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

Saw a thread here a few days back re mirrorless camera sales last year, showing drops in growth for Fuji and m/43 makers like Olympus, and an increase in Sony E sales.

If you look at the DPR news section and see the OMD-5II hands on review, Oly junketed eight reviewers to Bermuda just to put their new camera through its paces. They seem quite anxious to reverse the negative 2014 sales results with their current champion body.

Lots of reviewers always point out how much they love the Sony E cameras, but add that these are only let down by the lens lineup.

Given this, am just wondering when Sony will intro their standard and tele 2.8 zooms similar to what Fuji and others now offer. I think when they do this, Sony E especially at its present price points becomes a mirrorless juggernaut.

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.

Well, if an FE 24-70 f2.8 weighs 2.1 lbs, they will get some buys but it will not be widely adopted as a "go-to" medium zoom. IMHO big lens....use a bigger body (buy a Nikon or Canon).

Richard

I doubt F/2.8 zooms would have an effect. Everyone else already has them. More about bragging rights. Have you seen the prices for the Zeiss lenses? Did you know the Sony A-mount non-stabilized F/2.8 70-200mm retails for $2999? While we talk about expensive lenses, their sales are not very high.

Here is the link to the story from SAR

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/japa...mirrorless-ranking-looses-on-the-dslr-market/

Sony 34.3, Olympus 22.3, Panasonic 11.9 (BCN only gave the top 3)

Petapixel had a more detailed graph for 2014. Both offer stats for all kinds of spin.

• Sony had over 40% of the market in parts of 2014.
• Sony dropped to under 30% of the market in 2014.
• Sony overall had 34.3% of the market in 2014.
• The sales trend for Sony was down in 2014.
• We don't know actual sales so these numbers do not mean much.
• This is only for Japan and not the world so meaningless.

Take you pick on the spin you prefer.



--
Don't worry - be happy!

westlites said:

Saw a thread here a few days back re mirrorless camera sales last year, showing drops in growth for Fuji and m/43 makers like Olympus, and an increase in Sony E sales.

Click to expand...

Did you correlate it to new product introductions as well as global economic trends?

Also, consider volume units and market revenue differently. Sony has become a price leader of sorts, on camera bodies, with since its introduction of the A7 and A6000. Consider each such sale having robbed at least several hundred dollars from a competing brand. Therefore did Sony grow the market, or did they shrink the market doing so?

Either way, it is a plus for Sony.

westlites said:

If you look at the DPR news section and see the OMD-5II hands on review, Oly junketed eight reviewers to Bermuda just to put their new camera through its paces. They seem quite anxious to reverse the negative 2014 sales results with their current champion body.

Click to expand...

Well, it is part of a planned campaign, other brands do the same too.

westlites said:

Lots of reviewers always point out how much they love the Sony E cameras, but add that these are only let down by the lens lineup.

Click to expand...

To be invited again, each reviewer has to state positive things about the next newest brand's camera/lenses. This often implies pointing out a negative of another brand.

Reviewers are not scientists, think about that....

westlites said:

Given this, am just wondering when Sony will intro their standard and tele 2.8 zooms similar to what Fuji and others now offer. I think when they do this, Sony E especially at its present price points becomes a mirrorless juggernaut.

Click to expand...

Why would you think so?

In fact, the few that insist on a f/2.8 zoom, with the extra bulk and high prices, can do so with other brands. If anything is attractive about the Sony E/FE cameras, it is that they are more compact.

If this translates to Constant Aperture f/4.0 zoom lenses, so be it. These are already big enough.

Consider carrying a prime lens instead? Plenty of choices now.

westlites said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nope, simply marketing 1:1.

The era of f/2.8 zoom lenses (FF DSLR) is gone. Today's newer generation of sensors can surpass the old f/2.8 adagio by almost a full stop - hence f/4.0 can be the new norm.

Except for bokeh, unless long (70mm+ on FF) lens. Just carry a prime lens in the bag.

westlites said:

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

Click to expand...

Well, you don't show any gear. Questions for you:

1. How many of the fast E-prime lenses do you have?
2. After you used a fast prime in low light, would you still consider using the zoom lens?
3. Are you using the f/4 zoom lenses (E1018, E1670Z, E18105G)?
4. Would you be willing to spend an extra $1k and carry an extra 500g, just for the f/2.8 aperture?

• (I wouldn't - I'd rather carry a prime lens).

From my personal experience, f/2.8 is not where it is at, I'd stick to f/1.8 for low light.

westlites said:

Given this, am just wondering when Sony will intro their standard and tele 2.8 zooms similar to what Fuji and others now offer.

Click to expand...

Similar to "X" offers doesn't necessarily mean the same f-number - f/2,8 on M4/3 equals f/5,6 on full frame, f/2,8 on APS-C (like Fuji) equals f/4,2 on full frame. Thus f/4 on full frame is "faster" than f/2,8 on the two smaller formats.

More on the subject of format comparisons here .

my only complain, the 35mm equvalent (24z) is priced out of reach for many.

westlites said:

Lots of reviewers always point out how much they love the Sony E cameras, but add that these are only let down by the lens lineup.

Click to expand...

Sony understand that but it need time to develop high quality lens.
If they rush out some large & heavy low quality lens, it will just cause negative effect.

westlites said:

Given this, am just wondering when Sony will intro their standard and tele 2.8 zooms similar to what Fuji and others now offer. I think when they do this, Sony E especially at its present price points becomes a mirrorless juggernaut.

Click to expand...

Full Frame standard and tele 2.8 zooms will be big & heavy.

You won't want to attach a 1~1.5kg lens on a small e-mount body.

Does Fuji & others offer Full Frame F2.8 Zoom lens on mirrorless camera?

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

westlites said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sony is slowly eliminating a-mount.
and Sony want current a-mount users, jump ship to e-mount,
therefore they have to put IBIS in E-mount camera, because no Sony a-mount lens have OSS..

If they had the holy trinity in 2.8, i'd buy it right away. I feel Sony is leaving a lot of cash to the competitors by not releasing those lens for us.

Believe it or not, some of us will buy 2.8 to go along with our tiny mirrorless.

Hehehe. notorious is right.

Thanks for setting me straight.

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.

westlites said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

--
dan

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.

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.

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

Ben

Cool. But I do have an A6000. So it would be like for like vs. Fuji.

I chose A6000 over the XE2 because I wanted better AF and better RAWs. If Sony introduces 2.8 zooms and faster glass, I think Fuji would really be hard pressed.

Agree. But perhaps they can begin by offering faster glass for E crop bodies like the A6000, similar to Fuji's offers.

Exactly my point, Wang. What's more, having a more complete lens light up especially faster glass would be very compelling to those already in the mirrorless world, to go into Sony E.

Those who really want light and small would buy Sony crop bodies like the A6000 and others., with the equivalent e crop lenses.

westlites said:

Exactly my point, Wang. What's more, having a more complete lens light up especially faster glass would be very compelling to those already in the mirrorless world, to go into Sony E.

Those who really want light and small would buy Sony crop bodies like the A6000 and others., with the equivalent e crop lenses.

Click to expand...

yes, a6000 is a good compliment to a dslr system.

Just a few ideas:

1. Taken from my experience with the Canon EOS system, for example the 16-35 f2.8 is about the same size and weight of the 16-35 f4. Same for the 24-70 zooms. Big difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 zooms.

2. One can argue that with todays ISO performance, the need for 16-35 and 24-70 f2.8 zooms is less. It still makes a difference for 70-200 zooms.

3. You simply can not convince a pro photog to buy a A7 series camera, even if f2.8 zooms were available, when the battery lasts for about 300 shots... such small aspects are very important, as is system reliability (pro repair support for example) and perception about lens lines. Buying into A7 series FF is not cheap by any means; if one is a street shooter or reportage shooter, existing lenses are fine. If one is a wedding shooter for example, well, it can be done, but be ready to carry a lot of spare batteries... can you imagine losing a critical moment just because the battery crapped out after 250 or 300 shots?

4. As someone else said, Sony DSLR f2.8 zooms are really expensive. Of course they are really good, top of the class, but again, if one imagines that FE f2.8 zooms would be priced similarly... well, this sort of price is the domain of pros (or well heeled amateurs), and how many of them could be convinced to drop their Nikons and Canons and move the Sony A7? How many of them have abandoned Nikon and Canon to move to Sony DSLRs in the past? Right...

Happy Jones said:

I doubt F/2.8 zooms would have an effect. Everyone else already has them. More about bragging rights. Have you seen the prices for the Zeiss lenses? Did you know the Sony A-mount non-stabilized F/2.8 70-200mm retails for $2999? While we talk about expensive lenses, their sales are not very high.

Here is the link to the story from SAR

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/japa...mirrorless-ranking-looses-on-the-dslr-market/

Sony 34.3, Olympus 22.3, Panasonic 11.9 (BCN only gave the top 3)

Petapixel had a more detailed graph for 2014. Both offer stats for all kinds of spin.

• Sony had over 40% of the market in parts of 2014.

Click to expand...

Sony had in some month (after r3eleasing a new camera) a higher market share. You see the same effect with other cameras.

Happy Jones said:

• Sony dropped to under 30% of the market in 2014.

Click to expand...

But when you look at the totals the story is different

Happy Jones said:

• Sony overall had 34.3% of the market in 2014.

Click to expand...

Yes that number is what you must look at!

Happy Jones said:

• The sales trend for Sony was down in 2014.

Click to expand...

No it is not, it is up for sony! (I explain later)

Happy Jones said:

• We don't know actual sales so these numbers do not mean much.

Click to expand...

This only shows how well Sony does compared to others, indeed.

Happy Jones said:

• This is only for Japan and not the world so meaningless.

Click to expand...

Not totaly meaningless, but yes brands as Samsung are not in this graph

Happy Jones said:

Take you pick on the spin you prefer.

--
Don't worry - be happy!

Click to expand...

Why is Sony trend in 2014 not loosing but winning? That has all to do with what you look at.

You look at january as reference month, but is that a realistic month? In that month the new A7 and A7r came to market and people started buying that camera, the A5000 was announced too. You see more sales when this kind of things do happen for all brands.

The only reference that is honnest is the previous year:





You can see that Sony went up from 26.5 to 34.3% Olympus on the other hand whent down from 28.9 to 22.3%, Panasonic goes down from 14.2 to 11.9% How is that possible? Your graph is indecating the opposit!

As you say, we do not know the numbers of sold cameras in every period. When the number of sold cameras in the month Sony was at its peak where at its peak too, Sony sold way more cameras in the total year then the graph may indicate....

Then there is a reason for the peaks in the graph you show, it can be the release of a new camera, it can be a sale for a camera etc. Whaat your graph clearly shows is that Sony was selling more cameras over the total year then any of the other brands...

biza43 said:

Just a few ideas:

1. Taken from my experience with the Canon EOS system, for example the 16-35 f2.8 is about the same size and weight of the 16-35 f4. Same for the 24-70 zooms. Big difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 zooms.

2. One can argue that with todays ISO performance, the need for 16-35 and 24-70 f2.8 zooms is less. It still makes a difference for 70-200 zooms.

Click to expand...

It makes a difference with every lens. You can go on shooting in lower light, so mor opportunaties.

biza43 said:

3. You simply can not convince a pro photog to buy a A7 series camera, even if f2.8 zooms were available, when the battery lasts for about 300 shots...

Click to expand...

Well it all depends on the professional. A professional landscape photographer, will see this completely different, he will love the fact that his camera bag can be a lot less heavy and big.... He takes a few pictures every moment, so it is of no problem at all.

biza43 said:

such small aspects are very important, as is system reliability (pro repair support for example)

Click to expand...

This is very true, that is why Sony is introducing pro support aren't they?

biza43 said:

and perception about lens lines. Buying into A7 series FF is not cheap by any means; if one is a street shooter or reportage shooter, existing lenses are fine. If one is a wedding shooter for example, well, it can be done, but be ready to carry a lot of spare batteries... can you imagine losing a critical moment just because the battery crapped out after 250 or 300 shots?

Click to expand...

Well to be honnest: NO! a real professional will plan his shoot, have enough batteries and knows his camera and plans whenhe change his batteries, hil will not wait until the battery isempty, but change more often. And about that, in the past a camera crapped out every 36 shots, and professionals never complained.

biza43 said:

4. As someone else said, Sony DSLR f2.8 zooms are really expensive.

Click to expand...

Not Only Sony's lenses are, look at the APS lenses from Fuji. All constant f/2.8 lenses are over $1000, same goes for Samsung. So don't expect Sony FF constant F/2.8 zooms to be cheaper then that.

biza43 said:

Of course they are really good, top of the class, but again, if one imagines that FE f2.8 zooms would be priced similarly... well, this sort of price is the domain of pros (or well heeled amateurs), and how many of them could be convinced to drop their Nikons and Canons and move the Sony A7? How many of them have abandoned Nikon and Canon to move to Sony DSLRs in the past? Right...

Click to expand...

That is a very good point you make, but there is a change in the way people are looking at cameras. In the past Sony cameras did not offer anything over the Canon or Nikon cameras. At best they were the same. Now it is different, Sony cameras and lenses are very good, in many ways better then Canon and Nikon. So what do you see? People (not directly pros) are moving slowly to mirrorless, as it has the same or better IQ and is smaller, less heavy and cheaper. New photographers are looking at Sony and can start with those cameras. Sony do offer professional service for them now....

But in the end, will a f/2.8 zoom be a best selller? I don't think so, most people will not pay ofer $1000 for just one lens, they go for primes when they need low light lenses (they can buy all three f/2.8 Sigma primes and have money left for a short vacation to actualy use the lenses....

biza43 said:

--
www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

Click to expand...

If you make a direct comparison between the A6000+ the 16-70 f4.0 OSS and the Fuji Xt1 Or XE2 + 16-55 F2.8, you will notice a big diferrence with regard to size (volume) and weight. The Fuji equipment looks like a heavy monster and seems to be unbalance.

This would be nice to have f2.8 zoom lenses but looking at Fuji and Samsung examples, it is not worth, because of the weight and volume, IMHO.