Show Performance
Member
I would hesitate to call the 35/2.8 mediocre. Don't confuse a pedestrian lens speed for poor optics.
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.
- Thread starter bradhusick
- Start date
I would hesitate to call the 35/2.8 mediocre. Don't confuse a pedestrian lens speed for poor optics.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Well it should, shouldn't it, costing nearly 5 times as much. One can of course compare it with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S that coincidentally weighs exactly the same as the Sony lens and still costs less than half. One can also claim that the Sony is a Zeiss, and therefore is a much better lens, but I look at the photos and see very little difference, if any.
stephengilbert
Active member
I really miss GetDPI.
V
Vivek
Guest
There are people heaping lavish praise on the Sigma ART 50/1.4, in case you have not noticed. 
Nikon are hardly known for their 50s despite what the Nikonistas may believe.
Nikon are hardly known for their 50s despite what the Nikonistas may believe.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
If you compare with the larger Canon/Nikon bodies instead of the 6D/D750, they will obviously be larger as well as heavier. That was rather predictable, wasn't it? I don't know the Canon 5D III well, and it's a rather old camera now, but I have compared the D810 with the A7 II and the A7r. Image quality, specs as well as ergonomics left me with no doubt, which is why I bought the Nikon despite it being the more expensive and heavier/larger choice, and I did that after using mirrorless cameras for most of my photography for 5 years. One of the reasons for my choice was the size of the Sony lenses, which are almost without exception as large and heavy as their Nikkor counterparts. I can live with a camera that is 300 grams heavier then, a camera where I need only two batteries for a full day of shooting and where I don't need a vertical grip to get a firm grip of the camera for long shoots and use with heavy lenses.
Sorry for being grumpy and a bit off topic. It's six in the morning.
Edit: I use a Lowepro Inverse 200 AW to carry my camera and lenses most of the time. I've tried that bag with the D810 and with the A7 II plus lenses. There's space for exactly the same number of primes of similar focal length (4 mostly) in addition to the camera body, batteries, cards etc. if I put either the Sony or Nikon body in there. The 300g weight difference is hardly noticeable with a bag that totals around 3 kilograms, and since 6 batteries are needed to power the Sony for a day of shooting vs. the Nikon's two, the two cameras would be the same weight more or less. Adding the, in my view, necessary vertical grip to the Sony, something I haven't been able to try, would complicate matters.
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
There are people heaping lavish praise on the Sigma ART 50/1.4, in case you have not noticed.
Nikon are hardly known for their 50s despite what the Nikonistas may believe.
I don't care what Nikon is known for. I care what I see in photos.
What is a Nikonista? I have used Olympus for 30 years and Fuji, Panasonic and Nikon for 5 years each. Is that what defines a "Nikonista"?
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Yeah and the Leica 50 Lux costs 4X as much as the Sony Zeiss 55FE. You're just reaching for an anti-Sony point now.
Back on topic.
I don't see why choice is such an inflammatory topic for some. If you don't like it then don't buy it. I've been waiting on his lens since it was announced last May. While I agree there are some notable holes in the lineup like a fast ultra wide prime and a fast portrait AF lenses (Rokinon has non-AF options.) I'm happy that they are providing fast lenses for those who actually need them because f/2.8 is slow for my personal uses. I actually bought Guy's Sigma Art 35 for that reason. Yes the Sigma is large but it's not ungainly on the A7 cameras. Most importantly it provides enough resolution/resolving power for the A7r.
V
Vivek
Guest
Not a single mention of the "walkman" use and you are here lecturing about what is wrong with them while talking up the flavor of your month (or more exactly half a decade).
Is that not obvious?
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
The title of this thread is "New Sony lens mockups. No thanks.". I did not start it. I have not stated that the Sony cameras are bad in any way, rather the opposite actually. But I have stated the rather obvious fact that due to the size and weight of the lenses, a mirrorless 35mm camera represents little size and weight savings over a corresponding DSLR camera as a total package. I do however experience, like other posters on other forums, that criticizing Sony is not a smart thing to do.
V
Vivek
Guest
"cameras that everyone wants but no one needs". On the A7 series, just in another thread (not Nikon forum but here).
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Criticizing Sony is fine and I think most Sony owners have some criticism of their products/service. That being said there has been a more agressive change in Sony's strategy since the NEX-6 that's been more proactive towards positive changes based on consumer feedback.
It's just when you erroneously spout so many half truths or rarely remain constructive or fair in your criticism that some take exception to your opinions.
AFAIK, Sony has never advertised nor promised a small, compact SLR. The A7/r/s being smaller is a byproduct of mirrorless technology, not a feature of it.
All this "concern" about Sony somehow losing its way with larger lenses and bodies is addressing a feature that has never existed. The fact will always remain that faster lenses will require larger lenses. Mirrorless doesn't change that.
If size/weight is an issue, there are perfectly good non-SLRs that will fit the bill.
All this "concern" about Sony somehow losing its way with larger lenses and bodies is addressing a feature that has never existed. The fact will always remain that faster lenses will require larger lenses. Mirrorless doesn't change that.
If size/weight is an issue, there are perfectly good non-SLRs that will fit the bill.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I agree and I suggested that to many who were concerned over lens size or wanting greater DoF. Micro 4/3 is an excellent and complete system for that.
Show Performance
Member
No need to apologize. I respect anyone's decision to shoot a DSLR. Unfortunately some people can't just leave it at a personal decision and must question the viability of an alternate choice because it doesn't fit their needs or they think Sony should be able to design rangefinder sized AF 35/1.4 lenses.
Just don't have a lot of patience for platform shaming.
At the end of the day, if you want a FF platform that can shoot the smallest lenses with the smallest bodies, the only arguable options are a Leica or a Sony with rangefinder glass.
The problem we have here is that some view the Sony as a pure DSLR replacement and one that must do all the same things with the same lenses but smaller and lighter. I continue to think that this is or will become possible to an extent, but it is not the reason I am using the platform. I'll say it again - it is all about flexibility for me. I can configure the A7 S, M, L or XL. Can't do that with a D810, at least not to the point where the camera slips into my windbreaker pocket.
At the end of the day, that's what I'm looking for but that's just me.
hmmm, I don't think the D750 compares too well either...30% heavier and significantly larger.
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
Chad, That D750 is in my radar (notwithstanding the size or the bulk) as it promises to be the digital Holga. Google "D750 flare" and there are plenty of images.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
"cameras that everyone wants but no one needs". On the A7 series, just in another thread (not Nikon forum but here).
There are many good cameras on the market that many want but no one needs, or at least very few. The Nikon Df is another one.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Interestingly enough is the Nikon Df is the one Nikon I'd be interested in...
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
... and that is obviously one of the great things with mirrorless systems, the different A7 models included. This is also why I don't understand why Sony haven't given higher priority to a complete range of compact prime lenses, from around 20 to around 85 or 100mm. This was one of the main reasons for the fantastic success of the OM cameras and it's one of the reasons for the success of Leica M. Adapted lenses are fine, but they have to be bought too, and they mostly don't feature AF. Sony certainly don't make any profit from those adapted lenses either. I would think that profit is as important for Sony as for any other commercial enterprise.
And don't say it's because it's a young system. Professional manufacturers plan these things. Look at m4/3, look at Fuji. They both follow a clear, easy to understand plan for their lens road maps. If Sony don't understand the important success factors in this market, it's worrying. It's worrying because it will have impact on the system as a whole. I would have been an A7 user and a Sony customer if I knew I could trust them with these things. I don't, so I'm not. I'm sure I'm not the only one.