Sony A7rII - sensor tech

[BernardLanguillier]

You're forgetting something very important here.

Sony effectively bought Minolta back in 2006.

That was the genesis for Sony's Alpha camera line.

That is very true, but the rumor in Japan is that few of the Minolta good folks are still on board the current Sony team.

This doesn't have any negative connotation regarding the quality of Sony lenses of course. They have certainly retained most of the IP.

As far as Cosina goes, they still manufacture the current 2 Otus for Zeiss which says a lot about their manufacturing abilities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

Everything that Michael said, plus Sony is a part owner of Tamron.
They can do lenses just fine.

[shadowblade]

You're forgetting something very important here.

Sony effectively bought Minolta back in 2006.

That was the genesis for Sony's Alpha camera line.
 
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta):

On January 19, 2006 the company announced that it was quitting the camera business due to high financial losses. SLR camera service operations were handed over to Sony starting on March 31, 2006 and Sony has continued development of cameras that are compatible with Minolta autofocus lenses.

That still doesn't give them the ability to make lenses precise enough for today's high-resolution sensors. Minolta's lenses from 10-20 years ago may have been sharp enough for the cameras of the day, but fall down flat compared with modern lenses in front of a 36MP sensor (or a 24MP crop sensor).

The E-mount 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 aren't particularly great optically, with a general lack of corner sharpness and the 24-70 showing significant distortion. Sure, they'll do the job, but I'd much rather put a razor-sharp Canon, Nikon or other lens in front of the camera.

[MatthewCromer]

Of those three zooms you listed, only the FE 24-70/4 is a disappointment. The 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are very much of comparable optical quality to CaNikon lenses, including in the corners.

And of course the Sony 35/1.4, 55/1.8, and 90/2.8 macro are class-leading lenses, better than competitor's glass. The 35/2.8 is a worthy lens as well, as is the 28/2 for a small, lightweight, fast wide.

The 24-240 is a class-leading superzoom (if that's your cup of tea), and the FE 28-135/4 is a spectacular video lens (also for photography, but quite large and expensive for that purpose).

Not sure why you are complaining about the FE lenses. Other than the 24-70, I can't think of any other FE lenses that Sony has released that are often regarded as disappointing. Should I go through the Canon and Nikon lens catalogs and start pointing out all the stinkers?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think so. Progress has been made in the last 10 years but many of the older lenses are still pretty OK. Performance at large aperture may stink a bit, however.

On the other hand, Canon and Nikon produce some really good lenses, AFAIK, and so does Sigma. Some of the new FE mount lenses may be stellar according to reviews, like the 16-5/4, the 90/2.8 Macro, the 35/1.4 and also the 28/2.  Personally, my two new lenses for A77rII I have on order are the Canon 24/3.5 TSE and the Batis 85/1.8.

BTW, Zeiss is definitively saying the 24-70/2.8 ZA is good enough for 50 MP. Personally, I cannot tell as I don't have a 50 MP camera. But, my guess is that it depends…

Many older Zeiss lenses have a huge sweet spot but not really good corners. Just to take an example. Comparing my Zeiss Distagon 50/4 FLE on the P45+ with my Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA the Zeiss/P45+ is very sharp in the centre but the Sony zoom on the Sony Alpha 99 SLT outperforms it easily on the edges. Corners? I don't know!

Real world is a bit complex, it is not like there is a single truth. Some lenses have a large sweet spot and weak corners. That may have been quite typical of older lenses by Zeiss. Newer designs utilise new technologies like AD glass and moulded aspherics and may perform more uniformly over the field.

Best regards
Erik

That still doesn't give them the ability to make lenses precise enough for today's high-resolution sensors. Minolta's lenses from 10-20 years ago may have been sharp enough for the cameras of the day, but fall down flat compared with modern lenses in front of a 36MP sensor (or a 24MP crop sensor).

The E-mount 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 aren't particularly great optically, with a general lack of corner sharpness and the 24-70 showing significant distortion. Sure, they'll do the job, but I'd much rather put a razor-sharp Canon, Nikon or other lens in front of the camera.

[shadowblade]

Of those three zooms you listed, only the FE 24-70/4 is a disappointment. The 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are very much of comparable optical quality to CaNikon lenses, including in the corners.

And of course the Sony 35/1.4, 55/1.8, and 90/2.8 macro are class-leading lenses, better than competitor's glass. The 35/2.8 is a worthy lens as well, as is the 28/2 for a small, lightweight, fast wide.

The 24-240 is a class-leading superzoom (if that's your cup of tea), and the FE 28-135/4 is a spectacular video lens (also for photography, but quite large and expensive for that purpose).

Not sure why you are complaining about the FE lenses. Other than the 24-70, I can't think of any other FE lenses that Sony has released that are often regarded as disappointing. Should I go through the Canon and Nikon lens catalogs and start pointing out all the stinkers?

I didn't say they were terrible. Just that the Sony 16-35 isn't in the same league as the class-leading Nikon 14-24 (or Canon 11-24) and the 70-200 doesn't quite match the Canon 70-200. Sure, the 16-35 matches the Nikon 16-35 and is better than Canon's 16-35 or 17-40. But those aren't top-of-the-class lenses, and both Canon and Nikon have alternatives to them.

No need to point out the stinkers in the Canon/Nikon lineup - I think we all know which ones they are. But very few of them were designed recently, and, in many cases (with the exception of Nikon tilt-shifts) there are alternatives.

[shadowblade]

Hi,

I don't think so. Progress has been made in the last 10 years but many of the older lenses are still pretty OK. Performance at large aperture may stink a bit, however.

That's the thing. Many of them don't do well wide open, especially in the corners. This is a shortcoming which has been corrected to a huge extent in the last few years (pretty much since the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L II was released) but which still exists in the FE-mount 24-70 and 70-200, for instance.

Was it due to price constraints or lack of technical capability? I'm not sure - an f/4 zoom isn't exactly a taxing design. But either way, the current Sony E-mount lens lineup really needs to improve before people will start replacing their Nikon/Canon lenses with them as they become obsolete or break - faster zooms/primes for pro users who don't prioritise small size (f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, not f/4 zooms) and better corner sharpness and wide-open sharpness in their zooms.

They have Zeiss on hand - surely it's not too much to release a standard line of lenses, plus a 'pro' line (a bit like Canon's 'L' line) of no-compromises, Otus-quality lenses for those prepared to pay the price for them.

[chez]

I didn't say they were terrible. Just that the Sony 16-35 isn't in the same league as the class-leading Nikon 14-24 (or Canon 11-24) and the 70-200 doesn't quite match the Canon 70-200. Sure, the 16-35 matches the Nikon 16-35 and is better than Canon's 16-35 or 17-40. But those aren't top-of-the-class lenses, and both Canon and Nikon have alternatives to them.

No need to point out the stinkers in the Canon/Nikon lineup - I think we all know which ones they are. But very few of them were designed recently, and, in many cases (with the exception of Nikon tilt-shifts) there are alternatives.

Funny how I spent a few weeks touring both New Mexico and Prague with my 16-35 and made some fantastic prints with sizes up to 30x40. Time to stop pixel peeping and start doing photography.

[MatthewCromer]

I didn't say they were terrible. Just that the Sony 16-35 isn't in the same league as the class-leading Nikon 14-24 (or Canon 11-24) and the 70-200 doesn't quite match the Canon 70-200. Sure, the 16-35 matches the Nikon 16-35 and is better than Canon's 16-35 or 17-40. But those aren't top-of-the-class lenses, and both Canon and Nikon have alternatives to them

The Nikon and (especially!) Canon ultrawide zooms (14-24 and 11-24) are absolutely f'n enormous, and don't take front filters.

They are not in a comparable class at all to the very reasonably-sized Sony 16-35.

The Sony FE mount lineup needs to have some reasonably-sized zooms to meet the desire for portability.

The bottom line for me is that if you want to really take advantage of 36-42MP+ sensors you are better off using primes, and FE mount has some of the absolute best AF primes available (35/1.4 Sony Zeiss, 90/2.8 Sony G macro, 85/1.8 Zeiss Batis, 25/2 Zeiss Batis, 55/1.8 Sony Zeiss). If Sony and Zeiss Batis continue on the roll they have been with these primes, the A7R2 is exactly where I want to be...

[shadowblade]

The Nikon and (especially!) Canon ultrawide zooms (14-24 and 11-24) are absolutely f'n enormous, and don't take front filters.

They are not in a comparable class at all to the very reasonably-sized Sony 16-35.

The Sony FE mount lineup needs to have some reasonably-sized zooms to meet the desire for portability.

The bottom line for me is that if you want to really take advantage of 36-42MP+ sensors you are better off using primes, and FE mount has some of the absolute best AF primes available (35/1.4 Sony Zeiss, 90/2.8 Sony G macro, 85/1.8 Zeiss Batis, 25/2 Zeiss Batis, 55/1.8 Sony Zeiss). If Sony and Zeiss Batis continue on the roll they have been with these primes, the A7R2 is exactly where I want to be...

Some of the latest zooms have been measured to be as sharp as primes. Maybe not with the same maximum aperture or the same bokeh qualities, but if sharpness for landscapes is what you're after, they certainly do the job. I agree about the FE primes - the 55/1.8, for example, is fantastic (not quite Otus, but a lot cheaper, not sure about how it compares with the Sigma 50/1.4).

Yes, Sony needs a compact line of lenses for E-mount. But they also need a no-holds-barred, f/2.8 zoom/f/1.4 prime range, as well as superteles and tilt-shifts, to win the pro audience. And this group won't come quickly or easily - they'll only buy Sony lenses if they already have Sony bodies, and only to replace older lenses as they become obsolete or old. It just doesn't make business sense to do otherwise and dump all your lenses for a new system And they'll only buy Sony bodies if they can continue to use their current lenses with them. Sony was late to the game, so they need this open platform to attract users from other systems. If they had started back in 2002, as digital photography was taking off, things might be different.

[MatthewCromer]

Sony can only do what they can do.

I would rather they focus on willing younger people and those older people interested in something different from what Canon and Nikon have to offer. The OVF forever crowd and those who insist on OVF, 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms regardless of whether they are needed to accomplish the photographic task at hand - better off not trying to spend too much effort courting them.

Sony is making cameras that can seamlessly capture video, still footage, autofocus in liveview, provide focusing aids, AF on the sensor and lots of other things that Canon and Nikon aren't doing and their technology platforms aren't set up to provide. The ones who want what Sony has to offer can and will buy Sony. The ones who want to do it the old way will stick with Canon or Nikon.