cinemascope: The small throat of the FE mount also forces the lenses to be big, so it's not like it would make any difference if these were "native" designs.Sony itself also stated they are not "interested" in doing fast FE lenses, maybe because they would be silly monstrosities? Of course they won't admit FE is a technical nightmare, so let's just say they are "not interested"...This FE mount is a bad joke really and I hope this silly FF fad dies with it too...
And as for your comment about Sony not bringing out fast lenses, "fast" is very relative. Many would consider *sharp* f/1.8 apertures at 55mm on FF plenty fast, others might not. In the interview at Imaging Resource (13 days ago), they specifically stated that there will be a longer f/2.8 zoomlens (or lenses, that part isn't clear from the shaky English).
As the example I posted above shows, even combining bodies and lenses, for example the A7R plus 55mm, it's still shorter than a Nikon FF plus any 50mm. Not to mention width, height and more importantly, volume as a whole which is much smaller and weight being much less too. Yet the output rivals a D800E plus any 50mm out there. And let's not even mention the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, as it's nowhere near the quality in optical or build terms. What's the point of downsizing a high resolution FF system when you're going to throw tiny lenses with dodgy optical and build qualities into the mix? That would be a fad and hard to sell at that.
Both primes get raving reviews from reputable sources, the relatively cheap kitzoom is considered good for the price (<$300) and offers a nice walkaround range. The rest hasn't been subjected to much tests yet.
It's not a system for everyone. Not for speed demons, not for those who need 20 different native lenses. But there's clearly a quality market left.
And as a post scriptum, size in general has a lot to do with the compromises made regarding the optical qualities. Just look at recent releases such as the 58mm Nikon or 55mm Otus, which are both much larger than other 50's of comparable brightness.
And judging from the SLRGear review of the Sony Zeiss 55mm FE, they didn't skimp much here.
First, the Zeiss is 55mm, not 50 and while it's 17mm longer than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8, accounting for the difference in flange distance between the E and F mount, which is 28.5mm, the light path from sensor to tip of the lens is still over 11mm shorter with the Sony Zeiss. Its diameter is also quite a bit smaller, all in all not a large lens by any stretch. And as the example above shows, the shorter flange distance adds choice (of lens design and lenses used), it doesn't make the overall package larger. Au contraire.http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/carl_zeiss_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_f1_8_za/carl_zeiss_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_f1_8_za_13.jpg
ThePhilips: > Samyang T-S 24mm f/3.5 ED AS UMC
As far as I have understood, m43 users already given up on getting a WA TS lens... And Sony system has just got one.
It's a FF lens and there are FF E mount cameras.
The throat of the Leica M mount is smaller. How large are those lenses again?
jase: It seems such a shame that Sony didn't put a full size mount on this camera.
To add some perspective, the Leica M mount diameter is smaller (44 vs 46.1 mm).
Give me the definition of a "full size mount".Because I'm not following you here.
Alastair Norcross: Given that the Canon lens can be bought for less than the Sigma, because of the widespread availability of the Canon as a kit lens sold with several DSLRs, there would seem to be no reason for Canon users to consider the Sigma. It looks like a fine lens, but certainly not better than the Canon in any way that will show up in real world shooting.
And add that 0.5 EV benefit in transmission to my low light comment.
Sharpness between f/4 and f/5.6 at the long end (70-105mm) seems noticeably better, especially outside the center. Which means that for low light shooters on a "budget", it's worth a consideration.
Waimak Stud: I have never been more excited about a camera than this one, but picked one up the other day, had a bit of a play with it, and was quite disappointed. Felt a lot more plasticky than i expected, has great ability to use old Nikon lenses but no focussing screen, and the adjustments were really fiddly, with having to push a little button every time. Think I might defect to the Sony A7 after all.
I compared TIF's from RAW, as you can see in the screenshot.
A lot of people forget that many converters are calibrated at base ISO and not every individual ISO, which can mean (and often does mean) color shifts at high ISO. After correction, it's as posted above, hard to debate visual and measured results. Then again, you have a history of making wild claims with just your word as back up.
A hair less than one stop in shadows if you're using a converter with correct (or manually corrected for) blue/yellow plus magenta/green balance at high ISO. Which is exactly in line with what DXO measured in shadows.
DF@ 100% crop vs A7:http://oi43.tinypic.com/madj46.jpg
A stop in shadows, half a stop in midtones and highlights.
Donnie G: No surprises here. Canon is wisely selling the camera in Japan and Asia only, since those are the only places where mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have had any kind of sales success. Unlike the competition, Canon doesn't have to bet the company's future on a camera form factor that has only proven to be commercially successful when they were sold by the millions as small, pocketable and cheap fixed lens P&S. Smartphones own that ground now, and so far, the idea of adding a larger sensor and interchangeable lenses to that point and shoot form factor hasn't paid off for any camera company. If the EOS M cameras ever turn a significant profit for the company, then there will be incentive for further development of that system. Until then, it just makes sense to stick with what works for the overwhelming majority of camera buyers on the planet, and that's Canon's highly profitable line of DSLRs. Business 101. :)
If it's designed to be as small as possible, why is it still the mirrorless system camera with the largest kitzoom? Samsung, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic etc., they all offer considerable smaller collapsable kitzooms too.
marike6: So this is where mirrorless fans come with their unrealistic views of the camera market to laugh at the EOS M.
In the meantime, Canon will continue to dominate the camera industry and they will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. :-)
"How about you worry about yourself and your images and less about what I'm up to""I don't have any advice for anyone."
A reaction does not nullify the already clear contradiction above.Your faith in a large company is touching, the future will prove that trust to be warranted or not.
In the meantime, I won't let posts regarding *gear* get under my skin. ;)
For someone with so much advice for others not to judge your ways, you (Marike) sure judge a lot yourself.
As for sales, the success of McDonalds isn't going to stop people from criticizing their food either.
Jogger: If i were in the market for a manual focus FF camera, i would get the Sony A7r and adapt be able to adapt every FF lens ever made.
Although, the DF makes sense if you are MFing Nikon lenses without aperture rings... but, then again those are modern lenses designed for AF with poor MFing mechanisms.
The camera meters off the main sensor at the aperture and shutterspeed that you choose. There is no need for a lightmeter, welcome to 2013 (or actually, way back when the first mirrorless cameras that work like this with legacy glass, were introduced).
thx1138: Completely outclassed by the other sensors for resolution and only leads on per pixel noise, but of course with a lot less pixels that's nothing special. Upsample it to 24MP or downsample the others to 16MP and it loses out again.
Can't see why this didn't get the D610 sensor and then it make more sense and make it more future proof.
Whether downsampling works isn't even up for debate, it's a proven fact. In science and practise. And it's not just downsampling, it's resampling to any given size, no matter which size as long as it's equal.But it's pointless debating that with those blinded by their own theories and magic eyesight.
Lanczos algorithm is best or this btw (best balance between detail retention, averaging of noise and avoidance of moiré).
At ISO 12800, the DF has about half a stop benefit in the deepest shadows, but mostly regarding chroma noise (easy to take care of) and a bit less colour shifts towards blue. Not to mention the fact that EXIF info suggests that the DF also received a third of a stop more light (overstating ISO compared to the D610). Good RAW processing helps taking care of the differences and with the resolution benefit of the D610, the noise differences shouldn't be too hard to nullify.
Volkan Ersoy: On RAW, there isn't much difference compared to D800/D610. On JPEG, Sonys shine.
Strange artifacts (on RAW), though. Check the gravure-like print on the middle-left. A7R, A7, D800 but D610 have moire-like effects on the top of the print. The wall behind the people is rendered much better with D610, while A7R and D800 are better in other details...
It can in large part be corrected in the Adobe converter, similar to the corrections done in camera to the OOC jpegs which suffer noticeable less from the purple/blue shadows. See Camera Calibration box with Shadows Tint slider.
D1N0: No real drawback from more mp in high iso. I guess that with current technology a 48mp sensor would also be usable.
Not to mention the time it takes to transfer them and do backups with floppy discs.
Fast forward back to 2013....