jonas ar

Sony RX1R

What kind of idiot calls others idiots and ignorants?

My 35/2.8 FF lens is 2.42 x 1.44" and weighs 120grams.
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008123-REG/sony_sel35f28z_sonnar_t_fe_35mm.html
The Sony FF cameras are not big

It is the impression I get when Sony announces new lenses. I cannot remember seeing an announcement where they didn’t imply they designed it the branding is a mess. I expect we have seen the last ...

Can you mention any specific lens produced by KM for Sony? So far as I know, Sony designs and manufacturers all of their lenses including the Zeiss, G and GM branded. Most are build at Sony's ...

Equivalent lenses tend to have equivalent size. They could have emphasized the development of non-equivalent smaller lenses more to offer a compact system

It would be interesting to have a good test of the performance of very fast lenses on modern sensors.

I remember when I was new to photography back in 2008. I had to spend some time digesting your examples on various aspects of image capture. It sank in eventually, but it did take some effort ...

yes, I was rather impressed myself. Those hairs on the tomato plant are very thin. This is the full scene as seen by the a900:

I did this about 6 years ago comparing a macro on a Q to my a900: This was another example (not macro): a900 Q I got many comments along the line of "Soft and out of focus. Your standards must be ...

<3

For me it was the Sony a700, my first digital camera. I found a used super cheap Minolta 50/1.7 and the control of the depth of field allowed by that combo got me hooked on photography. Why Sony?...

It is astounding that pixel size is still brought to the table as a metric for sensor performance more than 10 year after Phil Askey’s misguided campaign was so thoroughly debunked!
Disappointing.

perhaps I even have some time now that we are all grounded here in Denmark due to Covid-19. in the meantime I will tend to go with Jim Kasson’s explanation of the missing photons rather than your ...

As I said, Jim Kasson would never conclude like he did if the ISO had varied. So there is no contention? Please make up your mind! I have checked the EXIF for you and they are at ISO100 Yes, I ...

Ok, let me explain to you what that means: The aperture was set on the lens and the build in lightmeter measured the light (like they ususally do). Based on this metering, the camera automatically ...

He tested at f/0.95 and f/1.4 in auto exposure. The camera should have picked a four times slower shutter speed at f/1.4 if it had “seen” all the light and yet it picked a nearly identical shutter ...

Jim Kasson not getting the expected light from a f/0.95 lens on a7rii: https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/mitakon-zhongyi-speedmaster-50mm-f0-95/ sure, that’s why I asked. A7rii is BSI which I ...

but they might pay for nothing if the pixel aperture is limiting (as used to be the case). Hence the question I asked

Not true. The pixel aperture can be the limiting factor if is smaller than the lens aperture this was documented years ago by DxOmark in the “pixel blues” article and has also been observed by Jim ...