Mirrorless rumours

[David Kilpatrick]

Also, it is worth making this comment: reviewers only get one sample, maybe a couple if they attend a press conference and then get a loan camera later. My first experience with the Nikon 28-300mm on the D4 was that it was a good lens, equal to the Sigma 18-250mm; Richard's experience with the D600 was free from the dust/oil issue, I also tried it and rated the noise/ISO performance highly. So buying the D600/28-300mm seemed a very safe bet, and our reviews in 2012 would have supported that.

I now question the value of any reviews of this type. As you all probably know, I'm very slow with my Sony Alpha reviews here, because if possible I like to use a camera over a good period and study general web feedback before committing to words which will influence others. Magazine/web reviewing in 'real time' prevents that, demands fast delivery, and often means reviewers end up printing an exhaustive description of the hardware and its functions without saying much, capped by relying on measuring equipment to 'rate' lenses/sensors/etc. I do not like that type of review but I'm thinking now that I may concentrate more on techniques. I have shied away from writing about technique as I simply don't like so much of the popular 'image look' processing and 'strobist' stuff which underpins current obsessions.

David

[Rodney Brown]

To pick up on comments by Paco in this thread and by David here and on the homepage:

Maybe I've been living in a fool's paradise these last 30 years, but I was always led to believe that the higher end Carl Zeiss lenses were the bees knees in terms of most image quality parameters - even the A-mount ones. But David seems to be saying that some Sony Sam and Minolta can outperform them and at a lower price. This is a bit of a shock to my world view. Any thoughts on this?

[bfitzgerald]

No shocks for me regarding lenses. You tend to pay more for 1: Faster aperture lenses, 2: Higher end build/maybe better SSM or AF and in some cases sealing
There is no reason to assume that less pricey lenses are necessarily optically poor (in the case of some lenses they can still be fast). I've not used that many of the Zeiss lenses, and different folks have their own ideas about what a good lens is or should deliver.

Plenty of good performing lenses either from the classic Minolta stable or from other makers Tamron/Sigma etc. It's all about bang per buck really if you pay £1000 for a lens you will likely be more demanding or fussy than if you pay £250 for one.

[pakodominguez]

To pick up on comments by Paco in this thread and by David here and on the homepage:

Maybe I've been living in a fool's paradise these last 30 years, but I was always led to believe that the higher end Carl Zeiss lenses were the bees knees in terms of most image quality parameters - even the A-mount ones. But David seems to be saying that some Sony Sam and Minolta can outperform them and at a lower price. This is a bit of a shock to my world view. Any thoughts on this?

It is all a matter of taste: you might like Zeiss lenses, and many ppl kill for the creamy bokeh of Japanese designs. So it will depend if you are following the German high resolution trend, or the Japanese all about bokeh trend (modern Zeiss lenses have better bokeh, thanks to Japanese trend...)

I have a Zeiss (the 24-70) mostly because I'm tired of some stupid people asking me why a professional is using Sony instead of Canon so I have a fast answer: because there is no lens like this for Canon" but is plain true. And I know that. There is a plastic Sigma 28-70 f2.8-4 UC that sells for 45$ on eBay and perform as good as the Minolta G 28-70 f2.8 (I won't compare it with the Zeiss 24-70 because the Sigma start at 28mm...)

I have another Zeiss, the SEL24f1.8 that I bought because there was (is) no option for the NEX system (I mean AF lens) if you want that focal distance. Is a remarkably good lens, but I have really high quality shots taken with the NEX5 and NEX7 and a Minolta MD 24f2.8 (49mm filter size, not even the "good" 55mm filter size)

For me, Zeiss is just another brand making good lenses, like Sony with all the Minolta heritage, and by heritage I mean they got designs for lenses that they introduce later, after they took over Minolta, I believe we haven't see yet any Sony A mount lens that is 100% Sony. And I'm sure a 100% Sony lens will be as good as any Minolta or Zeiss or Nikon (and definitely better than Canon...)

BTW, I like my Lensbaby a lot...

[bfitzgerald]

Sigma are going nuts with their emails lately I'm getting quite a few like this
Clearly they are going a bit more upmarket. Maybe this "is" the future with firmware updates and user customisation.
Ultimately a lens captures an image that has to be remembered!

Capture.JPG

(71.37 KiB) Downloaded 2616 times

[pakodominguez]

"Connect with your XXXX lens" sound metaphysical...

[Birma]

To pick up on comments by Paco in this thread and by David here and on the homepage:

Maybe I've been living in a fool's paradise these last 30 years, but I was always led to believe that the higher end Carl Zeiss lenses were the bees knees in terms of most image quality parameters - even the A-mount ones. But David seems to be saying that some Sony Sam and Minolta can outperform them and at a lower price. This is a bit of a shock to my world view. Any thoughts on this?

Interesting comparison review here of the Sony Zeiss 24-70 with the SAL and Tamron 28-75s. http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_sony_28_75mmid141.html

[redsim74]

Maybe this "is" the future with firmware updates and user customisation.

Wish I could do this now with my Sigma 70-200/2.8 APO HSM II. Then I wouldn't have to spend $150 to send it to Oz for a firmware upgrade to make it work on SLT cameras, just so I can sell it!

[classiccameras]

Kurt Munger told me he thought the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 was as good as the CZ 16-80. Ironically, Tamron make most of the CZ zooms with just the high end primes coming out of Germany.
There is a bit of snob value in these top German lenses such as Leica and Carl Zeiss, and there was right back in the 35mm film days. Truth is, most people couldn't tell the difference between a 50mm Canon FD F/1.8 and a 50mm F/1.8 Zeiss Planar. If you want to be really snobby, use a Swiss Alpa.

[bfitzgerald]

KR has his 28-75mm f2.8 SAM review up!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/28-75mm-f28.htm

He's on a bit of an A mount splurge right now.
I have a lot of time for the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 nice lens and really for the money hard to question it.
I've not been a fan of Sony's plastic primes, but prices are coming down a bit I suppose you can let them off if they cost so little.
The problem with more review sites is they only have limited time to review these cameras, extended use has taught me that this little "issues/problems" come to light sometimes months after you have used a product.

For that reason I don't place a lot of faith in camera reviews, lens reviews well I'd take a sample look around and source various reviews rather than just one. Kurt's 18-135mm review was quite interesting, but it didn't reflect the actual performance of the lens in the real world

[agorabasta]

That's only for the ZA a-mount primes that may be up to sniff. The zooms (24-70 and the 16-80 APS) may have some nice properties, but they also have some completely unpardonable flaws, like field curvature of the 24-70 that precludes the AF use at certain conditions, or the hard vignetting with 16-80 that may happen simply from the IBIS function activity; then there's the 16-35 that's absolutely nothing special at all.

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.

So now there's some hope for that 'Touit' line Zeiss doggie-doo. I have a hope, not so great that is a hope; but that's still greater than any possible hope to ever see an even relatively flawless a-mount ZA.

So, to me, that blue Zeiss thingie on a ZA lens just shouts out loud a very clear 'ABSTAIN'.

[bfitzgerald]

Wandering slightly here...but DK's Nikon experience well I would have to say I'm not that shocked esp reading about the dust/oil or whatever contaminant ends up on the sensor, that seemed quite a widespread complaint. I would not be likely tempted to visit Nikon again, despite the rather nice flash system, and mostly decent lens range.
Always had DK down as a Pentax switcher (maybe) not sure why I just got that vibe.

DSC00345.JPG

(95.88 KiB) Downloaded 2494 times

I was playing with one of these the other day (actually cleaning it for a photographer, for some reason many fear cleaning the sensor)
Sensor cleaning absolute nightmare even using proper swabs and eclipse fluid, got there in the end. Tank like build, makes the cameras I have feel like toys. But I have to say, I think APS-C has come on leaps and bounds v this not so up to date body. It's a nice camera, but really I wouldn't want to lug it around all day.

[NevHi]

All these Mirrorless threads need merging. Not sure where to put this bit

Graphene Image Sensor 1000X More Sensitive to Light Than Current Sensors
June 2nd, 2013

From http://www.cryptogon.com/
Via: Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094624.htm

Cameras fitted with a new revolutionary sensor will soon be able to take clear and sharp photos in dim conditions, thanks to a new image sensor invented at Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

The new sensor made from graphene, is believed to be the first to be able to detect broad spectrum light, from the visible to mid-infrared, with high photoresponse or sensitivity. This means it is suitable for use in all types of cameras, including infrared cameras, traffic speed cameras, satellite imaging and more.

Not only is the graphene sensor 1,000 times more sensitive to light than current imaging sensors found in today’s cameras, it also uses 10 times less energy as it operates at lower voltages. When mass produced, graphene sensors are estimated to cost at least five times cheaper.

Posted in Surveillance, Technology |

[bfitzgerald]

I'm sure there is something sensor wise coming up (Sony have nothing else to really attack rivals with) But it has to be said we're not going to see this for near enough a year. So when there is an actual product to use/buy/see we might be talking.
Meanwhile those Canikon FF bodies getting ever cheaper to tempt users, D7100 selling well 70d due soon we imagine. Even if we're at a 9 months phase for these new A mount bodies, I wonder how many folks will be wandering off tempted with some nice Christmas deals.
Are they really expecting to sell a FF SLT body that's soon to be outclassed for such a high price? You'd have to be nuts to shell out the asking price right now. I would expect deep discounts, but where are the big A99 price drops?

[classiccameras]

I think its fair to say all things considered that the Sony sensor rules at the moment. However, its interesting to note that the Nikon D5200 has a 24mp sensor from Toshiba and Nikon are being coy over what other cameras may be fitted with Toshiba sensors. Do Nikon know some thing about Sony's future developments to dump their sensor or is it just an economic move!
Probably up to ISO 1600 with a good lens, a Sony is hard to beat for IQ and colour.