marco1974: OK, so now we finally will have a 35/1.4... but it'll be the same size as the 24-240 superzoom! So much for the mirrorless advantage in terms of size and weight.But oh, wait: we also have the more compact 35/2.8, don't we? But then the DOF and the total light-gathering ability is the same as that of a 23/2 on APS-c (which could obviously be much more compact to begin with). So much for the FF advantage in terms of DOF and ISO.Mmmh, it seems that in spite of marketing claims, one just can't beat the laws of physics. Bummer.
"We already know small, lightweight f/1.8 or f/2 designs are possible - just take a look at the Canon 35/2 or 85/1.8, or Sony's own 35/2 in the RX1."
And here we have a 28mm f2 to add to the 35mm and 55mm in the 'small primes' range. 28mm can also be adapted to become a 21mm f2, which while biggish, in a bag is relatively small if you're already carrying the 28mm.
Zeisschen: It seems some people expect Sony to catch up to DSLR mounts from 1987 (Canon EF) and 1959 (Nikon F) in less than one year in lens selection, otherwise just whining and complaining... Looking at their own shelves those people probably look at 2-4 lenses they actually bought from which they use 1 lens 90% of the time on their bodies. Still enough to complain about this rediculous Sony who doesn't fit their needs because they only have around 50-70 lenses available per mount.
Some of the best photographers used just one length all their life, and that how they became good.
Today it seems noone can take pictures anymore without F0.95-F1.4 primes and F 2.8 zooms. Those must be really be bad times today for photography...
"Fuji make it, for a couple of years they catch almost the same line as the Canon or Nikon. Without meaningless or recurrent lenses."
Well they are still catching up with the less than a year old Sony FE system for some core lenses, only just announcing a 70-200mm equivalent and still waiting on a 24-70mm equivalent and no true macro even on their roadmap.
So I guess many think that DoF and low light are the only performance benchmarks? What about resolution, dynamic range and colour?
Yes the f1.4 looks big, I wonder how big a 23mm f0.95 for APS-C would be? There goes the size advantage of APS-C... wonder how big the 17.5mm f0.7 would be... there goes the size advantage of m43's...
DouglasGottlieb: I guess they think that a more Fuji X100 style model would cut into M or T sales.
This camera should have an integrated EVF.
Or be much smaller, like the Ricoh GR.
Ok. You win. You win a million happys in your limp trousers. Well done. Don't provide any evidence to what you say, just keep saying it and everyone will believe you, because you are THE authority on all things. Tool.
Chillbert: As a NEX user, am I just paranoid or is Sony basically giving up on developing any more small lightweight E-mount lenses for APS-C size cameras? They seem to be so far behind Fujifilm in terms of lens range and performance, and their roadmap is all bigger FE lenses.
So if I take an a6000 say and put a 'FF' 50mm on there and a 'crop' 50mm on there I am going to get a different picture? Again READ.
Do you really think I am so slow that I don't understand crop factors? There is NO CROP FACTOR if we are talking about using two lenses of the same focal length on the same camera / format. Get it?
A 50mm 'crop' lens will take the same picture as a 50mm medium format lens when used on the same camera will it not?
Yep, just more hearsay from you, because you "know" and I am supposed to just believe you... If you think the 16-50mm can better the GR lens at the same FL you are delusional. Good day.
"As you can see, equivalent lenses for APS-C are significantly smaller and lighter, than their FF counterparts."
As you seem to not be able to read, I said "FF lenses are Longer FL for the same effective FOV which makes them bigger, but FL for FL there isn't a significant difference because FL and aperture determine the physical size of a lens, not crop factor."
Focal length for focal length. A 50mm FF lens is about the same size as a crop only 50mm. The argument here is NOT about 'equivalent lenses', it is deciding whether it is worthwhile or not using FF lenses on a crop body vs crop specific lenses. I CLEARLY stated that FF lenses are bigger for the same FOV.... Maybe read first before letting the rage set in?
Harry S: As far as boundary pushing goes Sony is pretty much ahead of everyone else at the moment, they have to be given credit for that. RX1, a7 etc, the 'big two' are nowhere near that innovative.
The big problem...communication and loyalty. If they could just take 20% of what Fuji do for their users in terms of firmware updates, ongoing improvements, support for old models, clear roadmaps full of stuff people want etc etc etc, they would grow their user base much quicker in my opinion.
Let's see, Sony added XAVC-S to the RX10 (most recent update they released). They added PDAF support for all lenses and future lenses on the NEX-6/5R/5T, all of which were discontinued and were all models that supported PDAF. AF was significantly improved on the A7 and to some extent the A7R. These are firmware updates in the last few months.
As for adding EFCS to the A7R, the 36MP sensor in the A7R (and D800/E) don't support EFCS, this is why it doesn't have it. Sony cameras all include EFCS where it is supported, unlike Olympus who didn't include it and then added it later (though in a still rather clunky implementation).
cgarrard: Fujifilm on a roll.... a refreshing interview compared to some of the other company interviews especially ;).
Fujifilm should have stayed on a roll of velvia *boom-tish*
Morpho Hunter: At last ... Sony releases a macro lens ... better late than never, I suppose...
I was joking and pointing out how silly it is to complain that a new system goes without a macro for a whole year. Fuji don't have one and not even on their roadmap, m43's took a long time to get one. A macro is an important lens in a system lineup, Sony have responded well to that providing one in the ~first year from introduction, so I wouldn't say 'finally' I would say 'great Sony gets it'.
28mm f2 looks to be smaller and lighter than the Zeiss 24mm for crop. It will also be cheaper. Longer lenses have no advantage being crop. Look at the Samsung 85mm f1.4, it is a crop lens and is bigger and heavier than the A-Mount Zeiss 85mm full frame lens. It is a total MYTH that FF lenses are bigger, FF lenses are Longer FL for the same effective FOV which makes them bigger, but FL for FL there isn't a significant difference because FL and aperture determine the physical size of a lens, not crop factor.
Tapper123: Are any of these lenses weather resistant?
Also, are the A7 camera bodies weather resistant? I have read they are, but some say they are not. Not sure what to believe.
Every lens thus far, including the 'kit' lens is dust and moisture resistant. The system is and it includes every lens they have designed it that way from the beginning.
E.J.: Put a Sony 24mp APS-C Bayer sensor in that X-T1 Platinum and I'm all in on the system, hook line and sinker, lenses and all. For me and what I do, there is zero advantage to the X-trans and in some ways it is a disadvantage. The X-T1, to me, is the most photographer friendly digital camera ever built from a controls standpoint.
@ JAP - Did you read the interview? Citing the D800 doesn't make it false, they said there were 3 categories of sensor they produce, while the 36MP may or may not have been exclusive (there is no evidence to suggest it was) to Nikon, there are other sensors that fit into the category of "just for Sony and may be made available to other manufacturers at some later point", examples of this include the 20MP 1" sensor (RX100) and 12MP 135 sensor (A7S).
APS-C the 'C' stands for 'classic' not 'Canon'.
As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).
@ JAP - Not really. Equivalent FF lenses are about the same price / size / weight.
"Aside from the A7R and some Canon sensors, most full frame sensors don't have as much an advantage over APS-C."
Yep, A7R/D800/D810 are examples of using the same / similar fab to produce a FF sensor as a crop sensor (36MP FF vs 16MP APS-C).
"Nope. Sensors are made on silicon wafers, and larger format sensors are prone to higher defect rates because of their size. That doesn't get better with time or manufacturing process."
Wrong. Yields get better all the time with fabrication processes. This is why LCDs, sensors etc get cheaper and cheaper and as such larger formats (more prone to defects) come down to 'acceptable' prices to become market standard. How many 32" LCD TVs do you think get sold vs 50"+?
"Um, what? Cropping down in a D610 from full frame to DX is a difference of 14MP."
Doesn't matter whether you lose 100MP, physical cropping vs 'in-camera' cropping is the same for the same fab. There is no advantage to physical cropping, other than cost, if and when the cost no longer becomes a sginificant factor then there is no advantage.
"SNR is improving faster on smaller sensors."
mjoshi: It says E-Mount so will this work with Sony A6000 or this is only meant for Sony A7 series ?