Now we're talking. Announced FE mounts

[biglouis]

I don't understand your counter argument. Do you really believe that 100g, mere 15%, of "difference" between Canon and Sony 16-35 is really an advantage? I don't consider myself that young or healthy but if the day comes that 100g "difference" will be breaking my back I will need much more than 100g of "savings" to save me.

ZoranC - I actually did not explain myself very well in my original post and I made it before my morning cup of coffee, always a mistake.

I've been surprised at the size of some lenses for the FE system, although to date I think I'm correct in saying they have all been (even if only slightly) lighter than counterparts.

The big saving to me is in the size and weight of bodies. To get that 24mpx sensor in either C or N bodies means a lot more weight (and bulk) and added to the additional weight in lenses that was too much for me.

Ideally, I would like a Nikon D800e and a variety of Nikon prime lenses (I rarely use zooms, in fact the only zoom I own is the 100-300 Lumix for my GH2 - which give you some idea about weight restrictions).

But each time I hefted a 800e and considered the pain that would inevitably accompany taking it with me with the glass I like I just couldn't see owning it.

I bought into the Sony system because it just makes so much sense to me. A slim body not much bigger than a decent mirroless compact and a superb FF sensor which can be adapted - for example I use the tiny 40 C-Summicron and I'm awaiting delivery of the equally tiny Minolta M-28/2.8.

This makes for a very compact and lightweight system. Without any compromise on image quality - as far as I can tell.

What works for me is not going to work for you so I apologise for my rather churlish response.

The point under discussion reminds me of what someone once said to me, "Divorce happens because people get married and then expect to change their partner into something they aren't".

LouisB

 

[tn1krr]

I just hope the 90 Macro will do 1:1. That will make the size even more forgivable to me. I actually kind of miss having a native Macro lens since I sold my Micro 4/3 Leica 45/2.8.

The upcoming 90/2.8 Macro can do 1:1, there is magnification scale visible on one of the images in the Photographyblog

Sony 90mm Macro Hands-on Photos | PhotographyBLOG

 

[iiiNelson]

The upcoming 90/2.8 Macro can do 1:1, there is magnification scale visible on one of the images in the Photographyblog

Sony 90mm Macro Hands-on Photos | PhotographyBLOG

Great news and if it performs excellently then it's a must have for me.

 

[UHDR]

found a photo which claims to be captured via 1-35mm F4.

looking good

https://www.flickr.com/photos/markg...Lb-oTeGWS-oTeak4-paGx7y-p8Gs6h-oTeaZv-oTfebr/

 

[tn1krr]

found a photo which claims to be captured via 1-35mm F4.

looking good

https://www.flickr.com/photos/markg...Lb-oTeGWS-oTeak4-paGx7y-p8Gs6h-oTeaZv-oTfebr/

More shots with A7R/A7S + 16-35/4 can be found on Mark Galer's flickr stream, he had a loaner prototype from Sony Australia as he seems to be in quite good terms with them

https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/

He also posted a link to a packet containing a few RAWs into a facebook group he manages

http://adobe.ly/1pg6l3n

 

[iiiNelson]

Agreed these look like decent quality so far and could solve most of my needs for UWA well potentially... Outside of the speed... Unless I buy an A7s.

 

[ZoranC]

100g per lens. and these things quickly adds up.

Could you please tell us how many lens you carry with you at the time, what are they and how you carry them?

In other words: It is unlikely that you always carry 4 or more lens at the same time. Thus weight "savings" will "quickly" add up to approximately one whole huge pound. That "humongous" saving will be felt only if you carry them all around your neck at the same time. Either that or person is made from cotton candy.

 

[ZoranC]

I'm seriously am not trying to be a jerk but might I suggest a gym membership? 100 grams is a few ounces in American terms.

You are telling it to a wrong person. Read more carefully and you will notice I am not the one that is claiming few ounces of weight "savings" are worth mentioning as Alpha NEX system's "advantage".

 

[ZoranC]

Even with bodies alone, you save 1Kg on two A7/R bodies in a kit bag over 2 x DSLR. ...

When/where/how exactly you carry two DSLR bodies with you? Shooting weddings, doing what ...? Doesn't it all depend on scenario?

 

[ZoranC]

Size and weight where not my main criteria when I switched over to Sony from Nikon, although it did play a role. I was just more interested in file, focus peaking better live view and the ability to bolt just about anything on it.

... and yet files are not same as Nikon ones (Nikon has uncompressed RAW, Sony does not) and bolting on often results in performance that is not as good as on native system. Which melts away few more of perceived reasons.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I can't bolt a canon lens on a Nikon but I can a Sony, also I have no issues whatsoever with the adapters with my metabones or my sony la4 and frankly Nikons live view , focusing sucks big time compared to the Sony. Also Nikon bodies have the worst focusing screens for manual lenses and on top of that the worst manual focus feel on there glass. I came from a Nikon, I did not do that out of thin air but very careful evaluation of system. I'm sorry but anyone tells me Nikon wins to me is wrong until at least they improved it with the 810. My success rate is far higher with the my Sonys.

I like Nikon don't get me wrong but there is plenty I don't like and why I switched.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

We can bitch all we want but bottom line no matter how you slice the cheese is this headline right here.

New Zeiss 16-35mm is the most preodered news lens at Amazon US! | sonyalpharumors

 

[anGy]

It seems that the law of optics also apply to Sony !
High IQ for full frame sensors = big lens
The A7 does offer a great sensor in a small body.
Use it with the 35 f2,8 and/or 55 f1,8 and you have a lightweight high quality system.
Use it with the next to come fast primes and I guess you'll have a top notch system.
Isn't it nice enough ? if not I also guess the A7 is not for you...

Actually it isn't for me, I'll only use my A7r with small lenses (35 f2,8 FE & Leica 70mm F2,5) that can be packed in a small think tank shoulder bag.
The vibrating focal plane shutter is also a reason for me not to invest in expensive lenses.

 

[ZoranC]

But each time I hefted a 800e and considered the pain that would inevitably accompany taking it with me with the glass I like I just couldn't see owning it.

I understand your "pain". Allow me different point of view: For years I have been living with back injury. One thing I have learned when dealing with it is that how you carry/lift/hold something, position of your body etc, are much more important in how you will feel at the end than actual weight/heft of it. I use (among other gear) Nikon with 70-200VRII. If I don't pay attention to "good practices" I end up hurting at the end of the day. If I do pay attention it ends up no problem.

 

[ZoranC]

I can't bolt a canon lens on a Nikon but I can a Sony, also I have no issues whatsoever with the adapters with my metabones or my sony la4 and frankly Nikons live view , focusing sucks big time compared to the Sony. Also Nikon bodies have the worst focusing screens for manual lenses and on top of that the worst manual focus feel on there glass. I came from a Nikon, I did not do that out of thin air but very careful evaluation of system. I'm sorry but anyone tells me Nikon wins to me is wrong until at least they improved it with the 810. My success rate is far higher with the my Sonys.

I like Nikon don't get me wrong but there is plenty I don't like and why I switched.

I don't remember anybody using exact term "Nikon wins". But what was offered was a reminder that every coin has two sides. You talked about files from Sony, do you feel they are as good as ones from Nikon once you remember which one has lossy RAWs? You talk about hit rate with manual focus on Sony, is your hit rate with auto focus also better?

 

[ZoranC]

We can bitch all we want but bottom line no matter how you slice the cheese is this headline right here.

New Zeiss 16-35mm is the most preodered news lens at Amazon US! | sonyalpharumors

Is that what really matters? Selection criteria professionals should be guiding themselves with?

(never mind the fact that almost every of XYZ rumor sites is owned by same person and he does such posts every single time something new is announced regardless of the brand in hope of drumming up some affiliate sales)

 

[philip_pj]

Weight and size are the kinds of issues that some people simply need to attend to due to what and where they shoot; for others I suspect it may be a surface attraction that opens up a new world of enjoyment in photography as they see the benefits accrue over a short time.

The real core of the matter is this: Canon and Nikon decided it would be a great idea if they grew mainstream cameras to twice their pre-existing weight and around an extra 50-75% their bulk. This is what I call the 'pro first, top down' model of camera design, because these devices are clearly doing so much more for pro shooters who *have accreditation to take their shots* than it could ever achieve for the other 98% of us, who prefer something much less obvious, less 'out there' and less onerous to assemble and carry.

It was a big mistake, of course, one they now realise, but you don't turn around the Queen Mary inside a football field. And they have both grown their 'pro' lenses commensurate to the bodies in the digital era, and this is the real handicap they cannot escape - it is true, as we hear ad nauseum, the strengths of the systems are in their lens lineups, but these heavyweight optics are now becoming their major weaknesses.

So all this is now their marketing hell, because in very short order we will stop hearing the brouhaha about peripheral shortcomings of the new age Sony FF cameras as Sony makes the few changes needed to deliver core functionality (fast AF; full lens coverage; menu fixes). The dirt items on the check sheet many antagonists use will then look very weak, and in any case many users just love these cameras just as the are today, and don't give a rat's about raw file config - they see that as real tinfoil hat stuff.

 

[philip_pj]

These: Nikon FE2 - 550 grams; Pentax K1000 - 460 grams; Minolta SRT-101 - 560 grams; Olympus OM-1 - 510 grams.

became these:

Nikon D800 - 1000 grams; Nikon D4 - 1180 grams; Canon 1ds3 - 1200 grams.

Final note: it is not just the 100 grams on a given lens, it is the mindless constant addition of weight and (just as bad) bulk.

It is *just everything* - CF cards, huge heavy batteries (long life for pros, but heavy to carry and a battery swap takes 10 seconds), large lens cases, very large/heavy carry bags small and main, 77mm filters and their giant cases, backup devices for those uncompressed files, larger chargers, L plates, tripod heads, tripods, lens hoods, lens caps, and so and so forth. Like any advanced machine - aircraft, F1, motogp, it all adds up!

The differences are also there in usage - you no longer bang the camera around in small spaces it won't easily fit, people don't shy away from the smaller cameras so you get much more candid portraits, smaller front elements don't give the 'giant eye' effect, you can hold a camera in one hand for difficult shot angles, gear is easier to reach and swap, gear can be carried in small inconspicuous lightweight bags or an overcoat that arouse no suspicion, gear fits in a carry on bag (oh bliss!), backpacks now actually have room for camping gear - these are just a few of the many benefits no heavyweight DSLR user can ever enjoy.

 

[ZoranC]

And they have both grown their 'pro' lenses commensurate to the bodies in the digital era ...

Size of optics has nothing to do with size of body but with size/position of sensor. New Sony lenses clearly show that.

 

[ZoranC]

huge heavy batteries (long life for pros, but heavy to carry and a battery swap takes 10 seconds) ...

And you actually list that as a con? :facesmack: Please tell me how many shots _in real life_ one can take with single Nikon's DSLR battery and what is weight and cost of that battery. Then tell me how many Sony A7R batteries does it take in real life to take same number of shots and what is combined weight and cost of them. (never mind that those "10 seconds" to do battery swap mean missed shots for some of us)