Interesting read by Thom Hogan

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Russell Evans
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,985
Like?
Re: The guy is an irrelevant dinosaur
In reply to wb2trf, 5 months ago

wb2trf wrote:

They are powerless, as the technology and the market will put an end to mirrors in the light box, just as surely as it did to every other mechanical contrivance for which an electronic substitute was developed.

What do you use to shave with? I would bet the razor market is larger than the electric market, but I can't find any data in searching. There is room for both though, and that's how it will be with DSLRs and mirrorless. Neither is going to die out or rule.

Thank you
Russell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jpr2
Forum ProPosts: 13,671
Like?
re: nothing debatable about 135/2L
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

rrccad wrote:

300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4. TSE17,24. 35,24,28 IS, 100m IS macro, 200-400/4IS, 24-70/2.8II, 70-200/2.8II, 70-200/4IS, 200/2, debatable 40/2.8, 85/1.2, 135/2, 24-70/4IS,

That's off the top of my head for canon .. hard to argue with any of that list.

also omitted: 800/5.6L, 200/2.8L II, 14/2.8L II, MPE 65, and 70-200/4L non-IS (which is even better than the IS cousin) - take your pick . The 24-70/4 is debatable indeed,

jpr2

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hip2
Regular MemberPosts: 449Gear list
Like?
Re: With regard to Canikon lenses…….
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

rrccad wrote:

hip2 wrote:

rrccad wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

Just an aside:

It is important to note that while Canikon has a wide array of lenses, many of them are outdated and cannot keep up with currents sensors let alone the sensor tech that may be coming down the pike.

In truth both companies may have have 5-10 lenses each that are ready for the future.

without even trying i'm up to 18 FF canon lenses. I doubt nikon is much different.

You must also be betting on that mirror is forever or that these lenses will seamlessly transition into mirrorless bodies?

canon / nikon could remove the mirror and leave the registration distance. they could even do hybrid systems where the mirror is only used in specific cases and not in others. going mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean adopting a different mount. while there is advantages - for a full frame sensor and professional grade lenses, the different in kit bulk is pretty trivial. you're not going to save any room with a 300/400/500 super telephoto setup between a registration distance of 44mm and 18mm.

Right now with over 80 million F mount lenses and 100 million EF mount lenses and nearly 15 million each and every year, the EF/F mount increase their installed base over any other mount. I suspect that the odds are pretty good on the survivability of the mounts.

I'd bet on that mass far more than for instance .. FE mount?

how many of your 18 lenses are ready for the 36Mpix of the A7R and the D800E ?

300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4. TSE17,24. 35,24,28 IS, 100m IS macro, 200-400/4IS, 24-70/2.8II, 70-200/2.8II, 70-200/4IS, 200/2, debatable 40/2.8, 85/1.2, 135/2, 24-70/4IS,

That's off the top of my head for canon .. hard to argue with any of that list.

very nice lenses indeed.

but for a 36 Mpix sensor ? nope.

-- hide signature --

- The French HiP -

 hip2's gear list:hip2's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha 7R +44 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to Geedorama, 5 months ago

Geedorama wrote:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.html

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido_2007/
Ideally, the lens captures what the eye had in mind...but the damn thing won't listen.

This is silly, the reason why so many failed in the early digital was was due to cost of sensor size, FF sensors are now much cheaper and have been fitted in to much smaller bodies, APS-C has no real future or one worth investing in from those that make FF systems.

Sony failing to match Canon or Nikon in the FF DSLR market is hardly a surprise but I think they've found their feet with the A7/R system.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
isvana
Regular MemberPosts: 203Gear list
Like?
Re: vs Nikon F mount mirrorless
In reply to eths, 5 months ago

eths wrote:

When he tells that Nikon has to use its existing mount for mirrorless, he is forgetting that their existing mount makes it impossible to make smaller cameras at all, as the flange distance will stay the same...

As a happy owner and user of a Nex-7, Nikon FE (film) and Nikon D600, personally I would have no problem with a mirrorless camera with the depth required by the F-Mount system.

...

Thom covers that - mentioning that handgrip depth needs are similar to Nikon F mirror box depth.

But his point was that lens development / infrastructure is a long term investment. Sony were pretty smart building the NEX with LA-EA adapters from the getgo. Less smart was not developing the idea further / publicising their lens strategy...

 isvana's gear list:isvana's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Sony Alpha NEX-6
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 831
Like?
Re: vs Nikon F mount mirrorless
In reply to isvana, 5 months ago

isvana wrote:

eths wrote:

When he tells that Nikon has to use its existing mount for mirrorless, he is forgetting that their existing mount makes it impossible to make smaller cameras at all, as the flange distance will stay the same...

As a happy owner and user of a Nex-7, Nikon FE (film) and Nikon D600, personally I would have no problem with a mirrorless camera with the depth required by the F-Mount system.

...

Thom covers that - mentioning that handgrip depth needs are similar to Nikon F mirror box depth.

But his point was that lens development / infrastructure is a long term investment. Sony were pretty smart building the NEX with LA-EA adapters from the getgo. Less smart was not developing the idea further / publicising their lens strategy...

ethss argument is strange for most people. How many AF lenses does a person need???

Many more lenses can be used with the Sony E-mount cameras. Boring just to stay with Nikon lenses.

There is absolutely no NEED to go with Canon or Nikon because for their lens range. Only sports and bird photographers really need those beasts of fast tele lenses, many of those Sony do as well.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 12,832Gear list
Like?
Re: The guy is an irrelevant dinosaur
In reply to Russell Evans, 5 months ago

Russell Evans wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They are powerless, as the technology and the market will put an end to mirrors in the light box, just as surely as it did to every other mechanical contrivance for which an electronic substitute was developed.

What do you use to shave with? I would bet the razor market is larger than the electric market, but I can't find any data in searching. There is room for both though, and that's how it will be with DSLRs and mirrorless. Neither is going to die out or rule.

Thank you
Russell

Maybe he is waiting for the electronic razor.

 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: 12,832Gear list
Like?
Re: vs Nikon F mount mirrorless
In reply to spacemn, 5 months ago

spacemn wrote:

isvana wrote:

eths wrote:

When he tells that Nikon has to use its existing mount for mirrorless, he is forgetting that their existing mount makes it impossible to make smaller cameras at all, as the flange distance will stay the same...

As a happy owner and user of a Nex-7, Nikon FE (film) and Nikon D600, personally I would have no problem with a mirrorless camera with the depth required by the F-Mount system.

...

Thom covers that - mentioning that handgrip depth needs are similar to Nikon F mirror box depth.

But his point was that lens development / infrastructure is a long term investment. Sony were pretty smart building the NEX with LA-EA adapters from the getgo. Less smart was not developing the idea further / publicising their lens strategy...

ethss argument is strange for most people. How many AF lenses does a person need???

Many more lenses can be used with the Sony E-mount cameras. Boring just to stay with Nikon lenses.

There is absolutely no NEED to go with Canon or Nikon because for their lens range. Only sports and bird photographers really need those beasts of fast tele lenses, many of those Sony do as well.

A decent 85mm is still missing from the E-mount range. In the meanwhile there are some good alternative choices to fill the gap. For example Canon has very nice f1.2 and f1.8 examples.

 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
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,774Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to Habs Fan27, 5 months ago

Habs Fan27 wrote:

nemist wrote:

It's very funny to read people spread these misconceptopons.

1) a-mount in not complete.

Many old Minolta lenses are not being serviced any longer. They have film coatings. The AF is often slow and loud. There are no warranty options. And they must be purchased on the used market. So the idea that the beer can is a viable option is not good for someone who wants a modern competitive system that can be serviced.

For an enthusiast, a lot of these old lenses still work pretty well, and make for a fun, if not top-end, setup.  Being able to get these lenses used means you can build up a nice setup pretty inexpensively.

Just because a-mount has some lenses does not make it a complete lens line up, i.e. where are these lenses:

...any tilt shift options (17mm, 24mm, 90mm)

big exotics

These are the lenses that are just flat out missing. There are also plenty on Minolta rebadges that need to be up updated and are no longer competitive.

The list above is just for FF lenses, and only a-mount.

I don't think Sony has the sales/money/infrastructure to make every combination.  Something exotic or T/S is just not going to happen.  Maybe it's a chicken-or-the-egg problem, but I just don't think they have a critical-mass of sales to support something too obscure.

A 50/1.8 seems like a no-brainer, although personally, I'd rather have a 35....  At any rate, the Minolta 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 probably work well enough, even if they are not ideal with newer coatings.

2) Sony has done terribly on FF bodies. They have really released two a-mount bodies (a900/a99) since 2008. The a850 is really a extremely slight rehash of the a900. And I do looooove that camera.

The higher-end cameras always have a lower refresh rate, although it does seem a bit slow for the FF A-mount cameras.

3) Using non-native lenses on a camera does not complete a system, although it can work.

It's not ideal but it does work.  Sometimes it simply has to work well enough.

Having ILC cameras like the Fuji series or NEX is great. I have used both. And I have a set of legacy lenses. I have also used LAEA adapter with NEX. It's a nice option, it's not a substitute. Aside from loss of stabilization and extra bulk, there is another couple hundred you spend on the LAEA adapter. By the way, there are four of them now…nice money scam Sony.

Did they even expect to release FF cameras back when they first released the original two adapters?  The only scam part might be that they released the EA1 first and the EA2 later -- was that planned, to get people to buy the first adapter then later get the more capable one?  Personally, I think this is a huge plus for the Sony mounts.  What would you rather people do, just do without these lenses on the Nex at all?  That wouldn't be better.  Wait until Sony reproduces the entire A-mount range in the E-mount?  Seems like that would be a crazy, huge undertaking.  The adapter is the sensible solution, to give options until more native lenses arrive.

If you're going to shoot NEX, the major selling point in big IQ in a small package. If you are using large lenses, you're negative a major strength of the system.

I don't know what your point is here.  Do you not want tele lenses for the Nex system or just not A-mount lenses to be available?  In my mind, for many lenses above 50mm or so, they aren't going to be made substantially smaller for E-mount.  For tele lenses, I think the main drawback is lack of stabilization, although this isn't necessarily a deal-breaker -- it is, however, a compromise.  Yes, you compromise a few things going with the smaller E-mount systems.  I think it's a fair tradeoff for the benefits.  A Pro might look at it as, why should I compromise?  That's fine too, that the Nex isn't intended for the pro market.

4) I primarily shot a mount for several years, and I love that system. The AF zeiss and Sony bodies are lovely. But aside from very high end options, and used lenses, you start to run out of options quick--especially if you need anything more than very standard glass.

Do you feel disappointed that Sony has put so much energy in Nex and that perhaps they have reduced work on the A-mount?  I know for years, some A-mount fans have been disappointed in the direction Sony has gone.

Here's my thought, though -- while everyone blames the lawsuit, I think Minolta was already struggling to have that "complete" system, much less maintain it.  I'm not sure that I like everything that Sony did with the A-mount, but at least they've kept it alive and given people interesting options.

5) Sony has 5 large sensor camera lines right now--aps-c a/e mount, ff a/e mount, and RX100/10/1. All interchangeable lens mounts are vastly incomplete. Sony keep building a very basic system, makes some promise, then moves on.

What do you mean?  Sony had a "lens roadmap" through most of the Nex development, and kept their promise... after modifying it slightly after their whole Thai factory was flooded.  Or is there some other promise?

While some people complained about Sony's choices of focal lengths or apertures, for the most part, it seemed to make sense to me to cover what should be the most-used focal lengths.  It makes sense to come out with a 55-210 -- this combined with the kit lens will make a "complete" system for most people.  Add in the UWA adapter for the 16mm lens, and suddenly you can cover 12mm to 210mm in a modest, not-too-expensive setup, but not pro-level.

E-mount ape-c and a-mount ape-c and FF have been shown so little attention lately.

I am sure some will attack this post and call me a hater and wish me off to other systems.

If you want a "complete system", you will be forced to go off to other brands.  I'm sure you want to stick with Sony, I just don't think Sony can become the market leader necessary to do what you want.

But I have shot Sony extensively. Both FF and crop. When Sony fits the bill, it's fabulous. The Zeiss 85 and 135 are spectacular lenses that give superb results on the a900/a99. The FE 55 1.8 is superb. The 24 1.8 is a wonderful lens. I hear very good things about the 16-50 2.8 a-mount.

So, what's the problem?  That you are forced to use the kit lens when not using these lenses?  There are a couple of "holes" in e-mount, particularly, but do you have a specific hole that isn't filled?

It's really a bummer Sony can't dedicate itself to a single target/mount. Had they consolidated all their resources to one mount, the market share would have been much better.

So, by making other cameras, you figure Sony is stretched thin?  People who buy an RX100 aren't in the market for an A-mount camera.  To focus just an A-mount might help push A-mount a bit, but they'd lose far more sales that they currently have with other cameras.

Sony never tried to truly challenge Nikon and Canon in earnest. They never stuck around, built a system, catered to different demographics, worked with many smaller camera shops,

Even before they took over A-mount, I recall a small camera shop that was really angry with Sony.  Their beef were the restrictions required for display in cases, etc., however, while I was listening, it seemed like they had similar restrictions from Canikon, but that was OK -- it was only Sony's restrictions that ticked them off.  Perhaps they felt that as a "lesser" company, Sony should be more accommodating, while Sony thinks of themselves as a premium brand, I don't know.  It seems like a lot of people have had an anti-Sony attitude for a very long time.  But back at the time of that conversation, I looked at the available "pro-sumer" or "bridge" type advanced cameras, and Sony seemed to be the most advanced, or at least had the features I appreciated the most.  I went into the camera search wanting Nikon or maybe Canon but ended up with Sony (in large part because of the responsiveness).

capitalized on Zeiss AF glass, release firmware updates, refresh lenses, etc.

Shooters can shout and make excuses, but it's extremely hard to argue with results.

It's the photograph that is the end results for me.  When I get good results, then that seems to be enough "excuse" for me.  No shouting necessary.

People will go to the best option. Photographers are no "prejudice" they want the best option for the least money.

Sure, but what system is that?  When I bought my A100, I tried again to look at Nikon, but here again, Sony seemed like the better option for less money.  Nikon had just changed their low-end camera(s?) to not have a screw mount, so few lenses were available, and the huge legacy catalog didn't apply.  That didn't seem so appealing to me as a consumer.  Maybe it's flipped in recent years and Sony is the worst deal in DSLRs, I don't know, but I think it's not correct that Sony hasn't tried to be competitive with Canikon.

I did preface by saying it was A-mount was reasonably complete. Sony will never compete with Canon or Nikon on lens system completeness. If you need tilt shift or can not make do with the Sony 70-300 G becuase it is not an F4 or the 70-200 2.8 is to big/expensive then I guess you are SOL. Sony has had to try to compete on other fronts (providing usable live view, decent video AF, Mirrorless, etc.) which may or may not be important to everyone but they seem to have their place.

Even Minolta was having a bit of trouble making a "complete" line.  Sony has had to focus on the basics.

If you are one of the very very small minority that needs that absolute highest quality lenses in ever focal length, then Sony will not work for you. I'd say most ILC cameras Sony sells are to people that don't own a single lens of very few.

I have wondered about this myself, through the  years of, "Where are the Nex lenses?" complaints.  There are a lot of calls for this lens or that lens, but if you looked at one individual, even an enthusiast, there probably are not a lot of lenses owned.  Does everyone just want every possible lens to be available just-in-case?  I suppose that would be nice to have the secure feeling that you'll never be stuck, but as a practical matter, I think few people would actually buy some of the lenses that they call for or point out as "missing".

I'm not sure how interested Sony is in the Pro market as they can probably make more money at the consumer/hobbyist level.

To compete in the Pro market requires more than the obscure lenses and accessories, but also a support network.

How many of Nikon's lenses are actually good enough to use on a D800? As sensor quality improves, Nikon and Canon are going to have issues as well as many of their lenses are not going to cut it if you want to get the most out of the sensors.

-- 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
spacemn
Contributing MemberPosts: 831
Like?
Re: vs Nikon F mount mirrorless
In reply to captura, 5 months ago

captura wrote:

spacemn wrote:

isvana wrote:

eths wrote:

When he tells that Nikon has to use its existing mount for mirrorless, he is forgetting that their existing mount makes it impossible to make smaller cameras at all, as the flange distance will stay the same...

As a happy owner and user of a Nex-7, Nikon FE (film) and Nikon D600, personally I would have no problem with a mirrorless camera with the depth required by the F-Mount system.

...

Thom covers that - mentioning that handgrip depth needs are similar to Nikon F mirror box depth.

But his point was that lens development / infrastructure is a long term investment. Sony were pretty smart building the NEX with LA-EA adapters from the getgo. Less smart was not developing the idea further / publicising their lens strategy...

ethss argument is strange for most people. How many AF lenses does a person need???

Many more lenses can be used with the Sony E-mount cameras. Boring just to stay with Nikon lenses.

There is absolutely no NEED to go with Canon or Nikon because for their lens range. Only sports and bird photographers really need those beasts of fast tele lenses, many of those Sony do as well.

A decent 85mm is still missing from the E-mount range. In the meanwhile there are some good alternative choices to fill the gap. For example Canon has very nice f1.2 and f1.8 examples.

Oh I agree, but for 85mm FOV you should use the FE 55mm. The 85mm is most likely very close for the E-mount. The A-mount also caters for those who NEED the 85mm now

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,774Gear list
Like?
Re: vs Nikon F mount mirrorless
In reply to isvana, 5 months ago

isvana wrote:

eths wrote:

When he tells that Nikon has to use its existing mount for mirrorless, he is forgetting that their existing mount makes it impossible to make smaller cameras at all, as the flange distance will stay the same...

As a happy owner and user of a Nex-7, Nikon FE (film) and Nikon D600, personally I would have no problem with a mirrorless camera with the depth required by the F-Mount system.

...

Thom covers that - mentioning that handgrip depth needs are similar to Nikon F mirror box depth.

I rather like the compact size of the Nex cameras, including the grip (at least of the 5 and 6 series).

But his point was that lens development / infrastructure is a long term investment. Sony were pretty smart building the NEX with LA-EA adapters from the getgo. Less smart was not developing the idea further / publicising their lens strategy...

You mean like a lens roadmap (that they had)?

-- 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
xinn3r
Regular MemberPosts: 116Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to GaryW, 5 months ago

GaryW wrote:

By the way, the worst problem, IMO, with using FE lenses on Nex cameras is that the "fast hybrid" AF is not supported. This would seem to me to be a serious limitation.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

I see contradicting posts here regarding FE lenses supporting PDAF on APS-C sensors.

Anyone have a definitive answer? Does FE lenses support NEX-6 on sensor PDAF for example?

 xinn3r's gear list:xinn3r's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,774Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to xinn3r, 5 months ago

xinn3r wrote:

GaryW wrote:

By the way, the worst problem, IMO, with using FE lenses on Nex cameras is that the "fast hybrid" AF is not supported. This would seem to me to be a serious limitation.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

I see contradicting posts here regarding FE lenses supporting PDAF on APS-C sensors.

Anyone have a definitive answer? Does FE lenses support NEX-6 on sensor PDAF for example?

I have to admit, I read that in another thread and am not sure if it's actually true, but they claimed to have pulled the info from the Sony website.  You could go to the page with the FE lens in question and see what cameras are supported, but until someone actually tries it, who knows for sure?

-- 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
DFPanno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,595Gear list
Like?
Look…….
In reply to rrccad, 5 months ago

rrccad wrote:

hip2 wrote:

rrccad wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

Just an aside:

It is important to note that while Canikon has a wide array of lenses, many of them are outdated and cannot keep up with currents sensors let alone the sensor tech that may be coming down the pike.

In truth both companies may have have 5-10 lenses each that are ready for the future.

without even trying i'm up to 18 FF canon lenses. I doubt nikon is much different.

You must also be betting on that mirror is forever or that these lenses will seamlessly transition into mirrorless bodies?

canon / nikon could remove the mirror and leave the registration distance. they could even do hybrid systems where the mirror is only used in specific cases and not in others. going mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean adopting a different mount. while there is advantages - for a full frame sensor and professional grade lenses, the different in kit bulk is pretty trivial. you're not going to save any room with a 300/400/500 super telephoto setup between a registration distance of 44mm and 18mm.

Right now with over 80 million F mount lenses and 100 million EF mount lenses and nearly 15 million each and every year, the EF/F mount increase their installed base over any other mount. I suspect that the odds are pretty good on the survivability of the mounts.

I'd bet on that mass far more than for instance .. FE mount?

how many of your 18 lenses are ready for the 36Mpix of the A7R and the D800E ?

300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4. TSE17,24. 35,24,28 IS, 100m IS macro, 200-400/4IS, 24-70/2.8II, 70-200/2.8II, 70-200/4IS, 200/2, debatable 40/2.8, 85/1.2, 135/2, 24-70/4IS,

That's off the top of my head for canon .. hard to argue with any of that list.

These are, for the most part, fine lenses.  I am privileged to own a couple of them myself.  The problem is that lens technology has moved forward and some of these are now rarther long in the tooth (35 and 135).  Others are very good but not superlative lenses ( the 28IS?).

The fact that they exist at all is a good reason to chose a Canon FF over an Alpha (how long before SONY produces a 85L?) but we can't kid ourselves into thinking that the catalog is uniformly excellent.

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike Fewster
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,620
Like?
Re: I also think Thom's analysis of APS-C is incorrect
In reply to Geedorama, 5 months ago

Geedorama wrote:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.html

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido_2007/
Ideally, the lens captures what the eye had in mind...but the damn thing won't listen.

There is much in Thom's analysis I agree with, however, I think he gets APS-C scene wrong.

APS-C  in dslr is a format that has outlived its time. It was originally brought in as a way to lure serious film shooters to digital cameras. This was the period where serious photographers had collections of lenses designed for their 35mm film cameras. The cost of ff digital cameras however was prohibitive given the cost of ff sensors in the iniitial digital introduction period. The manufacturers answer was APS-C, ie  an identical mount to the existing ff film cameras but with a much smaller sensor. Now the enthusiast was tempted to go dig. because all those precious lenses in their collection could be used on the iLC dslr cameras. The fact that a large section of the gathered image was now being thrown away was brilliantly marketed as "multiplication factor". APS-C (I am not talking about the sensor itself but about the ff lens mount/small sensor concept that loosely became referred to as APS-C ) was brilliant marketing but poor engineering (you paid for a quality glass that could collect an image of one size but in fact only a small part of the lens abilities was being used and lenses and bodies were bigger and heavier than they needed to be for the size of the sensor). In time, the manufacturers added lenses with optics that were designed just for the APS-C sensor (dx series). These lenses however still suffered from having to use ff mount.

It was the mirrorless cameras that showed up the flaw in APS-C engineering. The APS-C (and I include mft here) sensor could give the same IQ in a much smaller package when you had a lens mount designed for the sensor rather than cobbling an inappropriate ff mount to deliver to a small sensor.

Many of lenses Thom refers to are now moving into a sort of limbo land.  FF mount with APS-C sized sensors will slowly be squeezed out between cameras that are designed with appropriate mounts and bodies for APS-C sensors and bodies much the same size but with ff image capability.

Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dismayed
Forum MemberPosts: 70
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to LWS2013, 5 months ago

LWS2013 wrote:

Geedorama wrote:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/can-you-trust-the-camera.html

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido_2007/
Ideally, the lens captures what the eye had in mind...but the damn thing won't listen.

This is silly, the reason why so many failed in the early digital was was due to cost of sensor size, FF sensors are now much cheaper and have been fitted in to much smaller bodies, APS-C has no real future or one worth investing in from those that make FF systems.

Sony failing to match Canon or Nikon in the FF DSLR market is hardly a surprise but I think they've found their feet with the A7/R system.

Interesting point, but invalidated if you look at actual data.  I can buy a Nikon D3100 with a kit lens for $400.  Please show me a full frame sensor that's even close to that price point.

-- hide signature --

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,774Gear list
Like?
Re: I also think Thom's analysis of APS-C is incorrect
In reply to Mike Fewster, 5 months ago

Mike Fewster wrote:

There is much in Thom's analysis I agree with, however, I think he gets APS-C scene wrong....

It was the mirrorless cameras that showed up the flaw in APS-C engineering. The APS-C (and I include mft here) sensor could give the same IQ in a much smaller package when you had a lens mount designed for the sensor rather than cobbling an inappropriate ff mount to deliver to a small sensor.

Many of lenses Thom refers to are now moving into a sort of limbo land. FF mount with APS-C sized sensors will slowly be squeezed out between cameras that are designed with appropriate mounts and bodies for APS-C sensors and bodies much the same size but with ff image capability.

The problem with that analysis is that E-mount was designed to accommodate FF, as we now can clearly see. I think the big advantage to making compact lenses for the Nex has been the shorter registration distance.

Sure, FF lenses are a bit bigger, but getting past that mirror box meant that there was a limit to how much you could reduce the camera and lens sizes.

Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

-- 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
DFPanno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,595Gear list
Like?
That is not realistic for most of the market…….
In reply to hip2, 5 months ago

hip2 wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

Robert Morris wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

What happens to people who believe stuff like this is that when finally their old ship sinks they don't understand what hit it. He's living in the past. In a cocktail of old blather he may mix a few truths, by accident, but basically his day is done. He's just wandering blind over the field, wrapped in his antique self-importance. Someone should get him a rocker.

So exactly what are you adding to this conversation by attacking someone who probability knows more about the camera, electronic, computer and software industry than anyone. So what are you credentials, T.W.I.T., or are you just an internet wannabe!

-- hide signature --

RM

An anonymous non-entity in the world of photography calls out of of the most recognized names in the field.

LMAO.

maybe he is no one, but he is not wrong because of that.

he actually has a point in saying that the article was written with the assumption that the camera world and photographers need and thinking has not changed in the last 50 years. while lots of things changed just the last 5 years...

many here will say the same thing about this now : you don't look to buy a system now (it was not even about loyalty, it was more about being taken prisoner of a brand because of the lens prices).
canon and nikon have a hard time hopping on the mirrorless train because they cannot let go of their precious legacy lens line up. if they do that they will lose all their advantage. you can see Nikon answer when they released the Df.
People now have to look at bodies as seriously, if not more, as they look at lenses.
you no longer buy a set of lenses with a compatible body, with good rolls of films. you buy a into a body technology and feature set, with some lenses that fit your photography. if one is not enough to cover all your photography needs, you buy another different body technology with different lenses.
it's now very close to consumer electronics market recycling times.
the used market is even getting a huge boost because of that. someone's old camera is someone else's new toy in a matter of months only, and very old, rare, quirky lenses constantly resurfaces.
Thom Hogan want to be able to trust one camera maker because he wants the old ways back. buy something that will last 20-40 years. while this is great for the environment, the planet and all that, it is not the world we live in anymore.
he knows he cannot trust canon nor nikon because they won't be able to give us innovation, and he wants to trust sony but cannot because of his old habits.
Trying to push that on us only means he cannot handle his fears and inability to adapt to the current times ?

-- hide signature --

- The French HiP -

Not disagreeing with you but yours is an affluent enthusiasts outlook.

How many people can buy into the new Alpha system (body + 2 lenses minimum + accessories + taxes = $5,000.00+ US ) and treat the whole package as a bit of gear that they will use for a couple of years?

Just because manufacturers constantly pump new products onto the market doesn't mean that the vast majority are interested in keeping up with it all.

Remember that dpr is a tiny subset of the market and in the grand sceme of things don't count for much; particularly when there are profitability issues.

My take fom Hogan is that:

One; the whole industry is in a state of flux so be careful how you spend your money.

Two; for the moment Canikon is the safest bet because their products are already available.  You don't have to buy on the basis of promises.

 DFPanno's gear list:DFPanno's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,774Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to Dismayed, 5 months ago

Dismayed wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

This is silly, the reason why so many failed in the early digital was was due to cost of sensor size, FF sensors are now much cheaper and have been fitted in to much smaller bodies, APS-C has no real future or one worth investing in from those that make FF systems.

Sony failing to match Canon or Nikon in the FF DSLR market is hardly a surprise but I think they've found their feet with the A7/R system.

Interesting point, but invalidated if you look at actual data. I can buy a Nikon D3100 with a kit lens for $400. Please show me a full frame sensor that's even close to that price point.

Yeah, APS-C is still a lot cheaper. When FF sensors approach the same price, things will get interesting. I wonder if Sony sees this coming in a few years?

-- hide signature --

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan

-- 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
wb2trf
Senior MemberPosts: 1,330
Like?
Room for both? Like view cameras, maybe, maybe not.
In reply to Russell Evans, 5 months ago

Russell Evans wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They are powerless, as the technology and the market will put an end to mirrors in the light box, just as surely as it did to every other mechanical contrivance for which an electronic substitute was developed.

What do you use to shave with? I would bet the razor market is larger than the electric market, but I can't find any data in searching. There is room for both though, and that's how it will be with DSLRs and mirrorless. Neither is going to die out or rule.

dslr's may not literally die out any more than view cameras have, although due to their manufacturing complexity they are at much greater risk.  For all I know somebody still makes typewriters, even though had I made my statement about typewriters three years after the PC came out, I would have been as correct about that as I am about this.  That took probably 15 years?  This won't take that long.

Here's the thing, if any company in the industry is telling themselves your kind of razor story, they are certainly dead.  Over and over again this story plays out.  Suppose I had told you in 1995 that Kodak was dead?  The giant of the industry.  Gone.

I'll bet that the margins on the A3000 when retailed at the sale price of $300 are 2x those of the D3200 sold at $439, and it takes better pictures.  Furthermore, Nikon has to pay Sony for the chip in that thing.  Sony can put the retail price squeeze on Nikon at the low end to the point that the only margins in the Nikon camera are being realized by Sony.    Do you realize what a miserable competitive position that is to be in?  Nikon has Sony supplying them with sensors top to bottom while Sony is putting those same sensors into cameras that cost half a much to make using many of those same sensors.  That is a classically horrible competitive position to be in.

Hogan is clueless. Bowing his violin while his city burns.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads