Sony lens rant, and comparison to Samsung

cplunk said:

Sony seems to currently believe that the market for the E mount system is for people who wish to have a smaller, lighter camera. And they aren't trying to build large heavy lenses for them.

With them developing the FF E mount, I find it interesting they still cling to this strategy. But they do.

If you want a Sony F2.8 lens, they have many, and they are very good, but they are all (I believe) A mount lenses. They are larger and heavier than any of the E mount counterparts. But if you insist, they have an adapter available.

Samsung offers these larger, heavier faster lenses on the NX-1 mount for their mirrorless because, I imagine, it's the only mount they make and they feel the need to have that lens to have there products considered in the market space that demands that being offered (whereas Sony can state that's why the A mount is available). And there doesn't seem to be much third party interest in making lenses for the Samsung either. (there are few third party E mount lenses, but Samyang, Sigma and Tamron have all produced at least one)

I have a Sony NEX, and I find myself most often using the 20mm f2.8 lens on it. I would rarely use such a wide field of view / focal length on another camera, but that's the smallest lens available for it, so that's what I use with it. With my DSLR I usually find myself using 35-70mm focal length, 50mm prime is very useful for me, and I shoot a lot of photos with aperture larger than F4, probably over 60%.

Click to expand...

Roses said:

cplunk said:

Sony seems to currently believe that the market for the E mount system is for people who wish to have a smaller, lighter camera. And they aren't trying to build large heavy lenses for them.

With them developing the FF E mount, I find it interesting they still cling to this strategy. But they do.

If you want a Sony F2.8 lens, they have many, and they are very good, but they are all (I believe) A mount lenses. They are larger and heavier than any of the E mount counterparts. But if you insist, they have an adapter available.

Samsung offers these larger, heavier faster lenses on the NX-1 mount for their mirrorless because, I imagine, it's the only mount they make and they feel the need to have that lens to have there products considered in the market space that demands that being offered (whereas Sony can state that's why the A mount is available). And there doesn't seem to be much third party interest in making lenses for the Samsung either. (there are few third party E mount lenses, but Samyang, Sigma and Tamron have all produced at least one)

I have a Sony NEX, and I find myself most often using the 20mm f2.8 lens on it. I would rarely use such a wide field of view / focal length on another camera, but that's the smallest lens available for it, so that's what I use with it. With my DSLR I usually find myself using 35-70mm focal length, 50mm prime is very useful for me, and I shoot a lot of photos with aperture larger than F4, probably over 60%.

Click to expand...

Yes it is true. Sony has the 16-50/2.8 which is in the A mount, and the A mount also has 70-200/2.8. These are very big and heavy (and weather-sealed) lenses which would make smaller E mount bodies feel very heavy.

I owned a NEX5R and would never put anything bigger or heavier than the 50mm/1.8 on it. I'm now looking into RX100III because the size advantage is so great.

Another thing to consider is that the Sony A77II+16-50/2.8 is much cheaper than the Samsung NX1+16-50/2-2.8, on the order of $1000-$1200.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-A77II-Digital-Camera-16-50mm/dp/B00K0BYLNQ/

A77II $1,598.00 through Amazon Prime

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Wireless-Compact-16-50mm-2-0-2-8/dp/B00NFDZS10/

NX1 $2,799.99 through Amazon Prime

Apparently this is not the case in Europe, where the Samsung is selling for around the same in euro? If the price difference in dollar wasn't so big, I would definitely have looked at the Samsung more. But for $1200 difference full-frame is more appealing, and Samsung does not yet make FF.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

BarnET said:

ultimitsu said:

MFT is no go for me. Double the F stops for FF equivalency. 40 F/4 for $800 is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Click to expand...

It's a 20mm f1.7 which makes it a 40mm f3.4. Besides for 800 bucks can buy 2 of them with filters and a optional hood.

Click to expand...

True. But I consider a lowly 24-85VR to be a five m43 primes in one.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

Then a fullframe body doesn't come cheap.

Click to expand...

lightly used D600

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

and 6D are very cheap these days.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Lum...UTF8&qid=1422316920&sr=8-6&keywords=20mm+f1.7

The rest are not much faster, AND MFT lly goes up to 16 MP.

Click to expand...

The 16mp Nikon d4s shoots amazing photo's.

Stop posting these complete nonsense posts. None of your points make any sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I agree with that.

Click to expand...

Happy Jones said:

Roses said:

cplunk said:

Sony seems to currently believe that the market for the E mount system is for people who wish to have a smaller, lighter camera. And they aren't trying to build large heavy lenses for them.

With them developing the FF E mount, I find it interesting they still cling to this strategy. But they do.

If you want a Sony F2.8 lens, they have many, and they are very good, but they are all (I believe) A mount lenses. They are larger and heavier than any of the E mount counterparts. But if you insist, they have an adapter available.

Samsung offers these larger, heavier faster lenses on the NX-1 mount for their mirrorless because, I imagine, it's the only mount they make and they feel the need to have that lens to have there products considered in the market space that demands that being offered (whereas Sony can state that's why the A mount is available). And there doesn't seem to be much third party interest in making lenses for the Samsung either. (there are few third party E mount lenses, but Samyang, Sigma and Tamron have all produced at least one)

I have a Sony NEX, and I find myself most often using the 20mm f2.8 lens on it. I would rarely use such a wide field of view / focal length on another camera, but that's the smallest lens available for it, so that's what I use with it. With my DSLR I usually find myself using 35-70mm focal length, 50mm prime is very useful for me, and I shoot a lot of photos with aperture larger than F4, probably over 60%.

Click to expand...

Yes it is true. Sony has the 16-50/2.8 which is in the A mount, and the A mount also has 70-200/2.8. These are very big and heavy (and weather-sealed) lenses which would make smaller E mount bodies feel very heavy.

I owned a NEX5R and would never put anything bigger or heavier than the 50mm/1.8 on it. I'm now looking into RX100III because the size advantage is so great.

Another thing to consider is that the Sony A77II+16-50/2.8 is much cheaper than the Samsung NX1+16-50/2-2.8, on the order of $1000-$1200.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-A77II-Digital-Camera-16-50mm/dp/B00K0BYLNQ/

A77II $1,598.00 through Amazon Prime

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Wireless-Compact-16-50mm-2-0-2-8/dp/B00NFDZS10/

NX1 $2,799.99 through Amazon Prime

Apparently this is not the case in Europe, where the Samsung is selling for around the same in euro? If the price difference in dollar wasn't so big, I would definitely have looked at the Samsung more. But for $1200 difference full-frame is more appealing, and Samsung does not yet make FF.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dennis said:

MFiftysomething said:

M43 which needs faster lenses to compete only has 2.8 zooms but they need F2.0 now.

Click to expand...

Trying to match larger formats is pointless. You say they need f/2 to compete. Compete with what ? f/2 is equivalent to f/4 on FF and FF has f/2.8 zooms. So is that to compete with APS-C ? If they need to do that, then doesn't APS-C need f/2 zooms to compete with FF ? Sony isn't even doing f/2.8 zooms for e-mount.

Click to expand...

Dennis said:

Downsizing is a compromise. You get something smaller and you give up your big max apertures. It's not for everybody, but it's sufficient for many.

Click to expand...

Dennis said:

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

NowHearThis said:

ultimitsu said:

BarnET said:

NowHearThis said:

MFT is no go for me. Double the F stops for FF equivalency. 40 F/4 for $800 is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Click to expand...

It's a 20mm f1.7 which makes it a 40mm f3.4. Besides for 800 bucks can buy 2 of them with filters and a optional hood.

Click to expand...

True. But I consider a lowly 24-85VR to be a five m43 primes in one.

Click to expand...

Except the m43 primes are good optically.

Click to expand...

NowHearThis said:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1526/cat/13

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/768-nikkorafs2485vrff?start=1

On FF, the 24-85 has heavy distortion, strong vignetting, poor edge/border performance, high levels of CAs. Not a good lens for comparison. (It's a great lens on APS-C, but suffers on FF) It's also about 4x times heaver most of m43 primes - so when you want to go light, you really can't. A D750+24-85 will weigh over 1200g that's about twice as heavy as most m43+3 primes (12/2, 25/1.8, 45/1.8). I'm not saying which is better, better is 100% subjective and completely personal to each individual, but people choose m43/Nikon1, even APS-C because they can go light in some situations.

Click to expand...

NowHearThis said:

NowHearThis said:

NowHearThis said:

Then a fullframe body doesn't come cheap.

Click to expand...

lightly used D600

Click to expand...

Not with the Oil Spots issue.

Click to expand...

NowHearThis said:

NowHearThis said:

and 6D are very cheap these days.

Click to expand...

Don't/won't buy used, you never know what you're going to get. Personal preference, YMMV.

Click to expand...

Lab D said:

quezra said:

Lab D said:

ultimitsu said:

BarnET said:

Lab D said:

MFT is no go for me. Double the F stops for FF equivalency. 40 F/4 for $800 is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Click to expand...

It's a 20mm f1.7 which makes it a 40mm f3.4. Besides for 800 bucks can buy 2 of them with filters and a optional hood.

Click to expand...

True. But I consider a lowly 24-85VR to be a five m43 primes in one.

Click to expand...

I have that lens and the D600. You are 100% wrong.

Click to expand...

Can you post some comparison test shots?

Click to expand...

The GM1 and many of those lenses are smaller than the 24-85mm lens by itself.

Click to expand...

Lab D said:

Any newbie will also tell you F/3.4 is less than F/3.5 (and the zoom is about F/4 @ 40mm).

Click to expand...

007peter said:

sportyaccordy said:

Yea I am probably going to leave the E mount for this reason. I shot with the 24/1.8 recently and enjoyed it, but even at $800 used it's hard to swallow.

For me the 35mm FOV is pretty much perfection, and sadly pretty much EVERYBODY is weak with regards to an APS-C equivalent. Closest is the EOS-M 22/2, which is saddled by a system Canon seems reluctant to support and eager to sabotage (as well as a comparatively weak sensor).

Click to expand...

@sportyaccordy. It is time to give Samsung a try. I just came back from Asia and have a change to test drive the Samsung NX1 with 16-50mm f/2~f/2.8 lens. The AF speed is nearly instant, the EVF is flawless (as good as OVF), and the Build of both the body and lens is beyond believe.

I had Canon 17-55 f/2.8 USM IS, while the optic is flawless, the Build is plasticky. Canon 17-55 is build Exactly like a $400 Canon 17-85mm IS USM, very disappointing since I paid nearly $1200 4 years ago.

There is nothing in Canon lineup that can match Samsung NX1. From its body size to 4K Video, this camera is a beast.

I had never consider buying Samsung before, but NX1 + 16-50 f/2~f/2.8 is changing my mind.

Another benefit is that Samsung has so many prime. I believe there is a 30mm f/2 + 20mm f2.8 + 16mm f/2.8, 45mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 lens at reasonable price.

I love my Canon EOS-M with 22mm f/2 combo. But going forward, I can see myself moving toward the Samsung collection. Check it out.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

. Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

Click to expand...

GoneMirrorless said:

ultimitsu said:

. Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

Click to expand...

I tried this. Took my kid to the zoo and quickly learned the lens is too short. Next day my kid kept asking what animal that tiny dot was in the picture. During my answer I was cursing those who said this camera was all I needed. btw, GM1 and GM5 bodies are smaller. Keep the itty bitty 35-100 (70-200) lens in you pocket for when you need it. Also, keep the F/1.7 lens for low light.

4K video was nice though.

Click to expand...

MinAZ said:

GoneMirrorless said:

ultimitsu said:

. Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

Click to expand...

I tried this. Took my kid to the zoo and quickly learned the lens is too short. Next day my kid kept asking what animal that tiny dot was in the picture. During my answer I was cursing those who said this camera was all I needed. btw, GM1 and GM5 bodies are smaller. Keep the itty bitty 35-100 (70-200) lens in you pocket for when you need it. Also, keep the F/1.7 lens for low light.

4K video was nice though.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO at this. Yes the LX100 has a focal length problem, it is not that sort of a camera, which is why I went with the FZ1000. Now had the LX100 greater reach, it would be a truly formidable camera.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

MinAZ said:

GoneMirrorless said:

ultimitsu said:

. Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

Click to expand...

I tried this. Took my kid to the zoo and quickly learned the lens is too short. Next day my kid kept asking what animal that tiny dot was in the picture. During my answer I was cursing those who said this camera was all I needed. btw, GM1 and GM5 bodies are smaller. Keep the itty bitty 35-100 (70-200) lens in you pocket for when you need it. Also, keep the F/1.7 lens for low light.

4K video was nice though.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO at this. Yes the LX100 has a focal length problem, it is not that sort of a camera, which is why I went with the FZ1000. Now had the LX100 greater reach, it would be a truly formidable camera.

Click to expand...

You do realize you != everybody, and everybody doesn't need 1000x zoom. Most folks get by with NO zoom.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

MinAZ said:

GoneMirrorless said:

ultimitsu said:

. Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

Click to expand...

I tried this. Took my kid to the zoo and quickly learned the lens is too short. Next day my kid kept asking what animal that tiny dot was in the picture. During my answer I was cursing those who said this camera was all I needed. btw, GM1 and GM5 bodies are smaller. Keep the itty bitty 35-100 (70-200) lens in you pocket for when you need it. Also, keep the F/1.7 lens for low light.

4K video was nice though.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO at this. Yes the LX100 has a focal length problem, it is not that sort of a camera, which is why I went with the FZ1000. Now had the LX100 greater reach, it would be a truly formidable camera.

Click to expand...

You do realize you != everybody, and everybody doesn't need 1000x zoom. Most folks get by with NO zoom.

Click to expand...

MinAZ said:

I find the BH Photo Video site really useful to researching lens availability for systems. I recently did a comparison of Sony to Samsung. In particular, I was interested in high-end zoom lenses available for Sony E-mount and Samsung NX mount. I use a Sony A6000, but have been thinking of fooling around with the NX system. I do have major GAS, and yes I do think sometimes that getting new camera gear is almost (if not more) fun than taking photos. That being said, I do not like camera gear unless they can also take great photos (fortunately, most cameras these days are more than capable)!

I do not agree with the philosophy that lenses are more important than the camera (sensor) - rather I believe that the camera and lenses are equally important in forming the picture. The notion of lenses being more important than the body probably carried over from film, because in the old days, whatever camera you used, you recorded to film (e.g. 35mm). The camera did exposure metering, focusing, etc... but ultimately the quality depended on the lens and the film you used. Hence, the idea that you wanted great lens and high quality film but not necessarily the best camera. In digital, the sensor is your film, so saying that the camera is less important than the lens is like saying film quality is less important than lens quality.

Back to the point though, I wanted to know which system had a better lens selection.

By limiting to only zoom lenses, f/2.8 or faster, e-mount (full frame and APS-C) vs NX-mount, the results were eye-opening. Sony has a grand total of zero lenses in this category (if you exclude the 70-200mm f/4 which was somehow misclassified as being f/2.8 or faster on the site), whereas the Samsung has 2, and one of them is a 16-50mm f/2-2.8, something not even Canon has in its system. What's more the prices of the Samsung lenses are a bargain compared to Sony's - the two fast zooms go for $1600 and $1100; Sony's f/4 zoom goes for $1500. If you are into primes, the two systems are closer in comparison, although Samsung does have an 85mm f/1.4 for around $700 which is an absolute bargain.

Most reviewers pan Samsung as not being quite ready for prime-time, which heaping lavish praise on Sony's offerings, particularly the A6000 and A7 series. But I wonder if this difference in critical opinion is warranted. Frankly, unless I am missing something, I'd rather have an NX300 with a 16-50mm f/2-2.8 and a 50-150mm f/2.8 vs a Sony A6000 with a 70-200mm f/4 and a 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6, even with the superiority of the A6000 vs NX300 factored in.

Click to expand...

jonrobertp said:

sportyaccordy said:

MinAZ said:

GoneMirrorless said:

ultimitsu said:

. Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

Click to expand...

I tried this. Took my kid to the zoo and quickly learned the lens is too short. Next day my kid kept asking what animal that tiny dot was in the picture. During my answer I was cursing those who said this camera was all I needed. btw, GM1 and GM5 bodies are smaller. Keep the itty bitty 35-100 (70-200) lens in you pocket for when you need it. Also, keep the F/1.7 lens for low light.

4K video was nice though.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO at this. Yes the LX100 has a focal length problem, it is not that sort of a camera, which is why I went with the FZ1000. Now had the LX100 greater reach, it would be a truly formidable camera.

Click to expand...

You do realize you != everybody, and everybody doesn't need 1000x zoom. Most folks get by with NO zoom.

Click to expand...

Not true. Even cell phones have zoom.

Click to expand...

EthanP99 said:

Yes you're missing something, with the Samsung system, youre stuck to paying for APSC sensors and APSC lenses.

Even with Canon, theres a 17-55 2.8 and its $897

When you go with the Sony 16-200mm range, you have all f4 lenses to go with your full frame camera. DOF wise, thats 2.8 on a crop sensor.

What people dont realize is, f4 is used in 99% of situations (at least for me). Check your files and see what things you shoot in 2.8.

Click to expand...

EthanP99 said:

90% of my shots are 5.6

even though I have 2.8 and faster lenses, super shallow DOF is not needed, and when in the dark, you either use a tripod for landscape, or a flash for parties.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

NowHearThis said:

ultimitsu said:

BarnET said:

ultimitsu said:

MFT is no go for me. Double the F stops for FF equivalency. 40 F/4 for $800 is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Click to expand...

It's a 20mm f1.7 which makes it a 40mm f3.4. Besides for 800 bucks can buy 2 of them with filters and a optional hood.

Click to expand...

True. But I consider a lowly 24-85VR to be a five m43 primes in one.

Click to expand...

Except the m43 primes are good optically.

Click to expand...

Not all of them.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1526/cat/13

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/768-nikkorafs2485vrff?start=1

On FF, the 24-85 has heavy distortion, strong vignetting, poor edge/border performance, high levels of CAs. Not a good lens for comparison. (It's a great lens on APS-C, but suffers on FF) It's also about 4x times heaver most of m43 primes - so when you want to go light, you really can't. A D750+24-85 will weigh over 1200g that's about twice as heavy as most m43+3 primes (12/2, 25/1.8, 45/1.8). I'm not saying which is better, better is 100% subjective and completely personal to each individual, but people choose m43/Nikon1, even APS-C because they can go light in some situations.

Click to expand...

The premises this particular discussion is never about weight, it was always about dollar for F stop for given FL.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

But if weight was your concern, I would say there is very little point in getting m43 and these "fast primes". Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

As the way things are right now. I dont understand why anyone who isnt already tied into m43 would want m43, you want light, go RX100III or the Canon or the LX100, M43 offers very little more performance advantage, negative weight and cost advantage over 1inch compact or LX100. If You want real performance at the least go APS-C system.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

Then a fullframe body doesn't come cheap.

Click to expand...

lightly used D600

Click to expand...

Not with the Oil Spots issue.

Click to expand...

All D600 are covered by a special warranty that never expires. So if you got an oily D600, as long as you get the receipt, you will get a free shutter replacement.

Click to expand...

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

ultimitsu said:

and 6D are very cheap these days.

Click to expand...

Don't/won't buy used, you never know what you're going to get. Personal preference, YMMV.

Click to expand...

Then that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

007peter said:

sportyaccordy said:

Yea I am probably going to leave the E mount for this reason. I shot with the 24/1.8 recently and enjoyed it, but even at $800 used it's hard to swallow.

For me the 35mm FOV is pretty much perfection, and sadly pretty much EVERYBODY is weak with regards to an APS-C equivalent. Closest is the EOS-M 22/2, which is saddled by a system Canon seems reluctant to support and eager to sabotage (as well as a comparatively weak sensor).

Click to expand...

@sportyaccordy. It is time to give Samsung a try. I just came back from Asia and have a change to test drive the Samsung NX1 with 16-50mm f/2~f/2.8 lens. The AF speed is nearly instant, the EVF is flawless (as good as OVF), and the Build of both the body and lens is beyond believe.

...

I had never consider buying Samsung before, but NX1 + 16-50 f/2~f/2.8 is changing my mind.

Click to expand...

$2800 for an APS-C body is on the far side of ludicrous for me.

Click to expand...

GoneMirrorless said:

ultimitsu said:

. Buy a LX100 and be done with it.

Click to expand...

I tried this. Took my kid to the zoo and quickly learned the lens is too short. Next day my kid kept asking what animal that tiny dot was in the picture. During my answer I was cursing those who said this camera was all I needed. btw, GM1 and GM5 bodies are smaller. Keep the itty bitty 35-100 (70-200) lens in you pocket for when you need it. Also, keep the F/1.7 lens for low light.

4K video was nice though.

Click to expand...