Sony fanboy, shamelessly shilling for "the man" since 2010.1 Member(s) liked this post
I've always seen the basic idea of the A7 as good, but I've also pointed out the weak points that have kept me from buying one. When it comes to lenses, it's very important to remember that:
- Most photographers don't own any A-mount lenses.
- Most photographers don't own any M-mount lenses.
- Most photographers use native mount AF lenses only.
The most important reason to buy a lightweight, compact camera body is to save weight and space. If a sensible selection of good quality, compact, lightweight lenses isn't available, buying that compact body doesn't make any sense for most photographers. With the combined resources of Sony and Zeiss and Zeiss' extensive catalogue of high quality glass, including the above mentioned M-mount lenses, I find it surprising that they didn't set out to launch the basics of such a selection from the outset. As it has been until now, the A7 models have been nice choices mostly for those with A- and M-mount lenses, which again is a small part of the camera market. Too small probably, to keep this system alive.
Leica obviously wouldn't sell a single M-mount camera without their extensive range of compact primes. Even Nikon, with their larger camera bodies, have showed recently that this is important also for them and their customers by launching 5 relatively compact f/1.8 primes. So why shouldn't this be important to Sony then? I do assume that they want as many users for their cameras as possible.
I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=611051 Member(s) liked this post
You also seem to forget MOST photographer rely on zooms and not primes. The A7r was marketed for the discerning hobbyist and/or pro while the original A7 was supposed to be the all around camera for soccer moms to pros. The lenses are coming and when they do I'm sure plenty will still complain. LOL
They don't do this by designing and building nothing but slow, cheaper lenses with little or no profit margin. The best thing is to go for the big bang bucks first and then cover the remaining market as time and budget permits.
Sony has never made a big deal over the size of their mirrorless cameras. And they have made ZERO statements about their native lenses being small. So all this stuff about "too big" is based on personal preference and false assumptions, not unfulfilled promises.
The day (real users) stop complaining would either make ( because they found lenses acceptable) or break (because may be many are driven away by Sony fans who would accept anything that sony throw at them).
I am going to mount a Nikonos lens on my A7 cams soon when the adapter arrives.
It is a result of yet another system abandoned by Nikon.
I don't think everyone who likes what they are putting out can be classified as a Sony fan. I think they may legitimately desire exactly what they are releasing (in my case a fast 35 with some character or the 55FE.) Some like the 35/2.8, some would love slow yet small primes. I have no use or desire for the sort personally but that doesn't mean thatI don't hope they make them for those that do.
I think that's the disconnect. Some only look at their own desires and feel those are the only ones that ever need to be filled. Some just continue to complain even when they've never owned a Sony camera.
I'm not convinced that small lenses can't or arn't being made for the FE mount.
We are starting to see them now. Look at the 35mm Loxia, its essentially a ZM Biogon like beast corrected for the A7 sensors and its hardly any bigger than many M-Mount 35mms. Look at the Mk III Zeiss 15mm. A tiny bit larger than its two predecessors again just a corrected design for the A7 sensor. A deception is the A7's shallow sensor to flange distance. The camera is already very thin, we have to allow for some extra size in the lens tube anyway. Maybe this is why Alpha lenses seen so long.
Even the new FE 28mm is not all that big IMHO. Perhaps Sony are not as good as others jamming AF motors in their lenses to a small size.
For someone like me who tends to only tote 1-2-3 lenses, a small body with maybe one big lens is still overall a much smaller lighter kit over a DSLR system.
Every now and then I like to take the road less traveled or not plan a day, lets just go where the day takes us. Perhaps this philosophy is good for Sony (or Us). Experiment a little, maybe something better will come out of it. I bought in knowing it was risk to my money but then I don't have to make a living from it so I am free to experiment.
IMHO all electronic and optic designs are compromises. One thing WE have to to is adapt ourselves to those compromises. We can whine all we like but they make and offer it, we buy or not.
In the end if it don't suit you buy something that does. Simple
Last edited by Tim; 8th March 2015 at 16:36.
2 Member(s) liked this post
I fear you are too wise for Sony to ever do the right thing. And what you forget is that Sony is working from a very limited budget. I think that their lens selection is based on market research to select lenses that they believe will sell enough copies to make a profit. I also believe they are doing their best to provide decent quality lenses. If they fail to make a success of it you will be right. If they succeed then you happen not to be the market they were after. But you are concerned or you wouldn't be checking this forum, so they must be doing something right!
Sony fanboy, shamelessly shilling for "the man" since 2010.
If people complain or not is not the problem. The question is if people buy. A complaining customers is a positive. That means he cares enough to spend time complaining. Sony's challenge is those who ignore them.
Tell me what an equivalent Nikon kit will weigh with both the D810 and a D750 though... Let me guess... It's still heavier and requires a larger bag. I don't own the revised A7 either.
Look at the cars people buy. Camry and Corolla all over the world. Totally boring, but safe and functional. Remember the VW Beetle? My father bought 5 of those; green, yellow, beige, white and back to green. Technologically, it was a dinosaur from birth, but it was reliable and easy to understand. Like a clunky, old DSLR cameras with a kit zoom and a couple of primes that have to correspond to those traditional figures 28, 35, 50 and 85mm. 55mm? Come on, do you think photographers are some kind of revolutionaries?
The new 35/1.4 looks very good, except possibly an echo of what the new ZM 35/1.4 does with bright lights which can be seen in the second sample image linked to previously. The shapes change as you move toward the edges.
But the price is high. This is not a walk around lens. I would prefer a less perfect 35/1.4 that was much smaller, and became more perfect as it was stopped down.
I see great ambivalence in Sony design choices, and no small degree of ADD. The RX1 is their most impressive product to me, but even that camera has some design issues which make one want to pound their head: very unfriendly to MF, very slow to AF.
Again the thick coverglass issue has made making smaller lenses alot harder in the A7 series, and, so far, in using the new mod thin sensor cover glass I can find no disadvantage. AF is fine. I see no moire. But I have not done alot of video testing.
Anyway I think most here agree the 55 and 35 natives are small and do quite well. Branding non-withstanding LOL.
Since sony has such a picky sensor, it's incumbent upon them to produce equally small primes at 15ish 21ish 28ish and 85ish which are made for the design, like the 35 and 55. Why they have not done so is a very good question.
But despite my critique, one has to acknowledge they are leaders in innovation, and are showing the way forward to a new world of compact digital FF photography. I'd at least like to see the 135mm film footprint achieved LOL. A leica M the size of the M6 would be equally appreciated.
2 Member(s) liked this post
Sony A7 II with 16-35 f/4 + 70-200 f/4 + 55mm f/1.8 = 2,300 grams
I can fit the Nikon, D810 in my case, with those lenses plus another prime in a Lowepro inverse 200 AW. Camera bags don't get much smaller than that.
I think we have been through this comparison before.
In any comparison the answer is that the Sony system is ALWAYS lighter, the lenses are shorter, the bodies are slimmer, for manual focus users the EVF is a huge improvement for most, the system takes up less bag space, but it's as you say we've been over this. I digress as we are so far off topic now.
The D810 is superior for YOU. IQ wise they are 100% comparable as it's the same sensor with slightly different specs. I always travel with 2 bodies and of course I cross shopped everything. The A7/A7R was best for me. So like I stated in the travel kit thread there's really no comparison for versatility for my needs out there.
Going back to the topic though.
As far as the A7's being too slow you've been disproven so many times with actual photographic evidence on everything from auto racing to the theory that it's impossible to take a picture using the A7R with a lens longer than 90mm.
Just stop it as it's kind of getting old and quite embarrassing playing the game of "let's prove Jorgen's internet hearsay wrong yet again." I'm starting to feel bad for you being a closet Sony fan and all.
Not that these are huge differences, but let's not confuse expanded ISO and native ISO.
I'm sorry but each time I see a photo of the 35/1.4 I can't help 'laughing out loud'. It is such a beast.
Mind you, I might still get one. I'll just ensure I adjust my expectations about portability before I get it.
Actually, from that angle, it does not look too bad. They should have pictured with the battery grip as well, for a good measure.
FWIW, I have to hand it Sony. They shut up a vocal section of people that was demanding more lenses and not cameras. Genial!
Pair this with that huge & slow power zoom...may be I am getting delirious here. :-)
F2.8 + F1.4 FE lenses compared:
LensRentals.com - Sony FE 35 Match-up: Is More, More?
Me too just read that review from LensRentals. Doesn't look that great for the price and size. Though, it probably is useful for videographers.
I'll keep my Sigma 35mm Art.
Certainly an interesting lens, but I suspect that most users would be better off with the cheaper slower Sonnar f2.8. That won't stop lots of people lusting after the faster lens of course. Its a bit like the A7R: how many users have made a print over 30"?
As for improving high ISO quality driving the need for faster lenses down and this not actually happening, there is a good reason why not: people's camera and lens purchases are not always well attached to actual need. They are often relative to 'the alternatives' and what capability one can afford relative to other consumers and users.
We can all fall into this trap is we spend more time with cameras than with prints (or final digital outputs).
For my taste and use the size does not fit with the compact body of the A7's.
www.arioarioldi.net3 Member(s) liked this post
I do not mind the size (fast/good FF glass is gonna be big), not much bigger than my FE 16-35/4 and certainly much smaller than my APO Sonnar 135/2 that I absolutely love, it is quite nice in my hands with RRS-plated A7R.
Hmmmm... Completely different take for me despite the write up.
Even at thumbnail sizes on an iPad the Distagon is clearly better than the Sonnar to me. It has more character which is what the Sonnar is missing. How it stands up to the Sigma Art is of relevance to me since I already own that lens but ultimate sharpness across the frame isn't everything for me. How it stacks up against the Loxia is also of interest to me.
I agree on character, in that the 35mm Sonnar is not a character lens, but that's partly because it is scores highly in almost every technical parameter (aside from vignetting). Its the same with a Leica 35mm Summicron asph, or 24mm Elmar-M. Neither would be considered character lenses, like some of their predecessors or faster contemporaries. Could it be that the new Zony (my new abbreviation for Zeiss designed by Sony ) is trying to cut a fine balance between good enough technical performance to impress, but not so much as to be sterile?
Most manufacturers are reluctant to design in character, because that means are measurable flaws (spherical aberration etc) that looks bad in reviews. I understand Zeiss got burnt with this when designing the 85mm f1.4 Planar ZE/ZF. They wanted to make it gentle and good for portraits wide open and despite some singing its praises for this purpose (and its great sharpness only slightly stopped down), far more slated it for failing to resolve the bacteria on people's faces
I wonder if we are trapped by numbers and the bear pit that all lenses have to fight it out in?
To me you buy the 1.4 for the speed and the look at 1.4 or 2. But when stopped down it should equal the F2 and 2.8 lenses in resolving power. What your really buying is what 1.4 does for you. Now having said that there has been a change in the tech with 1.4 glass as the designers are trying to eliminate the aberrations wide open because people bitch about them but that's what makes the look of the lens is those aberrations. We will never see a modern Leica R 80 1.4 summilux ever again in a modern design. That lens has more wide open aberrations than you can count but that's what gave it that Mandler design look to it. He is gone folks will never see lenses like that anymore with modern designs. Even the Sony ZA 85 1.4 is a older design and it does have lens aberrations wide open why a lot of folks like it but look at the Sigma ART series the 35 and 50 they get away from that with stellar performance wide open , look at the OTus series the same thing. So now Sony and all the others are trying to get great wide open performance at the cost of look sometimes. The sigma 35mm lens that I had and now Tre has is a brilliant lens but ask either one of us on the look and we will both say it is a little sterile and that folks is the new pattern in lens design. This lens actually looks pretty nice and the test is good but it's not so much a head to head review it covers some basics. Which I expected it to be. Bottom line you need speed you need speed and the look nowadays takes a second role in the design. Designers don't want to look like idiots putting out 1.4 lenses with serious aberrations which in effect causes some really nice look or character to a lens. We have to remember character in a lens in the best description of it technically is not a perfect lens in design. The best character lenses are loaded with aberrations usually.
I am PRETTY sure that I will get Loxiated by the Loxia 50/2 Planar though. It's based on my favorite 50 of all time. Sort of a great balance between sharpness and character and paired well with the 35 Cron ASPH in the past although they give a bit of a different signature. One is VERY modern Leica and the other VERY modern Zeiss.
Last edited by iiiNelson; 3rd April 2015 at 05:50.
The 35 Cron ASPH is the 35mm that I compare all other 35's to. I haven't used anything except the Sigma Art 35 that even remotely comes close to it. Yes it lacks SOME character compared to say the "Bokeh King" (v.4) and even the version 3 (which many actually believe is a bit better than the fabled Bokeh King.) The color, rendering, and tone is perfect. Not what I'd call sterile to be honest... Especially when shooting B&W on an M8/M9 based body.
The next part is my issue what happens when engineers and marketing departments don't bother to work closely enough with operators. Sadly this isn't a Sony exclusive problem but a by product of industry norms in developed countries around the world.
As for the desire of perfect lenses - I'm all for working out extreme aberrations and minimizing time sitting at a computer. I don't know if I'm willing to give up character completely for the pixel peepers and corner freaks to be honest. I'm definitely am not willing to give up speed to ISO - simply put if people don't care much about shallow DoF as a component of the look sometimes then they would be better serviced by smaller sensors with smaller lenses than tend to be extremely well corrected through software.
The truth is that while the 35 Distagon is twice as expensive a lot of that has to do with the fact few people will buy it and it's more of a specialty lens for a very specific audience - that audience will probably love it once they get it in their hands.
I still don't get why so many are negative/adverse to others about having the choice between faster lenses when there are slower choices out there. We get it some of you will never buy anything that weighs more than a handful of feathers for fear of collapsing from the exorbitant weight but give it a rest please. I swear it's like people have never seen the inside of a gym/health club crying over a few ounces here or there.
My theory is you want sharp wide open regardless of size, weight and such and you want to save money to boot is get all three Sigma Art lenses 24,35 and 50 regardless if your shooting canon, Nikon or Sony. But if you have diffrent goals in a lens these may not be what you buy. Personally when it comes to my high end Mpx beast than I'm looking more for character. For other things that require very sharp wide open than these maybe it but they are a little more generic in look. Depends on need here and if we all had it our way we would have a huge assortment to fit any need. Myself I can't afford that luxury.
I think this new Zeiss will have a better look over the Sigma Art 35 but wide open is my bet the Sigma will resolve more. Now I'm partial to Zeiss glass and always have been regardless of system I always bought Zeiss glass in the end.