Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?

Started Oct 11, 2013 | Questions
dpyy
Contributing MemberPosts: 876
Like?
Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
Oct 11, 2013

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Sonyshine
Senior MemberPosts: 5,086Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

A FF lens faster than F4 will be H U G E and V E R Y expensive....they may follow in due course...

 Sonyshine's gear list:Sonyshine's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm F2.8 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dpyy
Contributing MemberPosts: 876
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to Sonyshine, Oct 11, 2013

Sonyshine wrote:

A FF lens faster than F4 will be H U G E and V E R Y expensive....they may follow in due course...

No I understand there is a physical limitation but that's why I'm trying to figure out what exactly am I gaining from NEX to NEX FF?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sonyshine
Senior MemberPosts: 5,086Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

The main advantage of FF sensors is bigger photo-sites which means that ISO performance will be better than an APSC sensor - usually - unless too many are crammed in when the benefits are lost.

Nice shallow DOF effects are good at wide apertures too.

For many people though FF is just an expensive luxury which is simply not needed.

 Sonyshine's gear list:Sonyshine's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm F2.8 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,171Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

These are zooms with constant f/4 and kept relatively small. They are already better than equivalent APS-C zoom lenses.

If you go with fast primes, use legacy lenses, FF A mount on the LA-EA4 FF adapter for AF, or be patient for more FE lenses.

The 35mm/f2.8 is kept small to match RX1 w/ 35/f2.0 in size.

The (standard) 52mm/f1.8 is also fairly small.

Fast FE zoom and prime lenses will be larger, bulkier and pricier. They would defeat the compactness of the system. Think of them more as specialty lenses. Plus they compete against legacy glass.

Most FF aplications will be f/2.8 and above, f/4 is quite liveable. Besides, I already have legacy FF f/1.4 primes, like many do. Plus the digital sensors loose efficiency below f/2.0, per DxO.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha 7 Sony a6000 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rayman 2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,218
Like?
Legacy lenses and fast legacy lenses.....
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

dpyy wrote:

Sonyshine wrote:

A FF lens faster than F4 will be H U G E and V E R Y expensive....they may follow in due course...

No I understand there is a physical limitation but that's why I'm trying to figure out what exactly am I gaining from NEX to NEX FF?

Very simple ! Hords of people wanted that FF Nex from Sony for ONE major reason !

Thats legacy lenses !

If you are heavily invested into Leicaflex glass and you are now an orphaned user because that system has been taken from the market the FF Nex is the best way to keep your old legacy system

going...

Same for Canon FD and Olympus OM and Minolta MD.. and Leica M and Contax SLR etc etc etc......

They all have boatloads of fast lenses in the program........

The FF nex is the solution !!! Itzs also the cheapest entry into FF and that format is what the legacy lenses were made for .....

Peter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sonyshine
Senior MemberPosts: 5,086Gear list
Like?
Re: Legacy lenses and fast legacy lenses.....
In reply to rayman 2, Oct 11, 2013

rayman 2 wrote:

dpyy wrote:

Sonyshine wrote:

A FF lens faster than F4 will be H U G E and V E R Y expensive....they may follow in due course...

No I understand there is a physical limitation but that's why I'm trying to figure out what exactly am I gaining from NEX to NEX FF?

Very simple ! Hords of people wanted that FF Nex from Sony for ONE major reason !

Thats legacy lenses !

If you are heavily invested into Leicaflex glass and you are now an orphaned user because that system has been taken from the market the FF Nex is the best way to keep your old legacy system

going...

Same for Canon FD and Olympus OM and Minolta MD.. and Leica M and Contax SLR etc etc etc......

They all have boatloads of fast lenses in the program........

The FF nex is the solution !!! Itzs also the cheapest entry into FF and that format is what the legacy lenses were made for .....

Peter

This is very true but the original post was about the list of new Sony FF lenses. 

 Sonyshine's gear list:Sonyshine's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm F2.8 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX10 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MayaTlab0
Contributing MemberPosts: 985
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

A bigger sensor potentially has three advantages : resolution, noise performance and DOF control.

The thing is, the latter two are dependent on the lens' aperture used in front of the sensor. Which means that there won't be much difference between a Sony FF + 35mm f2.8 and a Fuji X-E1 (or X-E2 ?) + 23mm f1.4 in terms of noise performance and DOF control. Only resolution remains as the advantage of the FF system (24 or 32 mp vs 16).

This isn't true for the entire upcoming lineup : the F4 zooms are equivalent to the ones you currently get on the NEX platform, and so is the 55mm f1.8.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sean lancaster
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,403Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to MayaTlab0, Oct 11, 2013

MayaTlab0 wrote:

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

A bigger sensor potentially has three advantages : resolution, noise performance and DOF control.

The thing is, the latter two are dependent on the lens' aperture used in front of the sensor. Which means that there won't be much difference between a Sony FF + 35mm f2.8 and a Fuji X-E1 (or X-E2 ?) + 23mm f1.4 in terms of noise performance and DOF control. Only resolution remains as the advantage of the FF system (24 or 32 mp vs 16).

This isn't true for the entire upcoming lineup : the F4 zooms are equivalent to the ones you currently get on the NEX platform, and so is the 55mm f1.8.

I enjoy legacy glass here and there, but for my everyday shooting, I want AF. So I'll wait on the Sony FF cameras until the fast lenses are available (or at least just a fast 35). When I can shoot a Zeiss 24/1.8 on an NEX 5N, I see no reason to lose a little bit of light by stepping up to 35/2.8 on FF.

I understand the lens will be big that I want, but people who think that should discourage me don't realize that I don't mind . . . but what I can't do on my Canon 6D is attach a little 35/2.8 lens and go really, really small. And I would have that option on a FF NEX.

 sean lancaster's gear list:sean lancaster's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha 7 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rayman 2
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,218
Like?
there is a new adapter for FF alpha lenses
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

there is a new adapter for Sony alpha FF lenses
itsadapter nr3
Peter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary H
Senior MemberPosts: 1,739Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

At this point we are all missing pretty much everything.  We really don't know much about these cameras, other than the general marketing overview.  Given that there is a large inventory of fast 'A' glass and legacy lenses, there might not be a major issue with lens speed, but clearly Sony decided to introduce smaller E-lenses at the introduction.

 Gary H's gear list:Gary H's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,547Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

Let us pick one lens for each format:

APS-c: Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS

FF: Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 OSS (rumored)

Both are f/4, both have OSS, and one has the benefits of FF the other has benefit of longer optical reach, and of course the cost. Weigh-in your priorities and that should help you decide. But to answer your question, the FF would help improve low light performance.

Now if your argument is missing f/2.8 zoom, then yes, Sony is obviously sticking to its guns keeping E-mount options small and nimble, hence the obvious choices.

Then, there are primes. Assuming rumors to be true, and what we know of APS-c options:

APS-c: 12/2.8, 16/2.8, 20/2.8, 24/1.8, 32/1.8, 35/1.8 OSS, 50/1.8 OSS

FF: 35/2.8, 55/1.8 OSS, 85/1.8 OSS

The FF trio above is obviously a logical choice of FL. The only "strange" one is 35/2.8, but that is, again, to offer an option that is compact walk around lens instead of every lens being larger, not quite a pancake like 20/2.8 for APS-c but similar FoV (and comparable to 24/1.8 on APS-c in terms of FoV and DoF).

The 55/1.8 is an intriguing lens to me (especially as a shared lens between APS-c and FF), and of course, the 85mm which we've wanted to see for APS-c.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,832
Like?
Re: there is a new adapter for FF alpha lenses
In reply to rayman 2, Oct 11, 2013

rayman 2 wrote:

there is a new adapter for Sony alpha FF lenses
itsadapter nr3
Peter

Why not just buy the a99 then?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,547Gear list
Like?
Re: there is a new adapter for FF alpha lenses
In reply to MoreorLess, Oct 11, 2013

MoreorLess wrote:

rayman 2 wrote:

there is a new adapter for Sony alpha FF lenses
itsadapter nr3
Peter

Why not just buy the a99 then?

Only when you'd want super fast AF especially for sports/action photographer. But, as a camera body that allows "mount-independence", or compactness with native mount, which can't be done with A99.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,719
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 11, 2013

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

Yes you are missing the fundamentals. The equivalent lenses have the same aperture diameter. Let me put that in perspective:

FF lens -> APS-C equivalent

Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4.0 OSS -> 16-47mm f/2.7
Sony G 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 -> 18-47mm f/2.3-3.7
Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 -> 23mm f/1.9
Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 -> 37mm f/1.2
Zeiss FE 70-200mm f/4.0 OSS -> 47-133mm f/2.7

Now tell me where do you get those equivalent lenses for NEX cameras? Only those, who used focal reducers can somewhat enjoy faster lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
holyfan
Forum MemberPosts: 98
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to forpetessake, Oct 12, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

Yes you are missing the fundamentals. The equivalent lenses have the same aperture diameter. Let me put that in perspective:

FF lens -> APS-C equivalent

Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4.0 OSS -> 16-47mm f/2.7
Sony G 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 -> 18-47mm f/2.3-3.7
Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 -> 23mm f/1.9
Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 -> 37mm f/1.2
Zeiss FE 70-200mm f/4.0 OSS -> 47-133mm f/2.7

Now tell me where do you get those equivalent lenses for NEX cameras? Only those, who used focal reducers can somewhat enjoy faster lenses.

The original poster actually has a great point.  The sony A37 is pretty small (maybe slightly larger than the oly em-5)  and it can easily mount apsc 16-50 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 28-75 f2.8 lenses with ibis.   Therefore the a small Sony A37 can Achieve the same dof and lowlight performance as the FF nex (when using zooms).   if you don't need ibis, simply use a nex7 with  a-mount adapter and u can use  f2.8 zoom lenses as well.

So in my opinion there is absolutely no reason to buy a ff lens that is slower than f2.8 unless you are trying to save some money and size.  But if you are trying to save money and size you can get pretty much the same lowlight and dof performance with much cheaper apsc cameras.  People buy FF cameras to get better dof control and lowlight over apsc offerings.  Releasing slow zooms and primes to keep size down defeats the purpose of moving to FF.  You might as well spend on m43 with fast glass for small size and price.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,719
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to holyfan, Oct 12, 2013

holyfan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

Yes you are missing the fundamentals. The equivalent lenses have the same aperture diameter. Let me put that in perspective:

FF lens -> APS-C equivalent

Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4.0 OSS -> 16-47mm f/2.7
Sony G 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 -> 18-47mm f/2.3-3.7
Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 -> 23mm f/1.9
Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 -> 37mm f/1.2
Zeiss FE 70-200mm f/4.0 OSS -> 47-133mm f/2.7

Now tell me where do you get those equivalent lenses for NEX cameras? Only those, who used focal reducers can somewhat enjoy faster lenses.

The original poster actually has a great point. The sony A37 is pretty small (maybe slightly larger than the oly em-5)

It's neither small, nor light: http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_slta37&products=sony_nex7

and it can easily mount apsc 16-50 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 28-75 f2.8 lenses with ibis.

The 16-50/2.8 isn't a small and light, because it has strong retrofocus design due to large flange distance. FF lenses will be smaller, lighter, and ultimately cheaper due to lower manufacturing cost.

Therefore the a small Sony A37 can Achieve the same dof and lowlight performance as the FF nex (when using zooms).

Not really, the sensor on A37 is rather old and unremarkable compared to new ones, and don't forget the loss of 1/3-1/2 stop due to the semitransparent mirror.

if you don't need ibis, simply use a nex7 with a-mount adapter and u can use f2.8 zoom lenses as well.

You mean LA-E2? - a huge, heavy, ugly, expensive adapter?

So in my opinion there is absolutely no reason to buy a ff lens that is slower than f2.8 unless you are trying to save some money and size.

With FF you are getting smaller, lighter system, which can also use all the legacy glass. And don't forget a significantly better resolution of the FF glass.

But if you are trying to save money and size you can get pretty much the same lowlight and dof performance with much cheaper apsc cameras.

No you don't, I think it's clear now.

People buy FF cameras to get better dof control and lowlight over apsc offerings.

They will get a choice whether go light or get a fast heavy lenses. There is no magic that can circumvent laws of physics. In order to collect the same amount of light you must have the same effective aperture, no matter what the sensor size. But with FF large apertures are possible, a 50mm f/1.4 FF lens isn't anything difficult, an equivalent 35mm f/0.9 APS-C is difficult and expensive, and an equivalent 25mm f/0.7 m43 is probably impossible.

Apart from the above, none of APS-C, much less m43 lenses can achieve the resolution of the FF lenses.

Releasing slow zooms and primes to keep size down defeats the purpose of moving to FF.

You might as well spend on m43 with fast glass for small size and price.

Where have you seen an equivalent 12-35mm f/2 m43 lens? Not only that, where have you seen an equivalent 12-35mm f/2 lens with 70-100 l/mm resolution? Not only that, where have you seen an equivalent 12-35mm f/2 lens with 70-100 l/mm resolution that would sell for $1000?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RonFrank
Senior MemberPosts: 1,705Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 12, 2013

There are some technical reasons why FF Might improve low light performance, but in a word NO that is not an advantage of FF.  There are a few reasons why one may consider FF but by in large it is just a slightly larger sensor that will cost maybe $1000 more to own.

I am certain anyone purchasing a FF NEX will be back slapping themselves, but IMO it is a big waste of $$$ unless there are significant improvements to the build quality of the FF Nex.  If the FF Nex has a seriously pro level build, alum substructure, fully sealed, ect, that maybe a reason to purchase a pro level FF Nex.  If it is a Nex with a bigger sensor, same build quality as the current Nex6 than IMO that is not much of a reason to go bigger.

The Nex is a real nice sized package. Adding size to the sensor will make the package bigger.  Kinda the wrong direction IMO.  I have a Nikon DSLR which is a great, but a big package.  Why do I want yet another lens footprint that results in a bigger overall package? Sony needs to improve PDAF. I see little advantage to a FF sensor if it cant track like a DSLR.   I'm thinking of a Nikon 1!

 RonFrank's gear list:RonFrank's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D300S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lightshow
Senior MemberPosts: 2,535Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to RonFrank, Oct 12, 2013

RonFrank wrote:

There are some technical reasons why FF Might improve low light performance, but in a word NO that is not an advantage of FF. There are a few reasons why one may consider FF but by in large it is just a slightly larger sensor that will cost maybe $1000 more to own.

I am certain anyone purchasing a FF NEX will be back slapping themselves, but IMO it is a big waste of $$$ unless there are significant improvements to the build quality of the FF Nex. If the FF Nex has a seriously pro level build, alum substructure, fully sealed, ect, that maybe a reason to purchase a pro level FF Nex. If it is a Nex with a bigger sensor, same build quality as the current Nex6 than IMO that is not much of a reason to go bigger.

The Nex is a real nice sized package. Adding size to the sensor will make the package bigger. Kinda the wrong direction IMO. I have a Nikon DSLR which is a great, but a big package. Why do I want yet another lens footprint that results in a bigger overall package? Sony needs to improve PDAF. I see little advantage to a FF sensor if it cant track like a DSLR. I'm thinking of a Nikon 1!

-- hide signature --

RonFrank

Then don't buy one, get a Nikon 1.

Seriously, the amount of light hitting the same area of 2 different sized sensors(APS-C & FF) will not change, but the noise levels in the FF sensor will likely be much less(2stops?) that's where the advantage will come from.

Oh and just try to buy an equivalent APS-C lens for a FF 24/1.4.

 Lightshow's gear list:Lightshow's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha 7R +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rod McD
Senior MemberPosts: 2,429Gear list
Like?
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?
In reply to dpyy, Oct 12, 2013

Hi,

The OP asked about low light performance from FF and the new native FE lenses.  Perhaps that's his reason for considering FF, and that's perfectly valid.  A fundamental problem with the responses in this thread is that people want different things from FF.   They then respond from the position of their own unique needs and preferences, and describe others' reasons for wanting FF as a waste of $, or a luxury they don't need, etc.

If I look at the many posts here and elsewhere there are multiple reasons for considering FF.  They include

  • Compact/portable FF compared to FF DSLR
  • Use of high grade legacy glass 
  • use of existing lenses at native FOV.
  • Better sensor low light sensitivity
  • Lower noise for same res or higher res for same noise (take your pick)
  • Shallower DOF option than APSC and smaller formats (I'm not going to use the term "DOF control").
  • better DR
  • better suitability to TS lenses than APSC
  • cropability and FF & crop mode in same body

Individual photographers will have their own suite of reasons, and they may not be interested in all of these.  Could people please recognise that we don't all share the same reasons for wanting an FF mirror-less but that all these reasons are valid even if you're not interested in all of them.  (It's also valid to not want an FF mirror-less camera.)  Personally I'm getting really keen to see the real products......

Regards, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Fujifilm X-T1 Voigtlander 90mm F3.5 APO-Lanthar SL II Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads