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!
G Master lenses - 24-70mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4 & 70-200mm f/2.8
- Thread starter MikeEvangelist
- Start date
V
Vivek
Guest
Could you clarify?
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I hope everyone realizes by now these lenses are not being made for the current mpx cameras. There made for much higher ones. Sony is building for future bodies . It's very clear they are coming now. What form factor I'm not sure but it obviously will be FE mount. These lenses far exceed our current 42mpx sensors . So if you think it's to pair with current bodies it is not. There putting the lenses out there first to make a clear cut statement but will followed up by a new body. The A6300 is also a clear indication if new AF tech that they can put in a new body. It's very obvious to me at least is they are building the puzzle for a new high end cam. This is exactly why I want to start getting these lenses now is to have them in place. But Sony is building there future. That's the real underlying secret few are picking up on. You all know as well as I they throw a 80 mpx sensor at us we all are going to say no current lens will resolve that. With these that argument won't hold water , there here already.
Last edited:
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I guess maintaining the market share of around 10% that they have had since they took over Konica Minolta's camera division can be called a kind of success. There are others who have done much worse. But to say that Canikon, with a combined share well over 60% of the same market don't know what they are doing is probably to exaggerate somewhat. 10% is 10%, and if that doesn't change, Sony's camera division is on shaky ground.
As for the sensor production, there's no way that Sony can stop selling to others. Reducing the production with more than 50%, probably much more, will either increase prices or reduce profit. Sony probably cannot live with either. There is competition out there. Not all Nikon's DSLR sensors are made by Sony and none of Canon's are.
Look where DSLR's are heading.
And this is the latest trend of the best-selling cameras in the world, smartphones. 40% of these cameras use Sony sensors.
Are you still going to argue Canikon is doing better than Sony?
pegelli
Well-known member
I think it's pointless to judge the success of a company by # of units sold and market share. In the end it's margin and profit that determine longevity.
And looking at the first graph above I don't think any company or camera style is selling particularly well the last 3-4 month.
And looking at the first graph above I don't think any company or camera style is selling particularly well the last 3-4 month.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I agree. But I do think Sony is selling pretty hot right now. My only concern as a end user is the company is viable and willing to take on risk reward products and innovate like crazy. No one else is really innovating like Sony. Im hanging out with Sony
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
According to that curve, mirrorless is heading in the same direction, downwards, and they are much closer to the bottom. If you had read my post further up, you would have seen that DSLR sales feel dramatically (26%) in 2014, which is what you see in that diagram which stops at January 2015. You would also have seen that DSLR sales fell much less in 2015 (8%). If you had bothered to read the CIPA statistics, you would have known these and other things.Look where DSLR's are heading.
And this is the latest trend of the best-selling cameras in the world, smartphones. 40% of these cameras use Sony sensors.
Are you still going to argue Canikon is doing better than Sony?
I don't know the size of the smiles of Sony's shareholders, and I don't care. As long as the camera supplier of my choice makes enough profit to develop new ideas and to survive comfortably, my smile is wide enough for me. As for how well Sony is doing selling sensors, that doesn't have anything to do with how good or popular their cameras are. Their market share is relatively constant. Do you want me to repeat that again?
When it comes to Sony and innovation, I would like to see exactly what they have innovated when it comes to cameras apart from installing a relatively large sensor in a small, mirrorless camera.
- They did not invent IBIS, but got it when they bought Konica Minolta's camera division. Konica Minolta introduced IBIS with the 7D in 2004. Olympus, who introduced IBIS with the E-510 in 2007, developed the 5-axis IBIS which is the current standard. Olympus was also the first manufacturer to launch IBIS in a mirrorless camera, the E-M5 in February 2012.
- They did not invent mirrorless. That was Panasonic with the G1 in January 2009. The Sony NEX 3 and 5 were launched in May 2010.
- They where not the first to launch an advanced still/video mirrorless camera. That was also Panasonic with the GH1, launched in July 2010.
- They were not the first to launch a mirrorless camera that could shoot 4K internally. Also that was Panasonic with the GH4, launched in February 2014. The A7s that was launched 2 months later needed an external recorder almost as expensive as the camera to shoot 4K.
- They did not invent the hybrid viewfinder although that would have been a great feature in their DSLR/SLT cameras. Fuji did that.
- They did not invent uncompressed RAW according to what I've read on forums.
- Apparently, they didn't invent dual memory card slots either. Fuji managed to squeeze that in on the X-Pro2.
However, Sony is the first camera manufacturer to launch lenses for their mirrorless cameras that are as large and heavy as their DSLR counterparts (possible exception for the PanaLeica 42.5mm, but one can choose the excellent Zuiko 45mm instead), negating the weight advantage of the bodies if the pile of batteries needed for the Sony hasn't done that already. Not least are those lenses considerably larger and heavier than the counterparts for their own DSLR cameras. I believe you guys when you say that these lenses are made for cameras with resolutions much higher than what is available today, except for some medium format cameras. But who on earth are supposed to buy those cameras? Even most MF cameras hover around 50MP, and although Canon just broke the 50MP barrier for 35mm cameras, I see no reason whatsoever to upgrade from my current 36MP body unless the body in question has other features that are must-haves. The reality is that, if I buy one of the new 20MP offerings from Nikon, my D810 will probably spend most of the time in the dry cabinet.
There is of course the MF crowd and a bunch of landscape shooters around, but that is a niche market, and the competition is rather tough, not least considering the fact that MF cameras have larger sensors, which is still an advantage for much of the photography where very high resolution is needed.
If they wanted to make an impression, they should have gone for Leica's throat, designing some really excellent compact primes. How much does Leica charge for that 50mm Summicron APO? $6,000? There's money in tiny things too, and a great compact prime quartet would be very hard to resist for people like me. But the stuff they have launched now is just... yeah, fine... do these come with wheels?
Annna T
Active member
I agree with much of what you say. However, even if Sony didn't invent the technologies she uses, she was able to combine all these in a remarkable camera where the sum is more than the parts and in a smaller body.
But yes, they missed the boat with those huge lenses : the A7x aren't the right bodies for them. I'll stop here because I have nothing more to add to my previous messages in this thread.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
This OT subject has already been beaten to death before.
Why now flog it again? :ROTFL:
Why now flog it again? :ROTFL:
Knorp
Well-known member
Some of use like to :deadhorse: over and over again ... :grin:
V
Vivek
Guest
Oh, come on! No one got converted to Nikon or Canon yet?
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Technically Epson and Leica did the first mirrorless cameras. Sony did the first mirrorless FF EVF based camera though.
The A7S was a lowlight evolution of a camera. The FE mount is great for most legacy lenses as they were designed EVEN if the results are mixed with M lenses.
The the battery life of FE cameras is comparable to EVERY other mirrorless EVF camera in reality. Sony get put to a higher standard though although they're spec'ed higher than other mirrorless cameras.
The lens size debate is pointless yes they can develop smaller lenses but I imagine it's a smaller market for those lenses with a limited development budget. Honestly people will adapt faster lenses from older systems or worse not buy into the system with slow lenses. High quality costs money but then there's a level of diminishing returns for example a $8000 Leica 50/2 APO isn't THAT much better than a $800 Zeiss Planar 50/2. That being said it's easier to justify buying a $1000 55FE over a $400 CaNikon equivalent when dealing in the economy of markets. Many of the "affordable" small lenses like the 35/2.8 aren't worth their price IMO in the FE system. The 28/2 is priced correctly but I have no problem walking around all day with the 35/1.4 Distagon on one body and the 85 Batis on the other body.
The A7S was a lowlight evolution of a camera. The FE mount is great for most legacy lenses as they were designed EVEN if the results are mixed with M lenses.
The the battery life of FE cameras is comparable to EVERY other mirrorless EVF camera in reality. Sony get put to a higher standard though although they're spec'ed higher than other mirrorless cameras.
The lens size debate is pointless yes they can develop smaller lenses but I imagine it's a smaller market for those lenses with a limited development budget. Honestly people will adapt faster lenses from older systems or worse not buy into the system with slow lenses. High quality costs money but then there's a level of diminishing returns for example a $8000 Leica 50/2 APO isn't THAT much better than a $800 Zeiss Planar 50/2. That being said it's easier to justify buying a $1000 55FE over a $400 CaNikon equivalent when dealing in the economy of markets. Many of the "affordable" small lenses like the 35/2.8 aren't worth their price IMO in the FE system. The 28/2 is priced correctly but I have no problem walking around all day with the 35/1.4 Distagon on one body and the 85 Batis on the other body.
4season
Well-known member
Do you know how Leica accomplishes such amazing performance in a small package? They don't! Probably achieved those rather amazing claimed 50/2 Apo MTF results using the sort of film used for reproducing documents and line art (yes film) Let them re-test using one of their digital camera bodies and see if you still think it can compete with the best.
But I'd agree that sometimes "good enough" is good enough, especially if it comes in an appealingly compact package. Lots of situations where no one is going to care if the corners of the image are soft and kind of dark, and in fact it might be seen as an enhancement. I happen to like Sony's SELP1650 pancake zoom: Chromatic aberrations, barrel distortion, coma: You name it, it's got it :ROTFL: But it's soooo handy.
Knorp
Well-known member
Mmm, it's a comforting thought: standing next to Jørgen shoulder to shoulder last men of the DSLR tribe swaying our Nikon behemoths ... :ROTFL:Oh, come on! No one got converted to Nikon or Canon yet?
If you are so happy and secure with your choices and couldn't care less about Sony, why do you spend so much time here? I don't get it.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
He's a closet Sony fan like many others are. Many are fans of Sony innovation and free nature to develop conceptual products that no one else is willing to do. Do you think there would be a Leica SL or that people would still clamor for CaNikon to jump into the FF mirrorless race if Sony wasn't developing these successful products that they'd like to have in EF or FX mount!?!
Even in non-Sony forums many manage to belittle the Sony brand and reiterate their "distaste" for their cameras as gadgets rather than cameras.
I doubt many understand it, but it's the way of things with users of competing brands. They come to Sony forums, make up stuff and/or manipulate data or give unsolicited/unfounded/unsupported statements and opinions. It's a mystery where this insecurity comes from.
In the case of our dear Jorgen, he seems to be unable to acknowledge the -shrinking- gap of sales between DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. That shouldn't be take as a threat to his current stable of DSLRs and lenses, but apparently it must be.
Lucille
New member
I can tell you daddy-o, I am so happy and secure with Sony, That I spend tons of time shooting and developing content. Everyday, everyday. I gain more experience each and every time, from settings to post.
Thanks Sony.
And I don't mind a big lens, to some of us girls, size and a big size, can be a good thing.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
You are right of course. Sony has developed the camera that many or most Canon and Nikon users wish that those brands had come up with. The most important reason why Canikon doesn't do it is clearly that they make an awful lot of money on the older technology. Nobody wants to challenge his most important source of income. Sony on the other hand entered the DSLR market with fanfare, declaring that within short time, they would be number one or two or whatever... I don't have time to dig into those old press releases and news articles. When they couldn't, they wanted to find another way to the top spot.
What annoys me endlessly, and resulted in the enormous rant last night (I have fast fingers for being such a grumpy, old man, don't you think?) is the repeated claims that:
1. Sony has more or less re-invented photography
2. Canon and Nikon will never catch up, but will be eaten by rabies infested dogs before the end of next week
Sony has:
a) Made a logical business decision, trying to divert attention away from a technology they couldn't succeed with to a newer technology where they had a better chance of succeeding.
b) Produced cameras (the A7 Series) that many photographers (myself included) where asking for on assorted forums across the internet. The final product is so similar to all the photoshopped FM-D and OM-D pictures out there that it's almost scary.
c) Integrated different kinds of advanced, attractive technologies, some from their own toolboxes and some from other sources, that has ended up in a camera unlike any others currently on the market.
Sony has always been a rebellious company. When I jokingly called the A900 the "Walkman Camera" years ago on this forum, it was actually a compliment to Sony and one of the most successful innovations in the history of consumer electronics. It was based on an interview I read decades ago with Sony co-founder Masaru Ibuka (I think it was him) in the Danish HiFi magazine High Fidelity, an interview that impressed me enormously.
The A7 is a result of the same style of innovation. Unfortunately, it also carries the same kind of limitations, limitations that weren't important during the pre-internet 1970s, but can become fatal in a world where new products are launched literally at the speed of sound. Whatever limitations the Walkman had, the competitors spent years bringing new products to the market to offer real competition, and before they could, Sony had an improved product on the table already.
In today's volatile society, a competing product from Canon and Nikon can be brought to the market minutes after its development, and while I understand that Sony has its own views on user interface and ergonomics, it is after all an electronics company first and foremost, there are millions of Canikon users out there who, the moment a competing product with a well known interface and brand name is available, will run to the shops. It's just human behaviour.
So kudos to Sony for bringing the A7 to the market. It's a camera that I would love to have hadn't it been for some unbelievable quirks, and I might even buy one if Nikon doesn't get their big, fat asses off the ground. But I wish the people at Sony would look a bit more to the competition sometimes, both when it comes to product development and marketing approach. It's a successful company, but they aren't without faults. That may cost them, as it did when they gave the TV market to Samsung. I'm sure they still have some Minolta engineers around who could teach them a thing or two about cameras. They did with the A900 and A99. There's still time to make the A7 III with a proper battery.
And thank you to all the Sony/A7 enthusiasts for enduring my rants and blowouts. I'm only trying to be kind :cussing: :ROTFL: :ROTFL: