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!

Now we're talking. Announced FE mounts

biglouis

Well-known member
I'm in two minds about the 16-35. It was going to be a no-brainer for me but in the interim I bought the CV 21/1.8 Ultron. Don't know now if I want both.

The 90/2.8 is the one I will definitely plump for. I'm using a 90/2.8 Elmarit at present which is very good but not ideal and no use for macro anything.

If the 28/2 is any good that will be nice as well.

LouisB
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Then why go through all expense of switching to mirroless, please? Could you please tell us what would justify time and money expense of selling systems we own now with platitude of lenses that are available now for system with lenses that will be available mañana mañana if we are not going to be making any progress? Did we gain anything in autofocusing accuracy, consistency and speed? What about autofocus tracking? Face recognition? Dynamic range etc over Nikon? Anything? No? So take away size and weight and what is left to justify burning money and all the effort? Anything? We should do it just because we like making our lives complicated switching systems and have nothing better to do with our time and money?

Take away everything and we should have stayed with our existing already paid off gear. At least my 50s and 35s on Nikon are not having color shifts, and I have not heard of Canon's having them either.
Then don't change systems. I don't understand the beef. The main advantage of the Sony system is size and weight of lenses.

If you are young and healthy - not an issue - if you are getting to an old fossil like me, very handy.

Just my two cents.

LouisB
 

ZoranC

New member
Then don't change systems. I don't understand the beef. The main advantage of the Sony system is size and weight of lenses.

If you are young and healthy - not an issue - if you are getting to an old fossil like me, very handy.
I don't understand your counter argument. Do you really believe that 100g, mere 15%, of "difference" between Canon and Sony 16-35 is really an advantage? I don't consider myself that young or healthy but if the day comes that 100g "difference" will be breaking my back I will need much more than 100g of "savings" to save me.
 

UHDR

New member
I don't understand your counter argument. Do you really believe that 100g, mere 15%, of "difference" between Canon and Sony 16-35 is really an advantage? I don't consider myself that young or healthy but if the day comes that 100g "difference" will be breaking my back I will need much more than 100g of "savings" to save me.
100g per lens. and these things quickly adds up. :)
 

ThomasZ

New member
Back to the 35/1.4 - why does it have an aperture ring? Or the better question: why doesn't the other lenses have one?
 

tn1krr

New member
Back to the 35/1.4 - why does it have an aperture ring? Or the better question: why doesn't the other lenses have one?
Since it does have on/off Switch for Clickless aperture too one can only assume it is there for video purposes like in dedicated cine lenses.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
I don't understand your counter argument. Do you really believe that 100g, mere 15%, of "difference" between Canon and Sony 16-35 is really an advantage? I don't consider myself that young or healthy but if the day comes that 100g "difference" will be breaking my back I will need much more than 100g of "savings" to save me.
I'm seriously am not trying to be a jerk but might I suggest a gym membership? 100 grams is a few ounces in American terms. You're also saving weight on the body so you ARE saving weight. If they Sony cameras don't work for you you can always buy something else. Buying used will take some of the sting of switching yet again off of you.

For me I bought into the FE bodies to potentially replace my Leica M if the color was up to snuff originally. I found the Sony bodies to be infinitely more versatile in that I can literally put any lens on it with adapters and less than a year later it looks like the system is starting to fill out. While all of the lenses aren't my cup of tea I am happy the system is being supported and I can say Sony is making progress in providing choices for us.

Again the system is less than a year old and more will come in time. Maybe you should've waited a bit longer for the system to mature before switching. I'm not a pro photographer though (although I have done paying jobs) and I have the luxury of shooting what I want when I want
 

Barry Haines

New member
Then don't change systems. I don't understand the beef. The main advantage of the Sony system is size and weight of lenses.

If you are young and healthy - not an issue - if you are getting to an old fossil like me, very handy.

Just my two cents.

LouisB
To true Louis, my 2p worth as well, 97g of difference between the Sony and the Canon 16-35mm f4's :eek: ;) :eek:
What would really cripple an old fossil like me is the extra weight of some smartless FE adapter :ROTFL:
 

turtle

New member
One can easily select worst case comparisons and say there is no point in the Sony system, but its not the whole story.

Even with bodies alone, you save 1Kg on two A7/R bodies in a kit bag over 2 x DSLR. Throw in a 100g 35mm FE vs. te Canon or Nikon alternatives (f2 lenses) and you save yet more weight (as well as getting far superior optical performance at wider apertures (compared to F2 models)). Sure, the 55mm f1.8 FE is no lighter than the competition, but optical performance is astonishing. Again, to compete here you need something like an Otus at megabucks and megaweight.

Then there is bulk. Try fitting two A7 bodies, a 35mm FE and a 55mm in a small bag and see how much DSLR kit you can fit in the same space....

No, the Sony mirrorless system is not a panacea, but to suggest people are switching systems for no reason other than to stimulate bored minds is to ignore the facts.

Yes, it would be great if Sony produced a line of fast lenses where users only benefit with lighter bodies, alongside slower, compact offerings for those who dont need wide apertures and want to benefit from the smallest package. Maybe that will happen in time, as it has with Leica, but the greatest noise (ironically) was from those who were irked by the slowness of the early releases! Personally, I want the small, slow optics, but the masses spoke.

The anti-A7/R arguments also assume that Sony A7/R cameras are considered only as 'only' systems, or to the exclusion of others. I shoot Canon and am happy with that. I do not want to switch to Nikon just to get more DR and resolution. A limited buy into the A7 system has given me my solution, using the excellent metabones.

Regardless of some not so small lens releases, the Sony A7 system is still very useful to a lot of people and it is here to stay. The splash is only going to get bigger, I am confident of that. Just because it does not give you exactly what you want does not mean it is 'pointless'. I do agree, however, that they need to get moving and produce a killer high quality compact (slow if need be) 24/25mm prime (not sure the 28mm/21/16 convertible thingy will be optically good enough, but we will see) as well as consider some very compact (slow) longer lenses for landscapers.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Size and weight where not my main criteria when I switched over to Sony from Nikon, although it did play a role. I was just more interested in file, focus peaking better live view and the ability to bolt just about anything on it. But I'm a alternate camera user and like non standard options. But that's me. But you want size than lenses will be slower. But I do like the fact they are thinking 1.4 lenses and without a adapter that does help the cause. I think this is a decent announcement myself. Just wish it was you can get the zoom today not 2 months from now.
 

jfirneno

Member
Then why go through all expense of switching to mirroless, please? Could you please tell us what would justify time and money expense of selling systems we own now with platitude of lenses that are available now for system with lenses that will be available mañana mañana if we are not going to be making any progress? Did we gain anything in autofocusing accuracy, consistency and speed? What about autofocus tracking? Face recognition? Dynamic range etc over Nikon? Anything? No? So take away size and weight and what is left to justify burning money and all the effort? Anything? We should do it just because we like making our lives complicated switching systems and have nothing better to do with our time and money?

Take away everything and we should have stayed with our existing already paid off gear. At least my 50s and 35s on Nikon are not having color shifts, and I have not heard of Canon's having them either.
Zoran:
You ask a fair question. And the answer is that depending on what you need out of a camera system there may be no good reason to go mirrorless (and more specifically the Sony A7 series may not make sense for you).

Who shouldn't get an A7 camera:
1) If you shoot sports and nothing else.
2) If you hate EVF.
3) If you want an ILC that fits in your pocket.
4) If you want the absolute best AF.
5) If you need a complete and mature system now.

Who might want an A7 camera:
1) If you have A-mount lenses that you really like.
2) If you have any other legacy lenses that you really like.
3) If you aren't a Canon shooter but like their TS lenses.
4) If you aren't a Canon or Nikon shooter but want to use the Zeiss lenses available for those mounts.
5) If you like the information and assists that an EVF can provide.
6) If you think the future is mirrorless.

Regards,
John
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Just having the ability to use the Canon 17 , 24 and 90 TSE outside of shooting a Canon is huge for a lot of people. I know a lot of folks that bought for exactly that reason. I can tell ya the 17 is the best super wide solution yet for these Sonys. I put my certified lens whore stamp on that one alone. Lol
 
It is a substantial difference.

I have been on the bleeding edge of mirrorless since the EP-1 as an addendum to my Canon and then Sony SLR kits. Hauling SLR gear around a large music festival like Austin City Limits or Coachella in 95 degree heat is real work. I've seen photographers requiring medical attention in the pits due to exhaustion.

Over the years I have upgraded my mirrorless bag while the DSLR kit stayed mostly stagnant and have dropped weight by carrying one A900 body and one Fuji or RX1 (instead of two A900s). Now between the A7 and A7s I am just about done with heavy gear.

I can now carry an A7 comfortably on a neck strap all day and a second A7s in a small Domke with a couple extra lenses. That's a huge improvement over two big A900s and a bag of glass.

That's just my story, I'm sure that there are countless other applications for smaller/lighter that doesn't sacrifice (usually improves) image quality.

Not saying in any way that DSLRs don't have a place or purpose but to argue against the weight and size benefits of the A7 platform is a losing proposition.

I don't understand your counter argument. Do you really believe that 100g, mere 15%, of "difference" between Canon and Sony 16-35 is really an advantage? I don't consider myself that young or healthy but if the day comes that 100g "difference" will be breaking my back I will need much more than 100g of "savings" to save me.
 
Just read Guy's comment above and would agree that size and weight are part of the equation but the reason I switched to Sony from Canon was the files. I've become an IQ snob and right now, the best files are on the A7/s/r, not the A-mount. Another valid reason to go small.

If I was a Nikon shooter, maybe I would have held onto he DSLR longer but the draw of the small is powerful ;)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I think we should also go with the old standby statement that's been photography for decades. Bigger is better, we always said that with film and today with sensors it's really no different. But with that we get bigger size and that's just physics. We can cheat by doing manual focus lenses but AF needs gears and stuff and that adds size.

I think on the whole although slow the FE mounts are reasonable in size. Sure that 90 macro looks big but it's got AF in it too
 

iiiNelson

Active member
I think on the whole although slow the FE mounts are reasonable in size. Sure that 90 macro looks big but it's got AF in it too
I just hope the 90 Macro will do 1:1. That will make the size even more forgivable to me. I actually kind of miss having a native Macro lens since I sold my Micro 4/3 Leica 45/2.8.
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
All of this is well and good, and some of it looks really nice like the compact 28mm, possibly the WA zoom and the macro (although a T/S would be even better), but I'm not buying any more of Sony's lenses, old or new, until they have resolved the shutter vibration issue. What's the point of buying outstanding optics when a good percentage of the images are ruined or degraded by shutter shock? I have already enough wasted images from my a7r.
Until Sony faces this problem and stops denying the obvious, the D810 will be my main weapon of choice, and a great camera it is too.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
All of this is well and good, and some of it looks really nice like the compact 28mm, possibly the WA zoom and the macro (although a T/S would be even better), but I'm not buying any more of Sony's lenses, old or new, until they have resolved the shutter vibration issue. What's the point of buying outstanding optics when a good percentage of the images are ruined or degraded by shutter shock? I have already enough wasted images from my a7r.
Until Sony faces this problem and stops denying the obvious, the D810 will be my main weapon of choice, and a great camera it is too.
It's probably more likely that Sony would do what Nikon did and just released an updated camera than issue a shutter shock memo at this point. It's an issue for SOME and not ALL. If the A7R didn't work for you then the D810 is a great camera as well.
 
Top