Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?

Started Oct 11, 2013 | Questions thread
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: Getting NEX FF wouldn't improve my low light performance?

holyfan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

dpyy wrote:

Am I missing something, looking at all the lens available for NEX FF it wouldn't even improve my low light performance from my NEX6/7? It's a FF but most of the lens available are F/4?

Yes you are missing the fundamentals. The equivalent lenses have the same aperture diameter. Let me put that in perspective:

FF lens -> APS-C equivalent

Zeiss FE 24-70mm f/4.0 OSS -> 16-47mm f/2.7
Sony G 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 -> 18-47mm f/2.3-3.7
Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 -> 23mm f/1.9
Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 -> 37mm f/1.2
Zeiss FE 70-200mm f/4.0 OSS -> 47-133mm f/2.7

Now tell me where do you get those equivalent lenses for NEX cameras? Only those, who used focal reducers can somewhat enjoy faster lenses.

The original poster actually has a great point. The sony A37 is pretty small (maybe slightly larger than the oly em-5)

It's neither small, nor light:

and it can easily mount apsc 16-50 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 28-75 f2.8 lenses with ibis.

The 16-50/2.8 isn't a small and light, because it has strong retrofocus design due to large flange distance. FF lenses will be smaller, lighter, and ultimately cheaper due to lower manufacturing cost.

Therefore the a small Sony A37 can Achieve the same dof and lowlight performance as the FF nex (when using zooms).

Not really, the sensor on A37 is rather old and unremarkable compared to new ones, and don't forget the loss of 1/3-1/2 stop due to the semitransparent mirror.

if you don't need ibis, simply use a nex7 with a-mount adapter and u can use f2.8 zoom lenses as well.

You mean LA-E2? - a huge, heavy, ugly, expensive adapter?

So in my opinion there is absolutely no reason to buy a ff lens that is slower than f2.8 unless you are trying to save some money and size.

With FF you are getting smaller, lighter system, which can also use all the legacy glass. And don't forget a significantly better resolution of the FF glass.

But if you are trying to save money and size you can get pretty much the same lowlight and dof performance with much cheaper apsc cameras.

No you don't, I think it's clear now.

People buy FF cameras to get better dof control and lowlight over apsc offerings.

They will get a choice whether go light or get a fast heavy lenses. There is no magic that can circumvent laws of physics. In order to collect the same amount of light you must have the same effective aperture, no matter what the sensor size. But with FF large apertures are possible, a 50mm f/1.4 FF lens isn't anything difficult, an equivalent 35mm f/0.9 APS-C is difficult and expensive, and an equivalent 25mm f/0.7 m43 is probably impossible.

Apart from the above, none of APS-C, much less m43 lenses can achieve the resolution of the FF lenses.

Releasing slow zooms and primes to keep size down defeats the purpose of moving to FF.

You might as well spend on m43 with fast glass for small size and price.

Where have you seen an equivalent 12-35mm f/2 m43 lens? Not only that, where have you seen an equivalent 12-35mm f/2 lens with 70-100 l/mm resolution? Not only that, where have you seen an equivalent 12-35mm f/2 lens with 70-100 l/mm resolution that would sell for $1000?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow