iiiNelson
Well-known member
Yeah but some people are so invest emotionally or financially that they'd stay anyway. Canon is still kicking everyone's butt in sales with technically inferior image sensor but the best pro AF system.
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!
Sony Zeiss FE 35mm F1.4 ZA
- Thread starter BJNY
- Start date
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
You have a point of course, but that's only natural. Most people want a camera that is tailor made for their own use. The challenge for companies like Sony is to find the best compromise, and even more important: build a system that people will stay with long term. Consumers are remarkably difficult to move. There's a reason why Canon are still selling Digital Rebels by the truckload.
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? :ROTFL:
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.
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.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Nikon D750 with with 16-35 f/4 + 70-200 f/4 + 50mm f/1.8 = 2,550g
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.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
You forgot to add the D810 weight and the A7R weight. Just saying all of that fits in my Tamrac backpack with my laptop, two sets of shades, 6 batteries, my phone, iPad, and necessary cables.
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. :wtf:
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Why would I add the D810 weight? To start with, I only carry one body when travelling. Secondly, other than sensor size, the D810 and A7R are hardly comparable. The D810 is vastly superior when it comes to AF, frame rate, buffer size, image quality at high ISO, image quality at low ISO, build quality, battery life, ergonomics etc. It's a totally different kind of machine. But since you ask, the D810 is 140g heavier than the D750. Also, when travelling, I carry two batteries and change battery once per week, more or less.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
You'd add the weight because it's the fair comparison since we are comparing kit weights. You should also compare the weight of the standard A7 as that's what I have AND the D750 (sensor based on the A7 sensor) doesn't have IBIS which adds weight.
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.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
IQ wise, they are kind of comparable, but look at skin tones at high ISO and DR at low ISO (64 in case of the D810). I still don't understand why I should compare the weight of two bodies when the one I have does an excellent job for all the photo work I do. When it comes to AF and some of the other things I mentioned... sorry, there's no comparison. The A7R compared reasonably with the D800, but that's history (I considered the D800/E for my work, but found them too slow etc.), as is the A7 that you are using.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I guess it's true what they say... Ignorance is bliss. As for low ISO well there's ISO 64 on the A7R... ISO 50 too. Besides you're the one that mentioned weight in the first place and compared another camera you apparently don't own in the D750.
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.
Slingers
Active member
The D810 has native ISO of 64 (A7R has 100). The D810 ISO 64 is very impressive in terms of DR, 2/3 stops more than A7R in dxomark for example. With the native ISO 100 the A7R gets no such bit benefits when going below ISO 100.
Not that these are huge differences, but let's not confuse expanded ISO and native ISO.
biglouis
Well-known member
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.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/sony35f14ze/IMG_4378a_1000.jpg
Mind you, I might still get one. I'll just ensure I adjust my expectations about portability before I get it.
LouisB
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/sony35f14ze/IMG_4378a_1000.jpg
Mind you, I might still get one. I'll just ensure I adjust my expectations about portability before I get it.
LouisB
V
Vivek
Guest
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.
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.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
You're right that is the native resolution and it's not a huge deal. To say that it is is a night and day difference in IQ is disingenuous. Even more so than the guys saying that the D8xx is as good as MF.
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).
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).
Ario Arioldi
Member
For my taste and use the size does not fit with the compact body of the A7's.
V
Vivek
Guest
This test again goes to show just how good that tiny FE 35/2.8 is. For the $$$ the FE 35/1.4 really should be in par or above Sigma 35/1.4 and it starts to look like that while good, it is quite not there. FE 35/1.4 usability is obviously better (face detect, eye-AF, full frame coverage, no microadjustment needed) in a Sony body vs adapted Sigma. Maybe the FE 55/1.8 and FE 35/2.8 made me a bit overcritical as they are just stellar for their price/size.
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.