Fuss being created over the size of Sony's Full frame mirror-less cameras

He's kinda missed the point with several of those bits. For example you don't buy a Sony mirror less for its size and then stick on a 24-70 f/2.8... That's why they designed the 24-70 f/4 and other slower lenses that are smaller. No, you don't get the benefit of a slightly faster lens, but you do get the benefit of ISO over an APS-C,which is better for most people (it's dark, would you rather open the lens up to its widest aperture or up the ISO with less noise than an APS-C?

Tools for different jobs - then again sony gimped one of the jobs (travel photography) by not having a big enough battery...
 
You mentioned the rebuttal, but below is the link.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/debunking-sators-article-sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-was-a-fatal-mistake/


About the size and weight. My opinion is the guy at sony rumours get's it, and that the petapixel guy either mostly doesn't (he makes a few silly errors), or he's just looking for hit's.
If you want compactness, you trade either IQ or lens speed or both. The more IQ and speed, you trade compactness. Basically you have options.

The short flange distance most probably creates difficulty with IBIS, but out of all the camera makers, Sony seems to be the most innovative and technologically competent to overcome them. They seem to have done a good job so far. I won't speak of Canon, but I'm frankly annoyed that Nikon hasn't implemented IBIS. It would make a HUGE difference to me as I shoot primes.

The only fatal flaw I see with Sony at the moment, is they haven't included a focus nipple to select AF points quickly, literally the most basic of things that Nikon DSLR's are great at. Also don't need 399 af points to endlessly scroll through, just let me be able to have 11 strategically placed af points to choose from with the nipple.

Also battery life would be an issue, although I'm willing to use a grip.

Lenses?
Sony has or is just about to release every 'must have' lens for my particular shooting needs. Just waiting on the bodies now before I make the switch.

Edit.

Also tempted with Fuji (xpro2 or Xt2) and their 23 F1.4 and 56 F1.2. LOVE the x100t I have. But lack of IBIS and APSC keeps me from buying into their system.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
He's kinda missed the point with several of those bits. For example you don't buy a Sony mirror less for its size and then stick on a 24-70 f/2.8... That's why they designed the 24-70 f/4 and other slower lenses that are smaller. No, you don't get the benefit of a slightly faster lens, but you do get the benefit of ISO over an APS-C,which is better for most people (it's dark, would you rather open the lens up to its widest aperture or up the ISO with less noise than an APS-C?

Tools for different jobs - then again sony gimped one of the jobs (travel photography) by not having a big enough battery...
Click to expand...


If I was concerned with size I would definitely take the APS-C camera. To maintain the same effective aperture the system still ends up smaller and lighter in most cases and shooting ISO1600 @f/2.8 on APS-C vs ISo3200 @f/4.0 on FF doesn't make th slightest different to me or anyone I would imagine.

For ultimate IQ I would take FF and accept bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses.
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
You mentioned the rebuttal, but below is the link.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/debunking-sators-article-sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-was-a-fatal-mistake/


About the size and weight. My opinion is the guy at sony rumours get's it, and that the petapixel guy either mostly doesn't (he makes a few silly errors), or he's just looking for hit's.
If you want compactness, you trade either IQ or lens speed or both. The more IQ and speed, you trade compactness. Basically you have options.

The short flange distance most probably creates difficulty with IBIS, but out of all the camera makers, Sony seems to be the most innovative and technologically competent to overcome them. They seem to have done a good job so far. I won't speak of Canon, but I'm frankly annoyed that Nikon hasn't implemented IBIS. It would make a HUGE difference to me as I shoot primes.

The only fatal flaw I see with Sony at the moment, is they haven't included a focus nipple to select AF points quickly, literally the most basic of things that Nikon DSLR's are great at. Also don't need 399 af points to endlessly scroll through, just let me be able to have 11 strategically placed af points to choose from with the nipple.

Also battery life would be an issue, although I'm willing to use a grip.

Lenses?
Sony has or is just about to release every 'must have' lens for my particular shooting needs. Just waiting on the bodies now before I make the switch.

Edit.

Also tempted with Fuji (xpro2 or Xt2) and their 23 F1.4 and 56 F1.2. LOVE the x100t I have. But lack of IBIS and APSC keeps me from buying into their system.
Click to expand...


The short flange distance creates problems for lots of lens designs because of the angle the light rays have to hit the sensor edges. A dat the end of the any reduction I flange distance has to get added to every single lens, which is why they all. End up longer than canon or Nikon.

As for IBIs, it's fine but I would take optical stablisation over sensor based anytime, a tripod beats either solution by a country mile and if you have subject movement then aperture and ISO are king. IBIS would be a nice back up solution for casual shooting some older lenses but one of the least important issues compared to image quality, autofocus, lens selection, ergonomics.
 
Most of it is just physics. If size is a massive consideration, you can't expect f/2.8 lenses and world beating IQ and have something that's tiny.
 
D.P. said:
they all. End up longer than canon or Nikon.
Click to expand...

No they don't. It depends on the quality of the design, and what metrics are prioritised.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sony-fe-50mm-f1-8-lens/p1595206?&mkwid=sjbji7bq7_dc&pcrid=101132309289&kword=%2bfe%20%2b50mm&match=b&plid=&gclid=cjlv3sf1-cscfus6gwodkamfwg
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-50mm-f1-8-g-af-s-lens/p1525420

D.P. said:
As for IBIs, it's fine but I would take optical stablisation over sensor based anytime, a tripod beats either solution by a country mile and if you have subject movement then aperture and ISO are king. IBIS would be a nice back up solution for casual shooting some older lenses but one of the least important issues compared to image quality, autofocus, lens selection, ergonomics.
Click to expand...

Can you point me in the direction of any stabilised F1.4 primes?
IBIS is my only option for that, and apparently it seems to work well.
Nikon needs to get it's act together imo. There is nothing stopping them adding IBIS for lenses that are not stabilised, and using optical stabilisation when a lens has VR.
Also I'm not that impressed with my lenses that have VR. It works well, but occasionally the VR system seems to jerk/shift quickly occasionally causing a blurry image. Of course I would much rather have VR than not though.

 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
If I was concerned with size I would definitely take the APS-C camera. To maintain the same effective aperture the system still ends up smaller and lighter in most cases and shooting ISO1600 @f/2.8 on APS-C vs ISo3200 @f/4.0 on FF doesn't make th slightest different to me or anyone I would imagine.

For ultimate IQ I would take FF and accept bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really thinking of that comparison when writing that, rather a 2-4 stop difference. That would obviously depend on the sensitivity of the sensors in question though, how many stops better is the Sony over the Fuji in low light? Would you rather use an apsc at f/4 and ISO1600 or a FF at f/8 and ISO6400? I didn't go into more detail as I don't actually know what the difference is.

As I said, in some situations a FF camera with a slower lens would be better than an apsc with faster lens, in others it's the other way round. You don't always see to wander round with multiple fast FF lenses, once you stick on a general every day lens the issue goes away, you don't need hyper fast, which is why the 24-70 f/4 or a 1.8 prime would be fine and provide a much smaller package than a typical full frame slr, but with better IQ than an APS-C, especially if you want high resolution.

As I alluded to before, the biggest issue for me with mirror less is just the battery life. Yes, you can buy more batteries, but that's extra cost and weight. Having half a dozen batteries to deal with is much more of a pain than just three - and it's not really even that,a better comparison would probably be 9 batteries vs 3.
 
Last edited:
There is only 1 stop difference between a FF sensor and an APS-C sensor, so your comparison is wrong and my original ISO1600 @f/2.8 on APS-C vs ISo3200 @f/4.0 is much more realistic.

The 1 stop difference in high ISO ability is directly proportional to the effective 1 stop increase in aperture for DoF. Technically there is about 1 and 1/3rd stops but 1/3rd of a stop is the same magnitude to the variance between similar sensors and then of course there is differences between T-Stops, often up to 05 stop difference between similar lenses. Take the Nikon 70-200mm f/4., it has a T-Stop of T/4.4, the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 is actually a little slower at T/4.7 etc. So 1 stop makes it simple for quick mental calculations between FF and APS-C



The vattery life I agree with. I calculated that for the A7R to have the same battery life as the Nikon D750 it would end up heavier due to the additional batteries!
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
No they don't. It depends on the quality of the design, and what metrics are prioritised.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sony-fe-50mm-f1-8-lens/p1595206?&mkwid=sjbji7bq7_dc&pcrid=101132309289&kword=%2bfe%20%2b50mm&match=b&plid=&gclid=cjlv3sf1-cscfus6gwodkamfwg
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-50mm-f1-8-g-af-s-lens/p1525420
Click to expand...

The Sony is 10mm longer, largely due to the shorter flange distance requiring the extra length.

Can you point me in the direction of any stabilised F1.4 primes?
Click to expand...
They don't exist et but that doesn't mean that will always be the case. Tamron are releasing f/1.8 primes with VC, I would much rather have an 85mm f/1.8 with optical stabilization than a heavier f/1.4 lens and rely in IBIS.

IBIS is my only option for that, and apparently it seems to work well.
Nikon needs to get it's act together imo. There is nothing stopping them adding IBIS for lenses that are not stabilised, and using optical stabilisation when a lens has VR.
Click to expand...
I don;t think nikon needs to get its act together when they still dominate camera sales over Sony. As for adding IBIS, I wouldn't mind it at all but as I said, I am much more concerned with sensor, AF and ergonomics.

Also I'm not that impressed with my lenses that have VR. It works well, but occasionally the VR system seems to jerk/shift quickly occasionally causing a blurry image. Of course I would much rather have VR than not though.
Click to expand...

IBIS has the same flaws. My Olympus m43 with supposedly hyper magical best in class 5-stop IBIS yadyada will cause blurred images from time to time, and overall is worse than my Nikon lenses.

Make sure you turn off VR at high shutter speeds, the same goes for all stabilization systems including IBIS. When the shutter speed is faster than half the gyro sampling speed (and most gyros only operate at 1KHz) then the system doesn't properly detect movement due to aliasing
 
Tiniest bit smaller, but it comes down to what lenses and things. Some of them are bigger and heavier than the Nikon and Canon lenses.


And then there is the fact that Sony don't have DO or DF technology. My 300mm f/4.0 PF is halve the size and weight of a conventional design, I'm saving around 800grams with that lens, many times more weight saved than a hypothetical Sony FE 300mm f/4.0 lens. the best I could do would be a Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 and add a non-existent 1.4xTC. The lens itself is already 800 grams heavier than my nikon baby.
Same deal with the Canon 400m DO etc.


There are some rumours of a Nikon 70-200mm /f4.0 PF lens, would weigh something like 350grams compared to the 850g Sony FE model.
 
I don't know how people can get so emotional over brands, it either does the job or it doesn't. If it doesn't do what you want, it doesn't make it useless.

If size really is a problem you wouldn't go full frame to start off with, you can't expect to have a full 35mm sensor and the lenses it needs to cover the image circle to be so much smaller than full frame DSLRs.

I keep my 70D for motorsport photography, but when walking about and going out it's much easier to take my A6000 with me.

U1fM0eV.png

I know primes are typically smaller, but even if I went for the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 I'm still ending up with something much smaller as a package.

WhlptnC.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom