Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread
- Thread starter traveyb
- Start date
Caporegime
That proves that mirrorless system is lighter is just a misnomer?
I knew that from the start, same sensor size = same lens size and I have way more lenses than I do bodies.
I am looking forward to what mirrorless EF mount camera they bring out in a couple of years. They reacted to the mirrorless APS-C market with the M mount, I am sure they will react to the FF market eventually. The first one will be crap no doubt but the 5th one will be decent lol
Soldato
Indeed, smack one of their mahoosive 35, 50 or 85 lenses on there as well and it will probably be heavier.
You of course by the Sony LA-EA4 adaptor and mount A-Mount lenses on there and maintain fast AF but that is also just adding more weight (although the A Mount lenses are lighter)
I don't know where these number of shots off a battery charge come from (and I'll happily concede the Nikon equivalent having a better capacity in that respect) but I'm currently on around 1,200 with 60% charge left, a mix of single shot/burst (1DX II).
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
It depends on how you shoot. 1DX-II's 1210 shots, A9's 960 shots and D5's 3780 shots are all based on manufacturer's published specifications in compliance with CIPA standards.
If you shoot in other way, it could last longer. Below is an example of 6-hour wedding session with a D5:
Soldato
Mirrorless cameras have never really been about weight though. Not that it matters in the pro instance. The general consumer ones are about less bulk, and more options.
Anyway, lets see how it sells. According to Sony's own hype, they are single-handedly responsible for the growth in the full frame camera market.
Soldato
Hello all. I've just pre ordered this camera
Caporegime
Dibs on a cheap A7RII.
Soldato
There's plenty of uwa primes from batis and samyang just to name a few.I'd consider the system switch to this from a 5D3, it's the only camera IMO that seems to be worthy of a complete upgrade in every possible area barring price (lol).
So much so, that i priced up body and lenses that I'd be looking at and came to:
Dat price...
The 85 and 35 1.4s are what I already have from Sigma, the two ranges I almost exclusively shoot at. But I can't seem to find a decent ultra-wide for the E-mount system (hence the addition of the 24-70 2.8.
I currently have Tamron's 15-30 2.8 VC which is absolutely great, so something similar would have been ideal.
Soldato
Na that will be replaced by an A9R hehe
Caporegime
I can wait!
Caporegime
Btw, for the record, I think Sony bodies are fantastic but as a system, it's not there yet for work.
As a secondary system, it's fine but it's a lot of money for a secondary system. It's why I opted for the Fuji.
As a secondary system, it's fine but it's a lot of money for a secondary system. It's why I opted for the Fuji.
Associate
That's why for my travels I got a Fuji set up.
1.2 lenses.
I think this is one of the best feature of the A9 is it size.
From what I have been reading Sony have addressed most of the issues regarding the camera range, twin card slots, more AF points, battery life etc.
If I had not purchased Canon many years ago and I was getting in photography for the first I would consider getting Sony. Sharp IQ, small bodies are plus for me.
I do own a SONY NEX 5R and what a great little camera it is. I can not use as a replacement for my EOS 7D as the features are too deep in the menu system. There are only a few buttons on the camera body so doing any adjustments can not be done quickly !
Last edited:
Caporegime
But the Sony lenses are not small. So size is a misnomer. You need to carry lenses as well as bodies.
What I said 10 years ago still hold true today, I would recommend buying into a system, look at what you shoot and what you want to shoot and buy the system that fit your needs. If you are shooting general hobby, this and that then get a Fuji or something. If you are shooting Premier League matches then get a big DSLR.
Sony has great bodies but they have a lot of work to do to fill the gaps in the lenses.
Canon and Nikon can make 1 body like the A9 and that will be that.
Associate
I am happy with my canon gear and I do hope Canon in the near future can produce a body along the lines of Sony.
My 7D Mk1 is great camera and I thought the Mk2 was more like a EOS 7D S ( like iPhone models ) as there was not much of an upgrade for me to purchase it.
However a Canon body similar to a Sony would be a great buy / upgrade !
Soldato
they are small
Look at the Batis Lineup.
BTW The Batis lenses are IMO better then Canon's L primes. Zeiss overal make better lenses then Canon IMO.
if i was to rank them i would in this order
1. Leica
2. zeiss
3. Canon/Sigma/Nikon
Caporegime
A Fuji 23mm is small.
A Zeus Batis 85/1.8 is larger than a Canon 85/1.8. That's a even playing field, you can't compare a Batis 1.8 vs a Canon 1.2. You can't compare them really unless Zeiss do one at 1.2 aperture too at the same focal length? Or compare the Zeiss 24/1.4 against the Canon 24/1.4? But you can't, you can try compare the 25/2.0 but it's a 2.0. Not a 1.4 lens. Batis just don't have any 1.4 lenses.
You are comparing apples and oranges. 1.2 lenses are bigger and heavier...of course they are. Look at the 200/1.8L vs the 200/2.8L.
Leica lenses do not come into play, they at manual focus and they are in another league in terms of pricing. They are tiny because there is no motor inside.
Quality aside, not going to debate whether Zeiss makes better or worse lenses and I'm sure they make some that are better than the L series but they also makes some that are not.
The point is, in general, Sony lenses, Zeiss or not, when things like aperture being equal, are not smaller or lighter. You can no doubt find 1 lens that is but I can no doubt find another lens that the Sony E mount is larger. Across the board, E mount lenses are not smaller.
A Zeus Batis 85/1.8 is larger than a Canon 85/1.8. That's a even playing field, you can't compare a Batis 1.8 vs a Canon 1.2. You can't compare them really unless Zeiss do one at 1.2 aperture too at the same focal length? Or compare the Zeiss 24/1.4 against the Canon 24/1.4? But you can't, you can try compare the 25/2.0 but it's a 2.0. Not a 1.4 lens. Batis just don't have any 1.4 lenses.
You are comparing apples and oranges. 1.2 lenses are bigger and heavier...of course they are. Look at the 200/1.8L vs the 200/2.8L.
Leica lenses do not come into play, they at manual focus and they are in another league in terms of pricing. They are tiny because there is no motor inside.
Quality aside, not going to debate whether Zeiss makes better or worse lenses and I'm sure they make some that are better than the L series but they also makes some that are not.
The point is, in general, Sony lenses, Zeiss or not, when things like aperture being equal, are not smaller or lighter. You can no doubt find 1 lens that is but I can no doubt find another lens that the Sony E mount is larger. Across the board, E mount lenses are not smaller.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
It's a shame that Batis will not make a 35mm lens... This is a very bad news for me as I needed such focal length most.
By the way, the Batis 85mm f/1.8 is a Tamron lens rebranded into Zeiss.
Soldato
That cant be right. All the Batis lenses are made from the ground-up
Soldato
Yea but none of the fuji systems are FF.
They are crop so they have smaller lenses and marginally smaller bodies then sony.