Interesting read by Thom Hogan

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
Gato Amarillo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,490
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to xinn3r, 8 months ago

I can't say this is a definitive answer, but I do know the NEX-6 does not support PDAF for the 18-105 f4. That would require a firmware update which Sony has said is not in their near plans. So there is a good chance the 6 does not support the FE lenses for PDAF. (Note that I get this from mostly from forum posters who say they got it direct from Sony -- I was not able to find a direct statement myself.)

However, I don't see any reason the 6000 would not support all current lenses -- though with Sony one never knows.

Coming back to Thom's article, I spent much of an hour searching the web for a comprehensive list of which lenses are supported on the NEX 6 -- and didn't find it. By luck I ran across it in a forum post later in the day. My problem with Sony right now is a lack of communication -- it's hard to find definitive information on cameras already in the market, much less any sense of where they are going in the future.

Gato

-- hide signature --

"We paint with our brain, not with our hands" -- Michelangelo
Portrait, figure and fantasy photography at Silver Mirage Gallery:
silvermirage.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jpr2
Forum ProPosts: 13,834Gear list
Like?
Gato: the link is there
In reply to Gato Amarillo, 8 months ago

Gato Amarillo wrote:

I can't say this is a definitive answer, but I do know the NEX-6 does not support PDAF for the 18-105 f4. That would require a firmware update which Sony has said is not in their near plans. So there is a good chance the 6 does not support the FE lenses for PDAF. (Note that I get this from mostly from forum posters who say they got it direct from Sony -- I was not able to find a direct statement myself.)

However, I don't see any reason the 6000 would not support all current lenses -- though with Sony one never knows.

check the last one at the bottom of the post, it goes to the Sony's site listing all OSPDAF-enabled E-mount lenses. And indeed the 18-105 is not enabled on N6

jpr2

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gato Amarillo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,490
Like?
Re: Gato: the link is there
In reply to jpr2, 8 months ago

Thanks. Where were you when I needed it?

More seriously, I think I'm a pretty decent researcher but I could not find it or come up with a search string that would bring up a direct link. On this and several other topics I think Sony needs to do a better job of making information available and easy to find.

A cynic might guess the manuals and websites are done by the same people who designed the NEX menu system.

Gato

-- hide signature --

"We paint with our brain, not with our hands" -- Michelangelo
Portrait, figure and fantasy photography at Silver Mirage Gallery:
silvermirage.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jpr2
Forum ProPosts: 13,834Gear list
Like?
re: can you substantiate it more - have you tried them hands-on?
In reply to DFPanno, 8 months ago

DFPanno wrote:

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 rather long in the tooth (35 and 135). Others are very good but not superlative lenses ( the 28IS?).

as some of your (supposedly high-standard assessment) statements look outright strange to me - taking the EF 135/2L as an example (not my shot, just a random sample from the Net):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinematic/10771705516/meta/

there doesn't seem to be any reason at all to rubbish the results from this lens on the 36 Mpx (A7r) sensor.

Actually even on 57 Mpx (eqiv. FF) resolution of N7-classic the 135/2L shines bright - "long in the tooth indeed" ?!!. So much so that it is with some trepidation I await Sony's native E-mount version to much it (when it finally arrives, if at all )

jpr2

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BennyKingston
Regular MemberPosts: 165
Like?
Moore's Law
In reply to Geedorama, 8 months ago

Or some variation of it.

I have Nikon Film gear from 1984, that can take stunning photographs.

My first digital camera is a NEX-5N. I believe I have pushed it to its limits, and I like it very much, so what next?

I think what this guy is saying about the D800 is a s close as one can get to Last Camera Syndrome, at this point in time......

Not even mentioning the computer gear that can handle the post for it

No digital camera ever is going to last like my 1984 Nikon film gear, and that is pretty much a reality.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Russell Evans
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,257
Like?
Re: Room for both? Like view cameras, maybe, maybe not.
In reply to wb2trf, 8 months ago

wb2trf wrote:

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.

Not really. The manufacturing cost of mirror, or no mirror, is pretty negligible when you consider the cost of adding the extra electronics needed for an EVF.

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.

Personal computers made people more productive, made work easier, and increased profits. There's nothing that is driving the adoption of mirrorless cameras other than personal preference.

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.

Did the microwave kill the stove?

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.

The D3200 and D5200 are probably made of 90% of the same materials and probably 70% of the parts in the other Nikon DSLR bodies are common. Nikon sold what, 7 million DSLRs last year? We know DSLRs outsell mirrorless at, what is it 4 or 5 to one? That's a lot of economy of scale to make up by removing the mirror and throwing a cheap LCD and EVF in a box.

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.

Cuts both ways. Sony can't keep its sensor factories open without someone buying them. Nikon with Toshiba probably caused more than a few sleepless nights for Sony executives.

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

I agree that he is not seeing the entire picture , but DSLRs aren't going to die out. The photography market is simply going to be more diverse, where more of the pie is split more ways. Nikon might fail if it can't deal with it's previous debt in a shrinking market, but it won't disappear. It will restructure, blah, blah, blah...

Thank you
Russell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tomtom50
Senior MemberPosts: 2,778Gear list
Like?
Re: I also think Thom's analysis of APS-C is incorrect
In reply to Mike Fewster, 8 months ago

Mike Fewster 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.

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

My thoughts run along the same lines. His main criticism of Nikon is their failure to develop a full DX lens line, but if Nikon & Canon see DX as a stopgap that will fade it makes sense.

The a7r shows the future, in that it has high enough pixel density (16MP at APS-C crop) to make decent APS-C camera. It can take advantage of smaller APS telephoto lenses and less expensive APS lenses, while giving FF performance when the lens supports it.

The a7r isn't seen this way because it is too expensive for this use, but how may years before 36+MP FF can be had below $1000?

 tomtom50's gear list:tomtom50's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS M Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rhlpetrus
Forum ProPosts: 23,430Gear list
Like?
Every Nikon user thinks like Thom, actually
In reply to Geedorama, 8 months ago

We like Nikon for their stability re the F-mount, we think that we will be using our nice primes 10 and 20 years from now, just like we are using lenses from 1960/70 in the present bodies.

Mos of us started our Nikon systems, even those like me that started later (I used Pentax and Leica in the film era), just because there were both a clear upgrade path for bodies, including APS-C to FF transitions, and a complete and stable lens and accessories lineup.

IQ of lenses and sensors and systems, etc, these are all the same these days, those that debate that are wasting their time. What matters is what the systems makes available to you, the choices. A brand that changes mounts, lens lines, body lines, every 2 years, is hard to trust.

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,153Gear list
Like?
Re: Some observations ...
In reply to Geedorama, 8 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.

Like Thom says at the end of his rant - he likes to be controversial.

Even so, I think that Thom missed some critical elements in his essay.

When Sony launched the SLT cameras, they did away with the mirror box, and put in the pellicle mirror. The consequence of this was that they also had to put in the EVF. If they had had the current EVF technology, the SLT cameras may have been a smash hit, but as they were back then, the debates were about giving up the 'good' OVF for the 'poor' EVF. They were far less about the 1/3rd (alleged 1/2th) stop loss of the available light - but this was a major reasons why the SLT cameras always scored lower than DSLR cameras in measurements.

Unlike the E-mount, the A-mount did have available (Minolta) lenses upon launch. Sony did built out the lens line with the 'proper' set of lenses, both for FF and ASP-C formats (and kept the latter ones surprisingly affordable).

Sony also has a culture of engineering-driven innovation, rather than marketing-driven research. This led to the RX1, the RX100, the Nex, the A7, and so on. Engineers can built anything, but cohesion is lacking, and an overall strategy is not there. However, and this is often missed, Sony is acutely aware of how its products do in the market and responds to that. To me, it is still unclear as to whether a Nex-7 and the E24Z were indeed planned at the Nex-camera launch, as later claimed. The Nex cameras came out as a 'tour-de-force' - miniaturized APS-C bodies! But they were targeted (consider the original UI) for P&S upgraders, NOT DSLR users. If the Nex-7 was already planned, wouldn't there have been more DSLR considerations? But the short flange distance and the high IQ sensor created a following of enthusiasts that got amazing results with legacy lenses - this definitely pushed Sony towards a higher end - and Sony delivered on the IQ race in terms of lenses and sensors.

Albeit, that by then the reputation was already a bit tainted.

As to receipt of the products, reviewers praised products like the RX1, the Nex-7, the E24Z, heck, the A77 or the A99, but as competitors quickly swooped in on the negatives, the products did not get the laurels that they deserved. The RX1/R is still one of THE best performing lens/sensor combinations that you can get for FF - but it is punished for lack of EVF (or expensive add-on) and poor AF. The Nex-7 is still a state-of-the-art exercise, but has been flawed for magenta-shift, limited high IQ lens availability, and poor low light AF. The A99 came with an EVF(?) - omg, how dare you Sony - and it could not properly convert the 24Mp to 2Mp for video.

I mean, you got to give the competition some credit - each flaw was blown out of properties as soon as discovered, and Sony appears as the company that 'almost could'.

To be as controversial as Thom - look at the competing brands and ask them "What have you done for me lately?". The level of innovation and upgrades has been at an all time low. So is R&D planning something major for the future? Or are they just protecting their markets? Or can they not do any better (so we never hear about it)?

Sony walked down an alley that woke up a lot of people - and there were many complaints about lack of features, IQ, pricing, and so on. Thus far, Sony seems to have been staying the course. The Nex cameras (ok Axxxx) are now in their 5th year of existence and that is new high for Sony. The SLT cameras even longer, and Sony is pledging continued support.

A mount, E mount, FF, APS-C, that is a lot of lenses, or worse, a lot of wishes. But the portfolio has slowly been filling with rather high performing lenses. Sure, you can still run to the competition, but I think that Sony is at a point, where they can no longer be ignored.

I think that 2014 is a cross-over year: Sony transforming from the wannabee innovator to the mainstream powerhouse that delivers 'best-in-class' products.

As they say, you cannot deny success, and even Thom has to join the bandwagon. Eh, he already has - he was an early Nex adopter, and now A7 user, so he never really left Sony. He just kept blogging about Nikon and m43 because those are larger users communities. Or better, were. With the Sony community growing, Thom has to be prepared to 'fall in line' again.

As many more reviewers and pro users will have to, eventually. Sony bashing was fun for a while, but with Sony seemingly being on an impressive marathon run, I would expect Sony to finally deliver that 20% market share that they promised after acquiring Konica/Minolta. And who'd want to be on Sony's bad side by then?

A final hint for Sony's success - these forums hype IQ a lot, but tend to ignore prices. If you consider pricing of all the available products, doesn't Sony stand out already? Especially when it comes to camera bodies?

Nex camera prices have already come down with the A6000 announcement. The A7 prices were lower then expected. The new SLT cameras (APS-C and FF) may surprise everyone by being CHEAPER. Whereas the markets seem to be pushing 'feature driven' pricing upwards, Sony is upsetting all by delivering more features, more IQ, for lower pricing. That is a very significant move by Sony.

Sure, FE lenses are not cheap - but they work on the 36Mp A7r with amazing results! In that context, you get an amazing deal as well - and Sony did right by delivering 'the highest IQ'. The A7r pushed both the FE35 and the FE55 as the 2nd best lenses ever benchmarked - not too shabby.

I think that Sony is on the right track - finally. Despite the earlier confusion, I can see a lot of their strategies becoming cohesive and their merging of departments leading to better products, and better choices, over time. Sony has played their hand - and it is a good one. Can the competition respond, timely?

Five years from now, Sony's market share will have grown. Question then remains, whose market share will have shrunk?

Interesting times. Good times for consumers...

-- 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
SQLGuy
Senior MemberPosts: 2,769Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to Geedorama, 8 months ago

Seems like a pretty loaded article. For instance, he talks about how there were just a few mounts to consider in the early SLR/Rangefinder days, including Canon and Nikon. There he completely skips over the fact that Nikon had S and F, and Canon has S and R and FL/FD. There were certainly no less competing mount formats back then than now, and it's only in hindsight that you know F mount went on to such longevity.

Canon was successful with FL/FD/nFD for over 20 years, but then they dropped it and went to EF. FD was a successful mount system, but eventually things in the market and technology changed too much for it to continue to be viable (also, Canon probably wanted to force their loyal customers to buy new lenses). Trying to predict the future by looking at the past when things are changing dramatically is a risky gamble. If I had asked you in 2002 what Kodak (who had been the dominant imaging company for over 100 years) would be doing in imaging 10 years down the road, do you think you would have predicted their demise?

As to "trusting" the manufacturers: you've got to be kidding. They are not charitable organizations, they are for-profit businesses. When they can, they will do whatever they think will make them most money in the long run. When they are squeezed, they will do whatever they have to to survive. Neither path includes any kind of altruism other than the hopes that building loyal customers will make them more money in the long run.

So, for now, you can probably play it safe... the safe-est being Nikon full frame, or maybe Leica full frame, and bet on somebody supporting that wealth of lenses even if the parent companies go the way of Kodak (I think this is what Thom was advocating at the end of his article), or you can be realistic about buying into leading edge tech now that will give you a lot of good pictures now, and, as a system, may be as short lived as a Contax G in the longer term.

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Nikon D200 A3000 Sony Alpha 7 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
blue_skies
Senior MemberPosts: 7,153Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to SQLGuy, 8 months ago

SQLGuy wrote:

Seems like a pretty loaded article. For instance, he talks about how there were just a few mounts to consider in the early SLR/Rangefinder days, including Canon and Nikon. There he completely skips over the fact that Nikon had S and F, and Canon has S and R and FL/FD. There were certainly no less competing mount formats back then than now, and it's only in hindsight that you know F mount went on to such longevity.

Canon was successful with FL/FD/nFD for over 20 years, but then they dropped it and went to EF. FD was a successful mount system, but eventually things in the market and technology changed too much for it to continue to be viable (also, Canon probably wanted to force their loyal customers to buy new lenses). Trying to predict the future by looking at the past when things are changing dramatically is a risky gamble. If I had asked you in 2002 what Kodak (who had been the dominant imaging company for over 100 years) would be doing in imaging 10 years down the road, do you think you would have predicted their demise?

As to "trusting" the manufacturers: you've got to be kidding. They are not charitable organizations, they are for-profit businesses. When they can, they will do whatever they think will make them most money in the long run. When they are squeezed, they will do whatever they have to to survive. Neither path includes any kind of altruism other than the hopes that building loyal customers will make them more money in the long run.

So, for now, you can probably play it safe... the safe-est being Nikon full frame, or maybe Leica full frame, and bet on somebody supporting that wealth of lenses even if the parent companies go the way of Kodak (I think this is what Thom was advocating at the end of his article), or you can be realistic about buying into leading edge tech now that will give you a lot of good pictures now, and, as a system, may be as short lived as a Contax G in the longer term.

I thought that Thom already stated in one of his earlier posts that he no longer recommends graduating students to purchase a D600/D800 and start collecting lenses, because 'times-are-a-changing' now?

Prior to that post he was a staunch proponent of FF Nikon or burst. Everything else was a toy.

And, to the student, "...as long as you had the D600/D800 resume/pedigree, you would 'fit in' everywhere and get contracts..."

Contax G shooters, neah - just hobbyists Same for mirrorless...

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

-- 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
tomtom50
Senior MemberPosts: 2,778Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to SQLGuy, 8 months ago

SQLGuy wrote:

As to "trusting" the manufacturers: you've got to be kidding. They are not charitable organizations, they are for-profit businesses. When they can, they will do whatever they think will make them most money in the long run. When they are squeezed, they will do whatever they have to to survive. Neither path includes any kind of altruism other than the hopes that building loyal customers will make them more money in the long run.

Yes, it is not a matter of trust and Hogan should not put it that way.

It is a matter of confidence the buyer can reasonably have going forward and it is not a matter of brand so much as success. Can a buyer be confident in ongoing development of Nikon 1? EOS-M?

 tomtom50's gear list:tomtom50's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS M Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
liquid stereo
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,020Gear list
Like?
exactly
In reply to hip2, 8 months ago

hip2 wrote:

Everybody wants to get value back from what they bought, especially expensive cameras.

but they cant anymore.

try to think about it another way : you already got value out of them, just look at the pictures you took while using them. which should be the point in buying them in the first place.

-- hide signature --

- The French HiP -

 liquid stereo's gear list:liquid stereo's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,140Gear list
Like?
Re: That is not realistic for most of the market…….
In reply to DFPanno, 8 months ago

DFPanno wrote:

...

My take fom Hogan is that:

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

More specifically, what was he warning us against?  Buying APS-C?  Buying certain brands?

Two; for the moment Canikon is the safest bet because their products are already available.

Hasn't it been this way for the past decade?

You don't have to buy on the basis of promises.

-- 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 E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DFPanno
Senior MemberPosts: 2,770Gear list
Like?
You are putting words in my mouth……..
In reply to jpr2, 8 months ago

jpr2 wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

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 rather long in the tooth (35 and 135). Others are very good but not superlative lenses ( the 28IS?).

as some of your (supposedly high-standard assessment) statements look outright strange to me - taking the EF 135/2L as an example (not my shot, just a random sample from the Net):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinematic/10771705516/meta/

there doesn't seem to be any reason at all to rubbish the results from this lens on the 36 Mpx (A7r) sensor.

Actually even on 57 Mpx (eqiv. FF) resolution of N7-classic the 135/2L shines bright - "long in the tooth indeed" ?!!. So much so that it is with some trepidation I await Sony's native E-mount version to much it (when it finally arrives, if at all )

jpr2

I have most certainly not "rubbished" anything.

As good as the 135 is it could be improved.

The fact that it has not been does not indicate that the ability is not there.  It indicates that such improvement is not in Canon's best financial interest.

Their interest is in amortizing the design and production of the existing lens cost's as long as possible.

Good, bad, or indifferent; the fact remains that Canon has such a lens now while Sony may not ever produce such a lens.

Incidently the 135 is one of Canon's best lenses - and a bargain to boot.  Not really fair to use it to question my overall contention - that some real portion of these catalogs are outdated.

 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: 7,140Gear list
Like?
Re: Room for both? Like view cameras, maybe, maybe not.
In reply to Russell Evans, 8 months ago

Russell Evans wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

...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.

Not really. The manufacturing cost of mirror, or no mirror, is pretty negligible when you consider the cost of adding the extra electronics needed for an EVF.

Are you sure? It seems to me like there are lots of bits that need precise alignment. Moving parts, parts that can get dirty, lots of points of potential failure. Having said that, it sure seems pretty reliable. I've got really old mostly mechanical film cameras that still work. If made today, I can't imagine how much they would cost! I think a lot of the cost is the assembly, and the fewer fiddly parts to work on, the cheaper. The cost of an EVF has to be weighed not just against a few plastic and glass parts, but the labor involved. Plus a good pentaprism has to have some cost. And the PDAF sensor. And associated electronics. Surely?

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.

Personal computers made people more productive, made work easier, and increased profits. There's nothing that is driving the adoption of mirrorless cameras other than personal preference.

Some brands of personal computers died out completely, some of which were quite good.  It is almost as if it's difficult to have 3 or more competitors, whether it's computers or videogames or cameras.  Weird.

Anyway, while I hated to see the other computer brands die off, we get better economies of scale the way things are now.

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.

Did the microwave kill the stove?

The electric stove replaced the wood-burning stove. ??

I've read that people often say things like buggy-whip manufacturers were put out of business due to technology changes, but yet there are buggy-whip manufacturers today. Well, there are still horses today, but it isn't exactly the mode of transportation that it once was. DSLRs may be like that -- only for the high-end, special purpose jobs.

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.

The D3200 and D5200 are probably made of 90% of the same materials and probably 70% of the parts in the other Nikon DSLR bodies are common. Nikon sold what, 7 million DSLRs last year? We know DSLRs outsell mirrorless at, what is it 4 or 5 to one? That's a lot of economy of scale to make up by removing the mirror and throwing a cheap LCD and EVF in a box.

This sounds like an argument for Sony to throw in the towel and not bother trying to compete with Canikon.

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.

Cuts both ways. Sony can't keep its sensor factories open without someone buying them. Nikon with Toshiba probably caused more than a few sleepless nights for Sony executives.

Yes, Nikon should have to keep the pressure on Sony so as not to be taken advantage of.  However, it is interesting that the core of the machine is the sensor, and Nikon often uses Sony.

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

I agree that he is not seeing the entire picture , but DSLRs aren't going to die out.

They don't have to die out completely.  If they're pushed to a tiny niche and the vast majority of cameras look like DSLRs but have EVFs and OSPDAF, then effectively, the mirror is dead.  Not that it should matter if people are able to use the new cameras effectively.

The photography market is simply going to be more diverse, where more of the pie is split more ways. Nikon might fail if it can't deal with it's previous debt in a shrinking market, but it won't disappear. It will restructure, blah, blah, blah...

Thank you
Russell

-- 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 E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jpr2
Forum ProPosts: 13,834Gear list
Like?
re: You are putting words in my mouth…
In reply to DFPanno, 8 months ago

DFPanno wrote:

jpr2 wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

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 rather long in the tooth (35 and 135). Others are very good but not superlative lenses ( the 28IS?).

as some of your (supposedly high-standard assessment) statements look outright strange to me - taking the EF 135/2L as an example (not my shot, just a random sample from the Net):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinematic/10771705516/meta/

there doesn't seem to be any reason at all to rubbish the results from this lens on the 36 Mpx (A7r) sensor.

Actually even on 57 Mpx (eqiv. FF) resolution of N7-classic the 135/2L shines bright - "long in the tooth indeed" ?!!. So much so that it is with some trepidation I await Sony's native E-mount version to much it (when it finally arrives, if at all )

I have most certainly not "rubbished" anything.

As good as the 135 is it could be improved.

The fact that it has not been does not indicate that the ability is not there. It indicates that such improvement is not in Canon's best financial interest.

Their interest is in amortizing the design and production of the existing lens cost's as long as possible.

Good, bad, or indifferent; the fact remains that Canon has such a lens now while Sony may not ever produce such a lens.

Incidently the 135 is one of Canon's best lenses - and a bargain to boot. Not really fair to use it to question my overall contention - that some real portion of these catalogs are outdated.

Am I [putting the words] ?? Sure, any lens can be improved, at a cost. BUT... the fact that any particular lens is "old" doesn't preclude it to be a paragon of excellence.

In the case of all 135/2 ever produced, the EF 135L is one of the very best - recently R. Cicala has run a direct comparison of the 135L and the new Zeiss 135/2. The Zeiss is marginally better, at over 2x the price - does it support your argument then? Or mine? Whichever way to look at it the age of 135L has a very little to do with it, if anything at all !!

Because I'm not sure WHY you're saying things you do??? 

jpr2

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,622Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to GaryW, 8 months ago

GaryW wrote:

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.

I already posted the evidence about the FE55 being fast hybrid, from a Sony site. Do you need me to look that up and post it again?

Steve

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,622Gear list
Like?
Re: Interesting read by Thom Hogan
In reply to Dismayed, 8 months ago

Dismayed wrote:

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

The D3100 is outclassed by even the most basic Sony ILC; the NEX-3N. Available for $299.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
captura
Forum ProPosts: 14,622Gear list
Like?
Re: re: You are putting words in my mouth…
In reply to jpr2, 8 months ago

jpr2 wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

jpr2 wrote:

DFPanno wrote:

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 rather long in the tooth (35 and 135). Others are very good but not superlative lenses ( the 28IS?).

as some of your (supposedly high-standard assessment) statements look outright strange to me - taking the EF 135/2L as an example (not my shot, just a random sample from the Net):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinematic/10771705516/meta/

there doesn't seem to be any reason at all to rubbish the results from this lens on the 36 Mpx (A7r) sensor.

Actually even on 57 Mpx (eqiv. FF) resolution of N7-classic the 135/2L shines bright - "long in the tooth indeed" ?!!. So much so that it is with some trepidation I await Sony's native E-mount version to much it (when it finally arrives, if at all )

I have most certainly not "rubbished" anything.

As good as the 135 is it could be improved.

The fact that it has not been does not indicate that the ability is not there. It indicates that such improvement is not in Canon's best financial interest.

Their interest is in amortizing the design and production of the existing lens cost's as long as possible.

Good, bad, or indifferent; the fact remains that Canon has such a lens now while Sony may not ever produce such a lens.

Incidently the 135 is one of Canon's best lenses - and a bargain to boot. Not really fair to use it to question my overall contention - that some real portion of these catalogs are outdated.

Am I [putting the words] ?? Sure, any lens can be improved, at a cost. BUT... the fact that any particular lens is "old" doesn't preclude it to be a paragon of excellence.

In the case of all 135/2 ever produced, the EF 135L is one of the very best - recently R. Cicala has run a direct comparison of the 135L and the new Zeiss 135/2. The Zeiss is marginally better, at over 2x the price - does it support your argument then? Or mine? Whichever way to look at it the age of 135L has a very little to do with it, if anything at all !!

Because I'm not sure WHY you're saying things you do???

jpr2

Additionally there are two other great affordable lenses from this stable; the EF 100 and the EF85/1.8.

Hogan has ignored a whole other class of shoppers but thy desrve mentioning. Those who will buy an A7 or an A6000 with only one or two of the best native lenses, and that's all. And kep them for years. These are not Pros but hobbyists who appreciate high quality but don't have any need for many lenses.

 captura's gear list:captura's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Samsung NX1000 NEX5R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads