Some interesting news about Sony

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

According to the normally reliable Sonyalpha rumors site, there will be a new 46 MP camera coming 3-4 months from Photokina. Let's presume FE mount and let's hope Electronic First Curtain. That may be the A9 I might have been waiting for.

Another interesting development that it seems that Zeiss releases a series of lenses designed for Sony FE-mount called Loxia. These are redesigns of the ZM line fort the original Contax G. The MTF-s are looking good, not like Otus but very good. Those are compact lenses at a reasonable price.

Best regards
Erik

[Paul2660]

Well, they dropped the sensor down from 54MP!

I can only imagine the crosstalk issues this sensor will have, so movements may become impossible unless Sony figures out a way to create pixel wells without microlenses.  But then higher iso and DR become questionable.  It will be interesting to see what comes.

Paul

[David Anderson]

Another interesting development that it seems that Zeiss releases a series of lenses designed for Sony EF-mount called Loxia. These are redesigns of the ZM line fort the original Contax G. The MTF-s are looking good, not like Otus but very good. Those are compact lenses at a reasonable price.

It's interesting they're manual focus.
I wonder is that a nod in the direction of EVF's and focus peaking or just about video ?

[Manoli]

It's interesting they're manual focus.
I wonder is that a nod in the direction of EVF's and focus peaking or just about video ?

Probably both.
It's no accident, IMO, that Sony/Zeiss built the A7 series with a massive sensor stack thereby rendering the majority of Leica-M wide angles incompatible. The LOXIA's are the logical substitute.

Let's presume EF mount and let's hope Electronic First Curtain.

Erik/
Unless I've misunderstood your reference, the correct designation is FE ( EF is, I believe , Canon mount). We don't need yet another Sony mount ... !

Best,
M

[Paul Roark]

FWIW, I've posted the MTF's of the Loxia and ZM versions of the Zeiss 35mm f/2 "Biogons" at http://www.paulroark.com/MTF-Zeiss-f2-35mm-ZM-v-Loxia.JPG .

I don't consider the edge and corner performance that is represented by these charts to be very good.  On the other hand, the ZM version had a very good reputation.

The designs appear very close, though the Loxia is said to be using an "anomalous dispersion glass" front element.  It would be interesting to hear a technical description of the pros and cons of going this route as opposed to the aspherical route to deal with the wide angle lens aberrations.  I doubt non-insiders will ever be told exactly what the anomalous dispersion characteristics are. 

Frankly, what I'd much prefer over more MP is a sensor treatment that dealt with obtuse ray angles as well as the Leica approach.  (Add one-button magnification for focusing and electronic first curtain to this wish list.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks a lot, fixed.

Erik/
Unless I've misunderstood your reference, the correct designation is FE ( EF is, I believe , Canon mount). We don't need yet another Sony mount ... !

Best,
M

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for making the point, I see what you mean. I was mostly looking at the 50 mm lens, stopped down. I did compare the curves with the Otus, and I felt the Loxia was doing reasonably well. I didn't really look at the 35 mm.

On the other hand, there is a reasonable sized/priced 55/1.8 with AF and also an 35/2.8. The latter is needing software corrections.

Zeiss needs to redesign the lenses to handle the IR-filter and other optical package in front of the sensor, check this article: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses

Unfortunately, very few vendors publish MTF data like Zeiss does, so it is hard to compare alternative lens designs. Sony's MTF curves seem to come from the marketing department.

BTW, it is quite interesting that lens testing sites seem not very positive on the 24-70/4, while some users seem to be extremely happy. Personally, I sort of trust measured data more than the eye.

Best regards
Erik

FWIW, I've posted the MTF's of the Loxia and ZM versions of the Zeiss 35mm f/2 "Biogons" at http://www.paulroark.com/MTF-Zeiss-f2-35mm-ZM-v-Loxia.JPG .

I don't consider the edge and corner performance that is represented by these charts to be very good.  On the other hand, the ZM version had a very good reputation.

The designs appear very close, though the Loxia is said to be using an "anomalous dispersion glass" front element.  It would be interesting to hear a technical description of the pros and cons of going this route as opposed to the aspherical route to deal with the wide angle lens aberrations.  I doubt non-insiders will ever be told exactly what the anomalous dispersion characteristics are. 

Frankly, what I'd much prefer over more MP is a sensor treatment that dealt with obtuse ray angles as well as the Leica approach.  (Add one-button magnification for focusing and electronic first curtain to this wish list.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Telecaster]

BTW, it is quite interesting that lens testing sites seem not very positive on the 24-70/4, while some users seem to be extremely happy. Personally, I sort of trust measured data more than the eye.

This is perhaps subject matter for a Monty Python sketch:

"Oh, that's a lovely photo!"

"No, it's not. That lens is rubbish in the corners."

"But look at the photo..."

"No, no, the MTF curves don't lie. It's rubbish."

"But the tonality, the textures..."

"Shut up, you! Rubbish."

 

Of course I get what Erik is saying. The data is what it is. Its importance, OTOH... The 24–70/4 is IMO a decent lens resolution-wise with pleasing color & contrast characteristics. The prints I've made from photos taken with it look very good.

I own the two Zeiss ZM lenses that the new Loxias are apparently based on. They're both great pic-takers on my rangefinder cameras. The 50/2 performs very well on the Sony A7r too, the 35mm—as with other RF wide lenses—not so much. I'd expect the Loxia 35 to do a lot better…but I doubt either lens will appeal to the sharpness über alles folks unless Zeiss has really tweaked 'em hard.

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Good points…

Actually, earlier today I was pondering over to shoots, one with my Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ combo and the other with my Sony Alpha 99. On screen the P45+ image has a significant edge. One of the major differences between the two is in bokeh. The Hasselblad has hexagonal circle of confusion discs while the Sony has round discs with double contour. Looking at the screen I can say which is which in a second.

Now, in an A2 print it is very hard. Resolution differences that were very obvious on screen are suddenly "may be" and the bokeh stuff is pretty similar. Neither the hexagonal shape nor the double contours are visible in print with the naked eye, but well visible with a 5X loupe. Now, a 5X loupe corresponds to 5 cm looking distance.

What this may boil down to is that technical excellence may mean less than expected. Peeping pixels we look at very fine detail, but looking at prints image contrast on coarse details dominates the visual expression.

Another point is that some of the bad critique directed at the 24-70/4 is that it needs software correction for distortion. As long as this correction works it is just fine.

My take is really that when things are good enough we get into diminishing returns. Improvements are measurable but may not be visible, especially in prints.

On the other hand, if we print larger, good enough may not be good enough, but I have made to little of really large prints to have an opinion. I may think that at 70x100 cm (30"x40") the P45+ will show advantage over my lesser cameras.

Best regards
Erik

This is perhaps subject matter for a Monty Python sketch:

"Oh, that's a lovely photo!"

"No, it's not. That lens is rubbish in the corners."

"But look at the photo..."

"No, no, the MTF curves don't lie. It's rubbish."

"But the tonality, the textures..."

"Shut up, you! Rubbish."

 

Of course I get what Erik is saying. The data is what it is. Its importance, OTOH... The 24–70/4 is IMO a decent lens resolution-wise with pleasing color & contrast characteristics. The prints I've made from photos taken with it look very good.

I own the two Zeiss ZM lenses that the new Loxias are apparently based on. They're both great pic-takers on my rangefinder cameras. The 50/2 performs very well on the Sony A7r too, the 35mm—as with other RF wide lenses—not so much. I'd expect the Loxia 35 to do a lot better…but I doubt either lens will appeal to the sharpness über alles folks unless Zeiss has really tweaked 'em hard.

-Dave-

[BernardLanguillier]

According to the normally reliable Sonyalpha rumors site, there will be a new 46 MP camera coming 3-4 months from Photokina. Let's presume FE mount and let's hope Electronic First Curtain. That may be the A9 I might have been waiting for.

Either they give some love to the A line with this camera, or they continue to push with a7x line and it will pretty much mean the end of the A, won't it?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rand47]

Either they give some love to the A line with this camera, or they continue to push with a7x line and it will pretty much mean the end of the A, won't it?

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

What Sony does is pretty much a mystery to me.  They seem to be big enough, and enough of a "consumer electronics" company rather than a camera company, to drop significant lines of products on a whim.  I think you may be correct in guessing that this next release may be the tell-tale for the A-mount cameras.  On the one hand they release the ZA 50, and the Mark II versions of the A mount 70-200 and 70-400 lenses - which would seem to say the A-mount has a future, but I'm not holding my breath.  I'm someone sitting on a pile of A-mount glass and hoping for the best.  I love my a900, and it suits me fine, but the day will come when I won't be able to have it repaired.  Interesting next year or so for a lot of folk sitting where I am.

Rand

[barryfitzgerald]

Sony consider themselves as a "disruptive company" but reality is I'm not seeing E mount as having any serious impact v the big two DSLR makers.
One of the problems is their lens range isn't competitive either in terms of depth and certainly not price. E mount FF might be a bit cheaper than other FF DSLR's but I can't see it offering a real alternative to the big 2.

As an A mount user myself E mount isn't very appealing, losing IBIS is a major downer, having to use an adapter (which isn't cheap) and adds bulk is a ham fisted offering for A mount users. Ultimately though A mount has not had the development long term it deserved and Sony made some major blunders with the system over time

I suspect their E Mount plans won't be nearly as devastating as they hope..a mere diversion and I doubt Canikon are losing sleep over it.
As Napoleon learnt the hard way dividing your forces ultimately leads to defeat, Sony should have spent more time listening to A mount users needs rather than beating out another path and wasting resources on overpriced FF E mount lenses.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In reality there is little reason to to have the A-mount. It is now a mirror less camera with a mirror that is not any more needed with on sensor phase detection. Focus will be E and FE mounts.

But, there is still a market for the A-series and probably a market for lenses, so they keep the A-mount on slow burner.

BTW, the same dilemma is at hand for Nikon and Canon, they will not keep the mirror for ever.

Best regards
Erik

Bernard,

What Sony does is pretty much a mystery to me.  They seem to be big enough, and enough of a "consumer electronics" company rather than a camera company, to drop significant lines of products on a whim.  I think you may be correct in guessing that this next release may be the tell-tale for the A-mount cameras.  On the one hand they release the ZA 50, and the Mark II versions of the A mount 70-200 and 70-400 lenses - which would seem to say the A-mount has a future, but I'm not holding my breath.  I'm someone sitting on a pile of A-mount glass and hoping for the best.  I love my a900, and it suits me fine, but the day will come when I won't be able to have it repaired.  Interesting next year or so for a lot of folk sitting where I am.

Rand

[barryfitzgerald]

There are two issues one is the lens mount and I cannot see Nikon or Canon dropping their mounts even with an adapter offering for a new ILC mount it would be utterly insane.
Regarding Sony nobody really knows where they are going least of all themselves.

A mount isn't overly appealing system wise, but it does have one significant pull factor the rather good selection of legacy Minolta lenses that can be acquired for a modest outlay, and adding IBIS to those lenses via the body. Reality is though Canikon are very entrenched and situation is unlikely to change much regardless of what Sony do even if they have a big range of E mount offerings eventually what possible reason would one dump their Canikon outfit for that?

Regarding the mirror it's hardly a problem on it's own few really hate it, I do think a mistake by Sony to go 100% EVF as this fails to offer an optical viewfinder for buyers and some want that.

[Theodoros]

Hi,

In reality there is little reason to to have the A-mount. It is now a mirror less camera with a mirror that is not any more needed with on sensor phase detection. Focus will be E and FE mounts.

But, there is still a market for the A-series and probably a market for lenses, so they keep the A-mount on slow burner.

BTW, the same dilemma is at hand for Nikon and Canon, they will not keep the mirror for ever.

Best regards
Erik

What are you talking about?  Sony is EVF and Nikon/Canon SLRs are OVF... I agree that mirror box with Sony is useless, but are you suggesting for makers to ignore the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera users that want an OVF because they can't have what they consider as proper visualisation otherwise?  ...do you think that the EVF against OVF argument is pointless as far as photography as an art is concerned?  Do you think that all these photographs of Bresson, Kappa, or Adams, or Koudelka, or any other master could have been done through an EVF (of today's technology)? ...EVF and LV is important as far as professional or still life or some other appliances are concerned in which the scene can be studied with a naked eye and general view... but that's all about it! ...it's totally useless for art photography's visualisation through a viewfinder! 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess we had a similar discussion about rangefinders and SLRs.

SLRs use a mirror to show a trough the lens image. EVF shows the actual image. SLRs has been around for something like 80 years and EVF for perhaps 10. EVF does the same job as the optical viewfinder, much simpler, but possibly not better. But, development used to be fast.

Quite a few posters on this site are now either EVF friendly or EVF addicts. James Russel (BCooter) seems one of those and I guess that Michael Reichmann is also there.

I would say it is quite obvious that the mirror is going away, it is just a question when…

Best regards
Erik

What are you talking about?  Sony is EVF and Nikon/Canon SLRs are OVF... I agree that mirror box with Sony is useless, but are you suggesting for makers to ignore the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera users that want an OVF because they can't have what they consider as proper visualisation otherwise?  ...do you think that the EVF against OVF argument is pointless as far as photography as an art is concerned?  Do you think that all these photographs of Bresson, Kappa, or Adams, or Koudelka, or any other master could have been done through an EVF (of today's technology)? ...EVF and LV is important as far as professional or still life or some other appliances are concerned in which the scene can be studied with a naked eye and general view... but that's all about it! ...it's totally useless for art photography's visualisation through a viewfinder! 

[Theodoros]

Hi,

I guess we had a similar discussion about rangefinders and SLRs.

SLRs use a mirror to show a trough the lens image. EVF shows the actual image. SLRs has been around for something like 80 years and EVF for perhaps 10. EVF does the same job as the optical viewfinder, much simpler, but possibly not better. But, development used to be fast.

Quite a few posters on this site are now either EVF friendly or EVF addicts. James Russel (BCooter) seems one of those and I guess that Michael Reichmann is also there.

I would say it is quite obvious that the mirror is going away, it is just a question when…

Best regards
Erik

So... this is more a matter of prejudging the future (through a crystal ball) than what is that photographers will enforce industry to do ...right?  According to your opinion, Nikon and Canon (along with Leica, Pentax, Hasselblad Mamiya/Phase ..etc) should stop making mirror boxes for people to be able to directly link their optical judgement against lighting! ...right?  Bravo Erik! ...it proves your opinion as worth reading! 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am sort of entitled to an opinion and so are you…

But, new technologies come and replace old ones. MP3 replaced CDs, CDs replaced Vinyl discs. Digital replaced film.

Times are changing.

Just to make a point, I am not sure that Sony will be a major player in the future, but I would bet that DSLRs have the same future the dinosaurs already had. It is just a matter of time.

Getting back to the A-mount. Sony makes no DSLRs. There is a semi transparent mirror, but it is only used for phase detection AF. Latest generation Sony cameras have phase detection AF on the sensor combined with contrast sensing AF. So is the mirror needed? No, it is not.  


Check this link to an article by well known MFD photographer Fran Doorhof: http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2013/11/sony-a7r-part-i/
Best regards
Erik

So... this is more a matter of prejudging the future (through a crystal ball) than what is that photographers will enforce industry to do ...right?   According to your opinion, Nikon and Canon (along with Leica, Pentax, Hasselblad Mamiya/Phase ..etc) should stop making mirror boxes for people to be able to directly link their optical judgement against lighting! ...right?   Bravo Erik! ...it proves your opinion as worth reading!  

[Theodoros]

Hi,

I am sort of entitled to an opinion and so are you…

But, new technologies come and replace old ones. MP3 replaced CDs, CDs replaced Vinyl discs. Digital replaced film.

Times are changing.

Just to make a point, I am not sure that Sony will be a major player in the future, but I would bet that DSLRs have the same future the dinosaurs already had. It is just a matter of time.

Getting back to the A-mount. Sony makes no DSLRs. There is a semi transparent mirror, but it is only used for phase detection AF. Latest generation Sony cameras have phase detection AF on the sensor combined with contrast sensing AF. So is the mirror needed? No, it is not.  


Check this link to an article by well known MFD photographer Fran Doorhof: http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2013/11/sony-a7r-part-i/
Best regards
Erik

That's exactly my point!  You are talking about consumer's electronics than media to create art...  What replaced the guitar Erik? ..what replaced the piano? ...the drums? ...the congas? ...the harmonica? ...Don't be so cynical Erik... not to a forum that is supposed to be about photographers anyway... 

[barryfitzgerald]

Not the "DSLR dinosaur quote" never heard that one before 
I use EVF's but reluctantly I would add in many cases it's fine in normal light but quite poor in hard lighting conditions. Handy for manual focus, but sucks power significantly too
I can't honestly say it's a better solution than an optical finder (sometimes you just need to see the subject clearly) Sony's take is quite novel (at the expense of pulling some light away from the sensor) it hasn't really made a jot of difference to the performance of A mount over the last few years (A99 was a huge let down and poorly priced)

no doubt they will get better (EVF's)

Reality check there are 2 camps

1: Those obsessed with technology and "the next best thing" (they will never be happy with what turns up there is always a better camera down the road)
2: Those obsessed with the skill and art of photography and picture taking

Whilst I take part in these discussions I aspire to be no. 2
Change purely for the sake of it isn't really that good, saying cameras must change is more down to camera company profits than users demanding it
If mirror-less was the way forward for everyone then people would be buying them hand over fist (been around for a while now) as said these designs of cameras have not really taken the concept of smaller to it's natural conclusion and anyway people don't really seem to be that excited by them.

It frightens me to see camera makers embrace elements of video users needs like STM lenses these sacrifice good tactile feedback for manual focus to please a bunch of users whose primary interest isn't stills photography.