On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 831
Like?
Re: Res : On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to SirPalomid, 6 months ago

SirPalomid wrote:

Well, I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that Sony is an awful camera, and somebody cannot love it or something like this. Just to point out that "1 stop difference" it's not what I've experienced myself, and "Fuji overstates ISO" is exaggerated - almost everybody do so, Sony and Olympus (in E-M5 for sure) too. If I had NEX right now, I'd happily perform this comparison test for you.

Although I have Panasonic GX7 and Canon 6D, so I may do test with them (with Panasonic as reference as "right ISO"), and if I'm wrong, and difference is really 1 stop, than I apologize.
I didn't want to harm you in any way with my words, so excuse me.

When it comes to Olympus E-M5 overstating ISO vs Sony, then you can easily see this in DXOMark (Measured ISO vs Manufacturer ISO):

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-NEX-6-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-versus-Sony-NEX-7___832_793_736

Olympus are almost as bad as Fuji in overstating the ISO, at least 2/3 of a stop at high ISOs compared to Sony.

Panasonic are pretty close to Sony. Yes all overstate a little bit, but Olympus and Fuji are particularly bad at doing this. They are very conscience in market themselves with a certain x-factor The worst part is many reviewers do not take this trivial fact on overstating ISO into account.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ttriple
Forum MemberPosts: 54Gear list
Like?
Re: You are comparing bodies only.....
In reply to blue_skies, 6 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

ttan98 wrote:

what about availability of high quality lenses at reasonable prices. That's the main reason why I stop buying Sony bodies. BTW I know the prices of most important lenses from E-mount and m4/3 format.

Having said this I anticipate a rebuttal of my above statement but I am sticking to it. BTW I still own both NEX and m4/3 bodies and lenses, they are used appropriately under different lighting and environment situations.

Sure, a very expected response. But a very undeserving response as well. Sony has put out quite a few of very decent E-mount lenses, and we also have Sigma and Zeiss offering very nice lenses.

The gripes have been with fast zooms and long zoom lenses, but, understanding Sony, both such lenses are heavy and bulky, why mate them with a small camera back? You may as well grab your DSLR in such a case.

Fuji, as a niche player, focused on the lenses and carved out a path that enables them to be viewed as a 'Leica' alternative to DSLR users. They have been very successful since the X100 - it put them back on the map.

Oly, as a m43 'creator' cleverly changed to format to become more squarish, removing the pressure on lenses to handle corner sharpness well when used wide open. Also, because of the smaller format, larger DOF helps in achieving more sharpness. Of course, it is ISO limited, by being smaller.

Now, what is overlooked is that Fuji and Oly have concentrated on 16Mp sensors. Sony started with 16Mp, but was audacious enough to put out the 24Mp Nex-7 and that immediately caused a dillemma: the 16Mp resolving lenses weren't good enough for the Nex-7.

Since the Nex-7, lenses have improved by leaps and bounds. Who does not remember the back and forth on the E16 and its quality problems? Sure, there have been quality issues, but there have been user issues as well, and the lens does go soft at f/2.8. Had it been a f/4 lens, it would have fared better, I am sure, stopped down at f/5.6 to f/8 it is a rather decent lens, especially with the UWA adapter.

So, consider the 24Mp sensor in the A6000, and then consider these lenses, just to name a few:

  1. 12mm: Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
  2. 15mm: E20/2.8 + UWA
  3. 19mm: Sigma 19/2.8
  4. 20mm: E20/2.8
  5. 24mm: E24/1.8
  6. 30mm: Sigma 30/2.8
  7. 30mm: E30M/3.5 Macro
  8. 32mm: Zeiss Touit 32/1.8
  9. 35mm: E35/1.8 OSS
  10. 50mm: E50/1.8 OSS
  11. 50mm: Zeiss Touit 50mm/2.8 Macro
  12. 55mm: Zeiss Touit 
  13. 60mm: Sigma 60/2.8

And in zoom lenses:

  1. wide: E1018/4 OSS - can show magenta cast, but great images
  2. kit: E1855 OSS
  3. performance: E1670/4 OSS
  4. mid: E18108/4 OSS
  5. long: E18200 OSS or E55210 OSS

The zoom lenses got a bad wrap early on because of in camera algorithms (too wide aperture) leading to improper choices in usage. Also, the original E18200 is very underrated - it is a superzoom lens, and an impressive one at that. But the E1670 lens is an impressive zoom.

We are still waiting on the E85, which may become an FE85. We expect a OSS stabilized version of the A85 and we hope that it will be faster.

I skipped the E16, per the comment above, as well as the E1650P. I actually like the latter lens, I use it as a JPG shooter, and am very pleased with its result. I haven't used it on the 24Mp Nex-7 sensor, so I don't know how it compares.

Now, unlike many, I have a number of other lenses to compare again in the aforementioned focal lengths. I mention lenses such as the CV21/4, the CG28/2.8, the ZM35/2, the CG45/2, CV75/2.5, CG90/2.8 and a fairly complete range of OM lenses. I can attest that the E-primes in the list above perform quite well on the 24Mp sensor - they are up to the task.

I pick about 17 E-lenses (there are more out there) that work on the 24Mp sensor. There is a plethora of hundreds of legacy lenses that can be adapted, as well as all the A-mount lenses. This means that you can find a lens for practically any purpose, but you may not have OSS on such a lens.

I also highlighted 3 f/1.8 E mount prime lenses, that are highly rated, and just mention that for m43 you would need f/1.3 lenses for m43 to match their speed, except that digital sensors fall off rapidly below f/2. No going there.

Fuji has a more impressive list of lenses - that each compete against the Sony lenses on spec. Easily, because they were created after Sony released theirs, but they are not cheaper. So Fuji is also an expensive option.

Also, the three f/1.8 primes are really f/2.0 primes in practical terms. They are sharp then. But at f/1.8 they soften, which could throw off reviewers, or comparisons. The nice thing about this is that you are in control: if you want sharpness, stay above f/2.0. But if you want a low light portrait or another moody effect, these are wonderful lenses. In a strange way we are thankful for marketing pushing these lenses past their 'perfect' range. It saves getting two different lenses (e.g. a CV35/1.4 next to a ZM35/2.0).

If you got the four lenses listed in bold, you'd be looking at $3k in lenses. Not cheap, but you would end up with one of THE best combinations in APS-C - see the DxO scores, coupled with a 24Mp sensor, these are impressive lenses. The only m43 lens that scores anywhere near this high is the 75/1.8 lens. So yes, the E-mount could do with an equivalent, e.g. 100/f2.8 OSS lens to match that.

If going Fuji, you'd end up spending the same $3k just as quickly, and even though m43 has some less costly lenses, I see everyone picking up the very expensive ones, such as the 75/1.8 or the 12-40/2.8, which also cost near $1k each. Three high IQ primes + one high IQ zoom equals about $3k in each of the three systems, I gather, despite cheaper lens options (in all three systems).

People have asked for a 85/1.8 OSS, 100/2.8 Macro and a 135/2.8 OSS as additional prime lenses. I expect the first one to be announced this year.

And again, if you go long, you may as well use an adapter, or use a DSLR altogether, as the compactness of the format disappears. Sure m43 has a slight advantage here, but only 1/3rd (2.0/1.5 = 1 1/3rd), not a huge advantage.

And, see the image below, I have a lot of these lenses and mated them all with the 24Mp sensor in the Nex-7, so I know what to expect and what the difference are. There are absolute standards, and there are 'good enough', or 'competitive' standards, and I would argue that the Nex-7's 24Mp sensor is extremely competitive, as long as you use it correctly. The A6000 ups the usability factor of the Nex-7 by adding PDAF and faster AF. So I expect more reports from users about stunning images with the A6000 and one of those lenses.

I really feel that comments such as yours need to be qualified by what you mean: as a general comment it sounds great (sounded great) but it doesn't hold water. And us being on the defense over and over again is just negative. I think that Sony has done an excellent job of mating price/performance, leaving room for Fuji to go higher end, and competing reasonably with other format. If your experience is sour, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate today.

One last comment - the new lens profiles and in camera lens corrections do make all lenses sharper. This is often overlooked. After updating the firmware in the Nex cameras, the image IQ actually improved!

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

Thank you for taking the time and effort to compose such an informative and helpful post. May I ask which of the legacy Minolta MD lenses are best to pair up with the Sony 24mp sensor in the NEX7 and potentially the A6000 as well? Thanks!

 Ttriple's gear list:Ttriple's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kcamacho11
Senior MemberPosts: 1,474
Like?
Re: You are comparing bodies only.....
In reply to blue_skies, 6 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

So, consider the 24Mp sensor in the A6000, and then consider these lenses, just to name a few:

  1. 12mm: Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
  2. 15mm: E20/2.8 + UWA
  3. 19mm: Sigma 19/2.8
  4. 20mm: E20/2.8
  5. 24mm: E24/1.8
  6. 30mm: Sigma 30/2.8
  7. 30mm: E30M/3.5 Macro
  8. 32mm: Zeiss Touit 32/1.8
  9. 35mm: E35/1.8 OSS
  10. 50mm: E50/1.8 OSS
  11. 50mm: Zeiss Touit 50mm/2.8 Macro
  12. 55mm: Zeiss Touit
  13. 60mm: Sigma 60/2.8

And in zoom lenses:

  1. wide: E1018/4 OSS - can show magenta cast, but great images
  2. kit: E1855 OSS
  3. performance: E1670/4 OSS
  4. mid: E18108/4 OSS
  5. long: E18200 OSS or E55210 OSS

Where are the fast F1.2 or F1.4 primes?

Where are the F2.8 mid zooms? Not even an F2.8-F4?

Where is a fast telezoom?

A Zeiss 16-70 F4 for $999 which has gotten mixed reviews? That's nice....when there is a marvelous Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 for $695.

A Zeiss Touit 32 F1.8 for $700 + ?? ....how about maybe a Fuji 35mm F1.4 for $450?

This is the main reason why I switched to Fuji and let my brother have my NEX camera system and lenses. The only other Sony camera I have now is the RX100M2.

Sony has NO indication what-so-ever that they will be releasing pro-grade, FAST, weather-sealed lenses, or weather-sealed APS-C bodies for that matter. New released camera, no updated lens road map....when Fuji has already announced a 16-55 F2.8 (weather-sealed), 50-140 F2.8 (weather-sealed), and another super-telephoto lens to be determined.

Look, we get that you sure adore Sony mirrorless cameras and trying to make a strong case for the Sony system, put it is not hard to point at the facts.......and as it has been mentioned in this thread, you are making comparisons of the cameras by themselves, instead of the entire system as a whole (lenses, flashes, ergonomics).

It is a no brainer that Sony is behind in quality lenses for E-mount cameras, as basically every other camera-review website state themselves as well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
docvale
Regular MemberPosts: 186Gear list
Like?
Re: On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to blue_skies, 6 months ago

Henry,

yours is a nice thought analysis, but I think that the point here is a tad more related to marketing.

I don't consider the Oly offer for now, since I'm not eyeing the m43 world. I think the Fuji offer is a more premium one, with a luxurious (almost only) selection of primes, while the Sony one is more oriented for the bang-for-the-buck purchase.

That's it. I'm sure that the price difference between the X-T1 + XF35mm vs A6K + Sigma 30mm is not justified by the IQ difference.

But for some users, the Fuji combo will give the feel of a more upscale object. In the end, here there's lots of people that go crazy for gear (regardless they're actual enjoyment of their cameras) so the "ownership pride", which is huge in the Fuji community, is a kind of weak among the Sony users.

I know that the Sony platform allows to use Zeiss made (or licensed) lenses, but man, those are running really expensive.

 docvale's gear list:docvale's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,981Gear list
Like?
Re: see analysis here
In reply to blue_skies, 6 months ago

blue_skies wrote:

ttan98 wrote:

I want 24mm not necessary Zeiss, Sony don't make them, and I don't want Sony 20mm, ( I have sigma 30mm excellent lens at fair price.) I don't mind f2.8 if the price is reasonable. Even if Sigma makes 24mm f2.8 with no OSS I don't mind if quality is similar to 30mm. I am not after brand name. Looks like Sony won't let Sigma make them when there is a Zeiss 24mm selling at $1000.

I want a high quality 18-55mm, f3.5 the only one better than kit lens is 16-70mm Zeiss, no other alternative.

You see I am not after large aperture lens just better quality lens better than kit lens.

So you don't want the Zeiss IQ, and pay the non-Zeiss price?

You do know that a higher resolution sensor makes any lens perform better, right?

With the A6000 you can get a 24Mp sensor for $650 that works actually quite well with the kit lens.

Sure, it is not 'Zeiss' level IQ, but it is still really up there.

You see, high quality is a combination of both lens and sensor. The Sony kit zoom lenses are not low quality - they are actually above similar Canikon offerings. But they are kit zoom lens performance - they do not have the same crispness, lens speed as a dedicated prime can have, unless stopped down.

If you want high IQ on the cheap, simply get the two Sigma's, the 19mm and 30mm work very well on the Nex-7, they will on the A6000 as well.

I do not understand why the 1855 kit lens plus the two Sigma's would not give you what you want then? Heck, I'd even throw in the E1650P lens - it is a really nice lens, especially if you are a JPG shooter (it really is).

So you don't want the ultimate in quality, and speed is not important, but you want better than the kit lens? Right?

I repeat it again: the 24Mp will make the kit lens better, as it is 50% more resolution. So, use the kit lens (either 1855 or 1650) with the two Sigma's, 19 and 30mm. The kit comes with the body for $150, and you can pick up the Sigma's for $100 used, $200 new. You can get the lens set for as little as $350 for three lenses! Add the body for $650 and you have an amazing camera system for $1k TOTAL!!!

The EM-1 costs $1,400 just for the body only.

I don't know Sony's policy about the 24mm lens offerings. Sigma is not making 24mm for Fuji or m43 either, so that may not be restriction. Honestly, by now even Sony should consider a variant of the 20mm pancake for the 24mm focal length - there would be lots of interest in. Not because it would be cheaper (around $400), but because it would be pancake like. We know that it can be done (Samsung/Canon/Fuji).

But even so - a $400 24mm pancake or 3rd party lens would suffice your wishes. What did you say? Even $500-$600 would be ok? So the delta to the $1k E24Z is only about $400-$500?

I see them on Ebay for less than $800 - there is an option to shrink the gap to only $200-$300.

And I guarantee you, for this $200-$300 you will get an amazing step in IQ. Heck, you will not remove this lens the first month that you attach it - you will be amazed by every picture!

How about it this way then:

You can get the A6000 + kit lens + Sigma 19 + Sigma 30 for $1,200 new (if used you will save $200). You can add the E24Z later on for $800 (from Ebay). So for $2,000 you will have a truly amazing setup. Or, if you just want the kit + E24Z, you can take off $400. So, for $1,600 you will have the A6000 + kit + E24Z.

How does that compare against a $1,400 E-M1 body only now?

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

For the $800 price tag of a Zeiss 24, why not an FE Zeiss 35? Smaller-lighter plus it could be used with an FF one day and will have better resale value in the long run. Effective focal length will be close to the same. Sadly, neither lens has OSS, of course.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,981Gear list
Like?
Re: Res : On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to SirPalomid, 6 months ago

SirPalomid wrote:

spacemn wrote:

The Fuji overstates their ISO with one stop compared to Sony NEX.

That's not true. I had Sony NEX 5R (and sold it soon after getting a Fuji) , and compared it with X-E1 in the same scene with same focal length, aperture and ISO values: Sony underexposes severely, so I had to dial +2/3 EV, and at the end I had only 1/4-1/3 stop difference in shutter speed with similarly exposed shot (Sony was faster). Sony overstates it's ISO by 1/3 stop too, according to DP review.

Several other people have written about their 5R's underexposing and yet I don't think it happens a lot. Mine doesn't.

Having said that, if a camera is pre-set to underexpose slightly, it will reduce the chance of blown highlights. Some makers specialize in techniques to increase dynamic range, also causing reduced blown highlights.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,981Gear list
Like?
Re: You are comparing bodies only.....
In reply to exdeejjjaaaa, 6 months ago

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

captura wrote:

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:

captura wrote:

LTZ470 wrote:

Nice try Henry...when they get PDAF that works indoors in low light they'll be close to fast AF...but this one will be like the Nex-6 slower than Nex-7 and RX1 indoors room lighting...24mp Nex-7 is not that great in low light to be honest...

Nice camera, but no where near the handling of an EM1 and no where near the AF lens selection...and of course the AF Speed will have to be proven in reality...hopefully it's better than the A7r and LA-EA4 adapter...

A6000 = meh....mostly boring made over Nex...

A7 or A7R with same feature set as A6000 = Winner for Sony!

-- hide signature --

Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Oh I don't know. My better Olympus is an E-PM1 and with CDAF it is very fast in daylight. But although it wants to be fast at night or indoors, it simply runs out of ISO.

My 5R is superior to the E-PM1 in low light AF speed, although still no great shakes. A 16 mp Olympus like the E-M1/ E-M10 might come close, but not close to the A6000.

Dear, E-PM1 is a very old tech, fast AF in m43 world really started with GH2 camera... did you read that Sony itself acknowledged that their AF in A6000 is nowhere near Nikon 1 and m43 ? reread from the official press release = "Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an ____APS-C___ image sensor as of February 12, 2014. Determined with internal measurement method with E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS lens mounted, Pre-AF off and viewfinder in use." ... as for low light - m43 cameras now focus @ -4EV (or EV-4, if you prever this notation)

I disagree. Fast AF in M43 (daylight) started with the E-PM1- E-PL3.

no, the first camera was GH2 where for the first time CDAF was feeded @ 120 readouts per second... at that moment Olympus had (for whatever reason) only 12mp sensors from Panasonic and they (sensor) were not capable to feed CDAF @ that speed... then Panasonic moved to 240 readouts per second supported by Sony Semi m43 sensor GH3 and now to 480 readouts per second supported by Panasonic sensor in GH4 and they focus faster w/o any PDAF on sensor... Olympus now is using at least 240 (E-M1 has the same sensor as GH4 from Panasonic and the rest are using Sony Semi sensor).

and that's what I've got.

that's exactly why you don't understand what fast AF is (am I saying as a owner, past and present, of GH2, GH3 and EM1)

No I did not read "Sony itself acknowledged that their AF in A6000 is nowhere near Nikon 1 and m43 ?" Please post the link for that.

at the bottom of Sony's own press release posted @ dpreview - and that's the point of fine print exactly
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/12/sony-a6000-promises-worlds-fastest-af-and-11-fps-subject-tracking

then scroll down to a text in green... are you so naive as not to read fine print ? the same goes for Fuji X-T1... same wording about fastest AF only in for cameras with APS-C or bigger in their press release... everybody knows why - because N1 and m43 are beyong reach for both Sony and Fuji...

None of this is very important. I just want to enjoy my cameras. I love my G1 which is slow, but the GH1 was introduced and had the same body + video + 14 mp sensor. I love doing portrait work with the G1 as it is great handling and so easy to focus with my Minolta MC 55/1.9.

Sony is saying the A6000 and I respect their bold marketing decision for saying so. Sure XT1 may be a better camera in some ways but I don't like it's pseudo-SLR looks; and it's double the price of the A6000. $800 for the camera and lens; what else can you get that's comparable for the money?

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,981Gear list
Like?
Re: Res : On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to spacemn, 6 months ago

spacemn wrote:

SirPalomid wrote:

Well, I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that Sony is an awful camera, and somebody cannot love it or something like this. Just to point out that "1 stop difference" it's not what I've experienced myself, and "Fuji overstates ISO" is exaggerated - almost everybody do so, Sony and Olympus (in E-M5 for sure) too. If I had NEX right now, I'd happily perform this comparison test for you.

Although I have Panasonic GX7 and Canon 6D, so I may do test with them (with Panasonic as reference as "right ISO"), and if I'm wrong, and difference is really 1 stop, than I apologize.
I didn't want to harm you in any way with my words, so excuse me.

When it comes to Olympus E-M5 overstating ISO vs Sony, then you can easily see this in DXOMark (Measured ISO vs Manufacturer ISO):

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-NEX-6-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-versus-Sony-NEX-7___832_793_736

Olympus are almost as bad as Fuji in overstating the ISO, at least 2/3 of a stop at high ISOs compared to Sony.

Panasonic are pretty close to Sony. Yes all overstate a little bit, but Olympus and Fuji are particularly bad at doing this. They are very conscience in market themselves with a certain x-factor The worst part is many reviewers do not take this trivial fact on overstating ISO into account.

I've actually posted that very same chart from DxO onto discussions on the M43 forum, several times. Every time I did that, it ended the discussion; no more posts resulting.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 6,786Gear list
Like?
Re: Res : On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to SirPalomid, 6 months ago

SirPalomid wrote:

Well, I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that Sony is an awful camera, and somebody cannot love it or something like this. Just to point out that "1 stop difference" it's not what I've experienced myself, and "Fuji overstates ISO" is exaggerated - almost everybody do so, Sony and Olympus (in E-M5 for sure) too. If I had NEX right now, I'd happily perform this comparison test for you.

Although I have Panasonic GX7 and Canon 6D, so I may do test with them (with Panasonic as reference as "right ISO"), and if I'm wrong, and difference is really 1 stop, than I apologize.
I didn't want to harm you in any way with my words, so excuse me.

You'd have to control the image - e.g. a gray card under even lighting - to compare the cameras.

If you take a more complex scene, then metering mode and exposure algorithm may vary wildly.

Sony cameras, especially if you elect DRO to auto, will expose to the left under low light, meaning that the Sony actually under-exposes the image.

You compare that with the competition that actually exposes to the right (and blows out highlights), which almost over-exposes the image. On a smaller sensor camera, you'd have no choise, as it is a better strategy to blow out the highlights somewhat to regain some details in the shadows. Hence the difference in algorithms. The same is true for older, less DR rich, larger sensors, such as in your Canon.

So, if ISO was identical, you should see a slower speed on the Sony (0.7EV is a good guess) than on the competition.

But in the above example, you see that the competition is already getting 0.7EV more from for the same scene.

If you still see 1/3rd of stop of difference, assuming Sony being lower, you have to add this 0.7EV and you end up at a full stop of difference.

Do a grey card test, under tungsten (controlled) lighting, with center-spot metering on all cameras with DRO off. How do these test compare? I am sure that you will mimic dpreview and DxO's findings...

-- 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
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,981Gear list
Like?
Re: You are comparing bodies only.....
In reply to kcamacho11, 6 months ago

kcamacho11 wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

So, consider the 24Mp sensor in the A6000, and then consider these lenses, just to name a few:

  1. 12mm: Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
  2. 15mm: E20/2.8 + UWA
  3. 19mm: Sigma 19/2.8
  4. 20mm: E20/2.8
  5. 24mm: E24/1.8
  6. 30mm: Sigma 30/2.8
  7. 30mm: E30M/3.5 Macro
  8. 32mm: Zeiss Touit 32/1.8
  9. 35mm: E35/1.8 OSS
  10. 50mm: E50/1.8 OSS
  11. 50mm: Zeiss Touit 50mm/2.8 Macro
  12. 55mm: Zeiss Touit
  13. 60mm: Sigma 60/2.8

And in zoom lenses:

  1. wide: E1018/4 OSS - can show magenta cast, but great images
  2. kit: E1855 OSS
  3. performance: E1670/4 OSS
  4. mid: E18108/4 OSS
  5. long: E18200 OSS or E55210 OSS

THANKS TO HENRY!

Where are the fast F1.2 or F1.4 primes?

NOT REALLY NECESSARY WITH SUCH A FAST 24MP SENSOR. And largr 32 mp and 50 mp sensors already out there, from Sony. Going into Canikons, etc. F1.2/1.4 lenses would be TOO large. Lots of manual lenses available in those sizes.

Where are the F2.8 mid zooms? Not even an F2.8-F4?

Where is a fast telezoom?

Good questions; Sony should have produced more lenses, especially OSS lenses.

A Zeiss 16-70 F4 for $999 which has gotten mixed reviews? That's nice....when there is a marvelous Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 for $695.

It's cheaper than that; besides, it works very well with the 24 mp NEX-7 so it should work well with the A6000.

A Zeiss Touit 32 F1.8 for $700 + ?? ....how about maybe a Fuji 35mm F1.4 for $450?

This is the main reason why I switched to Fuji and let my brother have my NEX camera system and lenses. The only other Sony camera I have now is the RX100M2.

Sony has NO indication what-so-ever that they will be releasing pro-grade, FAST, weather-sealed lenses, or weather-sealed APS-C bodies for that matter. New released camera, no updated lens road map....when Fuji has already announced a 16-55 F2.8 (weather-sealed), 50-140 F2.8 (weather-sealed), and another super-telephoto lens to be determined.

Look, we get that you sure adore Sony mirrorless cameras and trying to make a strong case for the Sony system, put it is not hard to point at the facts.......and as it has been mentioned in this thread, you are making comparisons of the cameras by themselves, instead of the entire system as a whole (lenses, flashes, ergonomics).

It is a no brainer that Sony is behind in quality lenses for E-mount cameras, as basically every other camera-review website state themselves as well.

The ZEISS branded lenses are mostly professional grade excellence.

Even the lowly 16E2.8 has experienced a resurgence of sorts. Quality control issues produce many bad lenses originally from Sony's Thailand factory. More recent lenses are much better...I have one. No de-centering etc. And all the NEX cameras after the C-3 had distortion-correction available in the menu which made a HUGE difference to the 16. Now the 16's UWA is something else!!! It is EXCELLENT and I am currently using it with my Lumix 14mm f2.5 lens.. it simply snaps on the end!  Results are much sharper and undistorted than using my Lumix G. 46mm UWA.  (Please tell Mr. Ripley.)

WRT Fuji, I own a later-version X10 compact without white orbs. It is a marvelous JPEG machine; great lens and I prefer the EXR system to the X-Trans of later X-models. VERY under-rated because most users never really figured out how to get the best from these.

X'cuse my ramblin' ways.

Steve

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,418Gear list
Like?
Speaking of ISO
In reply to blue_skies, 6 months ago

SirPalomid wrote:

Well, I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that Sony is an awful camera, and somebody cannot love it or something like this. Just to point out that "1 stop difference" it's not what I've experienced myself, and "Fuji overstates ISO" is exaggerated - almost everybody do so, Sony and Olympus (in E-M5 for sure) too. If I had NEX right now, I'd happily perform this comparison test for you.

Although I have Panasonic GX7 and Canon 6D, so I may do test with them (with Panasonic as reference as "right ISO"), and if I'm wrong, and difference is really 1 stop, than I apologize.
I didn't want to harm you in any way with my words, so excuse me.

You'd have to control the image - e.g. a gray card under even lighting - to compare the cameras.

If you take a more complex scene, then metering mode and exposure algorithm may vary wildly.

Sony cameras, especially if you elect DRO to auto, will expose to the left under low light, meaning that the Sony actually under-exposes the image.

You compare that with the competition that actually exposes to the right (and blows out highlights), which almost over-exposes the image. On a smaller sensor camera, you'd have no choise, as it is a better strategy to blow out the highlights somewhat to regain some details in the shadows. Hence the difference in algorithms. The same is true for older, less DR rich, larger sensors, such as in your Canon.

So, if ISO was identical, you should see a slower speed on the Sony (0.7EV is a good guess) than on the competition.

But in the above example, you see that the competition is already getting 0.7EV more from for the same scene.

If you still see 1/3rd of stop of difference, assuming Sony being lower, you have to add this 0.7EV and you end up at a full stop of difference.

Do a grey card test, under tungsten (controlled) lighting, with center-spot metering on all cameras with DRO off. How do these test compare? I am sure that you will mimic dpreview and DxO's findings...

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

It might also be worth pointing out in the OP that X-T1 is also limited to ISO 200 with RAW, hence a range of 200-6400. I believe OM models are too. A base ISO of 200 was one of my three major issues with NEX-3, not an ideal situation with 1/4000s shutter limit even with f/2.8 lenses.

 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
kcamacho11
Senior MemberPosts: 1,474
Like?
Re: You are comparing bodies only.....
In reply to captura, 6 months ago

captura wrote:

Where are the fast F1.2 or F1.4 primes?

NOT REALLY NECESSARY WITH SUCH A FAST 24MP SENSOR. And largr 32 mp and 50 mp sensors already out there, from Sony. Going into Canikons, etc. F1.2/1.4 lenses would be TOO large. Lots of manual lenses available in those sizes.

Not necessary? I guess you are the type of users that Sony is trying to attract.
I am not a pro, but I can't even imagine the professionals out there who would ever say "fast F2.8 zooms are not necessary".

It does not matter if the camera is 16, 24, 50, or 100MP......having 24MP is not going to help you get better low light shots with slower lenses.

A Zeiss 16-70 F4 for $999 which has gotten mixed reviews? That's nice....when there is a marvelous Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 for $695.

It's cheaper than that; besides, it works very well with the 24 mp NEX-7 so it should work well with the A6000.

It is not cheaper than $999. If you find any RETAIL stores in the U.S. selling the 16-70 F4 for less, please post it here.

Again, it is just an F4 lens, nothing faster. No pro-grade fast F2.8 zooms.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kcamacho11
Senior MemberPosts: 1,474
Like?
Re: Speaking of ISO
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 6 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

It might also be worth pointing out in the OP that X-T1 is also limited to ISO 200 with RAW, hence a range of 200-6400. I believe OM models are too. A base ISO of 200 was one of my three major issues with NEX-3, not an ideal situation with 1/4000s shutter limit even with f/2.8 lenses.

I personally do not care about the low base ISO200.

It is meaningless to me, when my X-E2 images at ISO800 are cleaner than my NEX-7's at ISO400.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 6,786Gear list
Like?
Re: On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to docvale, 6 months ago

docvale wrote:

Henry,

yours is a nice thought analysis, but I think that the point here is a tad more related to marketing.

I don't consider the Oly offer for now, since I'm not eyeing the m43 world. I think the Fuji offer is a more premium one, with a luxurious (almost only) selection of primes, while the Sony one is more oriented for the bang-for-the-buck purchase.

That's it. I'm sure that the price difference between the X-T1 + XF35mm vs A6K + Sigma 30mm is not justified by the IQ difference.

But for some users, the Fuji combo will give the feel of a more upscale object. In the end, here there's lots of people that go crazy for gear (regardless they're actual enjoyment of their cameras) so the "ownership pride", which is huge in the Fuji community, is a kind of weak among the Sony users.

I know that the Sony platform allows to use Zeiss made (or licensed) lenses, but man, those are running really expensive.

You know, in the exchange with ttan98 (above) it occurred to me that Sony has to cater to two user bases: 1) the 'no ownership pride' owner and 2) the 'it is the best' owner.

Fuji only caters to the #2, and Oly seems to have its customers wrapped into #2 as well.

But Sony ended up neither here nor there. Many of the #1 owners only want cheap - they may have gotten a Nex camera second hand, and bark at high prices. But then again, they are satisfied with the quality. Whereas the #2 owner don't look at the prices as much as they look at the specs. As long as it is best, it is good. A Zeiss lens is great, but it has to be flawless. And if Fuji puts out a 56/1.2 they cry loud that they must have a same option.

Group #1 users would simply mount a legacy lens and call it a day.

ttan98 would be happy with the A6000 and kit lens, per exchanges above, with one or two lower-priced primes. Sony gives that option.

There are pro users that would use the A6000 with the E1670 and the E24Z only, as only that reaches the quality level that they seek, and they are confident that it is good enough.

And there are advanced users that would criticize even such pairings, and insist on a flawless execution, because Fuji has a 56/1.2 or Oly has a 75/1.8. They need bragging rights, and Sony has to create it for them. Some are not even users at all.

I see, on people's profiles, users with lots of lenses and users with a few lenses. Invariably, those complaining the loudest about a limited availability of lens choices or lens IQ are those that have purchased only a few lenses. It should be the other group speaking up, not them.

Or, as one forum member posted: "Why can't we just tell each other how we can make this stuff work, now that I have purchased it?"

The Fuji group is also interesting in its behavior - Fuji wants to be seen as 'the poor man's Leica' it seems, and the users are mimicking a certain 'Leica-man attitude' on their forum. It goes beyond pride of ownership - they place themselves in a superior position, because they have 'the right' equipment.

-- 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
docvale
Regular MemberPosts: 186Gear list
Like?
Re: On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to blue_skies, 6 months ago

blue_skies wrote

You know, in the exchange with ttan98 (above) it occurred to me that Sony has to cater to two user bases: 1) the 'no ownership pride' owner and 2) the 'it is the best' owner.

Fuji only caters to the #2, and Oly seems to have its customers wrapped into #2 as well.

But Sony ended up neither here nor there.

That is because, as I wrote a while ago somewhere on this forum, the Sony "community" is heterogeneous, with P&S upgraders (like me) or people that got a DSLR backup or former rangefinder users that now don't or cannot get a new Leica (but own a series of good/excellent rangefinder lenses).

Many of the #1 owners only want cheap - they may have gotten a Nex camera second hand, and bark at high prices. But then again, they are satisfied with the quality.

Satisfaction is a good thing

Whereas the #2 owner don't look at the prices as much as they look at the specs. As long as it is best, it is good. A Zeiss lens is great, but it has to be flawless. And if Fuji puts out a 56/1.2 they cry loud that they must have a same option.

True, there's lots of size complex on this point!

Group #1 users would simply mount a legacy lens and call it a day.

And I found out it can be lots of fun, for very little price, and also the chance to learn a lot about photography.

ttan98 would be happy with the A6000 and kit lens, per exchanges above, with one or two lower-priced primes. Sony gives that option.

Precisely! Sony ranges from affordable to high-end, giving you the option to grow within the brand. The problem is that the most experienced users might criticize the prices of the high-end lenses Sony showcases.

There are pro users that would use the A6000 with the E1670 and the E24Z only, as only that reaches the quality level that they seek, and they are confident that it is good enough.

And there are advanced users that would criticize even such pairings, and insist on a flawless execution, because Fuji has a 56/1.2 or Oly has a 75/1.8. They need bragging rights, and Sony has to create it for them. Some are not even users at all.

I see, on people's profiles, users with lots of lenses and users with a few lenses. Invariably, those complaining the loudest about a limited availability of lens choices or lens IQ are those that have purchased only a few lenses. It should be the other group speaking up, not them.

Your point here can make sense, despite you can also frequently read around that people would like a Sigma Emount zoom or a compact and affordable 24 or 27mm prime. In the end, it's the only things the Emount lineup is missing!

Or, as one forum member posted: "Why can't we just tell each other how we can make this stuff work, now that I have purchased it?"

The Fuji group is also interesting in its behavior - Fuji wants to be seen as 'the poor man's Leica' it seems, and the users are mimicking a certain 'Leica-man attitude' on their forum. It goes beyond pride of ownership - they place themselves in a superior position, because they have 'the right' equipment.

Even there, there's many users that speak a lot about how wonderful their pictures are, but they then publish meaningless pics (or no pics at all).

As for me, I'm waiting to get better before publishing anything

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 docvale's gear list:docvale's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jcharding
Senior MemberPosts: 1,988Gear list
Like?
Re: On recent cameras: EM-1, XT-1, A6000 ...
In reply to blue_skies, 6 months ago
 It goes beyond pride of ownership - they place themselves in a superior position, because they have 'the right' equipment.
-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

All DP Review camera forums and all sensor size factions do this, including this one.

Every once in a while you get a good opinion, usually because that person uses and likes both sets of equipment.  But usually its just more very slanted opinions.

-- hide signature --
 jcharding's gear list:jcharding's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-P3 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 831
Like?
Re: Speaking of ISO
In reply to kcamacho11, 6 months ago

kcamacho11 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

It might also be worth pointing out in the OP that X-T1 is also limited to ISO 200 with RAW, hence a range of 200-6400. I believe OM models are too. A base ISO of 200 was one of my three major issues with NEX-3, not an ideal situation with 1/4000s shutter limit even with f/2.8 lenses.

I personally do not care about the low base ISO200.

It is meaningless to me, when my X-E2 images at ISO800 are cleaner than my NEX-7's at ISO400.

Jeez, another person who's happily unaware of Fujis overstated ISO value. Not being aware of this fact can be such a bliss I guess.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,418Gear list
Like?
Re: Speaking of ISO
In reply to kcamacho11, 6 months ago

kcamacho11 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

It might also be worth pointing out in the OP that X-T1 is also limited to ISO 200 with RAW, hence a range of 200-6400. I believe OM models are too. A base ISO of 200 was one of my three major issues with NEX-3, not an ideal situation with 1/4000s shutter limit even with f/2.8 lenses.

I personally do not care about the low base ISO200.

I do. It was an annoyance on my NEX-3.

It is meaningless to me, when my X-E2 images at ISO800 are cleaner than my NEX-7's at ISO400.

 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
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,797Gear list
Like?
Re: You are comparing bodies only.....
In reply to kcamacho11, 6 months ago

kcamacho11 wrote:

captura wrote:

Where are the fast F1.2 or F1.4 primes?

NOT REALLY NECESSARY WITH SUCH A FAST 24MP SENSOR. And largr 32 mp and 50 mp sensors already out there, from Sony. Going into Canikons, etc. F1.2/1.4 lenses would be TOO large. Lots of manual lenses available in those sizes.

There were a couple of articles posted lately about how lenses faster than f1.8 aren't going to have the full effect of the wider aperture on APS-C sized sensors.  The manufacturers are apparently going so far as to fake the ISO to make it look like it's all working OK, but when the noise is tested, it's not as good as it should be.  (DxOMark has one of the articles on the subject.)

Given that, one has to realize that there are diminishing returns on having wider apertures, particularly on M43.

Not necessary? I guess you are the type of users that Sony is trying to attract.
I am not a pro, but I can't even imagine the professionals out there who would ever say "fast F2.8 zooms are not necessary".

It's only necessary for professional sports photographers because they are trying to maximize the quality. That includes using a FF DSLR.  Most of us don't need that level of quality, and got a mirrorless camera for compactness.

An APS-C with an f4 lens is comparable to M43 with an f2.8 lens, so it's not such a horrible limitation.

It does not matter if the camera is 16, 24, 50, or 100MP......having 24MP is not going to help you get better low light shots with slower lenses.

A Zeiss 16-70 F4 for $999 which has gotten mixed reviews? That's nice....when there is a marvelous Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 for $695.

And how much of the range stays at f2.8?  It's not exactly a f2.8 zoom.

It's cheaper than that; besides, it works very well with the 24 mp NEX-7 so it should work well with the A6000.

It is not cheaper than $999. If you find any RETAIL stores in the U.S. selling the 16-70 F4 for less, please post it here.

Again, it is just an F4 lens, nothing faster. No pro-grade fast F2.8 zooms.

Who wants to pay for "pro grade" f2.8 zooms?  Who wants to lug them around on their compact camera?  If you want a big heavy lens, you might as well have a big, heavy camera to go with it.  Sony sells A-mount cameras and lenses that can handle that.

I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens.  It's huge and heavy, particularly on a Nex.  Not overly expensive, although moreso than a lot of other zooms I could have gotten.  And then the corners and edges are soft at f2.8.  This could be fine for portraits, but with all of the obsession about needing perfection even into the extreme corners, people would be disappointed; so, you'd need even a larger and more expensive lens to get that additional quality wide open.  Who wants this for their compact camera?

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LTZ470
Forum ProPosts: 10,395
Like?
Re: You are comparing bodies only.....
In reply to GaryW, 6 months ago

GaryW wrote:

kcamacho11 wrote:

captura wrote:

Where are the fast F1.2 or F1.4 primes?

NOT REALLY NECESSARY WITH SUCH A FAST 24MP SENSOR. And largr 32 mp and 50 mp sensors already out there, from Sony. Going into Canikons, etc. F1.2/1.4 lenses would be TOO large. Lots of manual lenses available in those sizes.

There were a couple of articles posted lately about how lenses faster than f1.8 aren't going to have the full effect of the wider aperture on APS-C sized sensors. The manufacturers are apparently going so far as to fake the ISO to make it look like it's all working OK, but when the noise is tested, it's not as good as it should be. (DxOMark has one of the articles on the subject.)

Given that, one has to realize that there are diminishing returns on having wider apertures, particularly on M43.

Not necessary? I guess you are the type of users that Sony is trying to attract.
I am not a pro, but I can't even imagine the professionals out there who would ever say "fast F2.8 zooms are not necessary".

It's only necessary for professional sports photographers because they are trying to maximize the quality. That includes using a FF DSLR. Most of us don't need that level of quality, and got a mirrorless camera for compactness.

An APS-C with an f4 lens is comparable to M43 with an f2.8 lens, so it's not such a horrible limitation.

It does not matter if the camera is 16, 24, 50, or 100MP......having 24MP is not going to help you get better low light shots with slower lenses.

A Zeiss 16-70 F4 for $999 which has gotten mixed reviews? That's nice....when there is a marvelous Fuji 18-55 F2.8-F4 for $695.

And how much of the range stays at f2.8? It's not exactly a f2.8 zoom.

It's cheaper than that; besides, it works very well with the 24 mp NEX-7 so it should work well with the A6000.

It is not cheaper than $999. If you find any RETAIL stores in the U.S. selling the 16-70 F4 for less, please post it here.

Again, it is just an F4 lens, nothing faster. No pro-grade fast F2.8 zooms.

Who wants to pay for "pro grade" f2.8 zooms? Who wants to lug them around on their compact camera? If you want a big heavy lens, you might as well have a big, heavy camera to go with it. Sony sells A-mount cameras and lenses that can handle that.

Agreed Gary the Oly 12-40 f/2.8 is too large as well for my end use, fantastic lens but just a little too large, the 24-70 f/4 is the same on A7(r), not saying it's not a good thing to have the option, but both are a little large to be called "compact"...

I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens. It's huge and heavy, particularly on a Nex. Not overly expensive, although moreso than a lot of other zooms I could have gotten. And then the corners and edges are soft at f2.8. This could be fine for portraits, but with all of the obsession about needing perfection even into the extreme corners, people would be disappointed; so, you'd need even a larger and more expensive lens to get that additional quality wide open. Who wants this for their compact camera?

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..
FlickR Photostream:
www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/
Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.
I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads