Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
I do agree with you that the A7's are not the perfection. The thing here is a bit more subtle: considering that this technology will probably mature and see many more manufacturers joining the arena, will they be the majority in a few years? Is it sensible to keep investing in a DSLR, or is it better to start investing in one of these new systems?
A funny thing is that many people have been preaching the demise of APS-C for years. The advent of mirrorless FF, imho, could make APS-C the only segment where DSLR will still be dominant.
JohnDizzo15 said:
I do agree with you that the A7's are not the perfection. The thing here is a bit more subtle: considering that this technology will probably mature and see many more manufacturers joining the arena, will they be the majority in a few years? Is it sensible to keep investing in a DSLR, or is it better to start investing in one of these new systems?
A funny thing is that many people have been preaching the demise of APS-C for years. The advent of mirrorless FF, imho, could make APS-C the only segment where DSLR will still be dominant.
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Don't know about you guys, but it's totally nuts to buy a $$$ "compact" FF camera, then turn around and add a brick to it. I do wish Sony had utilized all that extra dead space inside the large grip to fit a larger battery. Oh, well, I guess you can't have it all.
Dylan777 said:Looks like mini 1D X ;D
Attach EF adapter and 85L II to it, you wouldn't be able to tell the diff. :
:-\
Don't know about you guys, but it's totally nuts to buy a $$$ "compact" FF camera, then turn around and add a brick to it. I do wish Sony had utilized all that extra dead space inside the large grip to fit a larger battery. Oh, well, I guess you can't have it all.
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
I will never buy that grip. But I can see how it comes in handy for some lengthy studio work.
In a studio it doesn't matter if the camera looses it's compactness.
When you are done, just leave the grip in the studio.
I will never buy that grip. But I can see how it comes in handy for some lengthy studio work.
In a studio it doesn't matter if the camera looses it's compactness.
When you are done, just leave the grip in the studio.
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
http://www.sony.jp/ichigan/evolution/e_roadmap/images/roadmap_img_03.jpg
e17paul said:
http://www.sony.jp/ichigan/evolution/e_roadmap/images/roadmap_img_03.jpg
Attachments
![roadmap_img_03[1].jpg](/forum/data/attachments/28/28662-36d2ff8d810182b3a657c6c8c520cd80.jpg?hash=NtL_jYEBgr)
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
It's amazing how Sony got 35mm sensor in a tiny body. As you can see, olympus om-d e-m5 Vs A7/A7R body size.
I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore. My 2 cents: Sony will release more FE lenses at much faster rate than other companies. Why? Sony has Zeiss doing lens design for them.
See video here: Sony Alpha A7 A7r preview
Dylan777 said:Looks like mini 1D X ;D
Attach EF adapter and 85L II to it, you wouldn't be able to tell the diff. :
It's amazing how Sony got 35mm sensor in a tiny body. As you can see, olympus om-d e-m5 Vs A7/A7R body size.
I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore. My 2 cents: Sony will release more FE lenses at much faster rate than other companies. Why? Sony has Zeiss doing lens design for them.
See video here: Sony Alpha A7 A7r preview
Attachments
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
I can personally testify to the sharpness of the 14mm. It's easily on par with the 14L. Razor sharp and razor cheap too.
It does have some issues with moustache distortion, but it can be corrected with a profile in lightroom.
Samyang lenses are all manual. Not that it matters much at 14mm and 24mm.Dylan777 said:
I can personally testify to the sharpness of the 14mm. It's easily on par with the 14L. Razor sharp and razor cheap too.
It does have some issues with moustache distortion, but it can be corrected with a profile in lightroom.
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Direct mount? or you need an adapter for it? thx
Ricku said:Samyang lenses are all manual. Not that it matters much at 14mm and 24mm.Dylan777 said:
I can personally testify to the sharpness of the 14mm. It's easily on par with the 14L. Razor sharp and razor cheap too.
It does have some issues with moustache distortion, but it can be corrected with a profile in lightroom.
Direct mount? or you need an adapter for it? thx
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Hi Pi
I probably shouldn't have used specific comparison set ups in the way I did - it's hard enough to directly compare set ups even when the sensor size is the same (debates about bokeh, how important different amounts of noise are in the "real world", sharpness, etc, etc), let alone when it's not.
I assume you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS is "faster" than the mFT 35-100 f/2.8 in the sense the Canon 6D set up would allow shallower of depth of field. Which is obviously an argument for using one of the comparisons you suggest. On the other hand (and I'm sure you know this already), if shutter time is important (eg shooting action), the Canon 70-200 2.8 should give the same shutter time as the mFT 35-100 2.8 at a given ISO, so in that sense they're comparable. But then other factors come in too, eg if shooting action, you might actually want to preserve depth of field (to have multiple players, or player plus ball or whatever, in focus) which would mean having to close down the aperture somewhat on the Canon, leading to a longer shutter time. Of course, the Canon set up has lower noise so you could compensate by increasing the ISO and, based on current gen sensors at least, get back to the same shutter time and still be in front on IQ ... although you'd have given up some portion of the Canon's IQ advantage.
Of course, if I'd applied that reasoning consistently, I'd have compared the EM-5 + 12-40 2.8 with 6D + 24-70 2.8, and the EM-5 + Panasonic 24 1.4 with 6D + 50 1.4 ...
Another example problem in my comparisons - it may not be "fair" to compare the Sony 55 1.8 lens against the Canon 50 1.8 II. I'm expecting the Sony 55 1.8 will be a "better" lens, eg sharper, better build quality. No doubt there could be arguments over some of the other comparisons too!
I guess my point was just to give some very rough and ready comparisons of vaguely comparable set ups, and make the point that mFT offers a significant weight saving (and I believe size too) compared with 35mm DSLR so I can see why people are attracted to it despite its limitations/disadvantages, but the situation seems different comparing 35mm mirrorless and 35mm DSLR. The weight savings of 35mm mirrorless aren't as significant (especially as focal length increases), so to the extent 35mm mirrorless has other limitations/disadvantages compared to 35mm DSLR, I'm yet to get all that excited about 35mm mirrorless at least at this point. Time will tell I guess.
Pi said:
Hi Pi
I probably shouldn't have used specific comparison set ups in the way I did - it's hard enough to directly compare set ups even when the sensor size is the same (debates about bokeh, how important different amounts of noise are in the "real world", sharpness, etc, etc), let alone when it's not.
I assume you mean the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS is "faster" than the mFT 35-100 f/2.8 in the sense the Canon 6D set up would allow shallower of depth of field. Which is obviously an argument for using one of the comparisons you suggest. On the other hand (and I'm sure you know this already), if shutter time is important (eg shooting action), the Canon 70-200 2.8 should give the same shutter time as the mFT 35-100 2.8 at a given ISO, so in that sense they're comparable. But then other factors come in too, eg if shooting action, you might actually want to preserve depth of field (to have multiple players, or player plus ball or whatever, in focus) which would mean having to close down the aperture somewhat on the Canon, leading to a longer shutter time. Of course, the Canon set up has lower noise so you could compensate by increasing the ISO and, based on current gen sensors at least, get back to the same shutter time and still be in front on IQ ... although you'd have given up some portion of the Canon's IQ advantage.
Of course, if I'd applied that reasoning consistently, I'd have compared the EM-5 + 12-40 2.8 with 6D + 24-70 2.8, and the EM-5 + Panasonic 24 1.4 with 6D + 50 1.4 ...
Another example problem in my comparisons - it may not be "fair" to compare the Sony 55 1.8 lens against the Canon 50 1.8 II. I'm expecting the Sony 55 1.8 will be a "better" lens, eg sharper, better build quality. No doubt there could be arguments over some of the other comparisons too!
I guess my point was just to give some very rough and ready comparisons of vaguely comparable set ups, and make the point that mFT offers a significant weight saving (and I believe size too) compared with 35mm DSLR so I can see why people are attracted to it despite its limitations/disadvantages, but the situation seems different comparing 35mm mirrorless and 35mm DSLR. The weight savings of 35mm mirrorless aren't as significant (especially as focal length increases), so to the extent 35mm mirrorless has other limitations/disadvantages compared to 35mm DSLR, I'm yet to get all that excited about 35mm mirrorless at least at this point. Time will tell I guess.
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
No, I meant "faster" as allowing more light to reach the sensor, resulting in less noise.
Lenses do not have shutter time. "Given ISO" is meaningless when comparing different formats. You want to get the same noise, and same DOF. You shoot at 200/5.6 on FF (with whatever ISO you find appropriate, say 1600), and at 100/2.8, at say, ISO 400. You get the same total light, more or less the same noise away from the deep shadows, but FF will resolve considerably more. So the 70-200/4 actually lets 1 stop more light to reach the sensor than the 35-100/2.8.
Or just take a look at those two lenses. The 70-200 has a larger front element (for a telephoto lens, this more or less determines the physical aperture).
jd7 said:
No, I meant "faster" as allowing more light to reach the sensor, resulting in less noise.
Lenses do not have shutter time. "Given ISO" is meaningless when comparing different formats. You want to get the same noise, and same DOF. You shoot at 200/5.6 on FF (with whatever ISO you find appropriate, say 1600), and at 100/2.8, at say, ISO 400. You get the same total light, more or less the same noise away from the deep shadows, but FF will resolve considerably more. So the 70-200/4 actually lets 1 stop more light to reach the sensor than the 35-100/2.8.
Or just take a look at those two lenses. The 70-200 has a larger front element (for a telephoto lens, this more or less determines the physical aperture).
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Ah OK, you meant "faster" in that sense.
Going back to what I said in my last post - am I right in saying that if shooting the same scene, the Canon 6D + 70-200 2.8 set up is going to require about the same shutter time to expose the scene as the EM-5 + 35-100 2.8 set up if both cameras are set at the same ISO? (I know I'm generalising a bit - not worrying about things like differences in T stops, and the way different manufacturers cite ISO.) I take your point that lenses don't have a shutter time - but I'm comparing the two set ups as a whole. And I take your point that in absolute terms, the Canon set up lets in more light in a given time - but it also has to expose a larger surface area. That larger surface area provides benefits such as lower noise, but has other effects too such as giving a different depth of field. That does bring us back to the position in my earlier post, doesn't it?
I have to say I've always struggled with comparing systems with different sensor sizes. If I'm missing something, I'm happy to learn!
Pi said:
Ah OK, you meant "faster" in that sense.
Going back to what I said in my last post - am I right in saying that if shooting the same scene, the Canon 6D + 70-200 2.8 set up is going to require about the same shutter time to expose the scene as the EM-5 + 35-100 2.8 set up if both cameras are set at the same ISO? (I know I'm generalising a bit - not worrying about things like differences in T stops, and the way different manufacturers cite ISO.) I take your point that lenses don't have a shutter time - but I'm comparing the two set ups as a whole. And I take your point that in absolute terms, the Canon set up lets in more light in a given time - but it also has to expose a larger surface area. That larger surface area provides benefits such as lower noise, but has other effects too such as giving a different depth of field. That does bring us back to the position in my earlier post, doesn't it?
I have to say I've always struggled with comparing systems with different sensor sizes. If I'm missing something, I'm happy to learn!
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Read this, it is the bible for comparing systems.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
jd7 said:
Read this, it is the bible for comparing systems.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Yeah, it's not a weight savings thing. But it sure is a getting more MP and more DR and still being able to use Canon lenses thing (although Lens Rentals did cast some doubt on using adapters).
qwRad said:2) Battery-life just plain sucks. The reviewer says "under 300 shots" with the A7r which is just laughable. Imagine a a week long hiking trip or even a weekend trip. All the weight you save vs. a 5D3 for example would be negated by all the batteries you would have to lug around...
Yeah, it's not a weight savings thing. But it sure is a getting more MP and more DR and still being able to use Canon lenses thing (although Lens Rentals did cast some doubt on using adapters).
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
You are right but you have no reason to shoot at the same ISO. In light limited conditions, you can shoot with a larger sensor at a higher ISO. Noise (photon one) is not created by the ISO.
It is like having a car with 3 speeds vs. a car with 6 speeds. You do not use the same speed, say, 3, under the same conditions just because they are numbered the same.
More light comes with less DOF (assuming the same QE, etc.). There is no other way. That is why the best way is to think in equivalent terms. 100/2.8 on m43 is like 200/5.6 on FF. Same DOF, same FOV, same noise, same diffraction softening (but different resolution in general). In that sense, 70-200/4 is 1 stop faster that the 35-100/2.8 which is 70-200/5.6 equivalent. BTW, the recent m43 bodies have really good sensors.
Do not mention this to an m43 (only) owner. This makes them mad. They would insist that the 35-100/2.8 is 70-200/2.8 equivalent.
Joe's essay, linked above, is an excellent read. Joe actually posted here a few months ago.
jd7 said:
You are right but you have no reason to shoot at the same ISO. In light limited conditions, you can shoot with a larger sensor at a higher ISO. Noise (photon one) is not created by the ISO.
It is like having a car with 3 speeds vs. a car with 6 speeds. You do not use the same speed, say, 3, under the same conditions just because they are numbered the same.
More light comes with less DOF (assuming the same QE, etc.). There is no other way. That is why the best way is to think in equivalent terms. 100/2.8 on m43 is like 200/5.6 on FF. Same DOF, same FOV, same noise, same diffraction softening (but different resolution in general). In that sense, 70-200/4 is 1 stop faster that the 35-100/2.8 which is 70-200/5.6 equivalent. BTW, the recent m43 bodies have really good sensors.
Do not mention this to an m43 (only) owner. This makes them mad. They would insist that the 35-100/2.8 is 70-200/2.8 equivalent.
Joe's essay, linked above, is an excellent read. Joe actually posted here a few months ago.
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Thanks PBD. I had a quick look at the link but it looks like I'm going to have to put a bit of time aside to read the whole thing! I'll get there though - it looks interesting.
privatebydesign said:
Thanks PBD. I had a quick look at the link but it looks like I'm going to have to put a bit of time aside to read the whole thing! I'll get there though - it looks interesting.
Upvote
0
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
Thanks Pi. I'm still struggling but I think I'm starting to get it. If I understand, 100/2.8 on m43 is equivalent to 200/5.6 in terms of the photographic characteristics you mentioned, including in terms of the total light falling on the sensor. However, because the 35mm sensor has a larger surface area, the intensity of light is less and hence the exposure is less - meaning you need either a longer shutter time or a higher ISO to achieve the same exposure. And then, if shutter time is a limiting factor, it just comes down to the fact the 35mm sensor can use a higher ISO without noise become (more of) a problem - and as you say, since the sensor has that "gear", use it!
Awww, but it would be fun!
Will give it a read! Hopefully by the time I've read that I'll finally understand all this properly.
Pi said:
Thanks Pi. I'm still struggling but I think I'm starting to get it. If I understand, 100/2.8 on m43 is equivalent to 200/5.6 in terms of the photographic characteristics you mentioned, including in terms of the total light falling on the sensor. However, because the 35mm sensor has a larger surface area, the intensity of light is less and hence the exposure is less - meaning you need either a longer shutter time or a higher ISO to achieve the same exposure. And then, if shutter time is a limiting factor, it just comes down to the fact the 35mm sensor can use a higher ISO without noise become (more of) a problem - and as you say, since the sensor has that "gear", use it!
Awww, but it would be fun!
Will give it a read! Hopefully by the time I've read that I'll finally understand all this properly.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
