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!

New Sony lens mockups. No thanks.

Jonas

Active member
(...)
Jonas, can you say more about the A7x/Distagon issue?
Hi Mike,
Sorry for the late reply.
Not really. Ron, poster over at FMForums, posted images you can find here. At some other place, forgot exactly where, we had a discussion about the background OOF rendering.

It, initially, seems as the focus plane bends towards infinity at the corners and edges. It's to early though to say exactly what's going on.

Is it vignetting causing the effective aperture being smaller away from the center of the image? Is it something having to do with the A7(x) sensor and its stack of glass? Is it the lens design? Is it the first test images which simply weren't the right images for the discussion? Well... something it is and if it is a problem or not anyone has to decide for themselves - as usual.

EDIT: The discussion on the topic, initiated by Ron's images, took place here.
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
I also think the size is no surprise.
On the other side I am pretty happy with the speed and size of the 2470 and the 55/1.8. Compare that lens to a Sigma ART 50/1.4 or Otus!

Also the 35/2.8 is nice and compfortable.

Personally I would prefer a 35/2.0 sized between the 35/2.8 and 35/1.4.
Anyways - even if you want a m43 lens which produces shallow DOF you need to accept some size-like the Nocticron.
Dont be fooled by many m43 lenses - IMO a f2.8 zoom for m43 is like a f5.6 zoom for FF (in regards of DOF). And a f1.8 prime for m43 translates in a f3.5 prime for FF in this regard.

Impressing on the other sde how small the Leica M lenses are, even considering the advantage of not having to include AF parts.
 

mbroomfield

New member
Hi Mike,
Sorry for the late reply.
Not really. Ron, poster over at FMForums, posted images you can find here. At some other place, forgot exactly where, we had a discussion about the background OOF rendering.

It, initially, seems as the focus plane bends towards infinity at the corners and edges. It's to early though to say exactly what's going on.

Is it vignetting causing the effective aperture being smaller away from the center of the image? Is it something having to do with the A7(x) sensor and its stack of glass? Is it the lens design? Is it the first test images which simply weren't the right images for the discussion? Well... something it is and if it is a problem or not anyone has to decide for themselves - as usual.

EDIT: The discussion on the topic, initiated by Ron's images, took place here.
Thanks Jonas. I can't remember if I saw the posts and forgot, or just skimmed over them as they are just small jpgs, hand held in a hall. One good thing though is that I couldn't see any colour cast. I've never seen a M mount lens on an A7x that has blurred corners that didn't have a colour cast.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Jonas, Too many speculations, sprinkled with a few suggestions that takes off as something real in that thread.

AFAIK (having examined the sensors with real measurements), the only sensor that Sony messed up was that of the NEX-7. The rest are OK and continuously improving.

Here is something to ponder about: What is the diagonal of a 24x36 rectangle? What is the diagonal of a Sony FF sensor?

(Nikon's "FX" is also the same, btw)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I assume that was to allow for telecentric or near telecentric lenses.
Sorry to burst that speculation bubble.

I do not think that much thought went into it. The m43rd mount is nearly identical to a Panasonic CCTV mount from >30 years ago. I made one of the first adapters for the G1 using one of the Panasonic adapters.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Sorry to burst that speculation bubble.

I do not think that much thought went into it. The m43rd mount is nearly identical to a Panasonic CCTV mount from >30 years ago. I made one of the first adapters for the G1 using one of the Panasonic adapters.
My understanding, from materials published by Panasonic and Olympus at the time of Micro-FourThirds being introduced, is that the mFT lens mount was designed to maintain the same geometry inherent in the FourThirds lens mount, scaled down due to the lack of need for a mirror box and moving mirror assembly and desire for compactness. The geometry of the FourThirds lens mount was an attempt to reach the ideal mount diameter vs registration distance for a sensor of this size with a single lens reflex mirror/mirrorbox interposed between lens and sensor.

That the mFT lens mount is nearly identical to a Panasonic CCTV lens mount, designed from the start for a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera configuration with an electronic sensor, should come as no surprise. :)

G
 

Annna T

Active member
But it gets better than that also:
One can choose the non-IS version of the Canon, which is 55g lighter still and less than half the price of the Sony.

A Canon 6D with 24-70mm f/4 IS and 70-200mm f/4 weighs 2,130g and costs $4,098
A Sony 7D II with 24-70mm f/4 OSS and 70-200mm f/4 OSS weighs 1,869g and costs $4,394

More batteries are needed for the Sony, adding to the weight and price, since the batteries are smaller and the camera more power hungry. In reality, the battery grip is difficult to avoid for longer shootings with the Sony, making the camera larger and heavier than the Canon and even more expensive. The lenses listed here are more or less the same size for the two cameras. Add to this Canon's lens line-up etc., and there are good reasons why many don't see the point in buying mirrorless cameras except those with smaller sensors and lenses.
I have the Canon 6D plus 24-105mm F4 plus the 70-200mm I mentionned. Plus several other lenses. But those lenses are so heavy that I never take something else than the 24-105mm for traveling or even for photo outing.

I got the A7r for the better sensor, in particular for the much wider DR and for the weight and size. It allows Canon owners to keep their lenses while getting a sensor on parr with the Nikon.

Personally, I appreciate the smaller bodies and don't think that I'll get an A7mk2 and hope this isn't the end of the smaller bodies. I'm keeping the MFT system which is much lighter than both other. In contrast to what you have written somewhere above in this thread, I think that the MFT lenses are smaller (with perhaps the exception if the longer tele zoom). I hate the vertical grips because they add weight : I keep the camera around my neck, so my hands can relax, but then I'm not shooting continually for 3-4 hours long and with a long tele zoom, like pro have to do.

I'm wondering whether I shouldn't sell most of my Canon gear, just keeping the lenses I like to mount on the Sony bodies.

Had I known that the A7 serie was coming, i wouldn't have updated my old 5D to the 6D. Indeed, I was very angry when they issued the 5Dmk3 which was heavier than the mk2. Canon has a very nice 40mm F2.8 pancake, which is also very light. But the 50mm F1.4 is a crappy lens compared to the Sony 55mm F1.8.
 

Jonas

Active member
Jonas, Too many speculations, sprinkled with a few suggestions that takes off as something real in that thread.

AFAIK (having examined the sensors with real measurements), the only sensor that Sony messed up was that of the NEX-7. The rest are OK and continuously improving.

Here is something to ponder about: What is the diagonal of a 24x36 rectangle? What is the diagonal of a Sony FF sensor?

(Nikon's "FX" is also the same, btw)
The sensor size if no interest here Vivek.

As I said it's too early for a final verdict. But, there was a relevant discussion on the topic and it was about nothing but the stack of glass on top of the sensor and the optical result from that.

I don't know what you mean with "mess up" but the A7 sensor (incl the cover glass) results in far more internal reflections than the A7r and the A7MkII. That's a kind of "mess up" as well, no?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The sensor size is very relevant since there are speculations about vignetting.

Personally, I think the A7 sensor pack is better made than that of the A7r's. Although I have reservations about both. Too much epoxy glue (well, not as much as the ones in the D800's, I suppose).

Those who adapt lenses that expose shiny bits from the adapted lenses and their mounts should not be blaming the sensors in the A7 cameras, right? :)
 

Annna T

Active member
I also think the size is no surprise.
On the other side I am pretty happy with the speed and size of the 2470 and the 55/1.8. Compare that lens to a Sigma ART 50/1.4 or Otus!

Also the 35/2.8 is nice and compfortable.

Personally I would prefer a 35/2.0 sized between the 35/2.8 and 35/1.4.
Anyways - even if you want a m43 lens which produces shallow DOF you need to accept some size-like the Nocticron.
Dont be fooled by many m43 lenses - IMO a f2.8 zoom for m43 is like a f5.6 zoom for FF (in regards of DOF). And a f1.8 prime for m43 translates in a f3.5 prime for FF in this regard.

Impressing on the other sde how small the Leica M lenses are, even considering the advantage of not having to include AF parts.
Not all people are interested in shallow DOF ! On FF I'm always fighting to get deeper DOF.
And when you want to work with available light in darker environment, F2.8 will allow you a handholdable shutterspeed.
(And please don't start with the noise equivalence. I know about it too).
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Not all people are interested in shallow DOF ! On FF I'm always fighting to get deeper DOF.
Some dislike the current production M lenses for being "too clinical" (translates to less fuzzy). When you look through a RF viewfinder, everything looks as sharp as your eyes are. When you see the resultant fuzzy images then they look "magical" - much like using film.

Liveview and EVF busts that myth and makes a few feel very uncomfortable with what they see through the lens.

If that rumored CMOS monochrome with liveview shows up, it is going to create a lot of problems! Of course, one can always opt out of EVF and liveview to have a bit of comfort. :D
 

Jonas

Active member
The sensor size is very relevant since there are speculations about vignetting.

Personally, I think the A7 sensor pack is better made than that of the A7r's. Although I have reservations about both. Too much epoxy glue (well, not as much as the ones in the D800's, I suppose).

Those who adapt lenses that expose shiny bits from the adapted lenses and their mounts should not be blaming the sensors in the A7 cameras, right? :)
1) It is not about the sensor size Vivek. The discussion was about possible optical vignetting (aka artificial vignetting) in effect making the effective aperture value... read my reply above again. We know the problem from the Canon EF50/1.0 for example.

2) I was talking about internal reflections due to the sensor glass cover. The same lens, the same adapter, two different cameras. Reflections (street lights at night for example) with the A7, very much less so with the A7r or the A7MkII.

I have no idea about how the sensor and the cover glass holds up mechanically. If that is what you think about when you say "mess up" we can probably leave it aside when discussing lenses.
 

cam

Active member
Not all people are interested in shallow DOF ! On FF I'm always fighting to get deeper DOF.
And when you want to work with available light in darker environment, F2.8 will allow you a handholdable shutterspeed.
(And please don't start with the noise equivalence. I know about it too).
And some do like it… May even use it as part of their composition.

As for f/2.8 giving you "handholdable" shutter speeds, that might be sufficient if you're shooting objects that are not moving.

Whatever. We all have different needs and wants, likes and dislikes.

Some need fast lenses, others are fine with slow. Some need corner to corner sharpness, others are fine with vignetting. Some want clinical, others are happier with a character lens. Etc and so on.

It's all good.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sorry to burst that speculation bubble.

I do not think that much thought went into it. The m43rd mount is nearly identical to a Panasonic CCTV mount from >30 years ago. I made one of the first adapters for the G1 using one of the Panasonic adapters.
I was talking about 4/3, not m4/3. The lenses for m4/3 are not telecentric. Rather the opposite actually, since many of them require heavy software corrections.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
1) It is not about the sensor size Vivek. The discussion was about possible optical vignetting (aka artificial vignetting) in effect making the effective aperture value... read my reply above again. We know the problem from the Canon EF50/1.0 for example.
That is what I referred to as speculations and suggestions. :)

2) I was talking about internal reflections due to the sensor glass cover. The same lens, the same adapter, two different cameras. Reflections (street lights at night for example) with the A7, very much less so with the A7r or the A7MkII.
Do not take offense but Ken Rockwell's "review" of the A7 pretty much said the same in a practical sense.

With so many variables and problems with usage depending on the user, there is little point in comparing camera A and B (assuming all else is the same).
 
V

Vivek

Guest
And some do like it… May even use it as part of their composition.

As for f/2.8 giving you "handholdable" shutter speeds, that might be sufficient if you're shooting objects that are not moving.

Whatever. We all have different needs and wants, likes and dislikes.

Some need fast lenses, others are fine with slow. Some need corner to corner sharpness, others are fine with vignetting. Some want clinical, others are happier with a character lens. Etc and so on.

It's all good.
I have been hearing so much about the Mandler magic. A thoroughly fascinating conversation topic, especially in a Sony forum. :p
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Not all people are interested in shallow DOF ! On FF I'm always fighting to get deeper DOF.
And when you want to work with available light in darker environment, F2.8 will allow you a handholdable shutterspeed.
(And please don't start with the noise equivalence. I know about it too).
I think for those who like a little more shallow DOF constantly m43 is the better path.
But if you dont want shallow DOF, one also has not to complain about the size of the mockup 35/1.4 because one could just use the 35/2.8 instead.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The diagonal of 24 x 36 mm is 43.2666 mm in case anybody finds it useful. That's obviously the reason why most old SLR mounts have a mouth diameter of 44-46mm, the exception being Canon EF and Contax N.
 
I'm struggling to find the problem here.

The 35/1.4 is on the large size of the spectrum, granted, but it looks to my eyes to be about the size of the 35G and LA-EA4 combo and likely will weigh much less.

Look at the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 35/1.4 if you want large and heavy.

The new Zeiss FE paired with one of the A7 bodies is going to be smaller, weigh less and be just as good if not better than the DSLR equivalents.

If size is the issue, go small with rangefinder glass. Can you do that on your DSLR? Want AF and compactness? there is always the FE 35/2.8.

This is the beauty of the A7. So much flexibility.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The new Zeiss FE paired with one of the A7 bodies is going to be smaller, weigh less and be just as good if not better than the DSLR equivalents.
They are if you compare the modern equivalents with the most modern lens designs. :)
 
Top