Contax SLR system was in the mid 80's or so. Either way, more competition keeps the big boys busy in the lab, that's for sure, and that ultimately means more gear for us.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, unless the price is lower than the expected $3000-$4000, I don't think Sony is planning on moving a ton of these fullframes. It is their "flagship," and I would imagine they'll use it's 24.6MP "horsepower" rating to both give a budget MFDB alternative to some pros and lead new users into the system on the bottom end. Sony will no doubt enter the full on pro market eventually, but this first cam is only an early piece of the puzzle from what I gather.
-
I recently upgraded my DSLR and the Sony A700 was one of the cameras I got to try out. Well, nice camera, actually, with a good enough feel and reasonable build quality for the money. What shocked me though were the lenses I tried. Both quite poor, yet one had a Zeiss badge on it (the 16-80mm). It is the first time I have come across a Zeiss lens which was not very sharp. In this case, it was very, very soft in the corners. It reminded me of the string of Minolta AF lenses I went through before I gave up on my much loved Minolta 9000 years ago. Such a shame.
So I bought something else, also a "minor brand" and am ecstatic with it, but sadly disillusioned with Sony. They will have to do much better if their big gun camera is going to steal sales away from the established players.
Don.
-
Hi,
I have the 16-80 lens, too. It is soft in the corners but improves much when stopped down, at f:8 it's pretty good across the field. Some lenses may be better, tough. 5 times wide to short tele zooms are quite a challenge and few are optically really perfect.
Life is a compromise...
Erik
I recently upgraded my DSLR and the Sony A700 was one of the cameras I got to try out. Well, nice camera, actually, with a good enough feel and reasonable build quality for the money. What shocked me though were the lenses I tried. Both quite poor, yet one had a Zeiss badge on it (the 16-80mm). It is the first time I have come across a Zeiss lens which was not very sharp. In this case, it was very, very soft in the corners. It reminded me of the string of Minolta AF lenses I went through before I gave up on my much loved Minolta 9000 years ago. Such a shame.
So I bought something else, also a "minor brand" and am ecstatic with it, but sadly disillusioned with Sony. They will have to do much better if their big gun camera is going to steal sales away from the established players.
Don.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Sorry but I really don't get it how people can expect so much from a 16-80 lens. It doesn't matter if it's Canon, Leica or Zeiss. They will never be as good as a 14-24 or 35-70. If you want prime lens quality the maximum factor will be around 2-3. On a 16-80 it is !5!. That can't work out.
This is also the reason why I love the Leica and Zeiss 35-70. Yes they don't have he great range like the Canon 24-105 or 24-70, but in that range they are like a prime. I would never want to go back to a crappy Canon 24-70, even if it adds some range from 24-35.
-
I'll tell everyone here something that needs to be remembered for those unfamiliar with the Sony system...
The "Zeiss" 16-80mm is NOT one of the lenses referred to when one mentions the new, great Sony Zeiss lenses. It is an aberration with a plastic build and is designed for APS-C. The optics are still Zeiss, and it is still very good for a zoom with that kind of range, but it does not hold a candle to the fullframe Zeiss 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, and the new, amazing 24-70mm 2.8 These latter, ff Zeiss' are best in class lenses.
I wish Sony hadn't caused confusion with the lesser 16-80mm Zeiss, because it is inevitably going to cause confusion for people who want to switch over later on down the line.
-
Hi!
Actually I don't think that 85 1.4 is world class, what I have seen in MTF tests. The 135 1.8 seems to be world class. I looked at the MTF curves from the 24-70 2.8 as published by Sony and they are good but in no way perfect.
Best regards
Erik
I'll tell everyone here something that needs to be remembered for those unfamiliar with the Sony system...
The "Zeiss" 16-80mm is NOT one of the lenses referred to when one mentions the new, great Sony Zeiss lenses. It is an aberration with a plastic build and is designed for APS-C. The optics are still Zeiss, and it is still very good for a zoom with that kind of range, but it does not hold a candle to the fullframe Zeiss 85mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, and the new, amazing 24-70mm 2.8 These latter, ff Zeiss' are best in class lenses.
I wish Sony hadn't caused confusion with the lesser 16-80mm Zeiss, because it is inevitably going to cause confusion for people who want to switch over later on down the line.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi!
Actually I don't think that 85 1.4 is world class, what I have seen in MTF tests. The 135 1.8 seems to be world class. I looked at the MTF curves from the 24-70 2.8 as published by Sony and they are good but in no way perfect.
Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree. On photozone.de, the ZA 85mm 1.4 beats both the Nikon 85 and the Canon 85L. Both popphoto and a polish mag (can't remember the name, i'll have to find the link) rate the 24-70mm as better than the Canon and Nikon. Actually, the polish mag only rated it better than the Canon (which isn't tough. the Canon is showing it's age,) and they hadn't reviewed the Nikon yet.
-
Yeah,
But according to photozone.de the ZA 85 suffers from longitudal chromatic aberration. Also, don't forget that we are discussing full frame, and Photo Zone tests are done on APS-C. Unfortunately my information is mostly coming from Swedish monthly "Foto" who make their tests with MTF equipment at the Hasselblad factory. Their tests are for subscribers only.
My definition of world class is essentially:
1) As good as a fixed focal
2) No week spot
3) No significant astigmatism
4) Fully usable at all apertures
What I have against the ZA 85 is that:
It doesn't have very good MTF at full aperture (Foto)
It does suffer from significant longitudal chromatic aberration (Photozone.de)
These problems are not really bad, but I would expect that if you are paying a lot for a fixed focal you would expect excellent performace at all apertures?
Best regards
Erik
I disagree. On photozone.de, the ZA 85mm 1.4 beats both the Nikon 85 and the Canon 85L. Both popphoto and a polish mag (can't remember the name, i'll have to find the link) rate the 24-70mm as better than the Canon and Nikon. Actually, the polish mag only rated it better than the Canon (which isn't tough. the Canon is showing it's age,) and they hadn't reviewed the Nikon yet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
But according to photozone.de the ZA 85 suffers from longitudal chromatic aberration. Also, don't forget that we are discussing full frame, and Photo Zone tests are done on APS-C. Unfortunately my information is mostly coming from Swedish monthly "Foto" who make their tests with MTF equipment at the Hasselblad factory. Their tests are for subscribers only.
My definition of world class is essentially:
1) As good as a fixed focal
2) No week spot
3) No significant astigmatism
4) Fully usable at all apertures
What I have against the ZA 85 is that:
It doesn't have very good MTF at full aperture (Foto)
It does suffer from significant longitudal chromatic aberration (Photozone.de)
These problems are not really bad, but I would expect that if you are paying a lot for a fixed focal you would expect excellent performace at all apertures?
Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, but the Canon and Nikon 85s suffer as well. From the photozone review:
"LoCAs (non-coinciding focal planes of the various colors), sometimes called "bokeh CAs", can be a problem in the field. Similar to the Canon 85mm f/1.2 USM L and Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 the Zeiss does also suffer from this optical defect."
And FWIW, photozone rates the Zeiss much sharper than the Nikon and Canon at F1.4
The Zeiss 24-70mm may not be up to your "world class" moniker, but it is definitely better than the competition.
-
Sorry but I really don't get it how people can expect so much from a 16-80 lens. It doesn't matter if it's Canon, Leica or Zeiss. They will never be as good as a 14-24 or 35-70. If you want prime lens quality the maximum factor will be around 2-3. On a 16-80 it is !5!. That can't work out.
This is also the reason why I love the Leica and Zeiss 35-70. Yes they don't have he great range like the Canon 24-105 or 24-70, but in that range they are like a prime. I would never want to go back to a crappy Canon 24-70, even if it adds some range from 24-35.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189905\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually the Olympus 12-60 works out near identical to the Zeiss 16-80 when you correct for the different formats. It's also faster (but needs to be to give similar depth of field) and a similar price and it is much, much crisper across the frame. To me, Zeiss always meant more than Olympus in that they compromised less and cost more. I'll accept this lens is a marketing thing and that the much pricier Zeiss offerings would be in a different league.
Odd that people slag the Canon 24-70. I took thousands of photos with one (full frame camera) and it was a stunner. Maybe I just had a good one? A completely different league to cheaper zooms I've had.
If you need 24mm, why settle for a 35mm lens? They are not comparable!
Don.
-
That might be nice in lolipop wonderland, but it's not going to happen, I don't think, anytime during our stay on the planet.
In terms of lenses - MTF graphs have their use, but they really can't be compared between manufacturers, and then again they don't always tell us how a lens performs in that pesky thing called "the real world". Lenses are balancing acts - and there is more than just sharpness to the equation. A lot of people, particularly in the forums, seem to have sharpness as the only attribute of lens quality that matters, when there is actually quite a bit more. So there's really no way to test for that - and on top of that, lenses are often designed to task - certain things are "given up" to gain something else in an area that matches a task - so there's no really good way for a single "lens grade" to indicate that either, much to the dismay of the folks who can't handle the reality that subjective evaluation is neccessary for lens selection.
(we could go into tons of other factors - some lenses are better at distance, some better at closer range, some balanced - are you going to have 30 scores for a set of attributes in order for us to arrive at a conclusion? And then again, how are you going to test all of that?)
So at the end of the day, it's guys like Mark Welsh (on the canon centric side) and guys like Bjorn Rorslett (on the Nikon side) and personal evaulation that ultimately lets me know if a lens is going to cut it for what *I* do - no single MTF graph or brand zealot trumpeting some chart is going to tell me what I need to know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There are many defects in lenses which can be corrected to some extent in post processing, such as chromatic aberration, color fringing, vignetting, barrel distortion. But one thing you cannot do is create detail where none was captured.
The issue I'm referring to is really just about quality control at the fundamental level. The type of MTF charts that Photodo produced would probably be sufficient.
Because it would be too cumbersome for any manufacturer to provide full and extensive technical information on every aspect of the performance of each individual lens, it does not therefore follow that some attempt at providing at least some reliable information about the most critical parameters should not be made.
It would be a poor excuse for a book publisher to state that they would never publish an encyclopedia because sush a reference could not contain full information on every subject.
There is clearly a demand for sensors with higher pixel count (which means higher pixel density). The Sony 24mp sensor, if it's priced right and has the expected low noise and no major drawbacks in the camera design, is inevitably going to be extremely popular.
The major issue with such a camera will be the sharpness of lenses, not the quality of bokeh.
-
The major issue with such a camera will be the sharpness of lenses, not the quality of bokeh.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, another and potentially the biggest major issue with such a camera will be the shot discipline of the photographer. The lenses of course matter too. If you're not maxxed out on shot discipline with a top tier tripod/ballhead for your landscape stuff and so forth, you'll not even remotely get close to what the better lenses are capable of doing though. You move that ISO up a couple of notches, you'll be surprised at how much ultimate resolution loss you'll occur too. Take the time to do some tests with a rez chart someday at various ISO levels with your best lens and you might be surprised.
I don't disagree about providing some form of "proof", persay, of quality control - that definitely would be handy for sure and I'd welcome it. Quality control definitely seems to have slipped in the past several years compared to what it was many years prior and that bothers me as I'm sure it does you.
What disturbs me greatly is the "sharpness over everything" pixel peeping mentality along with the desire for a single quantifying number that gives quality of a lens when the reality is that it simply can't be given.
As a side story, I did an experiment - took the same shot of a Death Valley scene, once with the 50/1.8 Nikkor - a lens that tests quite well stopped down, very very sharp. Then the same shot with the 28-70/2.8 zoom, a very good lens (nowhere as good as the new 24-70, but quite good), but one that doesn't test out the same as the 50 prime in resolution. Shot at F/8. Made large prints. You want to know which shot looked better? - not the technically "sharper" one from the 50 - but the one from the 28-70. Do you want to know why? Because it had a more realistic presentation of the depth of the image - it got the tonal seperations and tonal gradations correct and offered a coherent view of the scene while the 50 offered a slightly sharper but more two dimensional and disjointed looking rendition of the scene. Side by side it was noticeable which image was better. Point being - sharpness is of course very much important, but is absolutely not the only aspect of lens design that counts. That's probably falling on many deaf ears, but there are a few of us out there who realize that once we've gotten past a certain point in sharpness, other aspects of lens performance are far more important. The differences I (and others) saw can not be corrected in photoshop either.
-
Hi,
This is a bit similar to my experience with the Zeiss ZA 16-80 on my Sony. I did not do a lot of comparison shots between my lenses. I have done some tests using Imatest, tough. What I see is that I need to stop down the Zeiss 16-80 to aperture 8 to match my 80-200/2.8 APO or my Konica-Minolta 28-75/2.8 lenses. Edge sharpness at large apertures is definitively lacking.
On the other hand the lens works really well in real life shooting. It performs well in the center and "draws" nicely, even at maximum aperture. Stopped down it is really good. Probably not "world class" by my definition, but good enough for me.
Regarding Sony and Zeiss I would say that it is good for both firms. Sony is certainly helped by the Zeiss lenses and Zeiss I think needs a camera to put their lenses on, now that Contax went into RIP and Hasselblad uses lenses from Fuji.
I'm pretty sure that Zeiss lenses are good, mostly, but they have made a few lenses which don't live up to expectations. The new ZF lines seems to be quite impressive but they seem also have pretty significant sample to sample variations. Lloyd Chambers has a well researched article about the ZF lens line, available for purchase here: http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/Zei...nses/index.html (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/ZeissZFLenses/index.html)
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
Actually, another and potentially the biggest major issue with such a camera will be the shot discipline of the photographer. The lenses of course matter too. If you're not maxxed out on shot discipline with a top tier tripod/ballhead for your landscape stuff and so forth, you'll not even remotely get close to what the better lenses are capable of doing though. You move that ISO up a couple of notches, you'll be surprised at how much ultimate resolution loss you'll occur too. Take the time to do some tests with a rez chart someday at various ISO levels with your best lens and you might be surprised.
I don't disagree about providing some form of "proof", persay, of quality control - that definitely would be handy for sure and I'd welcome it. Quality control definitely seems to have slipped in the past several years compared to what it was many years prior and that bothers me as I'm sure it does you.
What disturbs me greatly is the "sharpness over everything" pixel peeping mentality along with the desire for a single quantifying number that gives quality of a lens when the reality is that it simply can't be given.
As a side story, I did an experiment - took the same shot of a Death Valley scene, once with the 50/1.8 Nikkor - a lens that tests quite well stopped down, very very sharp. Then the same shot with the 28-70/2.8 zoom, a very good lens (nowhere as good as the new 24-70, but quite good), but one that doesn't test out the same as the 50 prime in resolution. Shot at F/8. Made large prints. You want to know which shot looked better? - not the technically "sharper" one from the 50 - but the one from the 28-70. Do you want to know why? Because it had a more realistic presentation of the depth of the image - it got the tonal seperations and tonal gradations correct and offered a coherent view of the scene while the 50 offered a slightly sharper but more two dimensional and disjointed looking rendition of the scene. Side by side it was noticeable which image was better. Point being - sharpness is of course very much important, but is absolutely not the only aspect of lens design that counts. That's probably falling on many deaf ears, but there are a few of us out there who realize that once we've gotten past a certain point in sharpness, other aspects of lens performance are far more important. The differences I (and others) saw can not be corrected in photoshop either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
That's probably falling on many deaf ears, but there are a few of us out there who realize that once we've gotten past a certain point in sharpness, other aspects of lens performance are far more important. The differences I (and others) saw can not be corrected in photoshop either.
That's the key to understanding your detailed post, 'once you've gotten past a certain point in sharpness'.
The fact is, that a sharp lens at any given aperture that is not limited by diffraction, will give a shallower DoF than a less sharp lens. The over all effect will be different.
There are also differences in sharpness (or accutance) at different spatial frequencies. One lens might be sharper than another at 20 lp/mm, but less sharp than the other same lens at 50 lp/mm. The former lens is known as a 'contrasty' lens. The results on print might well look better. However, this type of characteristic can be relfected in Photodo-type MTF charts.
Unless you have detailed information on each lens under consideration, it's difficult to pinpoint what's actually causing those differences, unless you are knowledgeable and experienced on such matters, which I don't claim to be, but I do know something.
Also, when you claim such differences cannot be corrected in Photoshop, one has to ask, cannot be corrected by whom? Photoshop to me has always seemd to offer the possibility of correcting for almost everything, if you have the skill, except creating 'real' detail that was never captured in the first instance.
I'd like to be more adept at photoshop manipulation, but I'm an old codger who got into this activity (the computer aspect) a bit late in life.
-
I thought about getting Zeiss ZF lenses for my D3/D300. Three or four lenses would give me great range over the two bodies, and they're not as expensive as you would expect. I've hesitated because the reviews I've seen suggest that they're not much better, and sometimes not as good, as the Nikon AF equivalents. I don't believe you could pick out one or the other from a group of photos, although you might be able to see some differences in side-by-side comparisons. Sean Reid discusses some of this on his excellent website; it's not that the Zeisses are bad, it's just that they're not significantly better.
The OP suggests that Sony will have established itself as a major pro alternative by the end of the year. I have to disagree. If Sony works hard at it, perhaps by the end of the next decade.
Why would a pro (or a budding pro) choose an alternative with a much smaller system, unless (and this is the big unknown) the price was so much radically lower that it made up for the other deficits? I don't know Canon (except that it's a good system) but in Nikon, for example, there's an extremely well-developed, very subtle flash system; both Canon and Nikon have extremely well-developed shift lenses; Nikon, like Pentax, has a huge inventory of affordable heritage lenses which provide very different qualities to photographs -- not sharpness, but different drawings; if you're at a big event, with a Canon or Nikon system, there's always a possibility of borrowing a lens or two if you have an equipment problem. Not so easy if you're the only guy there with a Sony. Because of this, if I were a budding pro, I'd simply go with the established systems (except for the possibility of a radically lower price.) You really can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon - why mess with Sony?
I say this not so much because I'm a Nikon guy, but because I bought into the Kodak DSLRs -- they were expensive cameras backed by the biggest name in photography, and they are now gone. That thought is always tucked away in the back of my head.
JC
-
Because of this, if I were a budding pro, I'd simply go with the established systems (except for the possibility of a radically lower price.) You really can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon - why mess with Sony?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Why not Canon or Nikon?" is indeed the question that all other SLR systems need to answer with many potential customers, with the SLR market share gap between those two and everyone else actually growing recently. (In 2007, #2 Nikon moving up sharply in market share to about 40% while the next two systems, Olympus/Panasonic and Sony, stayed about the same at around 6% each.)
The only good sort of answer I can think of is offering something distinctly different from current and likely near future offerings of the big two, not trying to offer "exactly the same but better/cheaper". Sony seems to be planning on offering a different combination of resolution (24MP) and price (under $3,000-4,000?), not even close to being matched by current Canon, Nikon or medium format options, and suited to "advanced amateur/pro" markets other than pro sports or journalism.
However, pixel count leads tend to be short-lived: the big two have the ability to compete there if they wish to. Based on details extracted from recent Nikon D3 firmware, a 24MP D3X is likely soon (probably in a higher price range than the Sony though), Nikon almost certainly has the option of using Sony's 24MP sensor in an "advanced amateur/pro" FX model, and Canon could easily be working on a replacement for the 5D that matches up with the Sony flagship (actually I am guessing 22MP, $3,000-3,500: close enough.)
-
Canon could easily be working on a replacement for the 5D that matches up with the Sony flagship (actually I am guessing 22MP, $3,000-3,500: close enough.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That of course is the BIG question:)
I'll get me coat now
-
That of course is the BIG question:)
I'll get me coat now
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Granted, this is ALL speculation, but most are expecting a 5D(ii) of around 16-17MP. That will give people a more all around type camera in the Canon, and a high resolution monster in the Sony. I'm a "budding" studio pro, and I'm investing in the Zeiss lenses and Sony system because I'm expecting a 24MP camera for a lot less than the Nikon D3x or 1Ds III. If the Sony is the price of the next 5D, I'll be able to get the body, and all three fullframe Zeiss lenses for the price of the 1Ds III.
-
That of course is the BIG question:)
I'll get me coat now
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Heh.
I commented on this in the MF area a while back. That Sony and others will eventually, and likely within five years, have consumer cameras with essentially MF sensors in them. $3000 for such a camera that makes a 20-25MP digital back essentially moot will be a great thing. They have been charging insane prices for nearly two decades for digital backs. Of course the new digital backs will suddenly jump to 40+MP, but since you don't really need more than 25MP or so for most MF stuff...
Sony's exactly the company to break into that market at affordable prices.(though Canon might beat them to it. I suspect the next major SLR they come out with will be ~30MP.)
-
Heh.
I commented on this in the MF area a while back. That Sony and others will eventually, and likely within five years, have consumer cameras with essentially MF sensors in them. $3000 for such a camera that makes a 20-25MP digital back essentially moot will be a great thing. They have been charging insane prices for nearly two decades for digital backs. Of course the new digital backs will suddenly jump to 40+MP, but since you don't really need more than 25MP or so for most MF stuff...
Sony's exactly the company to break into that market at affordable prices.(though Canon might beat them to it. I suspect the next major SLR they come out with will be ~30MP.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Away from the original topic, but certainly Sony's entry will push things along a bit, it will be interesting to see how things develop. Bigger pixel counts will mean that you only benefit from all the lenses potential resolution at increasingly large apertures (already the 1Ds3 is revealing diffraction by about f8 up), however, perhaps that will free us up in our approach to selecting aperture and we will see more shot at f16 to f22 again!! If it proves feasible to retain 5D like (or better) per pixel s/n ratios then I'm delighted to have more resolution from the sensor. It may even be beneficial to buy some more lenses, though the current ones won't get any worse (although actually, the 1Ds3 has made me consider the zeiss 100mm macro as well as the 35 f2)
Mike
-
Hi,
Depends on what you mean by "pro". Hasselblad is definitely a "pro" camera although you won't see millions of photographers at the Olympic Games with H3D-s, nor will Hasselblad probably have a service center at the games.
I don't think that Sony is focusing on the professional news/sports market. There are lot of other areas for selling high quality equipment. Studio photographers, landscape photographers and wealthy amateurs more interested in MTFs than pictures, just to mention some.
The Zeiss lenses may be designed by Carl-Zeiss but they are made by Sony in Japan. Some of the lenses are old designs, like the 85/1.4. The 135/1.8 is a new design with two ED-elements and is supposed to be a very good lens.
There are some positive reports about the new 24-70/2.8 but I think the final judgement as still out.
Sony probably tries to build an adequate lens program for the A900. I guess they will have like:
16-35/2.8
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
300/2.8
400/4.5 (reborn?)
And possibly some more fixed focals.
Erik
I thought about getting Zeiss ZF lenses for my D3/D300. Three or four lenses would give me great range over the two bodies, and they're not as expensive as you would expect. I've hesitated because the reviews I've seen suggest that they're not much better, and sometimes not as good, as the Nikon AF equivalents. I don't believe you could pick out one or the other from a group of photos, although you might be able to see some differences in side-by-side comparisons. Sean Reid discusses some of this on his excellent website; it's not that the Zeisses are bad, it's just that they're not significantly better.
The OP suggests that Sony will have established itself as a major pro alternative by the end of the year. I have to disagree. If Sony works hard at it, perhaps by the end of the next decade.
Why would a pro (or a budding pro) choose an alternative with a much smaller system, unless (and this is the big unknown) the price was so much radically lower that it made up for the other deficits? I don't know Canon (except that it's a good system) but in Nikon, for example, there's an extremely well-developed, very subtle flash system; both Canon and Nikon have extremely well-developed shift lenses; Nikon, like Pentax, has a huge inventory of affordable heritage lenses which provide very different qualities to photographs -- not sharpness, but different drawings; if you're at a big event, with a Canon or Nikon system, there's always a possibility of borrowing a lens or two if you have an equipment problem. Not so easy if you're the only guy there with a Sony. Because of this, if I were a budding pro, I'd simply go with the established systems (except for the possibility of a radically lower price.) You really can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon - why mess with Sony?
I say this not so much because I'm a Nikon guy, but because I bought into the Kodak DSLRs -- they were expensive cameras backed by the biggest name in photography, and they are now gone. That thought is always tucked away in the back of my head.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I wouldn't call the Zeiss ZA 85mm an "old" design. While it is a bit more traditional than the 135mm, it has more elements/groups than any Zeiss or Minolta 85mm that I've seen. It was a brand new lens when it arrived, and it wasn't just a rebadged Minolta like some think.
-
Here is a review of the new Zeiss 24-70, FWIW:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83 (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1181/cat/83)
-
Thanks!
Quite impressive!
Erik
Here is a review of the new Zeiss 24-70, FWIW:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83 (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1181/cat/83)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Sony puts noise reduction into the RAW files.
That's a big turn-off.
-
As opposed to processing out noise before it becomes a raw value?
-
Sony puts noise reduction into the RAW files.
That's a big turn-off.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the talking point.
This has been talked about to death, and has gotten nowhere. A big problem was that Adobe wasn't processing the A700 files well, but the new updates of ACR and Lightroom are much better, and the differences between the D300 and A700 are negligible. Basically, if you want a bit more grainy detail in the high ISO, go with the Nikon D300. If you want a little less detail, but more accurate color rendition at high ISO, go with the Sony A700. Getting into the semantics of when and what NR ALL of these camera makers use is fruitless.
Personally, I probably like the Nikon approach a bit more, but it is so close that it isn't enough to swing me either way.
-
Thanks for the talking point.
This has been talked about to death, and has gotten nowhere. A big problem was that Adobe wasn't processing the A700 files well, but the new updates of ACR and Lightroom are much better, and the differences between the D300 and A700 are negligible. Basically, if you want a bit more grainy detail in the high ISO, go with the Nikon D300. If you want a little less detail, but more accurate color rendition at high ISO, go with the Sony A700. Getting into the semantics of when and what NR ALL of these camera makers use is fruitless.
Personally, I probably like the Nikon approach a bit more, but it is so close that it isn't enough to swing me either way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm referring to the dpreview review.
Why do you think they are wrong?
-
If the A700 has better color rendition and detail, all the better.
I haven't heard that yet, and would be interested to know which testing you were referring to.
Can you post a link?
-
As opposed to processing out noise before it becomes a raw value?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm referring to the Sony A700 review at dpreview.
They were saying that noise reduction was applied to the RAW files of the A700, and therefore making the use of any other noise reduction software difficult.
I'm just repeating what they were writing, but can't tell if they are right or wrong.
Camera tests should always be taken with a decent amount of salt when it comes to esthetics of image quality, but this would be a technical detail that can be measured.
Obviously, douglasf13 thinks it is a false statement.
-
Well, I can assure you (since I use one) that you can do post processing noise reduction just fine with A700 files.
The point I was making is that people are complaining about Sony doing NR to raw files, but they ignore the fact that, for example, Canon process noise out of their system before the raw file is generated. Sony apparently does less of this because they've moved the a/d closer to the chip which should significantly reduce the amount of system noise in the first place.
In other words, everyone removes some noise before creating the raw data.
If the debate is to where the best place to do this happens to be, then fair enough - good question and worth investigating.
-
I'm referring to the Sony A700 review at dpreview.
They were saying that noise reduction was applied to the RAW files of the A700, and therefore making the use of any other noise reduction software difficult.
I'm just repeating what they were writing, but can't tell if they are right or wrong.
Camera tests should always be taken with a decent amount of salt when it comes to esthetics of image quality, but this would be a technical detail that can be measured.
Obviously, douglasf13 thinks it is a false statement.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=193246\")
I'm just trying to say it's very unclear. That dpreview has stimulated quite a discussion about this topic. It's relevant to me, because the "a900" chip appears to be the same general design, and I plan on buying it.
A few things about the dpreview. Phil and Simon used ACR for that review, which has been blasted for it's handling of high ISO A700 files for months and months. Many Sony users have abandoned Adobe until recently, and it looks like Adobe has finally straightened things out in the latest software updates. Whew, I can use lightroom again
The dpreview assumption that NR is applied to the RAW is more or less based on two things: the poor output of of the older ACR, and this illustration (image also attached:) [a href=\"http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/images/features/processing2.jpg]http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLR...processing2.jpg[/url]
In this illustration, you'll notice THREE stages of RAW NR!! An analog, a digital, and a final BIONZ NR. The final two stages are unique to Sony AFAIK. Here is where things get tricky. The A700 has a low, normal, and high NR setting that kicks in at around ISO 1600, and DOES affect RAW. However, we don't know where in that signal path the adjustments are made.
At PMA, Sony reps were grilled about this quite a bit, and the conclusion that was drawn was basically that, when set to low (with firmware v 3.0) there is no more NR that Sony can turn off with another firmware update, and that should lead us to believe that the BIONZ, which is firmware adjustable, is OFF at this setting, but there is still a certain amount of non-defeatable on-chip NR going on, which is common with all CMOS cameras...albeit in the Sony it's probably the unique, digital, adjustable, on-chip NR! It seems that having an adjustable, on-chip digital NR is new, and it is highly touted by Sony for better or worse, but it shouldn't be considered "cooked" any more than the analog NR applied right before it. Sony only really knows what's going on here, but if it can be proven that the BIONZ processor (3rd stage) adds RAW NR even in the lowest setting, I'll certainly concede.
I say that it's semantics because had Sony labeled the NR options as off, normal, and high in the software, there would be a lot less confusion. Kinda like my amp goes to ELEVEN! lol.
If dpreview were to re-do the high ISO A700 test with the new ACR, it would be a bit different story. Like I said earlier, the D300 has a finer grain, A700 has better color. Take your pick. I still prefer the D300 a bit, but it's really close. Oh yeah, also, the D300's ISO sensitivity is a bit off from the A700. In identical shooting scenarios, with the same ISO and aperture, the D300's shutter speed tends to be about a half to full stop slower than the A700 to get proper exposure. ie. D300's ISO 3200 is equivalent to the A700's ISO 1600 or so. It's not appropriate to compare their ISOs straight across.
Wow, sorry for the long post. I just wanted to point out a few things, since it looks like our little Sony cams are gonna be brought up a bit more in this forum. We all know Canon and Nikon make top flight gear, and I'm hoping Sony will at least be in the conversation over the next couple years. Cheers! -d
-
Like I said earlier, the D300 has a finer grain, A700 has better color.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you be more specific about that?
Better color in what sense? Measured (recorded light frequencies) or esthetically (excellent photographers praising the quality of Sony color reproduction over the Nikon).
As I said, I am very wary about esthetic qualifications by test websites. When I look at the sample shots a dpreview, which look like JPEGs, I always wonder who is getting any info out of this?
As "color" is very much up to the photographer as he works it out in ACR/Lightroom and Photoshop...
... and good color often is more a relation of the right colors "used" (adjusted) and combined than just technical color...
... I really wonder how, on this level of quality Sony A 700 could have "better color" than the Nikon D300.
I started a thread in digital cameras/digital backs, and was quite inquisitive about how important it is to choose the right camera for one's own shooting style.
The responses were pretty much unisono saying, that at the current high level of gear quality the choice of camera is not very important, as long as one buys professional quality gear.
-
Can you be more specific about that?
Better color in what sense? Measured (recorded light frequencies) or esthetically (excellent photographers praising the quality of Sony color reproduction over the Nikon).
As I said, I am very wary about esthetic qualifications by test websites. When I look at the sample shots a dpreview, which look like JPEGs, I always wonder who is getting any info out of this?
As "color" is very much up to the photographer as he works it out in ACR/Lightroom and Photoshop...
... and good color often is more a relation of the right colors "used" (adjusted) and combined than just technical color...
... I really wonder how, on this level of quality Sony A 700 could have "better color" than the Nikon D300.
I started a thread in digital cameras/digital backs, and was quite inquisitive about how important it is to choose the right camera for one's own shooting style.
The responses were pretty much unisono saying, that at the current high level of gear quality the choice of camera is not very important, as long as one buys professional quality gear.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=193517\")
I couldn't agree more. DSLRs are so good now that I believe just about any of them are capable of professional results. While I wait for the Sony fullframe, I've been using the A700 in the interim, and I honestly see little difference in the output of this camera vs. my Hasselblads and a Leaf Valeo 11 (granted the back is a little old.) We're really splitting hairs here, and I just wanted to address the "cooked" RAW fiasco that dpreview has started with the Sony files in my previous post. All of the camera companies apply processing to their RAW files at some point in the signal chain, although it seems Canon may do the least amount from what I've seen, but I can't confirm not deny that.
As far as color fidelity (still splitting hairs is concerned, you can look at the dpreview pics of ISO 3200+ and see how the Sony holds more color, which can be a problem at high ISO. Camera companies basically have to choose between chroma and luminous NR for their camera's output, and one comes a bit at the expense of another. DIWA lab tests confirm this:
[a href=\"http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=237837]http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=237837[/url]
http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=237703 (http://www.diwa-labs.com/photoalbum/view/?size=org&id=237703)
Nikon's processing seems to pull a more detail for the expense of color, and Sony's is a bit splotchier with better color, but all of this is negligible IMO. Sony's reason is this works better for print, but, although I've heard others confirm this, I haven't tested the D300 vs. A700 in this regard, so I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Also, keep in mind, that the D300 ISO 3200 looks to be more like ISO 5000-ish on the A700, but that's a whole separate topic
I have very little brand loyalty to Sony or any other DSLR company, and my intentions of these posts is not to criticize Canons or Nikons, because I believe they are great cameras. I just happen to think that Sony is also competitive in the camera classes they've entered in so far, so I believe the "A900" will be as well, and "cooked" RAW is not a valid reason to avoid the upcoming fullframe camera, IMO.