Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Dylan777 said:
I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.

I do, provided size/weight matters - it's still the best affordable compact system. As far as I can tell there are no pre-existing really small FF Sony or Minolta lenses, prime or zoom, and the new lenses announced for this system aren't small either; and as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a small FF zoom of any focal length, period (is such a thing physically possible?). So, if you want to retain compactness, you're limited - barring unknown future developments - to whatever small third party lenses you can attach (assuming they work well via adapters - and given how fussy 36mp sensors seem to be (see comments by Roger Cicala et al.), that's quite an assumption).

What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization. Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it. That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some.

If these cameras had IS and an A-mount, I would pre-order one too (I wouldn't care if that required them to be a bit bigger; for me, size is the least of the advantages of ditching the mirror). Instead, I'll wait and see if Sony makes a mirrorless FF A mount camera (at least one A mount camera will allegedly be announced early next year). Until then, my Canon FFs and Olympus m43 will do just nicely....
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Pi said:
sdsr said:
What matters (well, to me, at least) isn't whether m43 enthusiasts should stop saying that their 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 1.4 FF, but the extent to which you can approximate on an m43 the photos you take with, say, a FF Canon, and how the whole experience of taking the photos compares. To the extent you can approximate, the weight comparisons posted above retain their point (give or take a lens or two).

Actually, no. You can also "approximate" what brighter lenses can do on the same format, by using slower lenses, like the 40mm. You do not "approximate", you just accept the results as good enough for your specific purposes. There is also the mirrorless factor which helps with wide primes but the latter is not restricted to m43 as of this week.

Now, if you really want to approximate (what a lowly f/4 zoom on FF can do), you buy some monster like the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0. It is $800 more expensive that the already overpriced 24-70/4 IS, not to mention the 24-105, and 50% heavier, and larger. Or, you buy the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0. It is an 1.65kg monster selling for $2.5K only. The Canon 70-200/4 IS weighs and costs less than half of that and is even smaller. The m43 fans would tell you: those are f/2 zooms, show me an f/2 FF zoom. Well, unless you print that f/2 on your photos, they are f/4 equivalent zooms.

I think this has become a disagreement over use of "approximate". You seem to be looking for a lens that's a mechanical exact equivalent (I'm familiar with the lenses you're referring to above and I don't disagree with your point). I was using it in the sense of "closely resembling" - I was referring to the resulting images, not how you achieve them - not "exactly the same". For instance, although we're often told that m43 isn't good for shallow focus/background blur (this matters to me as I like taking very close-up "portraits" of flowers and other small things with blurred-out backgrounds), I've been pleasantly surprised by just how easy it is to conjure it up with the right combination of lens and relative distances. If I put the Olympus 60mm macro lens on my E-M5, I can create, say, flower portraits that look similar to flower portraits taken with my 100mm L on my 6D or 5DIII (though to get comparable blur I'll have to get closer); the relative weight of the equipment isn't similar at all. That's all I meant. (If I thought they looked *the same* I wouldn't keep the heavy FF stuff.)
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

If you forget for a moment about the format differences, it is 2 stops. We all know what that means. Sometimes it matters little, sometimes - a lot. That was my point.

Of course, the size would be different, not always in favor of the smaller sensor; and the price would be different - again, not always in favor of the smaller sensor. The m43 system have many more lenses designed for it than the Canon/Nikon crop systems but the good ones are very expensive for their equivalent apertures.

Another difference: f/3.4 on FF would be much sharper than the eq. f/1.7 on m43, and then you have all those problems with microlens vignetting at fast apertures.
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

sdsr said:
Dylan777 said:
I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.

What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization. Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it. That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some.

I take a lot of photo with my 5D III + 50L + 85L II + 24-70 II. Is there an "IS" on any of these?
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Dylan777 said:
sdsr said:
Dylan777 said:
I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.

What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization. Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it. That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some.

I take a lot of photo with my 5D III + 50L + 85L II + 24-70 II. Is there an "IS" on any of these?

I wrote "in situations where IS is needed". If you never need it and wouldn't benefit from it, well, good for you. Either way, the size issue remains - just how much difference does the body size make if you're using something as big and heavy as the 85LII or 24-70 II, and what would the ergonomics be like of attaching one of those to a small body?
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

sdsr said:
Dylan777 said:
sdsr said:
Dylan777 said:
I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.

What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization. Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it. That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some.

I take a lot of photo with my 5D III + 50L + 85L II + 24-70 II. Is there an "IS" on any of these?

I wrote "in situations where IS is needed". If you never need it and wouldn't benefit from it, well, good for you. Either way, the size issue remains - just how much difference does the body size make if you're using something as big and heavy as the 85LII or 24-70 II, and what would the ergonomics be like of attaching one of those to a small body?

At least, you and I have this in common. I hate it, therefore, I'll get some Zeiss FE primes: 14,16 or 17mm, 55mm, and 85mm. That's all I need in compact system.

Everything else: 5D III + 24-70 II, 135L, 70-200 and 300mm f2.8 IS II (maybe x2 TC).
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Pi said:
seacritter said:
If you do a bunch of macro, a smaller sensor is preferred. Just for the dof. I've been shooting with the Mark II for a while. I just switched my macro work to the GF6 with the 60mm macro. The extended dof is really welcome.

How can the sensor size determine how deep DOF you can get? You can always control it with the aperture. The most important difference would be what the effective FL of that lens is compared to whatever macro lens you use with the Canon. Even the higher pixel density is not as important since you are diffraction limited.

The larger the sensor the shallower the depth of field. Yes, aperture controls dof, but we start off with dof because of sensor size. You can get a shallow dof with a point-and-shoot, but only extended out all the way with the smallest aperture that it has. On the other side, the dof on a medium format is always incredibly shallow. This is just physics...
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

seacritter said:
Pi said:
seacritter said:
If you do a bunch of macro, a smaller sensor is preferred. Just for the dof. I've been shooting with the Mark II for a while. I just switched my macro work to the GF6 with the 60mm macro. The extended dof is really welcome.

How can the sensor size determine how deep DOF you can get? You can always control it with the aperture. The most important difference would be what the effective FL of that lens is compared to whatever macro lens you use with the Canon. Even the higher pixel density is not as important since you are diffraction limited.

The larger the sensor the shallower the depth of field. Yes, aperture controls dof, but we start off with dof because of sensor size. You can get a shallow dof with a point-and-shoot, but only extended out all the way with the smallest aperture that it has. On the other side, the dof on a medium format is always incredibly shallow. This is just physics...

It is mostly wrong, sorry. Sensor size can determine how shallow DOF you can get with a lens made on this planet but sensor size does not limit you how deep DOF you can get. The latter is limited by diffraction.
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Ricku said:
If Canon released a high resolution, high DR, full frame sensor in a small and light package (similar to the EOS SL1) at an affordable price (Not Leica or 1D price tag), I would be all over it!

But let's face it. They won't. :(

I've preordered the A7R, and I intend to use it with my EF lenses. But I'm also going to buy a couple of native lenses, in order to have the size advantage when I want it. Perhaps two from Zeiss and then the ultra cheap but ultra sharp Samyang 14mm for landscapes.

I will not buy another camera from Canon until they get back on the iron throne of innovation and image quality. That's all I have to say.

Two different issues there really, I can understand buying the Sony for maximum image quality from your existing lenses but I wouldn't rule out Canon(or Nikon) releasing a smaller FF DSLR within the next 18 months, its not like this Sony release was a secret.
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

seacritter said:
The larger the sensor the shallower the depth of field. Yes, aperture controls dof, but we start off with dof because of sensor size. You can get a shallow dof with a point-and-shoot, but only extended out all the way with the smallest aperture that it has. On the other side, the dof on a medium format is always incredibly shallow. This is just physics...

NO NO NO NO NO. I have tried desperately hard to stay out of the thread but that is too much.

DOF is determined by two criteria, f stop and reproduction ratio.

Put the same lens on a crop camera and a ff camera and take a shot from one position, a typical set magnification size macro scenario (1:1, 1:2, etc). Make two prints the same size of your entire two shots and the crop camera print has LESS DOF! The ff shot has a lot more fov but that is not the talking point here. Sensor size is only relevant in dof figures to work out reproduction magnification, in and of itself sensor size is irrelevant.

Please read the secion marked Relationship of DOF to format size here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Don't care what it's called as long as i get more background blur and more main subject pop at a certain focal length and aperture, distance lens to attractive subject and distance subject to obnoxious, ugly background. Which means i'd rather drop dead than buying another aps-c camera or even worse a thumbnail sized micro thirds camera. Now, when there are finally 36 delivious millions of pixels available in a small package.

And if more dof is needed, i'm going to close down the aperture all the way to f/11 on a full- bore sensored- camera rather than being limited to f/5.6 on a quarter-sized sensor for fear of freakin' diffraction.

So much for dof in my shooting. :-)
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

Dylan777 said:
Operator error maybe?

If it is, then only the mirrorless seemed to notice :P :)

A sensor that isn't covered by its mirror, all things being equal, obviously will gather dust much faster than a sensor only exposed for the short moments the mirror is switched up.
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

If you're going to compare which camera will give you shallower DoF, you have to do it for a given FoV. It makes no sense to compare different pictures (say, a portrait and a medium shot).

If you had to take a portrait, and could use different cameras, what would DoF be like on each of them? Well, it depends on sensor size and f-stop. Period.
The following options will give you exactly the same picture, in terms of FoV, DoF, exposure
* 50mm lens set at f/5.6, 1/50s and ISO 1600 on a full frame camera
* 31mm lens set at f/3.5, 1/50s and ISO 600 on an APS-C camera
In all three cases, field of view, depth of field and exposure will be absolutely identical. And also compression, face distortion because of perspective, size of out-of-focus highlights... The images will be basically identical, except for whatever differences in sharpness and detail the different sensors and lenses introduce.

Proof here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/doftest/doftest.html
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

NormanBates said:
If you're going to compare which camera will give you shallower DoF, you have to do it for a given FoV. It makes no sense to compare different pictures (say, a portrait and a medium shot).

If you had to take a portrait, and could use different cameras, what would DoF be like on each of them? Well, it depends on sensor size and f-stop. Period.
The following options will give you exactly the same picture, in terms of FoV, DoF, exposure
* 50mm lens set at f/5.6, 1/50s and ISO 1600 on a full frame camera
* 31mm lens set at f/3.5, 1/50s and ISO 600 on an APS-C camera
In all three cases, field of view, depth of field and exposure will be absolutely identical. And also compression, face distortion because of perspective, size of out-of-focus highlights... The images will be basically identical, except for whatever differences in sharpness and detail the different sensors and lenses introduce.

Proof here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/doftest/doftest.html

That would be an evidence, not a proof :), but there is no FF shot on that page, and no 31/3.5 on crop?
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

drjlo said:
Finally, a review of Sony A7r with sample photo's that look like the specs say they should, with both Zeiss FE 35 mm and 55 mm.

http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-field-test/

Thank you for posting this. Very interesting photos but those neon colors and harsh processing do not give a good impression of what this setup can do.
 
Upvote 0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

privatebydesign said:
seacritter said:
The larger the sensor the shallower the depth of field. Yes, aperture controls dof, but we start off with dof because of sensor size. You can get a shallow dof with a point-and-shoot, but only extended out all the way with the smallest aperture that it has. On the other side, the dof on a medium format is always incredibly shallow. This is just physics...

NO NO NO NO NO. I have tried desperately hard to stay out of the thread but that is too much.

DOF is determined by two criteria, f stop and reproduction ratio.

Put the same lens on a crop camera and a ff camera and take a shot from one position, [...]
Yes, for the same shooting distance you are right, for the same framing however, FF needs longer lens or or shorter distance, resulting in a shallower DOF. I think that is what most people mean, even if they don't have the correct explanation
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.