Df size comparision vs OMD and Sony A7

[Horshack]

Which leads to the question - Why buy it?! Why buy something for 1700 or 2300 bucks that limits you so much, when there's perfectly good DSLRs that will do everything you want to do photographically with vast systems of optics that the A7/A7r will never match? (And no, I'm not counting kludges like adapters that don't transfer 100% functionality of the lenses.)
Only folks with big collections of orphaned lenses (Canon or Minolta manual focus, for example) have any real reason to consider these cameras beyond the "look how thin the body is" novelty, which is sure to wear off when you have to hold on to it with a front-heavy lens mounted to it. Why do you think all the new "native" mount lenses are slow in terms of aperture relative to focal length? Because the camera + lens will look pretty ridiculous as a package when you mount some high speed glass on it, that's why! Only suckers think that FF cameras (with lens, you know, how you actually use them) are going to be "small and light" because they're "mirrorless." The lenses don't shrink appreciably (if at all) for most focal lengths!

Excellent points. The only reasonable response I can give (because I have one on order) is because "it's cool" and "it's new". For Canon users there's a more rational reason - the A7R gives them a high-resolution, high DR body that Canon currently doesn't provide, and with the Metabones adapter they'll get full aperture control, AF (albeit slow), and IS support as well.

 

[Rob Sims]

As much as it pains me to do this, as I've been an avid Nikon shooter for many years, I have to interject as you can't just state inaccuracies as fact. That's unfair to people who use these forums to gather information.

The Sony looks nice, but will it autofocus with my f-mount lenses?

No. It does however autofocus e-mount, a-mount and (slowly) Canon EF lenses:

http://www.metabones.com/sony/buy-eos-nex-adapter

More importantly, it will manually focus pretty much EVERY lens manufactured, including Nikon f-mount and all the RF lenses (some of which are tiny). It's part of the reason I was able to use an NEX aps-c camera as a backup to my D700 as all my Nikon primes worked fine.

The Nikon DF cannot mount anything except f-mounts. So quite a lot less flexible as you're tied to only one mount.

Will the focal length stay the same?

Yes. It's a 35mm full frame camera, just like the Nikon D3/D3s/D4/D700/D610/D800/DF. Why would the focus length change?

Unless you're talking about the OMD, but then you started your previous question with Sony so it would logically follow you are still talking about the Sony.

Will the battery be enough for a whole wedding?

I've always shot weddings using the battery grip on my D700, mainly because I like the added stability when shooting portraits. It's hard to believe that the battery grip for the A7(r) would also not allow a full day's wedding shoot.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008164-REG/sony_vgc1em_vertical_battery_grip_for.html

And even if it did not, it takes about 15 seconds to pop a new one in from your pocket - during which time you can continue using the camera. You'd have to be pretty unprepared photographer if that 15 seconds caused you to miss the critical first kiss photo. It takes far longer to change a lens (when you consider all the caps and what not).

Nope, nope and NOPE!

Well done Niklas.

 

[turbsy]

Pretty impressive considering there's a flipping mirror, pentaprism, and 4X as big sensor packed into it. I'm not sure what lens that is on the OMD but I'm betting it doesn't match the light gathering capability of the f/1.8 lens on the Df either.

hate to break it to you, but the Sony A7 and the A7r are both full frame, the A7 is 24mp full frame and the A7r is 36mp full frame

here is a front view of the DF and the A7r

also consider that the DF body only cost $2,749 and an A7 body only will cost you $1,700

here is a top view the nikon has a 50mm f/1.8 lens and the sony has the zeiss 55mm f/1.8

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
HVL-F20AM Flash

But when you add the price of the Sony lens the cost is much closer.

We should also have to consider the lenses you could choose for E-mount which are errr... not that many to choose from

The sony will be better with all those ai and pre ai Nikkors that the DF can mount

 

[turbsy]

Pretty impressive considering there's a flipping mirror, pentaprism, and 4X as big sensor packed into it. I'm not sure what lens that is on the OMD but I'm betting it doesn't match the light gathering capability of the f/1.8 lens on the Df either.

hate to break it to you, but the Sony A7 and the A7r are both full frame, the A7 is 24mp full frame and the A7r is 36mp full frame

here is a front view of the DF and the A7r

also consider that the DF body only cost $2,749 and an A7 body only will cost you $1,700

here is a top view the nikon has a 50mm f/1.8 lens and the sony has the zeiss 55mm f/1.8

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
HVL-F20AM Flash

But when you add the price of the Sony lens the cost is much closer.

But which one is a better lens?

no one knows yet but looking at the price I would think the Zeiss would be closer to the Nikon 58mm then the 50mm

 

[bpjod]

Ok, so the 6D is impressive as well. Those mirrorless offerings are clearly all hype about their small size.

Yup, clearly all hype about their small size! ;-)

 

[turbsy]

Ok, so the 6D is impressive as well. Those mirrorless offerings are clearly all hype about their small size.

Yup, clearly all hype about their small size! ;-)

What exactly are you showing here? l

 

[coudet]

Dont know since the CZ Sony hasnt been tested yet. But I did take a look at the C Zeiss 50 1.4 in Nikon mount vs the Nikon 1.8G at DxO Marks, both tested on the D4 sensor. C Zeiss scored 22, Nikon 27.

If you mean Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ZF, it's a crappy, old design. Also, it has nothing to do with the new Sony 55/1.8.

 

[coudet]

Yes but I can hand-hold the Pany 25mm on my OM-D at 1/8 for static scenes due to IBIS. The OM-D with the Pany is the best hand-held solution available today for low-light static shooting.

Within a certain shooting parameters that you require, perhaps, and that don't necessarily apply to a lot of people.

Personally, for low light, I wouldn't even consider MFT.

 

[coudet]

Excellent points. The only reasonable response I can give (because I have one on order) is because "it's cool" and "it's new". For Canon users there's a more rational reason - the A7R gives them a high-resolution, high DR body that Canon currently doesn't provide, and with the Metabones adapter they'll get full aperture control, AF (albeit slow), and IS support as well.

Agreed. I'm not sure it would be an interesting combo with a lot of Canons, but perhaps with something like 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses? Should be really neat. And M-lenses, for the first ever, on a camera with a good sensor..

 

[bpjod]

Sorry, should have labelled the camera/lens combos: Nikon Df with Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 vs. Panasonic DMC-GX7 with 100-300 f/4-5.6 vs. Canon EOS 6D with EF 200-400 f/4.

It was a reply to "those mirrorless offerings are clearly all hype about their small size", as there is some reality to the mFT small-size advantage. The Panasonic offers a field of view equivalent to 200-600 which is even longer than either of these full-frame kits (the Sigma's max is 500mm and the Canon is 560 if you flip on the 1.4x TC). Oh, and yeah I get that the mFT sensor is a 1/4 the size. That's what allows the smaller system. Trade-offs. It's just that the comment that the size advantage of mFT was nothing more than hype was not entirely true as can be seen in the camerasize clipping I posted.

 

[ApertureAcolyte]

Pretty impressive. I'll take the full frame with mirror, please.

 

[joejack951]

Sorry, should have labelled the camera/lens combos: Nikon Df with Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 vs. Panasonic DMC-GX7 with 100-300 f/4-5.6 vs. Canon EOS 6D with EF 200-400 f/4.

It was a reply to "those mirrorless offerings are clearly all hype about their small size", as there is some reality to the mFT small-size advantage. The Panasonic offers a field of view equivalent to 200-600 which is even longer than either of these full-frame kits (the Sigma's max is 500mm and the Canon is 560 if you flip on the 1.4x TC). Oh, and yeah I get that the mFT sensor is a 1/4 the size. That's what allows the smaller system. Trade-offs. It's just that the comment that the size advantage of mFT was nothing more than hype was not entirely true as can be seen in the camerasize clipping I posted.

The Panasonic offers about (variable aperture lens but I'm assuming it's f/5.6 at 200mm) a 400mm f/11 equivalent. That's a long ways off 400mm f/4 like you've shown on the Canon.

My point is that the size advantage of m4/3 is all about compromising on aperture sizes and has little to do with the smaller body and/or lack of mirror consideration in the lens design. Longer focal lengths don't make things any better than shorter either though it's a difficult comparison as there's little in the way of (actually more like none) fast aperture telephoto lenses available for m4/3.

 

[turbsy]

Sorry, should have labelled the camera/lens combos: Nikon Df with Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 vs. Panasonic DMC-GX7 with 100-300 f/4-5.6 vs. Canon EOS 6D with EF 200-400 f/4.

It was a reply to "those mirrorless offerings are clearly all hype about their small size", as there is some reality to the mFT small-size advantage. The Panasonic offers a field of view equivalent to 200-600 which is even longer than either of these full-frame kits (the Sigma's max is 500mm and the Canon is 560 if you flip on the 1.4x TC). Oh, and yeah I get that the mFT sensor is a 1/4 the size. That's what allows the smaller system. Trade-offs. It's just that the comment that the size advantage of mFT was nothing more than hype was not entirely true as can be seen in the camerasize clipping I posted.

Your not comparing like lenses. a constant f4 lens vs a variable aperture lens. i don't know about the Panasonic but there is no way the sigma is even close to the Canon in quality.

 

[Dave Bennett]

Pretty impressive. I'll take the full frame with mirror, please.

 

[joejack951]

Pretty impressive. I'll take the full frame with mirror, please.

 

[Brendan Delaney]

Pretty impressive. I'll take the full frame with mirror, please.

 

[lcase]

It's not just the body weight, but the lens weight and size. Case in point is the 14-150 f/4-5.6 superzoom I bought with the EM-1. The full frame equivalent for Nikon would be the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR. It weighs 28.2 ounces (800g). The 14-150 u4/3rds lens from Olympus weighs 9.7 ounces (260g.)

Similarly, the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, which is my go-to lens on the D600, weighs nearly 2 pounds (31.7oz.) The Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 I have on order weights 13.7 ounces.

There have been efforts to shrink full frame lenses, but there's only so much you can do, given the physics of the situation. Fast, full frame zooms are hefty beasts. Lenses designed for APS-C sized sensors are somewhat lighter. The Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 weights 19.8 ounces - less than the 28 ounces of the 28-300mm full frame equivalent, but still double the weight of the nearest Olympus equivalent.

Yes, I'm glossing over issues like differences in depth of field, but shallow DoF is only one aspect of photography.

 

[Chris G Hughes]

3k for a camera with no video...

So what? For people who will never shoot even a single second of video that criticism carries no weight whatsoever. You might as credibly say "3k for a camera with no sepia filter..." Or "3k for a camera and it doesn't even make smoothies..."

Seriously. Video can suck it. I'm a still photographer. If I want to shoot film I'll get a D800 or a 5D.

 

[joeyv]

Yes, I'm glossing over issues like differences in depth of field, but shallow DoF is only one aspect of photography.

Yes, but at the moment, it is not only shallow DOF. Hi-iso IQ, AF tracking capabilities.

Mirrorless will come of age, one day for professional work. Not yet!

 

[thxbb12]

Yes, I'm glossing over issues like differences in depth of field, but shallow DoF is only one aspect of photography.

Yes, but at the moment, it is not only shallow DOF. Hi-iso IQ, AF tracking capabilities.

Mirrorless will come of age, one day for professional work. Not yet!