Sony A7/A7R mirrorless full frames

Inazuma · 1 Dec 2013 at 17:14

An Exception said:
He showed me his Oly. I said I like the tech but would never buy one. He asked why? I said the sensor is too small/wrong aspect ratio.
He seemed surprised that sensor size was such a big deal.
I then told him Oly should move to FF if it wants to be able to compete in the longterm. I said I thought FF will be pretty standard eventually, with mirrorless medium format replacing 35mm DSLR's in the professional market, and if anyone is in a position to do so it would be Sony.

But why is the smaller sensor such an issue? The image quality is still excellent and the sharpness is good for most things except huge prints. Noise levels aren't that far off from FF either. The only problem is that you don't quite get the same shallow DOF; but again that's still not that far off.

The whole point of m43 is that the sensor is smaller so the cameras and lenses can be smaller. I've heard a lot of forumers say how happy they are that they don't have to carry so much bulk. Also things like autofocus can be faster. I just tried the OMD EM1 in a store yesterday along with the Sony A7r (both mirrorless cameras) and the OMD focussed QUICK. Faster than my Nikon d5200 (through the viewfinder, not the live view!). Meanwhile the Sony kept hunting for focus.

If Olympus suddenly started doing full frame, they'd have to create a whole new lens lineup. It would take them years to catch up with Nikon, Canon, Sony. And they wouldn't have any USP.

Rojin · 1 Dec 2013 at 17:29

Your "not that far off", is "nowhere near" for others

The size/weight is great, but not something I need personally. Single shot AF is fast but servo AF tracking is poor.

Inazuma · 1 Dec 2013 at 17:35

True but horses for courses

At the end of the day you get the camera that suits your needs

D.P. · 1 Dec 2013 at 17:49

Inazuma said:
But why is the smaller sensor such an issue? The image quality is still excellent and the sharpness is good for most things except huge prints. Noise levels aren't that far off from FF either. The only problem is that you don't quite get the same shallow DOF; but again that's still not that far off.

The whole point of m43 is that the sensor is smaller so the cameras and lenses can be smaller. I've heard a lot of forumers say how happy they are that they don't have to carry so much bulk. Also things like autofocus can be faster. I just tried the OMD EM1 in a store yesterday along with the Sony A7r (both mirrorless cameras) and the OMD focussed QUICK. Faster than my Nikon d5200 (through the viewfinder, not the live view!). Meanwhile the Sony kept hunting for focus.

If Olympus suddenly started doing full frame, they'd have to create a whole new lens lineup. It would take them years to catch up with Nikon, Canon, Sony. And they wouldn't have any USP.

This really, the future for most people is smaller cameras with smaller sensors and smaller lenses that give equal or better image quality than today's DSLRs and with better wireless integration to other smart devices and social media. Larger sensors cameras will exist for some uses but these will get pushed into more and more niche areas. The DoF issues may even be partially resolved in the future through technological solutions similar to the light field technology.

People Complain at the system weight, e.g. a 70-200mm f2.8 is just a heavy yet that is at the light end of the telephotos. No one cares about saving a few hundred grams on a camera when their lens weighs 4500grams and they lug around another 4000-6000grams of support system!

King4aDay · 1 Dec 2013 at 18:52

I do love the portability of my mirrorless kit, and as a system m43 keeps getting better and better (really hope those rumours of Sigma bringing its foveon sensor to m43 turn out to be true).

Out of mild curiosity I just weighed my kit - two bodies (E-M5 and GX1), a fast prime, macro, wide angle and normal zoom lens (all in pouches), three filters in cases, flashgun, spare batteries, remote release and a bag to carry everything weighs in at a hair over 2.5kg. Add your choice of stabilisation and perhaps a longer tele if that's your thing and you're looking at a mere 3-5kg for a full kit.... or if you're just out for a stroll or an evening then the GX1 and 20mm 1.7 total about 400g and fit in a coat pocket.

I appreciate there are some compromises, but I just couldn't see myself going back to full sized DSLRs for recreational photography.

Rojin · 1 Dec 2013 at 18:55

MILC sales are dropping in relation to DSLR sales, even in Japan. So the end of the DSLR is a while off yet.

An Exception · 1 Dec 2013 at 19:47

Inazuma said:
But why is the smaller sensor such an issue? The image quality is still excellent and the sharpness is good for most things except huge prints. Noise levels aren't that far off from FF either. The only problem is that you don't quite get the same shallow DOF; but again that's still not that far off.

The whole point of m43 is that the sensor is smaller so the cameras and lenses can be smaller. I've heard a lot of forumers say how happy they are that they don't have to carry so much bulk. Also things like autofocus can be faster. I just tried the OMD EM1 in a store yesterday along with the Sony A7r (both mirrorless cameras) and the OMD focussed QUICK. Faster than my Nikon d5200 (through the viewfinder, not the live view!). Meanwhile the Sony kept hunting for focus.

If Olympus suddenly started doing full frame, they'd have to create a whole new lens lineup. It would take them years to catch up with Nikon, Canon, Sony. And they wouldn't have any USP.

It's as Rojin said tbh. If Oly provided the same features/lenses as it currently does but in FF at the expense of some size/weight, they would dominate large swathes of the DSLR market. Both lenses and camera's can be made smaller/lighter than todays 35mm DSLR equivalents if manufacturers actually try. Just their fast focus and IBIS are big deals imo. Sure tracking isn't so hot, but I could live with that until on sensor phase is better utilised.

I think most photographers like me would love a smaller lighter setup than the typical 35mm DSLR, but are not willing to sacrifice the full frame 'look'.
I would rather be exhausted carrying heavy gear than sacrifice the full frame rendering style. This style is partly what separates me and other photographers charging half as much.

Note:
I exclude tele lenses as they will never be 'compact', and there are many photographers who never need to pick one up.. ever...

Inazuma · 1 Dec 2013 at 20:02

Concerning the full frame look - can't that be achieved by attaching a Metabones Speedbooster? Albeit at the expense of autofocus.

Rojin · 1 Dec 2013 at 20:17

Nope, it's the larger sensor that's key. You can stick a full frame lens on an mft but the 2x sensor will just give you a cropped and different field of view.

Edit: Ah, the speed booster I'm not sure about. It's supposed to help but I haven't really looked into it if I'm honest.

Above&Beyond · 1 Dec 2013 at 20:26

An Exception said:
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.

Zeiss can build small lenses for mobile phones and go right up to a mammoth 1700mm f/4. If you have the money they can build it. They are up there with Leica/Nikon/Canon in terms of reputation for optics. The Zeiss Otus vs the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 isn't a fair comparison in terms of size, price and optical quality. DxO regards the Otus as 'peerless' placing first in the table for lens performance.

An Exception · 1 Dec 2013 at 20:48

Above&Beyond said:
Zeiss can build small lenses for mobile phones and go right up to a mammoth 1700mm f/4. If you have the money they can build it. They are up there with Leica/Nikon/Canon in terms of reputation for optics. The Zeiss Otus vs the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 isn't a fair comparison in terms of size, price and optical quality. DxO regards the Otus as 'peerless' placing first in the table for lens performance.

Yeh I know the Otus is pretty spectacular. My point is there is more to what contributes to lens size than sensor size/focal length & autofocus.
I know that the Nikon lens isn't so hot in comparison to Otus, but Nikon could easily produce a new 50mm F1.4 that's the same size but with better IQ than the existing 50mm. Even the 50mm 1.8 is better at the equivalent aperture.

D.P. · 1 Dec 2013 at 23:55

Rojin said:
Nope, it's the larger sensor that's key. You can stick a full frame lens on an mft but the 2x sensor will just give you a cropped and different field of view.

Edit: Ah, the speed booster I'm not sure about. It's supposed to help but I haven't really looked into it if I'm honest.

The speed booster in theory would give you the same the same DoF and light gathering capability as attaching the lens to a FF sensor.

D.P. · 2 Dec 2013 at 00:07

An Exception said:
Yeh I know the Otus is pretty spectacular. My point is there is more to what contributes to lens size than sensor size/focal length & autofocus.
I know that the Nikon lens isn't so hot in comparison to Otus, but Nikon could easily produce a new 50mm F1.4 that's the same size but with better IQ than the existing 50mm. Even the 50mm 1.8 is better at the equivalent aperture.

Lenses can be made arbitrarily bigger for any number of reasons, improved optics, better corner performance, bigger AF motors, big optical stabalisation, better build, better ergonomics.

However, the minimum size for a lens is dictated by physics. Required image circle, aperture and focal length dictate the minimum size possible. Approximately, the lens will increase in size and weight in proportion with any of those 3 parameters, at least linear with aperture and nearly quadraticly with focal length and image circle.

Nikon 70-300mm f/5.6 = 0.74kg
Nikon 300mm f/4.0 = 1.45kg
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 = 2.9kg
Nikon 300mm f/2.0 = 7.4kg
Nikon 600mm f/4.0 = 5kg

And for comparison, to get the same effective subject size one can use the Olympus m4/3 40-140mm f/5.6 that weighs a mere 190grams and will print a great 20x30" picture of a moose at sunrise.

An Exception · 2 Dec 2013 at 02:52

D.P. said:
And for comparison, to get the same effective subject size one can use the Olympus m4/3 40-140mm f/5.6 that weighs a mere 190grams and will print a great 20x30" picture of a moose at sunrise.

Great.. that sounds like the right kind of setup for you. However what's right or important for you isn't necessarily what's right or important for others. That's the point I'm making. For me less than FF isn't ideal. The APSC fuji's have me tempted.. but not enough for me to switch, but that's mostly to do with AF and ease of use (need to change focus points fast).

A good interim compromise for me would be a Nikon DF with the exact same specs as the D800E, or dare I say it.. updated AF that isn't a decade old. Why Nikon hasn't made all the main AF points cross or double cross type I don't know. Anyway Nikon messed up the DF specs, the best price they can realistically get and shift product imo would be to price it like the D610.
If I was Nikon right now I would discount the DF and use it as an entry small retro camera, then release a DH or DFX or DFE or something with top draw specs.

This is a kamikaze business plan for Nikon.

robj20 · 2 Dec 2013 at 06:09

rhyswt said:
Hi robj - where did you order the FE 35mm lens? I can't seem to find any UK stores that have any in stock any time soon. I have the A7R but I'm having to manage with adapters for now.

Not allowed to say on here for some reason. Its from Hong Kong though, but a well regarded company on Talk Photography. Starts with Pan.

Rojin · 2 Dec 2013 at 07:57

D.P. said:
The speed booster in theory would give you the same the same DoF and light gathering capability as attaching the lens to a FF sensor.

Yeah, not having AF meant I had little interest in it. I had a quick look at a couple of reviews, it looks like diffraction sets in at f4 and the corner performance is poor. A good bit of kit though.

D.P. · 2 Dec 2013 at 10:09

Rojin said:
Yeah, not having AF meant I had little interest in it. I had a quick look at a couple of reviews, it looks like diffraction sets in at f4 and the corner performance is poor. A good bit of kit though.

The current speed boaster designs are far from ideal. If canikon designed one properly for DX with autofocus then it would be very interesting alternative and would normalize differences between sensor sizes wrt to light gathering and DoF.

As for diffracation, diffracation is directly linked to DOF, the lower diffracation limit is met at an identical DoF so there isnt really a problem. Which is why the suppoaed advantage of FF with greater diffraction limit is flawed, you may be able to shoot at f/16 but that gives you the same DoF of an APS-C sensor at f/11

Rojin · 2 Dec 2013 at 12:56

Yeah, there is no magic bullet at the moment. Like you said it may be something along the lines of light field tech that really gives us an entirely capable compact system.

robj20 · 2 Dec 2013 at 17:42

Its here.

Feels great to hold the grip is perfect. Shutter button could be placed better but its more a getting used to thing than it being completely rubbish.

Love all the rest of the buttons and dials, its great having a dial for shutter, aperture, iso and exposure. Makes it very easy to set any of the main settings, my RX100 you had to pick which and use a button for the rest.

Its going to get a proper testing next weekend when i visit the Manchester Christmas markets.

Inazuma · 2 Dec 2013 at 18:07

Nice

I checked it out on Saturday and it felt great. With the three dials, you have immediate access to ISO, Aperture and Shutter. Terrific. The shutter sound was something to behold though. It's like firing a staple gun