The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

New Sony lens mockups. No thanks.

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
hehe, three cameras? That's a lot to pack.

The A7mkII can tick all those boxes for you ;)

Just playing Brad. Sounds like you are in Excellent (even envious) shape!
+1 to that. The A7 II and S plus the GH4 are probably the best video cameras on the market below $5,000 once you get used to the different ergonomics. I have mostly used the GH3, and the quality is very, very impressive. The A7s is simply beyond belief. An A7s II with the ergonomics and IBIS of the A7 II and internal 4K recording will be very hard to resist.

What?!? Did I say something positive about a Sony product? And one that won't be launched for several weeks even? :wtf:
I'll wash my mouth later today... promise :angel:
 
What?!? Did I say something positive about a Sony product? And one that won't be launched for several weeks even? :wtf:
I'll wash my mouth later today... promise :angel:
Hahah, do it now Jorgen!

Yeah, I think there are quite a few people waiting for an A7sII with IBIS. Anecdotally, I have a couple concert shooter friends on Canon that also do video and they can't wait.
 

Steve P.

New member
Chad, That D750 is in my radar (notwithstanding the size or the bulk) as it promises to be the digital Holga. Google "D750 flare" and there are plenty of images. :)
Are you missing the days of your youth? I ask because you seem to be inexplicably attracted to flares.
Mid-life crisis!?! :D
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I am afraid that I can not relate to your younger days. FWIW, I was up to my neck with books.

We are talking about camera gear and there is an unique, long sought after digital Holga in the D750 from Nikon. :)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Sorry, I have no clue what your ailments were or what you are talking about.
 

Viramati

Member
Yeah and prior to the A7'the M9 was my main system for 4 years as limiting as it can be. I originally bought the A7R as a backup body... That was the plan. I liked the A7R so much I ordered a A7 the same week.

As for the Df I thought about getting one for my woman for Christmas but now I'm leaning more towards an A7II.
This is pretty much my story as well. When I went digital I had been shooting Nikon for years so had a lots of their lenses and ended up with the D700 and the holy trinity of nikkor zooms etc. a versatile but hefty setup with the introduction of the Leica m8 I started to expirement with the Leica system and ended up totally switching systems. As much as the Leica system is very good and fits my style of shooting it has some severe limitations so I dabbled with the Fuji X systems and as good as it is the crop factor annoyed me so when the Sony
System appeared I tried out with the A7 and have been slowly building my Sony kit to the point where the Leica M doesn't often see its way out of the safe. Size wise the bodies are similar and yes the Sony lenses are bigger but I can use my Leica lenses on it on the Sony which I can't on the Nikon DSLR.
 

nsng

Member
Read my post again Jorgen, I said, paired with the A7 bodies. Even if they are equivalent lens weights, the Sony is going to be a lighter combination that takes less volume in your bag.

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!!!

In my case, the difference is even more drastic. I carry 2 bodies and at times, even 3 for my photo trips. My current bodies are a M240 and a A7R. But if I did not have the M240, I will probably add another A7. With 2 A7's the difference in weight is over 1kg! Moreover, with the M240 or A7R, I can make do with a smaller and lighter Gitzo traveler tripod. I have back packed my equipment to remote and at times extreme places, Namibia, Ethiopia, Inner Mongolia, etc. Having to trek or hike several km in sweltering heat or extreme cold is tough. Any savings in weight and volume is always welcome.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Fair enough, Cam. I think using a fast aperture lens just because you like it is all the reason anyone needs to do just that. I do think the balance is shifting, though - even in low lit night street shots or stage performance, where f1.4 is useful but no longer quite so essential as once it was. I agree there will be times where nothing but speed will do, it's just that those times are fewer and further between nowadays.
I still think you are missing the point of a faster aperture lens... for some of us.

It isn't just to record more light ... or just because we "mindlessly" like it.

A 35/1.4 shot at a distance can provide "subject isolation" while retaining acuity for the whole subject being isolated (look at the DOF scale on a lens that actually has one ... wide-angles really increase DOF dramatically as distance increases).

That ability to selectively isolate a subject from a busy scenario is harder to do with a f/4 max aperture wide-angle. Conversely, I can stop down any f/1.4 lens to f/4 but cannot open up a f/4 lens to f/1.4. f/1.8, f/2, or f/3.5 to control the point of interest I want in the photo.

Also, given the motion of the subject as a shutter-speed factor, I prefer to use the lowest ISO possible for the lighting conditions ... or conversely, use a higher ISO to stop action rather than gather more light.

All that said, I wouldn't specifically argue against slower lenses that are smaller to match the size of these Sony cameras. I specifically like the FE35/2.8 for the same reason I used to like the Leica 50/2/8 collapsible ... it is small and reasonable in performance. Meanwhile I also used a 50/1.4 or Noctilux when appropriate.


- Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I still think you are missing the point of a faster aperture lens... for some of us.

It isn't just to record more light ... or just because we "mindlessly" like it.

A 35/1.4 shot at a distance can provide "subject isolation" while retaining acuity for the whole subject being isolated (look at the DOF scale on a lens that actually has one ... wide-angles really increase DOF dramatically as distance increases).

That ability to selectively isolate a subject from a busy scenario is harder to do with a f/4 max aperture wide-angle. Conversely, I can stop down any f/1.4 lens to f/4 but cannot open up a f/4 lens to f/1.4. f/1.8, f/2, or f/3.5 to control the point of interest I want in the photo.

Also, given the motion of the subject as a shutter-speed factor, I prefer to use the lowest ISO possible for the lighting conditions ... or conversely, use a higher ISO to stop action rather than gather more light.

All that said, I wouldn't specifically argue against slower lenses that are smaller to match the size of these Sony cameras. I specifically like the FE35/2.8 for the same reason I used to like the Leica 50/2/8 collapsible ... it is small and reasonable in performance. Meanwhile I also used a 50/1.4 or Noctilux when appropriate.


- Marc
I agree with however I personally find f2.0 a very good compromise between DOF control and size in the 35-50mm range.
Thats also the reason why now my favorite M lenses are the 35/2.0 and 50APO.
I also think 55/1.8 is just right, why I would prefer a 35/2.0 over both the 35/2.8 and the pretty big 35/1.4.
With all respect to Speed requirements I think ergonomics are also important and a balanced weight and size between Body and lens is important as well.
No Problem to use a Sigma ART 35/1.4 on a 5dIII, but in regards of handling I was not so totally happy with the Noctilux 0.95 on the M9.
Tom
 
Last edited:

Steve P.

New member
I still think you are missing the point of a faster aperture lens... for some of us.

It isn't just to record more light ... or just because we "mindlessly" like it.

A 35/1.4 shot at a distance can provide "subject isolation" while retaining acuity for the whole subject being isolated (look at the DOF scale on a lens that actually has one ... wide-angles really increase DOF dramatically as distance increases).

That ability to selectively isolate a subject from a busy scenario is harder to do with a f/4 max aperture wide-angle. Conversely, I can stop down any f/1.4 lens to f/4 but cannot open up a f/4 lens to f/1.4. f/1.8, f/2, or f/3.5 to control the point of interest I want in the photo.

Also, given the motion of the subject as a shutter-speed factor, I prefer to use the lowest ISO possible for the lighting conditions ... or conversely, use a higher ISO to stop action rather than gather more light.

All that said, I wouldn't specifically argue against slower lenses that are smaller to match the size of these Sony cameras. I specifically like the FE35/2.8 for the same reason I used to like the Leica 50/2/8 collapsible ... it is small and reasonable in performance. Meanwhile I also used a 50/1.4 or Noctilux when appropriate.


- Marc
My original point was that thanks to improvements in high ISO there are fewer (not no) occasions when f1.4 is ESSENTIAL. I think that nowadays an aperture of f2-f2.8 will suffice in many, but not all, circumstances. When it doesn't then of course, as Cam and yourself correctly point out, only f1.4 will do. For myself, and only for myself, I find f2.8-f4 to be sufficient most of the time. Your point about smaller, slower lenses to better match the size of these Sony bodies is one I concur with.
When I said that using a fast aperture lens because you like it is all the reason anyone needs to do just that I was in no way inferring that to do so would be to behave 'mindlessly', as you put it. I merely meant that pleasing yourself in how you choose to make photographs is all the justification any of us needs.
Your points about subject isolation and motion are well taken and appreciated.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
With 2 A7's the difference in weight is over 1kg!
I don't know what camera you compare with to get more than 1kg weight service using 2 A7 bodies, but:

2 Sony A7 II bodies with battery weighs 1,198 grams
2 Nikon D750 bodies with battery weighs 1,500 grams

Difference: 302 grams

But, to get the same battery capacity with the Sonys as you have with the Nikons, you need at least 2 extra batteries per body for the Sonys (you actually need more). That is 4 x 42.5 grams = 170 grams, which reduces the weight difference to 132 grams.
 

Annna T

Active member
I don't know what camera you compare with to get more than 1kg weight service using 2 A7 bodies, but:

2 Sony A7 II bodies with battery weighs 1,198 grams
2 Nikon D750 bodies with battery weighs 1,500 grams

Difference: 302 grams

But, to get the same battery capacity with the Sonys as you have with the Nikons, you need at least 2 extra batteries per body for the Sonys (you actually need more). That is 4 x 42.5 grams = 170 grams, which reduces the weight difference to 132 grams.
He said that most of the time he needs two bodies. And it isn't very fair to take the A7II in the comparison, since they are way heavier than the first three of the series. The A7r he owns weight 465gr x 2 = 930 gr.. aka less than one single D810 body. If he needs two bodies, then the difference reaches 1030gr. aka 1kg.. Also depending upon one's style of shooting one may not use as many batteries as you pretend to need.

So I think this last comment isn't very fair. Although it is clear that if you need size reduction for the whole system, then you have to pick smaller slower lenses with shorter focal lengths.

I think that there is a place for a smaller FF system and it can be had with the A7 series. Also the mirrorless system offers you more advanced features in a number of cases : like the EVF (I won't return to OVF) and more ease for MF focusing (unless you want to use zone focusing with a shorter focal length)
 

nsng

Member
I don't know what camera you compare with to get more than 1kg weight service using 2 A7 bodies, but:

2 Sony A7 II bodies with battery weighs 1,198 grams
2 Nikon D750 bodies with battery weighs 1,500 grams

Difference: 302 grams

But, to get the same battery capacity with the Sonys as you have with the Nikons, you need at least 2 extra batteries per body for the Sonys (you actually need more). That is 4 x 42.5 grams = 170 grams, which reduces the weight difference to 132 grams.
My comparison is between the D810 vs the A7R, since both are 36mpx.

D810 = 980g (batt + card)
A7R = 465g (batt + card)

A7R battery weighs about 42g

You can do the math.

As for the number of batteries, based on my actual field usage, I am getting around 250+ per charge. Therefore, with 2 batteries I am getting 500+ per day of shooting. Therefore, if I were to carry 2 X A7R, I can shoot 1000+ shots per day. The actual number of images I shoot per day is much lower. I am not one of those that shoot machine gun style.
 
My comparison is between the D810 vs the A7R, since both are 36mpx.

D810 = 980g (batt + card)
A7R = 465g (batt + card)

A7R battery weighs about 42g

You can do the math.

As for the number of batteries, based on my actual field usage, I am getting around 250+ per charge. Therefore, with 2 batteries I am getting 500+ per day of shooting. Therefore, if I were to carry 2 X A7R, I can shoot 1000+ shots per day. The actual number of images I shoot per day is much lower. I am not one of those that shoot machine gun style.
Great comparison.

I actually pack three bodies when shooting music festivals, one being the RX1 and can shoot primes vs. big heavy zooms without having to switch lenses. Having one camera on a shoulder strap and two in my small domke is unbelievable. The more traditional DSLR shooters are generally packing two big bodies with heavy zooms and having to wear the "christmas tree" rapid straps to equalize all the weight.
 
Top