Sony A7/A7R mirrorless full frames

very interested in the a7r. especially the far east price could be as low as £1200. i never bought any fuji lens even owning xe1. so jumping over will be quite easy. :D
 
These sound interesting, been after an upgrade to my 40D and have been considering the 6D, but the A7 ticks all the boxes in a smaller package, and im over the moon with my RX100.
 
hmmm early image samples arent looking too good. [have a look at a preview on The Verge]

noise seems pretty bad at iso 800. and may be the user is suffering the common problem with high res camera, a lot of camera shake at 1/160s.

i hope these will improve over the next few weeks....

(grrr....7990 is now on sale....my fund might be drained away.....)
 
lens bulk makes the small body pretty pointless, if Sony can come up with smoe sensible size fast primes then they might be onto something it's definitely time to dust off the pancake designs! Loosing IBIS is also a real slip for me as it was something that has always set the Sony stuff out from the crowd and now means that Sony will be playing catchup putting stabilisation in it's lenses when it previously hasn't needed to.
 
Just seen the prices of the lenses, ridiculous. $1000 for the 55mm f1.8 compared to the canon at $100 !!!

Sad because the A7R could work as a great landscape camera, it has the same sensor as the Nikon D800E In a smaller body for less money, and you don't need high speed or fast AF for landscape work. You would loose that money saved in no time trying to get lenses.

And the cyber is the size and weight. For those wanting those small light lenses that you believe can be magically made for a mirrorless camera compare these specs:
Canon 50mm f1.8: 130g, 68mm x 40mm
Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D:155g 63mm x 39mm
Sony 55mm f1.8: 281g, 71mm x62mm?
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
lens bulk makes the small body pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

i dont agree. number of years ago, I used to run around taking photos for magazines/poster design house with a fuji S5 pro with vertical grip(same body as a nikon D200). if the camera body can save me some 50+% weight, i have already considered it as a success. of course, if the lens can also be reduced then it's a win-win, but just body weight-saving is a major step. enough of an improvement i would consider switching if i had to run around again. but unfortunately, the sample pictures aren't doing it any favor.

D.P. said:
Just seen the prices of the lenses, ridiculous. $1000 for the 55mm f1.8 compared to the canon at $100 !!!
Click to expand...
be careful there, dont jump to conclusion just yet. if the 55mm is as sharp as a zeiss 50mm macro then i would consider it cheap. (although i doubt it....)
 
Last edited:
for landscape work you can also mount pretty much any lens you like on it and use focus peaking which is simply brilliant. I'd hate to go back to a optical view finder now.
 
XE11 said:
i dont agree. number of years ago, I used to run around taking photos for magazines/poster design house with a fuji S5 pro with vertical grip(same body as a nikon D200). if the camera body can save me some 50+% weight, i have already considered it as a success. of course, if the lens can also be reduced then it's a win-win, but just body weight-saving is a major step. enough of an improvement i would consider switching if i had to run around again. but unfortunately, the sample pictures aren't doing it any favor.

be careful there, dont jump to conclusion just yet. if the 55mm is as sharp as a zeiss 50mm macro then i would consider it cheap. (although i doubt it....)
Click to expand...

Th zeiss 50mm Makro-planar is a little over $1000 so it can hardly be cheap described as cheap!

The issue with a light body and heavy lenses is it makes the system unbalanced and not very ergonomic. Standard workhorse Lenses like the 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 work perfectly with you standard FF DSLR. A smaller body won't really help out at all.

And you need to be artful when considering weight. A canon 6d and 50mm f/1.8 weight 900g. An A7r with its 55mm f/1.8 weighs 750g. 150g lighter is pretty much meaningless for most people at those kinds of weights. CF an Olympus e-pm2 which weighs 269g and can have many great primes in the 100-200g range, truly. Uh lighter and smaller.
 
D.P. said:
And you need to be artful when considering weight. A canon 6d and 50mm f/1.8 weight 900g. An A7r with its 55mm f/1.8 weighs 750g. 150g lighter is pretty much meaningless for most people at those kinds of weights. CF an Olympus e-pm2 which weighs 269g and can have many great primes in the 100-200g range, truly. Uh lighter and smaller.
Click to expand...

This completely misses the point. The A7r + 50 will likely provide BETTER image quality WHILE being 150g lighter and SMALLER.
The 6D is about the lightest FF DSLR you can get (partially mag-alloy), and you paired it with a cheap toy like featherweight 50mm lens. This is like the BEST case scenario for the DSLR.

Sony has the wrong idea though releasing slow glass in a bid for more compactness. Not many people with suitable wallets lust after that imo with exception of landscapers etc.
Instead they should have set caution to the wind and made some F1.4 primes & F2.8 zooms (& stabilised), all still being SMALLER than DSLR equivalents.
Just the short flange distance alone gives the a7r etc. and inherent size advantage.

Also regarding balance. Personally I use two hands while shooting. The left hand supports the lens, the right supports the body. I can tell you the Nikon 24-70 + D800E's are anything but balanced. However by using two hands, I am able to comfortably hold such a setup, even more so if it wasn't so heavy.
 
D.P. said:
Th zeiss 50mm Makro-planar is a little over $1000 so it can hardly be cheap described as cheap!

The issue with a light body and heavy lenses is it makes the system unbalanced and not very ergonomic. Standard workhorse Lenses like the 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 work perfectly with you standard FF DSLR. A smaller body won't really help out at all.

And you need to be artful when considering weight. A canon 6d and 50mm f/1.8 weight 900g. An A7r with its 55mm f/1.8 weighs 750g. 150g lighter is pretty much meaningless for most people at those kinds of weights. CF an Olympus e-pm2 which weighs 269g and can have many great primes in the 100-200g range, truly. Uh lighter and smaller.
Click to expand...
i was going to say their 100mm makro, but i guess thats way too far off. so thats why i said 50mm. but the point is that, if it provide the sharpness up there with the best, then $1000 is in line with the rest of the market or even consider cheap as it has AF.

i see where you are coming from, and im sure many will agree with you regarding to the unbalanced weight, but from my experience and shooting style i still dont agree. :D

when i did it as a job, 70-200mm and 80-400mm was often used (and other big lens), even on S5 with grip, it was front heavy. but i never found it a problem as i never gripped very hard with my right hand as it induced too much vibration. i guess my point is that, I for one definitely dont think it is totally pointless to have big lens on a small body as long as it gives me the final image quality. :)
 
XE11 said:
i was going to say their 100mm makro, but i guess thats way too far off. so thats why i said 50mm. but the point is that, if it provide the sharpness up there with the best, then $1000 is in line with the rest of the market or even consider cheap as it has AF.

i see where you are coming from, and im sure many will agree with you regarding to the unbalanced weight, but from my experience and shooting style i still dont agree. :D

when i did it as a job, 70-200mm and 80-400mm was often used (and other big lens), even on S5 with grip, it was front heavy. but i never found it a problem as i never gripped very hard with my right hand as it induced too much vibration. i guess my point is that, I for one definitely dont think it is totally pointless to have big lens on a small body as long as it gives me the final image quality. :)
Click to expand...


The 55mm we would really have to see how it performs, I am dubious if it is much better than any of the canon or Nikon 1.8 or 1.4 offerrings, and the size and weight are undeniably bigger than the existing primes for regular DSLRs.


The weight saving of the body to me is really pointless. E.g, a 70-200mm f2.8 weighs around 1550g, so a D600 and 70-200 will be 2400g, the A7 and 70-200 will be 2015g. I really wouldn't see a big difference. Unless the lenses get lighter as well, and then the whole system with several lenses gets much lighter.

Anyway I was a bit sidetracked by weight, my issue with ergonomic is ome the body size and shape, a small body is just less ergonomic when used with larger lenses.
 
An Exception said:
This completely misses the point. The A7r + 50 will likely provide BETTER image quality WHILE being 150g lighter and SMALLER.
The 6D is about the lightest FF DSLR you can get (partially mag-alloy), and you paired it with a cheap toy like featherweight 50mm lens. This is like the BEST case scenario for the DSLR.

Sony has the wrong idea though releasing slow glass in a bid for more compactness. Not many people with suitable wallets lust after that imo with exception of landscapers etc.
Instead they should have set caution to the wind and made some F1.4 primes & F2.8 zooms (& stabilised), all still being SMALLER than DSLR equivalents.
Just the short flange distance alone gives the a7r etc. and inherent size advantage.

Also regarding balance. Personally I use two hands while shooting. The left hand supports the lens, the right supports the body. I can tell you the Nikon 24-70 + D800E's are anything but balanced. However by using two hands, I am able to comfortably hold such a setup, even more so if it wasn't so heavy.
Click to expand...

You keep dreaming that a mirrorless camera magically allows smaller lenses. I keep showing you that it doesn't, and Sony have proven my point. The only possible exception would be something like a 35mm prime which could be created using a similar to 50mm prime since the shorter flange distance would mean a retrofocus design wouldn't be required.

Lens size is determined by the image circle, focal-length and aperture, plus throw in autofocus elements, stabalisation etc. The camera having a mirror or not changes nothing. Without a mirror the flange distance can decrease, but that only affects lenses shorter than the flange distance, and with it comes problems. Light entering the camera at a shorter flange distance will have to refract at a greater angle to hit the edge of the sensor. This can lead to bad exposure and colour issues, supposedly the A7's have a special micro lens array to help but the lens deign al needs more complex elements.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
Lens size is determined by the image circle, focal-length and aperture, plus throw in autofocus elements, stabalisation etc.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's all there is to it. The fact is if you want small light lenses, you don't ask Zeiss to build them. As I have previously stated, Sony needs to ditch Zeiss and use someone who can make small AND fast lenses.
sy32bk.jpg
 
DanF said:
leica adapters are only a few quid, then you can mount any of these lenses on to the sony and basically have a more advanced and up to date leica back ;)
Click to expand...

Yep it appeals to me. But for work I really need autofocus though. If focus peaking worked off the sensor and not the contrast on the LCD then that might be a viable option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom