Actually not. Try any 36 mp camera and its equivalent aps-c sensor camera.Practically same pixel size as 24 MP APS-C, many people do just fine with those handheld. IBIS (assuming this hypethetical camera has one) will help too.
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!
Actually not. Try any 36 mp camera and its equivalent aps-c sensor camera.Practically same pixel size as 24 MP APS-C, many people do just fine with those handheld. IBIS (assuming this hypethetical camera has one) will help too.
Vivek-I was not aware of a sensor degradation issue with Sony A7 sensors. What are you talking about?It would be an instant buy for me IF Sony comes up with an upgrade program like Leica.
A7r to A7r M2 will be just very easy and less painful. Otherwise, I will look for prices to drop at least 33% (~ 3-6 months after all the online reviewers hail it as the BEST ever! ).
These product cycles are very very taxing and there is absolutely no enthusiasm at the moment.
Lou, The sensor stack is too thick for any corrosion. It is the shutter. Nikon got the new and improved 36mp sensor with EFCS for their D810 from Sony. Usually, 2 years after Nikon get their sensor, it comes to Sony's own bodies. The new twist now is SSS (aka "IBIS").Vivek-I was not aware of a sensor degradation issue with Sony A7 sensors. What are you talking about?
I have, quite extensively actually. I have about 8K shots on Nex-6 (16 MP APS-C) and over 12K on A7R that is pretty much exactly same pixel size. Other than mechanical shutter and longer shutter delay on the A7R no difference. Given that A7R sensor effectively is pretty much just placing 2 x Nex-6 sensors on vertical orientation next to each other how could there be any real difference? Even the sensor tech/generation in this case is pretty close.Actually not. Try any 36 mp camera and its equivalent aps-c sensor camera.
I have, quite extensively actually. I have about 8K shots on Nex-6 (16 MP APS-C) and over 12K on A7R that is pretty much exactly same pixel size. Other than mechanical shutter and longer shutter delay on the A7R no difference. Give that A7R sensor effectively is pretty much just placing 2 x Nex-6 sensors on vertical orientation next to each other how could there be any real difference? Even the sensor tech/generation in this case is pretty close.
There is a real difference but it is not caused by pixel size; if everything else was equal a 16 MP APS-C shot is just center crop of the 36 MP FF shot. What is not equal then? Mechanical shutter and its vibration/lag are a big difference; I decided a year ago that A7R is gonna be my very last camera without the EFCS. I also have the A6000 and it is an easier camera to get tack sharp shots handheld without flash despite smaller pixel size due to vibration-free EFCS and way smaller shutter lag.In theory, there should not be, but with 6 photogs who work for my company and my own personal experience shows that there is a difference. Even A7R shows shake more often than we care for, of course when used hand held. None of us are older than 40 before someone someone suggests age as a reason. Whatever be the case,in my personal opinion, I prefer an improved A7R than just an increase in MP. If you feel that everything is fine and need more MP, then great, it is what is likely going to be offered by Sony. I am just stating my personal preference and opinion.
Actually, with a smaller sensor you would use a shorter focal length for the same field of view so if pixel pitch is the same then field of view per pixel is wider which means less impact of any unsteadiness. I think. Did I get that right?Practically same pixel size as 24 MP APS-C, many people do just fine with those handheld. IBIS (assuming this hypethetical camera has one) will help too.
It would depend on the camera store that you do the trade-in. Sony would just give $250-$350 extra on top of what the store is going to pay you. I paid $2100 for my A7s new from Amazon last September by trading in a very old, very beaten up Canon 40D (got $150 for that camera+$350 on top I believe).What kind of % of original retail price did they offer on digital camera bodies? Maybe I should offer to buy minty A7Rs.
An option to upgrading would be, you know, don't always get the latest camera.
In theory, yes. The bulk of the set up would make it very unappealing. Why not then use a Nikon that give better output from the same sensors than a less than optimal Sony camera? The Otii are available in Nikon F mount and none are available for Sony.Just imagine what this camera will do with ART or Otus lenses, or our Zeiss Hartblei stuff (the 4/40 has 200 lp/mm, that will do).
Regards
Stefan
"Normalized" this way yes, that is correct. On the other hand if one maintains the same framing by taking picture from the longer distance would mean pitch/yaw shake would have bigger effect on smaller sensor etc.Actually, with a smaller sensor you would use a shorter focal length for the same field of view so if pixel pitch is the same then field of view per pixel is wider which means less impact of any unsteadiness. I think. Did I get that right?
Fully agree. There already is a pile of lenses that can easily resolve more than 36 MP and higher res sensors push glass manufacturers out of their comfort zone to look for better solutions. For example for years there was this mantra on how awesome/supersharp almost all the Canon L glass or much all Leica glass are. Now put these in front of a higher res sensor, in comes reality check and R&D departments are more awake again.I would love a 59 Mpx A7r2, simply for the reason that it's a configuration that today doesn't exist. More choice, more pressure on lens makers, more pressure on the competition. A lens that is reasonably good at resolving 59 Mpx would be awesome on 24 Mpx.
Otus + OVF-DSLR equals a serious pain to focus handheld wide open. I'm currently using APO Sonnar 135/2 smart-adapted on my A7R and it already works nice, supernice to focus. Now give me IBIS with stabilized EVF-zoom and a 59 MP sensor + EFCS; that would be even better.In theory, yes. The bulk of the set up would make it very unappealing. Why not then use a Nikon that give better output from the same sensors than a less than optimal Sony camera? The Otii are available in Nikon F mount and none are available for Sony.
Hi Vivek
I use the Sony A7R with these lenses already (right now doing an ART test for digit! magazine here in Germany) and I cannot state "problems" which are more than the same res 40Mpix from my P45+ I used for years. The output is pretty much on par, but the Sony is 5x faster and giving me all the needed modern camera features.
Nobody knows what the new body will use for Soft - and Firmware, Probably Sony will use a much faster Imageprocessor and will drive this body into the 12-14 bit uncompressed range with a new arw format extension. (that´s what I would do before I´d launch such a camera).
It will still be cheaper to make than a Nikon with all the mirror stuff (which is useless for focusing anyway at that res, because nobody will be able to do that manually with an optical viewfinder.
Greetings from Germany
Stefan
Agree with manual focus being easier with an EVF (the smart folks at Zeiss overlooked that while issuing Otii for EOS and F mounts) however, what is the pleasure in hand holding such a bulky setup?Otus + OVF-DSLR equals a serious pain to focus handheld wide open. I'm currently using APO Sonnar 135/2 smart-adapted on my A7R and it already works nice, supernice to focus. Now give me IBIS with stabilized EVF-zoom and a 59 MP sensor + EFCS; that would be even better.
Yes there is bulk, but there would be even more bulk if I had the APO on a DSLR. As for 36 MP Nikons on a tripod, the lack of tilt screen is also big usability minus for anyone with back issues.
It is about 1.6 kg with Metabones adapter and it get's me shooting the best fast 135 mm on the planet; beautiful long throw manual focus ring with "wide open focus regardless of selected aperture" (smart-adapted ZE version) means absolutely surgical level of focus placement. It is the best and the lightest shooting experience possible for such a stellar fast lens, I enjoy shooting with the APO 135 a lot. So much fun that I'm actually looking into purchasing other focal lengths of Zeiss ZE lenses even when there is equally good native FE option available.Agree with manual focus being easier with an EVF (the smart folks at Zeiss overlooked that while issuing Otii for EOS and F mounts) however, what is the pleasure in hand holding such a bulky setup?
I am sorry, makes no sense, but get it that its your personal thing.It is about 1.6 kg with Metabones adapter and it get's me shooting the best fast 135 mm on the planet; beautiful long throw manual focus ring with "wide open focus regardless of selected aperture" (smart-adapted ZE version) means absolutely surgical level of focus placement. It is the best and the lightest shooting experience possible for such a stellar fast lens, I enjoy shooting with the APO 135 a lot. So much fun that I'm actually looking into purchasing other focal lengths of Zeiss ZE lenses even when there is equally good native FE option available.
Care to open this "makes no sense" statement a bit? That someone does not think 1,6 kg is always too heavy? That view would mean nobody could ever enjoy shooting Otus handheld for example. A7-series is the lightest and most compact FF setup for any such lens. I've seen more than a few people raving how good Otus is on A7R, quess they do not make any sense either.I am sorry, makes no sense, but get it that its your personal thing.