Sony E camera + 2.8 zooms = big blow vs other mirrorless. So why none yet?

[cxsparc]

A lens does not change, a 50 mm f1.4 stays the same independent from the sensor size behind it. However if the sensor area is smaller, the sensor will capture only a smaller part of the image the lens projects.
The aperture and resulting dof does not change. So exposure speed will remain the same as well as the dof. But if you as near to the subject e.g. portraits, that the smaller image doesn't get the subject anymore, you will have to move backwards. This will increase dof. In fact, if you go backwards till you are able to again capture the full same scene as with the larger sensor, the increased dof is related to the ratio of the sensor sizes. For ff versus apsc there is an increase in dof EQUIVALENT to stopping down the lens one full stop.
That is the logic behind.
--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[ttran88]

Still missing an EVF so no thank you Nikon

 

[DUSTY LENS]

Thanks for the point by point, Henry.

For my type of shooting, which is mainly family events photography in various lighting including difficult light, I am missing 2.8 zooms. Don't think this is a specialized lens category as every maker has this including m4/3 and Fuji crop. The Fuji 2.8 zooms are not that heavy or bulky.

If you go through several threads I've started, you'll see my experiences using the A6000 in the above type of shooting, where, though the results were pretty good, having 2.8 zooms would really have been better for me. For these situations, I don't want to be constantly switching between various 1.8 primes --though am sure lots here are happy to do so and get great results.

Good understanding and good logic westlites :

Correct me if I am wrong , But it seems like Zoom lenses are getting close to the IQ of primes , another good reason to use a top quality zoom over switching primes just when you want to be taking the shot , not switching primes . Can't argue against this point .

I feel that Sony may be too cautious or even short-sighted by not being quicker in releasing faster glass especially 2.8 zooms, which I bet would allow it to capture more share from Fuji or the other mirrorless makers including m4/3. That's what I meant re it becoming a mirrorless juggernaut.

Lots have already switched over to mirrorless from DSLRs for the many advantages given. Sony, by offering more lenses like 2.8 zooms and faster glass, will be a very tempting switch for mirrorless users given Sony e price point, feature set, and its great sensor performance.

But going to FF e mount, Sony should also intro 2.8 zooms for this segment if it really wants to go after the pro market. It's gone so far as to launch specialized services for pros similar to Nikon's NPS, so why not offer the 2.8 zooms and faster glass that are a staple in many pro bags?

Otherwise, the FF e's won't be as compelling a replacement option for working pros, but rather, just a secondary system for when they want to go lighter and less bulky.

Re your point about a lesser need for 2.8 zooms and/or glass faster than 1.8, I would agree that, eventually, sensor technology may obviate the need for this from a low-light capture perspective.

Maybe so in some cases , but not always if when you want heavy background blur for effect .

If you have the larger aperture on the camera there is also better focusing ability both manually and in auto focus , especially in marginal lighting conditions .

Large aperture at least to f2.8 is not going to bankrupt lens quality as a trade off , and not going to dictate heavy and large lenses if you stay within mild focal lengths .

But definitely, at least for my own needs, it's not there yet.

Ben

 

[Kiichiro]

osv wrote:

I do have a D700 and much of the Nikkors including the trinity 2.8 zooms.

Instead of getting the D750 I tried out mirrorless and chose the A6000. Am quite happy with it, but do miss 2.8 zooms which are available in the Fuji APC system. The Fuji lenses aren't that big or bulky, esp. when compared to DSLR equivalents.

the fuji lenses aren't that big or bulky because they are only an "equivalent aperture of F5.6" on ff.

keep repeating the mantra...

 

[DUSTY LENS]

A lens does not change, a 50 mm f1.4 stays the same independent from the sensor size behind it. However if the sensor area is smaller, the sensor will capture only a smaller part of the image the lens projects.
The aperture and resulting dof does not change. So exposure speed will remain the same as well as the dof. But if you as near to the subject e.g. portraits, that the smaller image doesn't get the subject anymore, you will have to move backwards. This will increase dof. In fact, if you go backwards till you are able to again capture the full same scene as with the larger sensor, the increased dof is related to the ratio of the sensor sizes. For ff versus apsc there is an increase in dof EQUIVALENT to stopping down the lens one full stop.
That is the logic behind.
--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

Thanks cxsparc .

this makes perfect sense now . It means you will need a lens with a Max aperture a full stop larger if you want the same depth of focus , or background blur .

The lens could be a little more expensive and larger than expected for the small sensor camera .

That is only if you want the image blur you had with the FF sensor .

I never studied this down to the actual aperture difference for the same blur effect , but I knew the basics of blur versus camera distance . I thank you for your very good education here .

Dusty

 

[cxsparc]

A Fuji f2.8 zoom has equivalent dof of f4 when compared to a ff zoom, not f5.6.
--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[cxsparc]

For Sony FE not introducing f2.8 zooms might also be due to internal battle between the divisions A- and FE-mount. Just remember that the RX1 was created by the independent compact camera division and you get an idea what may be going on within Sony.
If Sony would introduce ff 2.8 zooms for mirrorless as well as other lenses, the last point in favor of keeping A-mount alive would be gone.
--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[cxsparc]

Thanks Dusty for the nice feedback
--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[McConnor]

I did not buy a A7II to attach some 70-200 2.8 to it.

I would have bought a Nikon D750 then.

I'd like to see some small Primes.

- Lenses like the 55 1.8 : 35 1.8, 90 1.8 all below 1000 bucks.

later: 28 1.8, 20 2.8, 14 2.8, 135 2.0

- Pancakes: really small, less bright, f/2.8, something like the Canon 40 2.8 StM - it is doable.

Some really high end lenses Like the Canon 85mm 1.2, Nikon AI 55 1.2

but no murder big stuff like prozooms or 200 2.0 lenses.

Prozooms? Not really, Those who want to 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8/4.0. 16-35 2.8 and stuff, please, there's more then enough on Options out there at Canon and Nikon, even 4/3rd startet that 2.8 pro Line.

if sony wont fit a good prime lens line, their A7 System will die.

The market on used good(!) old lenses already asks Prices which are pretty Close to new ones.

I also hope, that sony will build their prime lenses without OSS. These are fat, heavy and expensive.

For now, I will only buy Nikon AF-S G lenses as the 85 1.8 and the 35 1.8, good and affordable, low weight, and, I think Nikon, who did not announce anything useful in the mirrorless market, will be there within the next 2 years and will offer a real burner.

 

[DUSTY LENS]

For Sony FE not introducing f2.8 zooms might also be due to internal battle between the divisions A- and FE-mount. Just remember that the RX1 was created by the independent compact camera division and you get an idea what may be going on within Sony.
If Sony would introduce ff 2.8 zooms for mirrorless as well as other lenses, the last point in favor of keeping A-mount alive would be gone.
--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

I personally can not make that leap in development . I think of both as having their own advantages which could save both of the systems .

Not that the reflex mirror will survive forever but , when you carry long lenses with you you really don't need lenses with the extra length to fill the gap or extension adapters to fit the flange distance .

The owners of the alpha lenses are not going to sell them or move out of the system just to go to E-mount lenses - In my view of the lens world anyway . Maybe if Sony would produce upgraded ( in quality glass , auto focus , size , then in addition buy back the Alpha system lenses or give for value credit for swapping , this could have an effect . but not very soon . Not in my lifetime .

Sony could keep both systems viable by producing same glass in both mounts .

The reason I say this is because making the Camera body with the longer mounting flange distance as in Alpha lens Cameras could have optical advantages with lenses , wide lenses might produce better IQ in the corners of the image as compared with the same Focal length designed for E-Mount Bodies . Retro focus designs might present fewer IQ difficulties when sensor acceptance Angles begin to suffer .

I am not an optical expert , No mistake about that , but lens designs are improving and probably will continue to improve . greater flange distanse might improve the problems of vignetting and poor light saturation off axis .

The experiment of E-mount was originally thought to improve image quality of wide angle lenses as it seemed to in rangefinder - film cameras .

Now I don't know how this is actually effecting image quality in modern Sensor cameras .

Keep your options open till the the facts are known . Let us all learn as we go .

My opinion , Dusty

 

[davelok]

I was dismayed to see the explanation of the effect of a smaller light cone on DPR!

Oh come on, Mr. Richard Butler, just because a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the cone of light does not mean that the light captured is less, from the point of view of the sensor!

It is the same amount of light on a per unit of sensor area basis! It is the same amount of light for the image being captured. The only thing that's smaller is the field of view!

Want to read a more reasonable interpretation? Here's one!

There is of course one way in which a smaller sensor will have lesser light capture - on a per-pixel basis, if the resolution (and technology etc.) is the same as a larger sensor. The larger sensor's larger pixels will get more light, and there may be other physical or electromagnetic disadvantages for the smaller sensor.

If we compare, say a 16MP APS-C with a 24MP FF, [edit: wrong comparison - area varies in ratio of the square of the diagonal crop factor. Substitute with appropriate resolution difference] the per-pixel light advantage would disappear. However, for an apple to apple comparison, we need to have the same resolution, right?

Yes, if we view both the images at the same size. Not if we match the FoV, though there's no reason why you'd want to do that. You'd like to view the smaller sensor's higher resolution at comparable viewing size, wouldn't you?

The remaining big difference is in terms of the DoF, but if you want a deeper DoF, which one would you prefer, ceteris paribus? With the same lens being used on both sensors, the smaller one will have a greater advantage with sharp centres too, yadda yadda.

Well anyway all of this is not that big a deal. We could avoid much of the confusion if we just started to talk about lenses in terms of Field of View rather than focal length. And stopped applying crop factors to apertures.

 

[lhkjacky]

Tamron f/2.8 17-50mm lens is not very big nor heavy nor expensive ($499). It's not the best but competes against Canon's 17-55mm in sharpness and CA at some, not all, focal lengths.

--
un huh

Tamron f/2.8 17-50mm lens is a APSC lens,

The image circle of these lens are not large enough to cover full frame sensor.

The equivalent aperture of these lens are only F4.2~F4.5

..

APSC : F2.8 (equivalent aperture F4.2~F4.5)
Four Thirds: F2.8 (equivalent aperture F5.6)
1": F2.8 (equivalent aperture F7.6)

 

[cxsparc]

Tamron f/2.8 17-50mm lens is not very big nor heavy nor expensive ($499). It's not the best but competes against Canon's 17-55mm in sharpness and CA at some, not all, focal lengths.

 

[aman74]

I do have a D700 and much of the Nikkors including the trinity 2.8 zooms.

Instead of getting the D750 I tried out mirrorless and chose the A6000. Am quite happy with it, but do miss 2.8 zooms which are available in the Fuji APC system. The Fuji lenses aren't that big or bulky, esp. when compared to DSLR equivalents.

the fuji lenses aren't that big or bulky because they are only an "equivalent aperture of F5.6" on ff.

keep repeating the mantra...

 

[cxsparc]

I was dismayed to see the explanation of the effect of a smaller light cone on DPR!

Oh come on, Mr. Richard Butler, just because a smaller sensor captures a smaller portion of the cone of light does not mean that the light captured is less, from the point of view of the sensor!

It is the same amount of light on a per unit of sensor area basis! It is the same amount of light for the image being captured. The only thing that's smaller is the field of view!

Want to read a more reasonable interpretation? Here's one!

There is of course one way in which a smaller sensor will have lesser light capture - on a per-pixel basis, if the resolution (and technology etc.) is the same as a larger sensor. The larger sensor's larger pixels will get more light, and there may be other physical or electromagnetic disadvantages for the smaller sensor.

If we compare, say a 16MP APS-C with a 24MP FF, [edit: wrong comparison - area varies in ratio of the square of the diagonal crop factor. Substitute with appropriate resolution difference] the per-pixel light advantage would disappear. However, for an apple to apple comparison, we need to have the same resolution, right?

Yes, if we view both the images at the same size. Not if we match the FoV, though there's no reason why you'd want to do that. You'd like to view the smaller sensor's higher resolution at comparable viewing size, wouldn't you?

The remaining big difference is in terms of the DoF, but if you want a deeper DoF, which one would you prefer, ceteris paribus? With the same lens being used on both sensors, the smaller one will have a greater advantage with sharp centres too, yadda yadda.

Well anyway all of this is not that big a deal. We could avoid much of the confusion if we just started to talk about lenses in terms of Field of View rather than focal length. And stopped applying crop factors to apertures.

The 36 Mpx A7r has about the same pixel density as a Nex 5N. So if you use the A7r in crop mode, there will be neither a gain in lower DOF nor in less noise. However, using the full sensor, noise is scaled down (less magnified) and the wider image allows getting closer to the subject = lower DOF.

Butlers article is wrong in several points, though.

"Multiply the F-number by the crop factor and you get the equivalent aperture."

Since aperture is based on Sqr(2) increases, using a full stip between FF to APSC, and another on going to M43 is closer.

"The equivalent aperture tells you what aperture on a full frame lens would give the same depth-of-field and the same total light as the one you're assessing"

Same problem. Oversimplified regarding the "total light".

• "F-numbers tell you about light intensity (how much light each square mm of the sensor sees). A larger sensor has more square mm collecting light."

light intensity per area stays the same for different sensors at the same f-number. Therefore the F-numbers are the same, independent from the sensor used. The Larger sensor collects more light in total, which affects SNR. However, different pxel densities and technologies used also have a significant impact here.

• "F-numbers and ISO are sensor-size independent. Knowing the F-number is useful - but you need to remember that ISO100 on a small sensor won't be the same quality as ISO 100 on a larger sensor."

That is actually the worst mistake. At ISO100, you usually are at the point where the different sensors perform very similar. In addition, in bright light (which ISO100 usage implies), a smaller sensor camera can simply extend shutter speed to gather the same amount of light. Furthermore, for the same DOF the larger sensor has to close aperture more, so again performance gets nivelated.

Where larger sensors excel, apart from the potential of lower DOF, is the low light noise improvement. Whcih can be partly compensated if (!) brighter lenses are available for the smaller format.

 

[zuikokiuz]

I did not buy a A7II to attach some 70-200 2.8 to it.

I would have bought a Nikon D750 then.

I'd like to see some small Primes.

- Lenses like the 55 1.8 : 35 1.8, 90 1.8 all below 1000 bucks.

later: 28 1.8, 20 2.8, 14 2.8, 135 2.0

- Pancakes: really small, less bright, f/2.8, something like the Canon 40 2.8 StM - it is doable.

Some really high end lenses Like the Canon 85mm 1.2, Nikon AI 55 1.2

but no murder big stuff like prozooms or 200 2.0 lenses.

Prozooms? Not really, Those who want to 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8/4.0. 16-35 2.8 and stuff, please, there's more then enough on Options out there at Canon and Nikon, even 4/3rd startet that 2.8 pro Line.

if sony wont fit a good prime lens line, their A7 System will die.

The market on used good(!) old lenses already asks Prices which are pretty Close to new ones.

I also hope, that sony will build their prime lenses without OSS. These are fat, heavy and expensive.

For now, I will only buy Nikon AF-S G lenses as the 85 1.8 and the 35 1.8, good and affordable, low weight, and, I think Nikon, who did not announce anything useful in the mirrorless market, will be there within the next 2 years and will offer a real burner.

 

[westlites]

I did not buy a A7II to attach some 70-200 2.8 to it.

I would have bought a Nikon D750 then.

I'd like to see some small Primes.

- Lenses like the 55 1.8 : 35 1.8, 90 1.8 all below 1000 bucks.

later: 28 1.8, 20 2.8, 14 2.8, 135 2.0

- Pancakes: really small, less bright, f/2.8, something like the Canon 40 2.8 StM - it is doable.

Some really high end lenses Like the Canon 85mm 1.2, Nikon AI 55 1.2

but no murder big stuff like prozooms or 200 2.0 lenses.

Prozooms? Not really, Those who want to 24-70 and 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8/4.0. 16-35 2.8 and stuff, please, there's more then enough on Options out there at Canon and Nikon, even 4/3rd startet that 2.8 pro Line.

if sony wont fit a good prime lens line, their A7 System will die.

The market on used good(!) old lenses already asks Prices which are pretty Close to new ones.

I also hope, that sony will build their prime lenses without OSS. These are fat, heavy and expensive.

For now, I will only buy Nikon AF-S G lenses as the 85 1.8 and the 35 1.8, good and affordable, low weight, and, I think Nikon, who did not announce anything useful in the mirrorless market, will be there within the next 2 years and will offer a real burner.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bonnitaet/

I hear you, and I understand your concern about size and weight. Most everyone here got into Sony E because of that.

But just a hypothetical: what if the A7sII or the A7III or even the A7000, get to have AF that can stand toe to toe vs. the low-light and focus tracking capabilities of Canon's and Nikon's professional DSLR? Would you still hesitate to buy a 70-200 2.8 for that new Sony body?

Or, by your reasoning, would you still keep your Sony E camera for lightweight shooting and then use a full-sized traditional DSLR for when you need to take action shots or cover events in uncertain light? If the lenses you needed aren't there anyway, you'd have no choice but to get a Canon or a Nikon.

If and when Sony E AF capabilities are improved to the point that they are equal to full-sized DSLRs, I would rather just use that system for all my needs than maintain another system to use in other areas. I'd buy more robust E bodies with more controls, but still maintain a simpler E body (like a good crop body) when I want to travel light.

And the only way I'd be able to do that would be if Sony E fleshes out its lens lineup with longer lenses and faster glass, including 2.8 zooms.

 

[cxsparc]

When there are people interested and buying a 1670, why shouldn't there be potential buyers for a 1650/2.8 with similar size and weight? Remember, we are talking APSC here.

The one thing I assume stopping SONY from doing so is that using such a lens, you would get similar DOF and noise in the APSC class with a zoom as you would going to FF with 24-70/4.

Fuji doesn't have FF, Samsung doesn't, Olympus doesn't, so they offer 2.8 zooms, without potentially negatively affecting FF sales.

--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[straylightrun]

Why do you think Sony has delayed? Could it have something to do with a debate on whether to put IBIS in all future new E bodies just like the A7II, thus no more need for OSS lenses? Or is it something as banal as a lack of capability. Certainly, the non-intro of new lenses at the CISS shows there's a crimp somewhere in the new lens pipeline.

Don't get me wrong, am fully invested in Sony E and hope it succeeds even more. Just wondering, is all.

It's because Sony knows they are king in the mirrorless domain. I am sure they are very capable of creating compact f/2.8 lenses if they were really pressure too, but they are pumping out f4 zoom lenses first to everybody can buy them up.

Then finally after a few years they will release to f/2.8 lenses so people can buy them. If they released f/2.8 lenses now, then nobody will want to buy the f/4 version.

They are maximising profits.

Also since Canon and Nikon aren't serious about mirrorless and Sony is the only one with FF mirrorless, they will probably sit back and make as much money as they can with this strategy as there is no pressure because there is literally no competition.

At this rate they might even release Mk.II versions of the existing f/4 zooms with some gimmicky new lens coating before they release the f/2.8 versions.

 

[zuikokiuz]

When there are people interested and buying a 1670, why shouldn't there be potential buyers for a 1650/2.8 with similar size and weight? Remember, we are talking APSC here.

The one thing I assume stopping SONY from doing so is that using such a lens, you would get similar DOF and noise in the APSC class with a zoom as you would going to FF with 24-70/4.

Fuji doesn't have FF, Samsung doesn't, Olympus doesn't, so they offer 2.8 zooms, without potentially negatively affecting FF sales.