Much of their profit is with lens sales. They want to sell their own lenses. Also, there's a certain amount of reverse engineering involved, and if they don't get that 100% right, there's a risk of having to re-call tons of adapters to upgrade them whenever Nikon, Canon or whoever else the adapters are compatible with, make a change to their electronic interface. Sigma ran into that problem a number of years ago with some of their F-mount lenses, and Zeiss have earlier stated that this is one of the reasons why they don't make ZF/ZE AF-lenses.
Leica is doing this for the S model, but it's much more manageable because of their low volume. Also, they charge somewhere around $22,000 for the S-body, which probably means they have a much higher profit on the body. A third factor for Leica would be that they make the best lenses anyway, so most users will change to Leica lenses as soon as they can afford it. With $1,795 for each adapter (Hasselblad H and Contax 645) they probably make a healthy profit on the adapter as well. I doubt anybody would buy a Nikon to Sony adapter for $1,795
Naturally a preference will be for new lenses but if they're smart they'll accommodate their user base to let them continue to use old favorite lenses for the forseeable future.
It's important also to remember that AF systems for mirrorless cameras, many of the hybrid PD/CDAF, is much more complicated than just sending some electronic signals through an adapter. All of these AF systems are proprietary, and even getting 4/3 lenses to work well on m4/3 took years, even for those who made the lenses as well as the camera bodies. Some lenses, particularly those made by Sigma, still don't work or work extremely slowly. Yes, I have tried. To think that this would be possible to do for a third party supplier is not very realistic.
Last edited by Jorgen Udvang; 10th January 2015 at 19:30.
Here are the specifications
760 gr against 840 gr for the weight; 172 against 175mm for the length and 76 against 80mm for the width. The diameter is where you feel the difference the most : when in hands the Canon feel much slimmer. Adding the Metabones adapter compensates the weight and length difference.
It's kinda funny. I've never thought of the A7 as being particularly small. It's pretty close to the size of what I always considered a normal SLR, like a Nikon FM2n or FE2. Most of the upper end autofocus SLRs always felt big and fat to me, and the DSLRs even more so.
I use these largish and heavyish SLR lenses on my A7, along with a mount adapter, and I like the way it feels this way even if it is a bit on the chubby side.
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream3 Member(s) liked this post
One can choose the non-IS version of the Canon, which is 55g lighter still and less than half the price of the Sony.
A Canon 6D with 24-70mm f/4 IS and 70-200mm f/4 weighs 2,130g and costs $4,098
A Sony 7D II with 24-70mm f/4 OSS and 70-200mm f/4 OSS weighs 1,869g and costs $4,394
More batteries are needed for the Sony, adding to the weight and price, since the batteries are smaller and the camera more power hungry. In reality, the battery grip is difficult to avoid for longer shootings with the Sony, making the camera larger and heavier than the Canon and even more expensive. The lenses listed here are more or less the same size for the two cameras. Add to this Canon's lens line-up etc., and there are good reasons why many don't see the point in buying mirrorless cameras except those with smaller sensors and lenses.
Last edited by Jorgen Udvang; 11th January 2015 at 03:32.
Sorry for the late reply.
Not really. Ron, poster over at FMForums, posted images you can find here. At some other place, forgot exactly where, we had a discussion about the background OOF rendering.
It, initially, seems as the focus plane bends towards infinity at the corners and edges. It's to early though to say exactly what's going on.
Is it vignetting causing the effective aperture being smaller away from the center of the image? Is it something having to do with the A7(x) sensor and its stack of glass? Is it the lens design? Is it the first test images which simply weren't the right images for the discussion? Well... something it is and if it is a problem or not anyone has to decide for themselves - as usual.
EDIT: The discussion on the topic, initiated by Ron's images, took place here.
Last edited by Jonas; 11th January 2015 at 03:18. Reason: found the reference
I also think the size is no surprise.
On the other side I am pretty happy with the speed and size of the 2470 and the 55/1.8. Compare that lens to a Sigma ART 50/1.4 or Otus!
Also the 35/2.8 is nice and compfortable.
Personally I would prefer a 35/2.0 sized between the 35/2.8 and 35/1.4.
Anyways - even if you want a m43 lens which produces shallow DOF you need to accept some size-like the Nocticron.
Dont be fooled by many m43 lenses - IMO a f2.8 zoom for m43 is like a f5.6 zoom for FF (in regards of DOF). And a f1.8 prime for m43 translates in a f3.5 prime for FF in this regard.
Impressing on the other sde how small the Leica M lenses are, even considering the advantage of not having to include AF parts.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Jonas, Too many speculations, sprinkled with a few suggestions that takes off as something real in that thread.
AFAIK (having examined the sensors with real measurements), the only sensor that Sony messed up was that of the NEX-7. The rest are OK and continuously improving.
Here is something to ponder about: What is the diagonal of a 24x36 rectangle? What is the diagonal of a Sony FF sensor?
(Nikon's "FX" is also the same, btw)
That the mFT lens mount is nearly identical to a Panasonic CCTV lens mount, designed from the start for a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera configuration with an electronic sensor, should come as no surprise. :-)
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
I got the A7r for the better sensor, in particular for the much wider DR and for the weight and size. It allows Canon owners to keep their lenses while getting a sensor on parr with the Nikon.
Personally, I appreciate the smaller bodies and don't think that I'll get an A7mk2 and hope this isn't the end of the smaller bodies. I'm keeping the MFT system which is much lighter than both other. In contrast to what you have written somewhere above in this thread, I think that the MFT lenses are smaller (with perhaps the exception if the longer tele zoom). I hate the vertical grips because they add weight : I keep the camera around my neck, so my hands can relax, but then I'm not shooting continually for 3-4 hours long and with a long tele zoom, like pro have to do.
I'm wondering whether I shouldn't sell most of my Canon gear, just keeping the lenses I like to mount on the Sony bodies.
Had I known that the A7 serie was coming, i wouldn't have updated my old 5D to the 6D. Indeed, I was very angry when they issued the 5Dmk3 which was heavier than the mk2. Canon has a very nice 40mm F2.8 pancake, which is also very light. But the 50mm F1.4 is a crappy lens compared to the Sony 55mm F1.8.
As I said it's too early for a final verdict. But, there was a relevant discussion on the topic and it was about nothing but the stack of glass on top of the sensor and the optical result from that.
I don't know what you mean with "mess up" but the A7 sensor (incl the cover glass) results in far more internal reflections than the A7r and the A7MkII. That's a kind of "mess up" as well, no?
The sensor size is very relevant since there are speculations about vignetting.
Personally, I think the A7 sensor pack is better made than that of the A7r's. Although I have reservations about both. Too much epoxy glue (well, not as much as the ones in the D800's, I suppose).
Those who adapt lenses that expose shiny bits from the adapted lenses and their mounts should not be blaming the sensors in the A7 cameras, right?
And when you want to work with available light in darker environment, F2.8 will allow you a handholdable shutterspeed.
(And please don't start with the noise equivalence. I know about it too).
Liveview and EVF busts that myth and makes a few feel very uncomfortable with what they see through the lens.
If that rumored CMOS monochrome with liveview shows up, it is going to create a lot of problems! Of course, one can always opt out of EVF and liveview to have a bit of comfort.
2) I was talking about internal reflections due to the sensor glass cover. The same lens, the same adapter, two different cameras. Reflections (street lights at night for example) with the A7, very much less so with the A7r or the A7MkII.
I have no idea about how the sensor and the cover glass holds up mechanically. If that is what you think about when you say "mess up" we can probably leave it aside when discussing lenses.
As for f/2.8 giving you "handholdable" shutter speeds, that might be sufficient if you're shooting objects that are not moving.
Whatever. We all have different needs and wants, likes and dislikes.
Some need fast lenses, others are fine with slow. Some need corner to corner sharpness, others are fine with vignetting. Some want clinical, others are happier with a character lens. Etc and so on.
It's all good.
my flickr5 Member(s) liked this post
With so many variables and problems with usage depending on the user, there is little point in comparing camera A and B (assuming all else is the same).
2 Member(s) liked this post
The diagonal of 24 x 36 mm is 43.2666 mm in case anybody finds it useful. That's obviously the reason why most old SLR mounts have a mouth diameter of 44-46mm, the exception being Canon EF and Contax N.
I'm struggling to find the problem here.
The 35/1.4 is on the large size of the spectrum, granted, but it looks to my eyes to be about the size of the 35G and LA-EA4 combo and likely will weigh much less.
Look at the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 35/1.4 if you want large and heavy.
The new Zeiss FE paired with one of the A7 bodies is going to be smaller, weigh less and be just as good if not better than the DSLR equivalents.
If size is the issue, go small with rangefinder glass. Can you do that on your DSLR? Want AF and compactness? there is always the FE 35/2.8.
This is the beauty of the A7. So much flexibility.
2 Member(s) liked this post
Advantages and disadvantages of large and small maximum apertures can be discussed till the moon turns into a blue cheese. There will always be different needs. I believe the main reason for large apertures on older cameras was the lack of high ISO film. Today, it has become part of the creative expression for many, like ultra wide angle lenses, macro lenses and other gear that make photos look differently from what the eye appears to see.
Personally, I find most f/1.4 lenses to be too large, and I rarely need or use lenses faster than f/2 or 1.8 on 35mm. Still, I wouldn't mind a 24mm f/1.4 for low light photography. But for a camera that boasts small size as one of its features, it becomes rather counterproductive. The OM Zuiko lenses didn't go larger than f/2.0 for anything but the 50/55mm lenses to maintain the compact size of the system, and even those 50mm lenses were launched relatively late if I remember correctly.
If I were Sony, I would have designed an extensive range of f/2.0 or f/1.8 primes for the A7 Series cameras, similarly to what Nikon has done for their FX DSLR cameras lately. They could even sell them as sets, like 20/28/50/85. Instead, they launch a mammoth 35mm f/1.4 that will probably only be bought by a limited number of enthusiasts.
And there lies most of the problem with personal opinion. It is personal
I'm thrilled they are coming out with a large aperture 35mm since it is one of my tools of choice, for various reasons - I would not bother justifying or defending them.
Still, I agree that Sony should target the photographer's set in smallish size in the f/2.0 to f/1.8 range and they must agree as well since it looks like they basically have 28/35/55 knocked out if we forgive the 35mm for being a 2.8 and the 50mm for being a 55mm.
Not sure if we will ever get a small 85mm though.
1 Member(s) liked this post
here on this forum)…
I happen to think Sony got the look, size, and speed right with that lens and wish it would consider an f/2 range as Jorgen said… I personally find it a much more pleasing lens than the FE 35/2.8. My own personal opinion, obviously.
I don't take any offense. I stopped reading KRockwell years ago. If he found something about reflections internally caused by the sensor topping it is more than I expected from him.
About your last sentence... It should be mentioned that it also has been about the same user, the same tripod, the same lens the same adapter and the same freaking everything except for the camera and one minute in time. I'm sure you can find variables but I find the comparisons valid. All of them together make it very clear there are differences between the A7 and the other models. OK, if you have no problems with the sensor topping reflections then it is good for you.
EDIT: Now seeing more replies posted while typing I wish I hadn't entered this thread. So confronting, so much bad karma. I think I'll stay away for a while.
Last edited by Jonas; 11th January 2015 at 08:49. Reason: found replies added to the thread after having posted
It is great that Sony is coming out with these new lenses and if they are large, then good so long as the build quality and IQ is great. Current FE 35 is small enough and quite good. For those that find the new FE 35/1.4 large can pick the current FE 35.
There is no issue with the new lens sizes as there are plenty of options for small adapted lenses on the A7 series. And if this is not enough, then I am sure manufacturers other than Sony will have something that meets the criteria for folks looking for a small FF camera with an EVF, a superb sensor and really tiny native large aperture AF lenses with superb build and image quality.
Next in line, please.
The A7 serie and FE system isn't well thought. It is rather erratic in its development. Or it is like those TV series where the producers ask the followers how the story should go on, but there is no united voices and so they proceed without any readable logic. Once left, once right as if pushed by the wind.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Last edited by jfirneno; 11th January 2015 at 10:08. Reason: typo
1 Member(s) liked this post
You can play the lens equivalent game all day and lose.
Canon 5D Mark III with 16-35mm f/4 860g + 615G = 1475g (plus camera body bulk and extra 3/4" of lens length when packed in your bag)
A7mII with 16-35 f/4 550g + 518 = 1068g and a smaller volume package.
Want to compare to the Nikon D810 and A7r?
880g+680g = 1560g (plus a full 1" longer lens) vs 407g+518g= 925g and a much smaller volume package.
Basically the weight of the lens is saved in this comparison!!!
1 Member(s) liked this post