Another boost to A7/R

For discussion of the E and FE mount mirrorless system
peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby peterottaway » Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:22 pm

For any Australian viewers,Sony is again offering a free adapter for anyone purchasing either the A7 or A7r. You get to choose between the Sony LA EA 4 and the Metabones Canon, Leica or Nikon adapters.

Offer expires 31 March 2014. I'm sure that they will ship in a plain brown paper wrapping for anyone too embarrassed to be seen openly to be receiving such dubious purchases

peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby peterottaway » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:54 am

My CZ FE 24-70 / 4.0 has just been delivered. I hesitated on buying this lens as I all ready have a perfectly respectable Minolta G 28-70 which I can use with the adapter. However the longer I use the A7r the more and more convinced I am that I don't need to keep on buying A mount gear. I'm not going to get rid of any of it at the moment because you never know what Sony is about to release. And as they haven't released an EA 6 adapter E to A then what I have stays.

If you have been reading DPR forums you will have come across everyone from the terminally disenchanted to a series of Olympus trolls complaining that the FE zooms are SOOOO big and that they have f 2.8. Interesting that they change the subject when DOF and sensor size get mentioned. I did a rough comparison test with my DT 16-50 / 2.8, the G 28-70 the KM 28=75 ( same 67mm filter size ) and just for laughs the CZ 16-35 ( the chiropractors delight ). The FE 24-70 is closest in size,bulk and weight to the the DT 16-50 and although neither the G 28-70 or the 28-75 are particularly heavy lenses they are rather more bulky.The A77 with the 16-50 lens is massive in comparison to the A7r with the 24-70 lens.

With the A7r you barely notice that you are carrying a camera,something I can't say about the A77. Of course if you are traveling by vehicle it doesn't matter that much - who was it who said there's nothing interesting more than a 100 yards from a road ?

It;s towards the end of summer here and the temperature has dropped to the mid 30's but I will need to take the camera and lens out through autumn and winter before I can really give a definite comment on the combo out in the field in real life.

User avatar
Birma
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6679
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:10 pm

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby Birma » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:48 am

Congrats on the new lens Peter and nice to hear your initial thoughts. I'm hoping this lens is at least as good as the 28-75, and perhaps better. The A7(r) with this lens would be a great light weight combi.
Nex 5, Nex 6 (IR), A7M2, A99 and a bunch of lenses.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5697
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby bakubo » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:01 pm

IMO, there is no reason to feel inferior or sensitive about gear size. Some people like smaller gear for their specific uses and some people prefer bigger gear. I like both, but for different uses and circumstances. I am willing to have slightly worse ergonomics with the E-M5 in order to gain the other long desired qualities. Be happy about large gear. Years ago some people disliked those little FF 35mm cameras and lenses and went with things like the 120 Pentax 67. So, just go with what you like and try not to feel angst about size. There is no right size; just what you prefer.
Last edited by bakubo on Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby peterottaway » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:31 pm

I carried an Olympus OM 2n for many years as a walking camera. The A7r gives me the same comfortable feeling. It's just that with the Sony it is good enough at most things not to worry about what it can't do.

If I was shooting a lot of high end sports I might have a problem. Or doing a lot of studio flash photography. But I did shoot a Women's Hockey World Cup with a camera certainly no faster than the A7. Or when Steve Fosset prepared for his round the world balloon attempt.

I think the digital cameras in general have become too large for their own good. Although it was a trend even with the all singing, all dancing film cameras.

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3689
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:45 pm

peterottaway wrote:I carried an Olympus OM 2n for many years as a walking camera. The A7r gives me the same comfortable feeling. It's just that with the Sony it is good enough at most things not to worry about what it can't do.

If I was shooting a lot of high end sports I might have a problem. Or doing a lot of studio flash photography. But I did shoot a Women's Hockey World Cup with a camera certainly no faster than the A7. Or when Steve Fosset prepared for his round the world balloon attempt.

I think the digital cameras in general have become too large for their own good. Although it was a trend even with the all singing, all dancing film cameras.


Some of the FF cameras are bulky (esp the pro level ones)
More weight than I would want to carry.

There is no reason why cameras have to be big, I'm sure the AS system adds a bit of size (v 35mm bodies film era)
I'm ok with A57 (don't want smaller than this), D7000, Film 7, 70d etc are all fine with me size wise.

5dMkII bit bigger than I would like, once you add those big Canon L lenses and a flash it get's fairly hefty.
I was surprised the A99 wasn't a bit more compact. The biggest beef I have with Sony is the absurdly oversized add on grips they do. They make the cameras simply huge and that's a turn off big time.

peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby peterottaway » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:42 pm

I cannot see any reason why Sony should be producing cameras heavier and bulkier than the A77. It seems that when you reach a certain price point then you are expected to bulk up the body. Now it was a case in the 1990s that to achieve a certain fps. a reliable 1/8000th of a second top speed and a camera that could take a degree of physical punishment - you had to go for volume and weight.

It got worse with digital requiring even more power. sometimes much more power. And there was not the production or design experience to keep things small. Also many of the parts available were either modified from previous film cameras or whatever was available from the general electronics industry at the time. Remember the size of early mobile phones and their capacity ? This was before iPod let alone iPhone. There was not the volume to justify large scale production of specialist parts.

I certainly can understand the attraction of companies like Olympus and Panasonic with their smaller product. And for most of the market they are more than good enough. The criticisms I have is that the top end gear is expensive and with the small size of the sensor they have locked their market into a performance / price bind that doesn't make sense for the medium and high end. Not only with APS cameras but also with some FF cameras. Plus not much profit in the E-5 or E-10.

Fujifilm seem to have realized that they may also pressured the same way with the Sony FF cameras.Hence they are now making noises about FF cameras. I would think that this is much sooner than they anticipated. They will also face the same problems that Sony faced with the lack of lenses and without the ability to convert A mount lenses.

The A7 / A7r has established a new base point for the size and weight for FF cameras. Now who much bigger and heavier does a camera need to be to get to the performance of a Nikon D610 ?

classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby classiccameras » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:52 pm

Whats all this obsession with FF, is it the manufacturers trying to get back to the original 35-mm [FF] format, well it seems they are struggling a tad with the size and weight and getting lenses to work at 100% efficiency. Do people find APS-C that terrible. If you read the posts on the 4/3 forum, they would have you believe that smaller [M/4/3] is just as good, Hmm, not convinced. There's me thinking about going the other way by getting a bridge camera, only for convenience you understand.

peterottaway
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northam, Western Australia

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby peterottaway » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:15 am

I regard the APS size sensor to be a very decent compromise, and is going to stay not only the largest seller but also be the standard reference point for assessing cameras - ie APS = 100 on the comprison table. But the manufacturers need to make a real commitment in cameras, lenses and all the add on bits and pieces. The sensor is large enough / small enough to allow fairly easy and cheap adoption of any new sensor technology. But it not always be the absolute best solution and so there will be those who prefer the 36 x 24 or the 44 x 33 sensor sizes.

The m43 is like the 1 inch sensor, it is a valid solution to certain requirements and price points in both still and video photography. But the APS is generally a better solution if properly implemented. As most people have a sweet spot in camera size and weight different cameras will appeal to different photographers. In my case the RX family including the A7 / A7r is reasonably close to my sweet spot. And they are FF cameras and I have the ability at this time to afford such a camera. Had the A7 been a super A6000 camera for a $1000 - $1100 price tag, then I would probably bought that without feeling it was a second level choice.

N.B. A problem for APS Fujifilm cameras is pricing the new T model whichI can buy for AUD 1699, whilst the A7 is AUD 1699.99. Now there are those who really like the Fujifilm camera design and sensor, but when the marginal cost of FF vs APS is $0.99 ?

Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby Vidgamer » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:19 pm

I consider APS-C to be the "sweet spot". M43 isn't much, if any, cheaper, nor even smaller. The Nex cameras are pretty compact and affordable. Whether or not it's the proper reference point is just personal preference It's all relative. There's nothing magic about FF/35mm format.

alphaomega
Viceroy
Posts: 1196
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:20 pm

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby alphaomega » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:45 pm

There's nothing magic about FF/35mm format.

Shallower DOF and more pixels. Some people like it and they can probably make do with F1.8 then instead of F1.4. If you are into real professional photography and need pixels no APS-C can compete with 36Mp FF in a small or large body, which can even give MF a "run for its money" and is more portable. If you are into architecture FF with T/S lenses will outdo APS-C. This discussion about 1", 4/3, APS-C and FF boils down to "horses for courses". In my case APS-C and 1" (in RX100) are fine and FF with shallower DoF is actually a disadvantage. Don't need the additional pixels either.

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5697
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby bakubo » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:58 pm

Vidgamer wrote:I consider APS-C to be the "sweet spot". M43 isn't much, if any, cheaper, nor even smaller. The Nex cameras are pretty compact and affordable.


I certainly can't argue that m4/3 is cheaper than APS-C. Olympus and Panasonic, like most companies, charge what they think they can get. If they think wrong then they usually adjust. Small size often commands a premium in other things as well. I checked for Barry a few months ago and discovered that a small Toyota Prius and a huge Ford F-350 pickup truck cost almost the same. Different tech and the price the market will bear are more important. Buying big is not necessarily more and buying small is not necessarily less.

As for size, well I disagree. The m4/3 system in most cases is quite a bit smaller than APS-C. See these old links of mine with comparison photos:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6746&hilit=virginia&start=60#p70818

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6746&hilit=virginia&start=45#p70869

Using a NEX 7 instead would make the body smaller in the above photos, but since there were so few comparable lenses at that time (2012) it was difficult to do a comparison. A few minutes ago I tried to do a new comparison using a NEX 7 or A6000, but since then the lens situation hasn't improved much I still couldn't do much of a comparison. Especially because since then Panasonic and Olympus have come out with something like 7 or 8 additional lenses.

I think APS-C is also sort of a sweet spot size, but since the lenses generally aren't much smaller (you can cherry pick a prime and maybe get close to m4/3 size) I like m4/3 for backpack, close to the ground travel. For close to home, throw the camera bag in the car, etc. stuff then APS-C or FF or whatever is fine for me too.

Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby Vidgamer » Sat Feb 22, 2014 4:28 pm

alphaomega wrote:
There's nothing magic about FF/35mm format.

Shallower DOF and more pixels.


So... go with medium format and have even shallower DOF and more pixels! :mrgreen:

Some people like it and they can probably make do with F1.8 then instead of F1.4.


Actually, it turns out that this is an advantage of FF sensors -- they make better use of wide aperture lenses. There have been a couple of recent articles where, on APS-C cameras, lenses wider than about f2 showed a lot less light than would be expected. It has gone unnoticed so long because manufactures have been spoofing the exposure readings so you really have to test and examine the difference.

So, if you really need the shallowest DOF, sure, get the largest sensor. Which size is good enough is a matter of personal preference. There is no fast rule that FF/35 is "it", though. If you had a medium-format sensor available at a more reasonable price, I would imagine we could have the same discussion.

If you are into real professional photography and need pixels no APS-C can compete with 36Mp FF in a small or large body, which can even give MF a "run for its money" and is more portable.


What did pros do a few years ago, using DSLRs with 6mp APS-C sensors?

Where did I say that there weren't advantages to larger sensors? That's why I have APS-C -- it certainly would have been possible for me to buy smaller sensors. FF cameras are still way more expensive, but you could do even better. Here's an example -- you could make a square sensor that would still cover the image circle for FF lenses and have more cropping options while maintaining the full resolution and still maintaining your existing FF lenses. Anyway, that's the main popularity of FF -- legacy lenses more so than it being the one-true-format.

If you are into architecture FF with T/S lenses will outdo APS-C. This discussion about 1", 4/3, APS-C and FF boils down to "horses for courses". In my case APS-C and 1" (in RX100) are fine and FF with shallower DoF is actually a disadvantage. Don't need the additional pixels either.


Yes, there's no need to pay extra (in cost and size) if you don't need it.

Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby Vidgamer » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:33 pm

bakubo wrote:
Vidgamer wrote:I consider APS-C to be the "sweet spot". M43 isn't much, if any, cheaper, nor even smaller. The Nex cameras are pretty compact and affordable.


I certainly can't argue that m4/3 is cheaper than APS-C. Olympus and Panasonic, like most companies, charge what they think they can get. If they think wrong then they usually adjust. Small size often commands a premium in other things as well. I checked for Barry a few months ago and discovered that a small Toyota Prius and a huge Ford F-350 pickup truck cost almost the same. Different tech and the price the market will bear are more important. Buying big is not necessarily more and buying small is not necessarily less.


True, but big often means more materials. Sometimes big is a feature, like with a truck. With cameras, it's flipped, and small is often a desirable feature.

As for size, well I disagree. The m4/3 system in most cases is quite a bit smaller than APS-C. See these old links of mine with comparison photos:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6746&hilit=virginia&start=60#p70818

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6746&hilit=virginia&start=45#p70869



I wasn't thinking of the A700 or A-mount cameras when speaking of comparing to M43. Shouldn't you compare mirrorless to mirrorless? The Nex and Oly cameras seem fairly similar in size, but if size is the overriding concern, it's hard to argue with the Nex-3N:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#442,459
So, APS-C doesn't need to be large. This is what was wonderful with the arrival of the Nex line.

For all of the smaller size of the sensor and lenses, the M43 cameras don't seem much smaller and often times are much larger. Compare, say, the Nex-6/7 to E-M1.

Using a NEX 7 instead would make the body smaller in the above photos, but since there were so few comparable lenses at that time (2012) it was difficult to do a comparison. A few minutes ago I tried to do a new comparison using a NEX 7 or A6000, but since then the lens situation hasn't improved much I still couldn't do much of a comparison. Especially because since then Panasonic and Olympus have come out with something like 7 or 8 additional lenses.

I think APS-C is also sort of a sweet spot size, but since the lenses generally aren't much smaller (you can cherry pick a prime and maybe get close to m4/3 size) I like m4/3 for backpack, close to the ground travel. For close to home, throw the camera bag in the car, etc. stuff then APS-C or FF or whatever is fine for me too.


Here's another comparison, both similarly-sized with small zoom lenses, but the Oly is cheaper:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#382.409,478.360,ha,t

If you need more reach, then the difference in lens sizes becomes more noticeable with longer focal lengths. With the shorter lenses, not so much. I don't have to cherry-pick a prime, I can just use the kit lens my Nex-6 came with.

No doubt that you can find advantages with the M43 system, particularly with the lens selection, but they haven't really fully capitalized on the smaller size, allowing Sony to compete in price, size, and features, and what is more important for some people, better image quality, particularly at high-ISO.

When walking about, I often don't bother with the bag. I can put the camera in a pouch on my belt, and my 55-210 or other extra lens in another pouch.

Heidfirst
Grand Caliph
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Another boost to A7/R

Unread postby Heidfirst » Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:08 am

Vidgamer wrote:
Here's another comparison, both similarly-sized with small zoom lenses, but the Oly is cheaper:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#382.409,478.360,ha,

it's also a year older so prices will be further along the sliding scale of decline from launch ...
& I haven't even looked to see how they compare in terms of features. (The Oly will have IBIS, the Sony wifi, NFC etc. so probably apples & oranges)


Return to “Alpha E-Mount system”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest