Anyone Fear Future of E-Mount? (Mount Diameter)

Truth is the Sony mount size and short flange distance is a perfect size. It lends itself to smaller body size and 'one mount strategy' while not limiting lens performance in the process. The real losers in Mirrorless are Canon and Nikon. They waited and waited and waited to step into FF mirrorless and let Sony develop a foothold and now the big 2 are the big 3 with Sony perhaps the on top of the hill. Canon will be alright, but Nikon can't lose market share. They are a camera company. So until then all these soft tissue attacks like ergonomics and mount size etc will continue.. it's all they have.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95630920@N02/

SilvanBromide said:

dyfanboidy said:

jonpais said:

There is no proof the Z or RF mounts allow making lenses with sharper corners.... which is probably why neither Canon, nor Nikon, nor Sigma, nor Panasonic have made such an unfounded claim.

Click to expand...

So now you're arguing against geometry?

Wow...

Click to expand...

Wow indeed. You appear to be assuming that there is only one possible solution to a given challenge, and that if that one solution is not available all is hopelessly lost.

Click to expand...

No, I'm simply laughing at people who can't comprehend basic geometry and say things like "only optical engineers (of which you Silvan are not one - far from it) may comment"

What he really means is "only people who agree with my ignorance may comment" - so pathetic.

You remind me of the education-free people always trying to claim that wireless internet will be faster than wired so cables are obsolete. Ask them what they know about EMR, and all they return is blank stares and confusion. Your predictions are based on your wants, not on reality.

thaddak said:

Trader_Liu said:

I am invested in e-mount like many of you here. However, I can't help but notice what the competitors have been doing, especially the amazing glass that Canon has/will put out such as the 50 1.2 and 28-70 f2. Canon and Nikon have expressed the ability to produce faster, "better" lenses with bigger diameter mounts than Sony's. I do not know the physics or the engineering behind how different size mounts can affect lens design. However, if the bigger mounts can mean better glass then I am concerned with the future of Sony's ability to produce faster glass. At the moment, Sony is still the leader with the lenses available, the bodies, and the software. However, it may be just a matter of time for Canon and Nikon to produce the hardware and software to compete. Are any of you E-mount users also concerned or am I off base?

Click to expand...

I'm worried I can't have a big, expensive, heavy and manual focusing f/0.95 lens that blurs everything I aim at.

Click to expand...

Your worries are unfounded. Zhongyi has been doing this for a few years already.

Have you seen the output of those lenses though.... yeech. I wouldn't look at Zhongyi as indicative of Sony's optical potential.

sportyaccordy said:

Have you seen the output of those lenses though.... yeech. I wouldn't look at Zhongyi as indicative of Sony's optical potential.

Click to expand...

Apparently Nikon's solution isn't actually that much better?

Edit: A while ago Jim Kasson did some tests that strongly implied certain aspects of the Zhongyi were negatively impacted by the sensor's microlens design - but mount diameter has nothing to do with this.

--
Context is key. If I have quoted someone else's post when replying, please do not reply to something I say without reading text that I have quoted, and understanding the reason the quote function exists.

Entropy512 said:

thaddak said:

I'm worried I can't have a big, expensive, heavy and manual focusing f/0.95 lens that blurs everything I aim at.

Click to expand...

Your worries are unfounded. Zhongyi has been doing this for a few years already.

Click to expand...

The Zhongyi isn't big, heavy and expensive though...

I should have made it more obvious I was kidding.

dyfanboidy said:

SilvanBromide said:

dyfanboidy said:

jonpais said:

There is no proof the Z or RF mounts allow making lenses with sharper corners.... which is probably why neither Canon, nor Nikon, nor Sigma, nor Panasonic have made such an unfounded claim.

Click to expand...

So now you're arguing against geometry?

Wow...

Click to expand...

Wow indeed. You appear to be assuming that there is only one possible solution to a given challenge, and that if that one solution is not available all is hopelessly lost.

Click to expand...

No, I'm simply laughing at people who can't comprehend basic geometry and say things like "only optical engineers (of which you Silvan are not one - far from it) may comment"

Click to expand...

Indeed. But one doesn't have to be an optical engineer to see the gaping flaws in your "argument". Starting with your predilection for unfounded ad-hominem invective.

dyfanboidy said:

What he really means is "only people who agree with my ignorance may comment" - so pathetic.

Click to expand...

No, you are engaging in ventriloquism (not to mention a curious combination of hubris and condescension). I don't suppose that is remotely close to what he means.

dyfanboidy said:

You remind me of the education-free people always trying to claim that wireless internet will be faster than wired so cables are obsolete. Ask them what they know about EMR, and all they return is blank stares and confusion. Your predictions are based on your wants, not on reality.

Click to expand...

Not really. In fact not at all. You are again assuming a series of facts not in evidence.

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

dyfanboidy said:

raminm said:

The title smells like fear-mongering. It's just like it is in the domain of politics: fear-mongering doesn't move things forward in a constructive way; it doens't bring progression or improvements. Fear-mongering is a form of propaganda.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole.

Even if what you said is true (it isn't) the attempt at generating "fear" was an abysmal failure.

Click to expand...

I see you are too fast and eager to dismiss it. Like any advertisement and propaganda, it gains its success through repetition and exposure. This is not a one time attempt, one time failure. It keeps coming back again and again and again and .... until some people start believing it. I don't know if the OP was here to do propaganda. Maybe he was genuinely concerned and worried because he easily got influenced by the flux of posts he had read online. Most people don't believe in things because they rationally analyze them. They believe in them because they get exposed to them past a threshold level.

Per the topic of lens diameter, this has already been discussed here and everybody according to their bias and brand submission threw in their feedback. Almost none of us are qualified to assert a scientific opinion on the subject and there is really no solid evidence out there to prove these opinions and speculations. There is no point to keep bringing it up except for that purpose of 'propaganda'. If someone genuinely wants to know the answer and he chooses DPR forums to find the answer (wrong place), he could go and check the old threads. If I were the moderator, I would have deleted any new thread opened on the topic as it compromises the health of these forums. These forums are for discussing photography gear but for the sake of photography not for the purpose of manufacturer's propaganda.

Personally, I would like to make sure manufacturers use innovation to improve their market sales instead of using propaganda means. This way works far better for the benefit of consumers.

Jared Polin has a video on Youtube testing the RP's AF and he finds it buggy and inferior.

SilvanBromide said:

dyfanboidy said:

You remind me of the education-free people always trying to claim that wireless internet will be faster than wired so cables are obsolete.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

that is another of your failed strawman arguments.

because it has absolutely nothing to do with e-mount.

but congrats on giving us a demonstration of what "education-free" means.

SilvanBromide said:

Not really. In fact not at all. You are again assuming a series of facts not in evidence.

Click to expand...

just put him on ignore.