Mirrorless rumours

[classiccameras]

I posted a news/rumour item on the other thread about Sony/Olympus co operation and technology sharing. very interesting.

[mikeriach]

I tried on one occasion to mimic using a NEX with 70-400G but using the A77 rear screen to track moving aircraft and I failed seriously, it was a joke. I don't mind a good EVF and on reflection would probably prefer a OVF but certainly not rear screen only. That's a show stopper.

I love the feel of the Nikons, but probably 80%+ of aviation guys use Canon and each raves about their chosen system. I'm happy with mine now that I have some decent glass. A friend just bought the new Nikon 80-400 and is over the moon with it compared to his Sigma 150-500. Like the "new" 70-400G, the price jumped somewhat for the upgrade though in fairness the Nikon has had more than just a fine tune hence it doubling in price.

Mike

[Heidfirst]

I tried on one occasion to mimic using a NEX with 70-400G but using the A77 rear screen to track moving aircraft and I failed seriously, it was a joke.

try it with a 300/2,8 - it's even worse!
Certainly for longer lens users I don't see CSCs replacing DSLRs.

[Greg Beetham]

Barry the figures from Thom Hogan are interesting, it does look as though mirror-less is not sweeping all before it after all, I suspected myself that it was more of a niche that might not need frequent updates unless something revolutionary comes along to improve the performance.

On sensor AF loses light too, maybe not quite as much as an SLT mirror does but still quite considerable, around 30% according to some people (I don’t know what it is myself), so the process of recording an image is still obstructed even in mirror-less cameras, the only true non obstructed design is still the DSLR.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a fair amount of resistance to mirror-less could be found at the sales counter if people want to purchase a camera that can reliably perform under a wide range of circumstances. i.e. sales people feel they won’t have to contend with very many customers coming back in complaining about being recommended a mirror-less purchase if they stick to what they know works.

Henry likes his Oly because of the size reduction for travel so that is quite understandable and like that second article says it is one mirror-less that can actually perform, probably not for sports shooters or bif but is one of the best so far. (not equal to the best DSLR’s though in some performance aspects)

I don’t care if mirror-less can focus while doing video, that means nothing to a still shooter, I would have been quite happy with a DSLR that had mirror up live view for doing set piece shots, then the OVF would be available for regular shooting, but for some reason we never actually got one that functioned the way a still shooter would want it to work.

And the only reason I can think of for that is they designed the existing models with video as something of importance, which shows where their mind is at, still camera functionality had to take a back seat to video.
Greg

[classiccameras]

Can any one honestly say they get inferior or sub standard picture quality or performance because of the SLT system. May be you can say you get above average picture quality and performance because of the SLT system. What bench mark would you judge an SLT camera by. One of its rivals perhaps of similar price and spec.
It seems all DSLR manufacturers are pooring R+D money [some say disproportionate amounts] into the video side of the camera and again some say at the expense of the stills.

Pete

[bakubo]

Greg, that is correct. The only reason I currently prefer the E-M5 to a DSLR is because of the very significant size/weight savings for the body and lenses. My current m4/3 kit costs more than a similar APS-C kit. The E-M5 performs much like an APS-C DSLR in most ways. As I wrote in my long thread months ago, I recommend an APS-C DSLR over the E-M5 if size/weight is not a consideration.

I have been in Bali for the last several days. As expected, hot and humid. I hope I can get a few good photos while here.

[bfitzgerald]

I think these ILC systems appeal to some shooters, but not to others. Henry's travel light needs are met with micro 4/3, personally I couldn't see myself using an OM-D for what I do not because I couldn't use it, but because I find the body a bit too small and the controls a bit cramped.
The ILC market is over saturated big time now they are all in it. Samsung seem to have worked out they can't sell stuff at the high end so have cheap prices on most (pancake) lenses and their NX1000, Fuji are going for the RF type shooter more higher end, Canon are fiddling right now, Nikon p&s user mostly, Micro 4/3 is a mix from the cheap Pen/G models to the EM-5/GH3. Pentax and their Q seems like a cult thing in Japan, but elsewhere it's had very little interest.

I said sometime ago that the ILC's were more threat to mid priced and up compacts and I still feel that (compact makers WILL have to start using bigger sensors and better IQ to fend off smart phones)

As for the Alpha video side, well I know of more than a few folks pretty disappointed with Sony in this regard, that forced 1.8x crop is not popular, can't control audio levels, and I was pretty surprised you can't disable video SS and lose the crop. If Sony intended to make a range of models to grab the video users I think they're out of luck, besides many buyers consider stills shooting the priority and not video. Video users are a minority IMO not the main audience at all.
I do remember someone posting on DPR with an EM-5 v A99 video comparison with still grabs from footage.. The Oly blew the A99 out of the water for sharpness and definition.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3347335

http://chrisjoyphoto.wordpress.com/2013 ... ympus-em5/

[mikeriach]

I tried on one occasion to mimic using a NEX with 70-400G but using the A77 rear screen to track moving aircraft and I failed seriously, it was a joke.

try it with a 300/2,8 - it's even worse!
Certainly for longer lens users I don't see CSCs replacing DSLRs.

If only I had one to try..... Imagine a 500 f4
I'd need a damn good lottery win for that.

Mike

[Greg Beetham]

Yes Barry I remember there were quite a few threads about the A99 video being not up to par, much to the displeasure of the defenders. And that’s the strange thing, Sony are supposed to be good with video, they put the whole system through all this turmoil giving people no choice but to buy a camera that has tradeoffs for video and then provide their top camera with second rate video anyway.
Greg

Ps Bali is a favourite holiday destination for Australians Henry, (or so they say) but be careful there was an item on the news last night about an upsurge in tourist muggings there of late (a couple of bad ones).

[bfitzgerald]

Greg I can't see Sony making any real impact on video, folks I know shoot Canon, they use the magic lantern stuff on a card to beef up the video options.
All the sales figures are showing a notable decline in the camera market, compacts are way down (they'll have to start using non pin head sensors) ILC's and DSLR's are down too.

As far as I can see the only real growth sector is going to be full frame, and then at "yes please prices" APS-C is over saturated they're out of ideas (Canon 700d) folks are not upgrading as often either. Even with a new whizz bang sensors Sony can't expect to increase sales massively in 2014 the EU economy is pretty poor right now (over half the market for DSLR's) and Sony's prices are quite poor in this region too. I expect a few more makers to exit cameras in the next few years, Sony will just have to price themselves down to levels where they can sell the bodies, and try to make a profit on the lenses.

Just releasing 2 new no mirror EVF type DSLR's at ouch prices isn't going to cut it at all I'm afraid even with snazzy features and new tech. It's all about the money folks, and people are not spending big.

[Greg Beetham]

And I can see maybe a problem with making a profit on lenses as well, if the whole market is depressed and Sony sees a model like the A58 as the answer to making new sales, are people who buy a camera like that going to buy an expensive second lens? Or even any second lens?
I guess people who don’t balk at the price of the A99 might lash out on a couple of extra lenses, some don’t seem to mind even trading in the old 70-400G on the new one. I wonder how the camera actually sold worldwide so far it would be fascinating to find out.

Sony USA has begun doing the usual run out sales on the A77 with extra special prices plus a free grip that signify an end to the model looms, I wonder how long the slot will remain empty this time? I suppose the A65 will follow (both have the old flash shoe) soon, it’ll probably fade away and not be replaced.
Sony don’t seem to do the same bargains in Europe they do in the US, funny that when it has been Europe that’s supported Sony more than the US has by all accounts.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Greg I was always under the impression the camera makers got the best margins off of lenses, accessories, flashes v the actual camera body. I would think that the higher end bodies have good margins on them, but not the other stuff. I'm sure they turn a profit on them, but it's likely not huge.
The A58 isn't going to sell that well in Europe for just under £400, so that will have to be bargain basement to shift.

A77/65 no idea if production continues, I've seen some grip deals (not in the UK though) I can't imagine Sony will cease production and leave such a massive gap in the important run up to Christmas.
It's a numbers game really if only 5 out of 100 people splash out on lenses and other stuff..some of those will spend a fair bit, some just a few things. I think it's always been the same way for DSLR's some folks buy one/kit lens and nothing else. It's the ones that do spend that drive the profits though.
IMO Sony need to "Gillette things" ie sell the bodies cheaper, make the money on the other stuff. Only way to attack Canikon with any kind of force.

If I were Sony I'd drop the A99 price down big time, it needs to be about £1300 odd to get competitive and start selling. Otherwise they're just missing the FF push that is going on (and I know of quite a few who want to upgrade to FF) A mount users are not going to pay a premium for a FF body over Canikon. I don't know what Sony were thinking on this one, if they were actually thinking that is. The more FF users Sony bag, at least some of them will be buying bits to go with it, hence more profits. Right now the A99 sales must be pretty poor in Europe it's just not worth the asking price

[classiccameras]

I suspect the A58 will be primarily marketed towards the first time DSLR buyer who probably won't have too much idea of what quality to expect for the money.
Its an attractive price at Curry's and many first time buyers will be wooed by the 20mp for such little money. For the uninitiated pixels sell cameras.

The whole industry is in decline, may be some sections more than others, but reading some of the recent reviews including DPReviews on Bridge cameras, they all seem to be saying that its a section that is more robust to decline and is becoming more and more popular. FF will never be Sony's saviour. mainly because its a tiny market in comparison to other formats. Agreed that the APS-C DSLR market is or has been at saturation point for some time with little room left for more inovation across all the brands. I think Fuji and other APS-C sensor CSC compacts are going to be a force to be reckoned with as DSLR's decline more and more.

[pakodominguez]

Then there's that e-mount 24f1.8 wonder; and the wonder is that the only absolutely positive report I've ever heard is from Pako. I sure do trust Palo, I'm absolutely not joking here, as Pako is really very much 'down to the real stuff' kind of photog. But the literal tons of online samples from that lens plus some personal testing at the brick&mortar retailers - they all - tell me I'm far from being as lucky as Pako's obviously gotten.

I don't know if I'm down to the real stuff' -I just don't buy what everybody says -specially what everybody says on internet...

I believe until now, I had sort of luck while buying equipment. While Canon and Nikon users prefer to not be early adopters due to hardware and software errors, I bought one of the first Maxxum 7D available in the USA and after all this time, it never developed the First Black Frame issue. I got the KM 17-35 f2.8-4 as soon as possible also and I never understood some critics about this lens been soft or not so good (I haven't try extensively the 17-35 G, but I didn't find anything that special on it, same goes with the ZA 16-35 ).

My A700 had the same problem Henry denounced with the rear control wheel, that I solved with compressed air. Other than that, it worked always perfect and I believe Dusty, who bought it a couple of years ago, is still happy with it.

Going to more sensitive gear, my SEL 16f2.8 works OK. I know some people hate this lens and I know some people needed up to 5 copies in order to have a keeper. Mine came with the NEX5, that was the first one arriving to the store (Adorama) and it is the same history with the Zeiss 24f1.8.

In my experience, Minolta/Sony/(Zeiss) works the opposite of CaNikon: best products arrive first. Then bad handling at shipping also influence the sampling issue -I've seen Post workers (UPS, USPS...) throwing unnecessarily boxes with precious equipment inside, really sad!

So, for pixel-lovers, I did a fast test last Saturday with the 3 24mm primes I have:
Zeiss 24f1.8;
Minolta MD 24mm f2.8 (49mm filter size)
Quantaray (Sigma) 24mmf2.8 "Macro" with a plain adapter (I didn't use the LA-EA2 even if I believe it doesn't reduce quality)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xltj4i70ugfwnqp/LhQum6PDqu

3 pics with each, at f2.8; f5.6 and f11 -focus on the restroom's sign. All in-camera compensations turned off.

As reference, I put also a sample with the A900 and the Sigma lens.

Quick observations: all 3 lenses are fine, the Zeiss been better, and the Minolta performing quite good. The Sigma looks better on the A900 since it need to resolve less pixels...

The Zeiss is a 1100$ lens and my copy is good AFAIK, the Minolta and the Sigma goes for about 140$ on eBay. I'll keep the Zeiss (because f1.8 and AF) and the Minolta (I have a Minolta manual system) and the Sigma is for sale (I have a second copy that had the AF mechanism condemned.

[classiccameras]

Kurt Munger found the KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens [made by Tamron] very good and sharp as a tack. He also found the KM 17-35 G F/3.5 really no better.
I can vouch for the KM 17-35 D, it gives me very sharp pictures from F/4 to F/8 and those lovely Minolta colours.
It is though prone to flare if you don't shield the front element carefully. The supplied lens hood is only partially effective at accute angles to the sun.