Is it ? An illusion ?
I switched from a Canon 5d mk II with L lenses to a Sony A7R with better IQ. Let's see :
- A7R + 35mm f/2,8 : 550g
- 5d mk II + 40mm pancake = 940g
- Sony A7R + 16-35 = 950g
- 5dmk II + 16-35 = 1 425g
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
G Master - Too Expensive? Too Big?
- Thread starter Dig97
- Start date
I switched from a Canon 5d mk II with L lenses to a Sony A7R with better IQ. Let's see :
Fair enough but what should be improved on the Sony lens then that the Canon is still superior for (at least for you ?) ?
Because or ... "thanks to".
Yes, that is exactly the idea. And it delivers.
No.
No
You still need a body with it. So even if the lens is the same size (and in general, they are smaller for the same quality), you gain the body weight and smaller thickness so it does not negate at all the gain in the first place.
You are kidding right ? I guess that by almost, you will say that if you can be as much as half the weight and 30%-40% smaller, this is just "almost the same size" ?
MoreGooderPhotos
Leading Member
I agree with you. Really, I do. That's why I came away thoroughly disappointed. Perhaps that particular lens had been dropped or something. This makes me wonder if I should give another 24-70 a try.
Dan Vincent
Leading Member
A slight followup to this:
Lens diagrams for the new lenses are now out, and both the 85mm and the 24-70 take advantage of area that would be lost in a mirror box on an SLR.
24-70GM
Those rear elements are in an area where, if you put it side-by-side with the other mounts (which are shorter lenses), there would be mirror box in an SLR system.
85mm GM
Same goes for the 85mm.
While the 70-200 GM doesn't go all the way to the rear (for teleconverter reasons), if you compared this to the A-mount construction there's obviously dead space there to account for registration, but unlike the A-mount design that space is being used for teleconverters. Doing TCs on a long registration distance is easier than on a short one, so it's no surprise that compared to a mirror box system the E-mount TCs stick the optical elements out further.
70-200mm GM
--
www.dvincentphotography.com
Lens diagrams for the new lenses are now out, and both the 85mm and the 24-70 take advantage of area that would be lost in a mirror box on an SLR.
24-70GM
Those rear elements are in an area where, if you put it side-by-side with the other mounts (which are shorter lenses), there would be mirror box in an SLR system.
85mm GM
Same goes for the 85mm.
While the 70-200 GM doesn't go all the way to the rear (for teleconverter reasons), if you compared this to the A-mount construction there's obviously dead space there to account for registration, but unlike the A-mount design that space is being used for teleconverters. Doing TCs on a long registration distance is easier than on a short one, so it's no surprise that compared to a mirror box system the E-mount TCs stick the optical elements out further.
70-200mm GM
--
dvincent
Boston Area Photographer Specializing in Aviation and Business Jets
www.dvincentphotography.com
silentstorm
Senior Member
Have you factor in the quality of both F4 lenses? Vignette? Corner softness? Distortion? What about the build quality of the body? Is the 5dmk3 more robustly built besides the mirror box weight & battery?
The 6d body weighs 770g vs A7r 407g, so by shaving off the entire mirror box unit, cut down on metal parts, shrink down the battery size, I am seeing a good 300g reduction.
Anyway back to lenses discussion, canon F4 is 615g & Sony's 518g. As I remembered, many people were saying in this forum that the canon has less distortion, same for the 24-70 F4. Some even prefer using MB4 adapter with it instead of the original native FE lens, just for the better optical quality.
When I look at Oly 14-42mm vs the 12-40 F2.8, I don't expect the new GM lenses to be anything small & light.
Edit: And don't forget to remove that viewfinder prism in the 6d & replace it with a OLED tiny display. That should also shave off another 100g or so.
Last edited:
With these lenses, the space that would have been used for the Mirror box is added back into the lens design. That's pretty lame.
If it exceeds the quality delivered by the Canon/Sony-Zeiss 2470 F2.8 II lenses, it will be worth it. If not, it will be a big disappointment.
1. Faster apeture. So that I dont have to buy upcoming Canon 16 35 2.8 lll
2. Better resolution and color rendering.
3. Controlled Size. (Of course Length/Width over Weight) and Filter Size. ;-)
I wish Sony is reading this too.
Jose Viegas
Senior Member
And half the price BTW.1. Faster apeture. So that I dont have to buy upcoming Canon 16 35 2.8 lll
2. Better resolution and color rendering.
3. Controlled Size. (Of course Length/Width over Weight) and Filter Size. ;-)
I wish Sony is reading this too.
And half the price BTW.1. Faster apeture. So that I dont have to buy upcoming Canon 16 35 2.8 lll
2. Better resolution and color rendering.
3. Controlled Size. (Of course Length/Width over Weight) and Filter Size. ;-)
I wish Sony is reading this too.
If by controlled sized, you mean 82mm filter size, and 25mm longer than current FF 16-35mm lenses... I think you will be in luck.1. Faster apeture. So that I dont have to buy upcoming Canon 16 35 2.8 lll
2. Better resolution and color rendering.
3. Controlled Size. (Of course Length/Width over Weight) and Filter Size. ;-)
I wish Sony is reading this too.
You are not implying that the Canon 40mm pancake is better than the Zeiss 35mm ???
Or that the Canon 16-35mm is any better than the Sony, do you ?
Good I guess, in both cases. Cannot really tell as I do not fancy dropping my bodies on the ground to test.
I have shot more than 30 000 pictures with my A7R, since 18 months, from when skying at -15°C to summer holidays with +40°C. I did not have any particular problem.
the same is true from my previous 5d mk II by the way.
Bingo ! Now you have understood yourself why a mirrorless can be significantly lighter and smaller than a DSLR.
For the record, are you comparing the 6D 21Mp 1 single cross-point AF to any A7 body ???
20% difference. Quite significant yes.
Distortion ? What is that ?
On a more serious note, don't know what it is. When I open the RAW files in Capture One Pro, the distortion is automatically corrected, like the vignetting. This is something that I am not seeing.
You may be interested to the ethical philosophical issue of correcting it after the fact. But only the result count.
What is funny is that people claimed that Sony could only still reach higher corner sharpness and having no noise impact with correcting in post because of the higher resolution of the sensor and the better sensor dynamic.
But what is funny is that even with a brand new 50Mp sensor, even the 5DS R with those lenses do not beat the Sony even on the corners !
Also, on a side note, do not believe everything you are told :
- the Sony has 0,8% distortion uncorrected (something which is moot anyway) at 16mm and the Canon ... 0,8%. Yes. The same.
- the Sony has -1,4 EV vignetting and the Canon ... -3 EV !!!
Personal preference does not make it any more true. Unfortunately for you, I had many L lenses and have therefore a first hand experience between Canon and Sony. And it matches exactly DXO findings.
Those bloody physic laws...
??? Sure, the iPhone has a smaller camera but so what ?
- Panasonic 12-40mm f/2,8 : 84 x 70 and 386g
- Sony FE 24-70 f/4 (the comparable lens) : 94 x 73 and 426g
Are you speaking of the hypothetical Mx FF from Canon that I have waited for years ?
The one that makes me ditch all my Canon gears because I was fed up to wait ?
Is it good ? Do you have review of it ? Where could I purchase it ?
Almost :
Why is it lame ?
If you want to travel light and small, you can still use the F/4 lenses or prime that make significantly lighter and smaller combo than the DSLR offering.
And if you want the best quality, you can have as well in a package with still does not exceed the DSLR, is lighter, and offer much more potential from the body itself.
With your line of though, you must feel a big disappointment with Canon DSLR due to the number of case where is it significantly heavier and bigger.
Why ?
Why ?
I am asking the question because if you need a 16-35mm f/2,8 or a A7 TSE, or any specialized lens, you can still use them on Canon bodies.
Me think you are not interested one bit with what Sony is offering. You are in the corner and makes some strange argument.3. Controlled Size. (Of course Length/Width over Weight) and Filter Size. ;-)
I wish Sony is reading this too.
Mirrorless has shown time and time again a huge benefit in term of size and weight at equivalent quality. Sony lenses have pretty much all been very positively reviewed at the level or above Canon / Nikon offering.
Why do you have problem with that ? Shares from Canon ?
Arizona Sunset
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,797
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,667
You know you're doing something right when the Canikon users come out complaining and comparing in droves.
Last edited:
You've got that right.
silentstorm
Senior Member
To some people, software correction is not accepted. They rather use the canon lenses.
Ok, so you didn't take the build quality into account.
The 6d is a better candidate for your A7r comparison, that's why I used it instead, for the less robust build & thus, lighter.
You totally lost me here with your comparison. Thanks for your input.20% difference. Quite significant yes.
Distortion ? What is that ?
On a more serious note, don't know what it is. When I open the RAW files in Capture One Pro, the distortion is automatically corrected, like the vignetting. This is something that I am not seeing.
You may be interested to the ethical philosophical issue of correcting it after the fact. But only the result count.
What is funny is that people claimed that Sony could only still reach higher corner sharpness and having no noise impact with correcting in post because of the higher resolution of the sensor and the better sensor dynamic.
But what is funny is that even with a brand new 50Mp sensor, even the 5DS R with those lenses do not beat the Sony even on the corners !
Also, on a side note, do not believe everything you are told :
- the Sony has 0,8% distortion uncorrected (something which is moot anyway) at 16mm and the Canon ... 0,8%. Yes. The same.
- the Sony has -1,4 EV vignetting and the Canon ... -3 EV !!!
Personal preference does not make it any more true. Unfortunately for you, I had many L lenses and have therefore a first hand experience between Canon and Sony. And it matches exactly DXO findings.
Those bloody physic laws...
??? Sure, the iPhone has a smaller camera but so what ?
yes, the Panasonic is 9% lighter and 17% smaller. Not stabilized and obviously not giving the same image quality. Small gain for what you loss I would say.
- Panasonic 12-40mm f/2,8 : 84 x 70 and 386g
- Sony FE 24-70 f/4 (the comparable lens) : 94 x 73 and 426g
The Oly 14-42 mk2 lens is 112g. The Oly 12-40 F2.8 is 382g.
Sony 24-70F4 426g vs the new GM 24-70F2.8 886g.
Bingo! Now you have understood why better quality lens needs to be bigger & heavier.
Sorry I didn't make it clear that I am still comparing A7r vs 6d. Replace the prism glass & put a OLED into the A7r, that is another weight saving area for cameras, how the A7r can be made 407g.
iphone???... Thanks for confirming that big sensors need big lenses.
Last edited:
The only answer that I will give is - No I do not have Canon Shares and neither from any other Manufacturers.Why ?
Why ?
I am asking the question because if you need a 16-35mm f/2,8 or a A7 TSE, or any specialized lens, you can still use them on Canon bodies.
Me think you are not interested one bit with what Sony is offering. You are in the corner and makes some strange argument.3. Controlled Size. (Of course Length/Width over Weight) and Filter Size. ;-)
I wish Sony is reading this too.
Mirrorless has shown time and time again a huge benefit in term of size and weight at equivalent quality. Sony lenses have pretty much all been very positively reviewed at the level or above Canon / Nikon offering.
Why do you have problem with that ? Shares from Canon ?
For the sake of stopping this discussion, From one Sony user to another, I would like to apologize if my opinions hurt your sentiments.
Have a good one !
silentstorm
Senior Member
Just making sense of what jlabelle posted. He/she is pulling different things to compare to make his/her point legit. Many others & I can't see how that is so.
You can also plug in Nikon into this equation. Compare their 24-120mm FF lens vs 16-70mm DX lens vs the 1" sensor line of lenses.
My point being big sensors need big lenses, can't get away from it.
Better quality lenses also need to be bigger & heavier, as already posted by blueskies above using the Otus vs Batis eg.
Have a good day.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum