This sounds promising?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: More absurdity

PhotoFactor wrote:

Euell wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

JohnNEX wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

No, I have not. Can you provide links to the articles, which would be at least a dozen to be 'numerous'?

Why do people on the Fuji forums who have moved from Sony to Fuji point to the quality and quantity of Fuji aps-c lenses being a major reason in why they moved?

Which lenses are missing, other than the f/2.8 standard zoom and a tele zoom? I think Sony has the edge on primes over Fuji. The line-ups are at least broadly equal. When people whine about the lack of lenses for Sony E, they really just mean the lack of a 16-50 f/2.8, one lens. I think that lens will come this year.

Why do you think that Fuji has so many dedicated users? Do you think sony would not like to have those Fuji users buy sony cameras instead?

Sony a6000 outsells Fuji cameras year after year. Sony knows that whiners on internet forums constitute a tiny fraction of their aps-c market. The market is Western grandpas wanting to take stills and 4k video of their grandkids playing soccer and Asia tourists, both wanting something small and light. They won't look on internet forums and they won't buy large f/2.8 lenses. Every single contributor to this forum could move to Fuji and neither Sony or Fuji would notice the tiny change in their sales.

In the article on dc.watch that was cited by the original poster, Masaaki Oshima from Sony states that the demand is for higher-end aps-c cameras (and less demand for lower-end aps-c cameras). Do you think that people who want those higher-end aps-c cameras will want to use the 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses?

'High end' here means a6000 rather than a3000. It does not mean a6500 rather than a6300.

Why is it that adapter companies like Sigma and Metabones have successful business models making adapters for Sony cameras?

They are cheap to make?

Why does Sony still sell - and people still buy - the LA-EA A Mount to E Mount adapters?

Because A mount is a great system with excellent lenses which are falling in price and Sony wants to keep those people using Sony cameras. Doesn't seem that mysterious.

Why does Sony still spend money to create firmware that improves the AF performance of such adapters?

Can you say that Sony wouldn't sell MORE cameras and lenses if they had better aps-c lenses?

Maybe a few more, but not a huge amount. This is just something that enthusiasts on forums want to believe. Enthusiasts on forums are almost entirely irrelevant. We are not the market.

Or do you think it is a good business strategy for Sony if people buy adapters and use either third-party lenses or buy used use A Mount glass that they bought off ebay?

Yes. The a6000 still sells like hotcakes. They just watch the money roll in while they work on their professional FE cameras and lenses, which is where the real market share wars are. Their aim, as they have repeatedly said, is to be a major part of the professional camera market, with Canon and Nikon, hence going hard on FF and largely ignoring APS-C. Now they have established a clear lead in the pro mirrorless market, Sony may come back to APS-C, but Sony doesn't 'need' to compete with Fuji and they don't need to 'respond' to the XT3.

It appears that you have completely missed the point of this thread.

When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on. Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion. What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected. Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive. Surely, Sony can do better.

This.

I'd say there are a decent number of APS-C E mount lenses - especially if you include third parties. What is lacking from Sony is some decent optical quality, unless you pay a fortune. The Zeiss 24 is about $1000. The 16-70 is nearly that price, too and would be considered decent but not outstanding in optical quality versus other systems, even at around half the price.

Back in the film days, when you bought primes from the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) you knew you were getting good glass. But with Sony APS-C, optically the best glass is Sigma and Rokinon with a few other exceptions. Sigma 56 and 60 beat Sony 50. Sigma 30 (both of them) beat Sony 35. Sigma 16 wipes the face off Sony 16. Sigma 19 beats Sony 20. Sony's kit lens is particularly appalling. Given the money you spend on an ILC, you'd think that a box camera quality lens wouldn't be included with it.

Sure, you have a lot of Sony APS-C lenses. They are just pretty expensive with not good optical quality for their prices.

Sony is certainly capable of producing high quality lenses, as its FE lens line illustrates.  I hesitate to suggest that Sony price gouges for its better lenses, but there are few deals, the the 85 1.8 being a notable example.  The new 135 at about $2k illustrates the point.  It is, of course, possible to make high quality lenses at reasonable prices, as Sigma continually illustrates.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.
3

wb2trf wrote:

Oh, just stop this kvetch

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

Review sites. Who cares.

Here's my personal line up. This is just mine. There are plenty of other lenses. I shoot landscape and portrait. (For the latter I need AF. For the former, it's optional.) My main lenses: Rok 12 f2, Sig 16 f1.4, Rok 21 f1.4, ZS 24 1.8, Sig 30 1.4 and 2.8, SEL 50 1.8 and FE 85 1.8. These lenses are all excellent. I shoot mostly primes by preference. I also have the 16-50 and the 55-210, which I use occasionally when I don't have room for anything else. The 16-50 is a compact marvel, when one needs compactness. I'm attaching a shot with the 16-50, just for illustration of the terrible things that can happen when that's all I can carry.

I think Sony is doing fine without your lens strategy inputs.

Here's a shot with the 16-50 which I try not to use, but when I need to works ok.

A couple of observations: the photo above is very nice. My screen, however, shows that the level of detail is likely not sufficient for a very large, sharp print. Be that as it may, I like it. The other observation is that none of the lenses you listed have OSS, other than the 16-50 (which made the above) and the 55-210. And, of course, more than half are not from Sony and several are not AF. These may indeed serve your needs quite well, but can Sony do better for its APSC customers? Sure.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: More absurdity
2

Off The Mark wrote:

GaryW wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

Euell wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

...When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on. Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion. What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected. Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive. Surely, Sony can do better.

This.

I checked out DxOMark, set the filter for A6000 ( to get an APS-C usage of the lenses), and the top Sony lenses compare well, although the top ones are expensive and FE.

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Sony_A6000-942/launched-between-1987-and-2019/mount_type-Sony_E-Sony_FE/focal-from-1-to-1500/aperture_max-from-0.95-to-45/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

Just buy the Sigma lenses and be done with it! I do have a gripe about the AF on my 30/2.8, but it’s not too bad in that regard. But between FE and Sigma, if you need the sharpest lens, it seems like you’re not too terribly limited.

I'd say there are a decent number of APS-C E mount lenses - especially if you include third parties. What is lacking from Sony is some decent optical quality, unless you pay a fortune.

I have noticed that Sony tries to not position itself as a bargain brand. Yet, occasionally they come out with affordable items.

The Zeiss 24 is about $1000. The 16-70 is nearly that price, too and would be considered decent but not outstanding in optical quality versus other systems, even at around half the price.

That’s why I, and many others, got the 18-105 instead. Similar quality in general, but less price.

Back in the film days, when you bought primes from the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) you knew you were getting good glass.

Minolta 28/2.8 isn’t as great as the 50/1.7, I don’t think. As much as I like Minolta lenses, they varied.

But with Sony APS-C, optically the best glass is Sigma and Rokinon with a few other exceptions. Sigma 56 and 60 beat Sony 50. Sigma 30 (both of them) beat Sony 35.

The Sigma 30/2.8 DN A doesn’t rank so high in DxOMark, while the 30/2.8 EX DN ranks better. Hard to know how to compare (is this sample variation?), but that’s a case where the 35/1.8 falls between them, only one point below the EX DN. I dunno, but I can’t get too worked up over 1 point difference.

Sigma 16 wipes the face off Sony 16.

Well, sure, but the Sony 16/2.8 wasn’t designed to be a top lens — it’s still the least expensive Sony e-mount lens, as far as I know. It’s also a pancake. It also has cool, inexpensive attachments. Why doesn’t Sigma make us a line of pancake lenses? With add ons?

Sigma 19 beats Sony 20.

Again, by 1 point. Here, Sony has a big advantage in having faster AF, and the smallest profile lens. This is something I really wanted — a compact camera with high quality. Everything else is less compact.

Sony's kit lens is particularly appalling.

Well, yes. At least it’s the kit lens, and people can get something else. The original 18-55 is pretty decent though (as long as you stay away from 55mm). The collapsible pancake style has costs in image quality. It is the worst lens in my collection, at least in sharpness. It’s still useful.

Given the money you spend on an ILC, you'd think that a box camera quality lens wouldn't be included with it.

For $100 over the body-only price, it’s not like you’re being gouged. It works well, in general. Good color, fast AF, and makes your camera nice and compact. Sometimes it’s simply good enough. I like that they have the option of 18-135 kits, although I wish those kits were cheaper.

Sure, you have a lot of Sony APS-C lenses. They are just pretty expensive with not good optical quality for their prices.

You make some good points, but I just think that IF sony had put as much effort into designing APS-C lenses (and maybe some more affordable but lesser quality FE lenses) then they would sell both more cameras and more lenses.

Just to use an obvious full frame example for a moment (so pardon the detour from aps-c discussion), what if Sony had come out with an equivalent of the the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 way back when they launched the original a7 series? Something lightweight, compact(ish) and around $900? I think Sony would have sold a lot more Full Frame cameras (and lenses) if they had something like that in their lineup.

Or when all Sony has for 85mm was the Batis 85 f/1.8 (and the 85 GM??? Can't remember when the GM came out). What if they had been able to port over the (admittedly not all that exciting) A Mount 85mm f/2.8 Easy Choice lens so that it was a native E Mount lens for around $400. (The A Mount version currently sells for $298, and seems to have pretty good reviews on B and H, and I use my copy of the 85mm f/2.8 on my a6500 with an la-ea1 and am pretty satisfied with it).

Back to aps-c lenses again. Personally, I would have bought the 18-105 but the stories of sample variation scared me off. And for the price, it would have been nice if it was a bit sharper (my understanding is that it is a good lens, but not particularly great).

The various Zeiss E Mount lenses are kind of pricey (they might be worth it, but they are pricey nonetheless) and the names of the lenses are often mentioned in the same sentence as the words "sample variation," which is off=putting to say the least.

Lately Sony has been focusing on development of top-line lenses, no doubt, to create an aura of professional use that will pull along its down-market lines.  Fine, but the down-market lines and particularly APSC lenses deserve some attention as well.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 9,072
Re: More absurdity

Euell wrote:

Lately Sony has been focusing on development of top-line lenses, no doubt, to create an aura of professional use that will pull along its down-market lines. Fine, but the down-market lines and particularly APSC lenses deserve some attention as well.

I would not mind.  However, I'm fairly good for lenses right now.  Even if I had money to burn, I'm sure I could find something out of the existing catalog - - if not Sony, surely Sigma or even Tamron.  Well, maybe.  I'm still using an adapted a-mount lens for telephoto.  Those things aren't cheap, so I'm going as budget as I can on that. 

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 +10 more
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 9,072
Re: Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.

Euell wrote:

A couple of observations: the photo above is very nice.

I agree, very pleasant.

My screen, however, shows that the level of detail is likely not sufficient for a very large, sharp print.

I suppose.  When I looked at it yesterday, I was thinking maybe 8x10 would be perfectly fine.  11x14 maybe.  It might still be OK printed large, though, as hanging on the wall, you rarely have people putting their nose to it looking for the ultimate detail.  I see pretty good detail in the center with the bricks, the pattern in the tiled roof, texture on the lighthouse....  It starts to get soft towards the edge tho.
Not every photo needs to be the ultimate quality for large prints either.  However, this one in particular is so pretty, it does seem like you'd want to print it up and hang it on the wall.

Be that as it may, I like it. The other observation is that none of the lenses you listed have OSS, other than the 16-50 (which made the above) and the 55-210. And, of course, more than half are not from Sony and several are not AF. These may indeed serve your needs quite well, but can Sony do better for its APSC customers? Sure.

The thing is, everyone is going to have their own list of favorite lenses.  Perhaps this is why fans always complain about holes in lineups, because there's always some obscure thing missing (at least with Sony).  But I think it is not so bad in coverage these days.  I remember the early days....  Anyway, for me, I'd like to see more budget lenses, and I haven't seen much in that direction from Sony since the earlier Nex years.  Or maybe a mid-level telezoom -- something better than the 55-210, but not an FE lens.  Or maybe it starts to make sense to adapt that Canon ....  So yeah, there are a couple of things Sony could do for APS-C.

Must resist GAS....

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 +10 more
wb2trf Veteran Member • Posts: 3,220
Re: Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.
1

Euell wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Oh, just stop this kvetch

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

Review sites. Who cares.

Here's my personal line up. This is just mine. There are plenty of other lenses. I shoot landscape and portrait. (For the latter I need AF. For the former, it's optional.) My main lenses: Rok 12 f2, Sig 16 f1.4, Rok 21 f1.4, ZS 24 1.8, Sig 30 1.4 and 2.8, SEL 50 1.8 and FE 85 1.8. These lenses are all excellent. I shoot mostly primes by preference. I also have the 16-50 and the 55-210, which I use occasionally when I don't have room for anything else. The 16-50 is a compact marvel, when one needs compactness. I'm attaching a shot with the 16-50, just for illustration of the terrible things that can happen when that's all I can carry.

I think Sony is doing fine without your lens strategy inputs.

Here's a shot with the 16-50 which I try not to use, but when I need to works ok.

A couple of observations: the photo above is very nice. My screen, however, shows that the level of detail is likely not sufficient for a very large, sharp print. Be that as it may, I like it. The other observation is that none of the lenses you listed have OSS, other than the 16-50 (which made the above) and the 55-210. And, of course, more than half are not from Sony and several are not AF. These may indeed serve your needs quite well, but can Sony do better for its APSC customers? Sure.

Not quite, the SEL 50 has OSS.  If I needed OSS, I'd buy the 6500, and probably would have kept the 35mm SEL instead of the two 30mm Sigmas, but, personally, I have no use for IS in any form.

As for the photo above, it is really here just to illustrate the virtues of the 16-50.  I had no room that day for anything bigger than the A6000 and SEL16-50 in a jacket pocket.  (The old 16mm 2.8 is no better than the 16-50, btw).  So I had it and was happy I did.

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good.  If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate.  That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay.  That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.
1

wb2trf wrote:

Euell wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Oh, just stop this kvetch

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

Review sites. Who cares.

Here's my personal line up. This is just mine. There are plenty of other lenses. I shoot landscape and portrait. (For the latter I need AF. For the former, it's optional.) My main lenses: Rok 12 f2, Sig 16 f1.4, Rok 21 f1.4, ZS 24 1.8, Sig 30 1.4 and 2.8, SEL 50 1.8 and FE 85 1.8. These lenses are all excellent. I shoot mostly primes by preference. I also have the 16-50 and the 55-210, which I use occasionally when I don't have room for anything else. The 16-50 is a compact marvel, when one needs compactness. I'm attaching a shot with the 16-50, just for illustration of the terrible things that can happen when that's all I can carry.

I think Sony is doing fine without your lens strategy inputs.

Here's a shot with the 16-50 which I try not to use, but when I need to works ok.

A couple of observations: the photo above is very nice. My screen, however, shows that the level of detail is likely not sufficient for a very large, sharp print. Be that as it may, I like it. The other observation is that none of the lenses you listed have OSS, other than the 16-50 (which made the above) and the 55-210. And, of course, more than half are not from Sony and several are not AF. These may indeed serve your needs quite well, but can Sony do better for its APSC customers? Sure.

Not quite, the SEL 50 has OSS. If I needed OSS, I'd buy the 6500, and probably would have kept the 35mm SEL instead of the two 30mm Sigmas, but, personally, I have no use for IS in any form.

As for the photo above, it is really here just to illustrate the virtues of the 16-50. I had no room that day for anything bigger than the A6000 and SEL16-50 in a jacket pocket. (The old 16mm 2.8 is no better than the 16-50, btw). So I had it and was happy I did.

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good. If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate. That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay. That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

You say you don't print, so your disagreement rests upon certain assumptions, which are only partially true.  Prints of 12x18 to 16x24 or even larger can often be used effectively in hallways for example, where viewing distance is short.  Watch how people observe photographs in exhibitions or museums -- many will walk right up to the photograph to examine the detail and take pleasure from it.  As someone who doesn't print, I understand your lack of any need for optically better lenses, but that is not the case for everyone who uses APSC, which does about as well as FF in good light and is only marginally inferior in lower light situations if used to best advantage.  You are correct that zooms require compromises that generally make primes a better choice for IQ. However, zooms provide flexibility and can often make the difference between getting or losing a shot that is not static.

The Sony A6xxx bodies have a potential that has not yet been reached, although many are more than satisfied with the current lens selection.  But, frankly, the newer and better cell phone cameras would also satisfy these users.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
Robobonobo Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: This sounds promising?
1

This is a pretty negative thread, considering the title! I'm really happy overall with Sony's lens selection. I put together my entire Sony kit for $1950 (sel24f18z purchased used). Fuji deserves the credit for having a well thought out, high quality selection, but that kind of money won't get you nearly as much in their system. The only lens they offer that I wish I could add to my Sony kit is the xf55-200, but the SEL70300G is not a bad option.

A 2.8 normal zoom would be nice to have, but what I'd personally want from it would probably require a FF camera. I can get basically get the same performance with a fast prime on aps-c, for much less cost and size; and the system has a ton of great options to choose from. There's certainly valid criticism to be made, but too much is made of writing off third party and FF lenses which is willfully ignorant.

 Robobonobo's gear list:Robobonobo's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +2 more
wb2trf Veteran Member • Posts: 3,220
This is rich

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good. If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate. That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay. That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

You say you don't print, so your disagreement rests upon certain assumptions, which are only partially true.

I didn't say I don't print.  I said I wouldn't print this particular photo because this isn't my preferred style of photo.

Prints of 12x18 to 16x24 or even larger can often be used effectively in hallways for example, where viewing distance is short.

Don't mount photos where viewing distance cannot be maintained.  If you can't get back far enough, it's printed too large for that location.

Watch how people observe photographs in exhibitions or museums -- many will walk right up to the photograph to examine the detail and take pleasure from it.

So if people walk up to a photo and see pixels that's bad?  What if they walk up to Van Gogh?  Seurat? For photos, they can always get close enough to see photo elements if they want.  This view reflects the aesthetic of equipment people.

As someone who doesn't print, I understand your lack of any need for optically better lenses,

Better than the Sigma 16 or Rok 21. These are excellent lenses..

but that is not the case for everyone who uses APSC, which does about as well as FF in good light and is only marginally inferior in lower light situations if used to best advantage. You are correct that zooms require compromises that generally make primes a better choice for IQ. However, zooms provide flexibility and can often make the difference between getting or losing a shot that is not static.

The Sony A6xxx bodies have a potential that has not yet been reached, although many are more than satisfied with the current lens selection. But, frankly, the newer and better cell phone cameras would also satisfy these users.

This is really rich. My favorite part.  You're saying that if you don't want better lenses than the ones currently available you are someone who will be happy with a cell phone camera.  Preciously absurd.  Do your really think that a rhetorical ploy of this type will just slide?

José B
José B Forum Pro • Posts: 19,055
Tamron 35-150/2.8-4

José B wrote:

dump wrote:

DC.watch interviewed Mr. Masaaki Oshima from Sony. There are some clear answers about their APS-C strategy:

– Sony once more confirms APS-C line will be continually developed further
– TheA6400 is not the A6500 replacement
– And while he cannot talk about the plans of an A6500 successor their goal is to “exceed customers” requests
– There is little demand for low-end APS-C cameras but the demand for higher end models is still strong
– In 2019 we plan to strengthen both our APS-C and Full Frame portfolio

I'm good. I was waiting for the announcement of the Sony 135/1.8 and unfortunately I'm priced out of that lens. I'll keep on shooting with what I have and maybe upgrade my APS-C camera every other generation.

Ok, maybe I'm not finished with lenses yet The new Tamron might be the one I've been waiting for----a telezoom lens for travel. Hope Tamron prices it right!

 José B's gear list:José B's gear list
Sony a6500 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +12 more
PhotoFactor Senior Member • Posts: 2,914
Re: This is rich

wb2trf wrote:

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good. If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate. That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay. That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

You say you don't print, so your disagreement rests upon certain assumptions, which are only partially true.

I didn't say I don't print. I said I wouldn't print this particular photo because this isn't my preferred style of photo.

Prints of 12x18 to 16x24 or even larger can often be used effectively in hallways for example, where viewing distance is short.

Don't mount photos where viewing distance cannot be maintained. If you can't get back far enough, it's printed too large for that location.

Watch how people observe photographs in exhibitions or museums -- many will walk right up to the photograph to examine the detail and take pleasure from it.

So if people walk up to a photo and see pixels that's bad? What if they walk up to Van Gogh? Seurat? For photos, they can always get close enough to see photo elements if they want. This view reflects the aesthetic of equipment people.

As someone who doesn't print, I understand your lack of any need for optically better lenses,

Better than the Sigma 16 or Rok 21. These are excellent lenses..

but that is not the case for everyone who uses APSC, which does about as well as FF in good light and is only marginally inferior in lower light situations if used to best advantage. You are correct that zooms require compromises that generally make primes a better choice for IQ. However, zooms provide flexibility and can often make the difference between getting or losing a shot that is not static.

The Sony A6xxx bodies have a potential that has not yet been reached, although many are more than satisfied with the current lens selection. But, frankly, the newer and better cell phone cameras would also satisfy these users.

This is really rich. My favorite part. You're saying that if you don't want better lenses than the ones currently available you are someone who will be happy with a cell phone camera. Preciously absurd. Do your really think that a rhetorical ploy of this type will just slide?

Sort of like the rhetorical ploy to compare a photo with a Van Gogh painting?

 PhotoFactor's gear list:PhotoFactor's gear list
Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Sony a6000 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Luddhi
Luddhi Regular Member • Posts: 269
Re: More absurdity
1

Off The Mark wrote:

Compact video lens 16-50 (power zoom, OSS) - why not?

Because it is really bad

Even the (relatively low) 4K resolution shows off how bad it is.

I think it would work for 1080p on the a6300 / a6500 where there is a lot of moire and aliasing anyway, but it really isn't sharp enough for 4K (at least the three samples I have owned).

But just fine with both my copies. My copy on the a6500 produced good enough footage to convert a nikon friend to switch to sony...so YMMV

-- hide signature --

Vintage person with a bit of a thing for vintage lenses...
https://500px.com/luddha

 Luddhi's gear list:Luddhi's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +18 more
Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: This is rich

wb2trf wrote:

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good. If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate. That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Maybe you would like the Iphone? However, of course, printing large is not a simple matter of just enlarging an original. Software interpolates pixels to avoid jaggies. Some software available to amateur photographers, such as some of the new programs by Topaz Labs even use AI to create new pixels that weren't there before, in order to create a more detailed enlargement that nevertheless appears natural.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay. That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

You say you don't print, so your disagreement rests upon certain assumptions, which are only partially true.

I didn't say I don't print. I said I wouldn't print this particular photo because this isn't my preferred style of photo.

So, what do you print, and with what means?

Prints of 12x18 to 16x24 or even larger can often be used effectively in hallways for example, where viewing distance is short.

Don't mount photos where viewing distance cannot be maintained. If you can't get back far enough, it's printed too large for that location.

Not in my opinion. Goes for paintings too.  Depends.

Watch how people observe photographs in exhibitions or museums -- many will walk right up to the photograph to examine the detail and take pleasure from it.

So if people walk up to a photo and see pixels that's bad? What if they walk up to Van Gogh? Seurat? For photos, they can always get close enough to see photo elements if they want. This view reflects the aesthetic of equipment people.

People walk up close to paintings to observe technique. Pixels are not technique and are unattractive, except perhaps to the demented.   People examine photographs up close for nice detail.

As someone who doesn't print, I understand your lack of any need for optically better lenses,

Better than the Sigma 16 or Rok 21. These are excellent lenses.

They are pretty good indeed.  Of course, neither is perfect and I imagine better lenses could be made in these focal lengths, although assuredly not for their very reasonable prices.

but that is not the case for everyone who uses APSC, which does about as well as FF in good light and is only marginally inferior in lower light situations if used to best advantage. You are correct that zooms require compromises that generally make primes a better choice for IQ. However, zooms provide flexibility and can often make the difference between getting or losing a shot that is not static.

The Sony A6xxx bodies have a potential that has not yet been reached, although many are more than satisfied with the current lens selection. But, frankly, the newer and better cell phone cameras would also satisfy these users.

This is really rich. My favorite part. You're saying that if you don't want better lenses than the ones currently available you are someone who will be happy with a cell phone camera. Preciously absurd. Do your really think that a rhetorical ploy of this type will just slide?

Rejecting that it would a good thing for Sony to develop and market additional and better APSC lenses seems to me to be a Luddite .approach to things. Why not?

And, please don't put words in other people's mouths. It's quite unsanitary.  You apparently are not satisfied with Sony's current lens selection, since the two lenses you cited as very good in your "collection" are both 3rd-party products.  Of course, one is MF and the other has pretty good AF, but not quite as good as a native Sony lens.  I did not say you personally would be satisfied with by a cell phone camera, although some of the newer and better ones might have taken the picture you posted about as well as the 16-50 and would have satisfied many people if not you.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: This is rich

PhotoFactor wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good. If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate. That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay. That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

You say you don't print, so your disagreement rests upon certain assumptions, which are only partially true.

I didn't say I don't print. I said I wouldn't print this particular photo because this isn't my preferred style of photo.

Prints of 12x18 to 16x24 or even larger can often be used effectively in hallways for example, where viewing distance is short.

Don't mount photos where viewing distance cannot be maintained. If you can't get back far enough, it's printed too large for that location.

Watch how people observe photographs in exhibitions or museums -- many will walk right up to the photograph to examine the detail and take pleasure from it.

So if people walk up to a photo and see pixels that's bad? What if they walk up to Van Gogh? Seurat? For photos, they can always get close enough to see photo elements if they want. This view reflects the aesthetic of equipment people.

As someone who doesn't print, I understand your lack of any need for optically better lenses,

Better than the Sigma 16 or Rok 21. These are excellent lenses..

but that is not the case for everyone who uses APSC, which does about as well as FF in good light and is only marginally inferior in lower light situations if used to best advantage. You are correct that zooms require compromises that generally make primes a better choice for IQ. However, zooms provide flexibility and can often make the difference between getting or losing a shot that is not static.

The Sony A6xxx bodies have a potential that has not yet been reached, although many are more than satisfied with the current lens selection. But, frankly, the newer and better cell phone cameras would also satisfy these users.

This is really rich. My favorite part. You're saying that if you don't want better lenses than the ones currently available you are someone who will be happy with a cell phone camera. Preciously absurd. Do your really think that a rhetorical ploy of this type will just slide?

Sort of like the rhetorical ploy to compare a photo with a Van Gogh painting?

If someone here is the Van Gogh of photography, let me know.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: This sounds promising?
1

A lot of interesting content in that interview.  The piece that really stands out to me is that Sony sees little momentum in entry-level APS-C cameras and wants to pursue sales of upscale APS-C bodies (the A6400 is considered mid-range).  This puts to bed the idea that Sony views APS-C as novice cameras that will only be used with the kit lens.  On the other hand, his vague language on APS-C glass (at least, as read with Google Translate) and emphasis on the benefits of a shared E Mount do not point to investing resources into the crop ecosystem.  We will have to see.

Personally, I am happy with my current pair of crop lenses (18-135mm and 35mm), as they are small, light, and conducive to travel.  That said, I think Sony would be well served with a better kit lens, brighter zooms, and actual telezooms.  A Mount got a 55-300mm lens in 2012, and I would love to see something similar on E Mount with OSS for <$600 and <600g (I would buy it immediately). FE telezooms are both too large and too expensive for me to be comfortable traveling with, and I can't believe that I'm the only one who wants a decent small xx-300mm lens.

As for bodies, I'm waiting for Amazon to clear out their A6400 backlog.  This camera will be replacing my fine A6000, primarily for better eye AF on trips.  I missed several memorable shots traveling last year due to out-of-focus faces, and the A6000 body will be going to a family member who wants to get into photography more.

 BrentSchumer's gear list:BrentSchumer's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6400 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +2 more
Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: This sounds promising?

An APSC telephoto zoom can only be smaller than a FF equivalent because of the shorter focal lengths required for APSC due to the 1.5 crop factor.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: This sounds promising?

To put it another way, 18-135mm on my A6000 would require the 24-240mm at about twice the cost and weight. The FF setup might be optically better, but it's hard to justify for my travel style.

I mean, look at the SAL55300 and think of how much size and $$ are required to hit 450mm on FF.  If we had a SEL55300 OSS it could be of similar size.

 BrentSchumer's gear list:BrentSchumer's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6400 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +2 more
cali92rs Regular Member • Posts: 311
Re: This sounds promising?
3

BrentSchumer wrote:

A Mount got a 55-300mm lens in 2012, and I would love to see something similar on E Mount with OSS for <$600 and <600g (I would buy it immediately). FE telezooms are both too large and too expensive for me to be comfortable traveling with, and I can't believe that I'm the only one who wants a decent small xx-300mm lens.

+100!

You are definitely not the only one.  I hate to compare across brands, but it is hard not to when Nikon has their new 70-300 AF-P FX and it is $600.  Not only is it affordable, but it is universally praised.

Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: This sounds promising?

BrentSchumer wrote:

To put it another way, 18-135mm on my A6000 would require the 24-240mm at about twice the cost and weight. The FF setup might be optically better, but it's hard to justify for my travel style.

I mean, look at the SAL55300 and think of how much size and $$ are required to hit 450mm on FF. If we had a SEL55300 OSS it could be of similar size.

One thing to consider, however, is that while, for example, 135mm on APSC may appear not to bring in subjects as close as APSC, you can achieve the same apparent subject-to-camera distance by cropping the FF.  Someone may raise the valid point that the number of cropped pixels in such case may be less than the resolution provided by the APSC sensor and that occurs when Sony APSC lenses are used on Sony FF bodies, but that is another issue related to sensor resolution.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer Contributing Member • Posts: 843
Re: This sounds promising?

It's possible that cropping a FF camera lens picture by a third would yield better results than a APS-C crop lens, and I imagine that would depend on $$s spend, lighting conditions, and a host of other factors.

 BrentSchumer's gear list:BrentSchumer's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6400 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads