A77 - Nearly here

[bfitzgerald]

But apparently, Sony said "daddy, it's too hard" and went on to release a dozen entry level cameras.

Quote of the decade there! Could not have said it better..

[mike2008]

not true at all. The nex can use any lens you can throw at it, and has AF in lots of alpha lenses now too. Why the exaggerations?

I'm poking fun specifically at the NEX 16mm prime.

Distorting reality more like. Otherwise known as mendacity, or simply lying.

This cracks me up. I wonder how much better quality the review would have been in your eyes if they'd given it 50%. Meh. You really can't see that a nice big EVF is better than a small cramped OVF of the A580? Or that seeing the final WB in the EVF might be handy, before you even take the shot? Or that you get AF-C regardless of fps, which go up to unprecedentedly high levels? Or that you get DOFP which is actually useful? Or that you have no need of a kludgy MLU solution anymore? All of this is totally boring to your average shooter is it? Hmmm...

Sony decided on a 0.80x mag viewfinder for the new A5xx series. They could easily have done a better spec VF for users.

Again more bizarre twisting of reailty. All the 5 series camera from nikon, canon and sony have roughly a 0.8x pentaprism OVF. Changing that OVF to the next grade up would be a new class of camera altogther, which would then be compaed with e.g. the D7000. The A55 is clearly the same segment as the A580, 550D and D5000, yet it's EVF offers a 100% 1.1x view. You say that there is no advantage to the SLT design: the facts speak for themselves.

Sony are too scared to go head to head with Nikon. How many A mount users would complain if they had a D7000 equivalent for A mount coming out right now? None. It is so simple yet they cannot even manage that. And that is exactly what they needed.

You make a rational business decision sound like it should have been conducted instead as a schoolyard scrap.

[David Kilpatrick]

If I can just put in a word for the 16mm f/2.8 - it does what no 'simple' 16mm built for full frame and used on NEX can do - it is actually not a bad lens, it's a staggeringly good lens, and I have no idea where the bad reports come from unless the lens has been bench-tested in a completely incorrect fashion.

David

[mike2008]

If I can just put in a word for the 16mm f/2.8 - it does what no 'simple' 16mm built for full frame and used on NEX can do - it is actually not a bad lens, it's a staggeringly good lens, and I have no idea where the bad reports come from unless the lens has been bench-tested in a completely incorrect fashion.

David

The bad reports come from people who have never used the 16mm but who have a series of axes to grind with sony.

[alphaomega]

I said I was buying another makers camera, I'll look at the "sell off stuff I don't want" after I have had a chance to get used to a new machine. It's hilarious to me Sony will do a FW update for a p&s users camera yet ignore their own DSLR line up.

I am glad to learn that Barry has now decided to switch to either Pentax or Nikon. I hope he will give us an update on how he gets on although I will assume he will devote most of his "blog time" to forums dedicated to his chosen brand. I do hop he will be happier with his new gear.
I am not so sure now that I will need the new A77 in whatever configuration it will materialise. For my purposes I think I will choose between the A580 or A55. I think the OVF is OK in A580 if as good as or better than A550. I will wait and see what the various reviewers have to say about the A580. There are questions about the long term reliability of A33/55/77 concept. Maybe best for me to stick with DSLR type. I have purchased so far for family 2 x A700, 2 x A350 and one A550. No real problems so far so A580 looks like a safe bet. Can do what A550 can do plus larger Mp sensor and DOF as well as better ISO performance. I really don't need any more than that. The only other thing I desire is the intermediate ISO settings in A700, but this is really a minor thing and not a deal-breaker. I am seeing more people carrying Sony DSLRs here in Scotland now. Sony must be doing something right to try an recover the A-mount from the trough KM took it into. There has been an element of trial and error, but they seem to have found a path now.

[bfitzgerald]

Distorting reality more like. Otherwise known as mendacity, or simply lying.

Sony decided on a 0.80x mag viewfinder for the new A5xx series. They could easily have done a better spec VF for users.

Again more bizarre twisting of reailty. All the 5 series camera from nikon, canon and sony have roughly a 0.8x pentaprism OVF. Changing that OVF to the next grade up would be a new class of camera altogther, which would then be compaed with e.g. the D7000. The A55 is clearly the same segment as the A580, 550D and D5000, yet it's EVF offers a 100% 1.1x view. You say that there is no advantage to the SLT design: the facts speak for themselves.

You make a rational business decision sound like it should have been conducted instead as a schoolyard scrap.

[/quote]


I assume I'm not the only one to have read the photozone review of the Sony lens. I'm sure samples vary but for a prime lens on APS-C it's disappointing. Maybe DK has different expectations for lenses (I'm staggered he likes the Tokina 24-200mm lens I'd class as poor on 35mm and APS, but there you go each to his own!)..I'd have expected better performance esp corners, but you apparently have to stop it right down to get there. More kit lens zoom ish performance than anything else.

0.80x mag well of course we have a number of makers with larger viewfinders, D90 0.94x and 96% Pentaprism and Pentax with 0.85x mag 96% penta mirror (both K-x and K-r). I'm hinting here that Sony could have made something near to the D90 VF wise with one model. Sure some are worse D5000 and Canon don't impress with their 550d series either. Still some makers are putting a bit more effort in. Sony are not one of them.

A rational business decision? Sony are either competing in the DSLR market or they are not (and apparently they seem fixated on translucent right now) If I watch a boxing match I expect a fighter to go into a ring and at least try to fight. I don't have a lot of respect for running away when things get tricky. Sony could easily compete if they put more effort in and got some talent in the alpha division.

[David Kilpatrick]

Barry, the 24mm f/2.8 Minolta used on full frame is worse than the 16mm f/2.8 NEX used on APS-C. That is, the NEX solution at all of $100-200 depending on how you buy it, and a tiny pocketable lens too, actually outperforms almost any of the older 24mm f/2.8 designs for full frame. Then people complain that it distorts - which it does NOT, any more than any other similar lens - or has soft corners wide open (which all the comparable full frame lenses also have).

The 24mm f/2 Zeiss for full frame is a different matter. It's something in a class of its own.

David

[bfitzgerald]

Ah but FF and APS-C are not the same. Put a prime on APS-C and it should do better by some margin. FF is harder for obvious reasons.
I suspect the lens being so close to the sensor is one problem for designers. That's why I think Fuji are using special off set micro lenses on their X100. I've not seen any information about this on the NEX sensor.

[Greg Beetham]

The Pan solution was to radically alter the design of the rear element area, I got the impression reading their material they wanted a much larger exit pupil than normal, so they could keep the sensor price down around in the normal range I imagine, the Leica/Kodak sensor based solution is apparently very expensive. I'm not sure if the E-mount lenses are similar or not.
Greg

[Omega892]

I'm just wondering, you said you sold you're selling your alpha gear, so why sweat the fw upgrades for alpha users?
This "change stuff on the fly" cracks me up..ever shot a wedding? I can assure you there are times you simply do not have a chance to consult a histogram, adjust your WB (I can adjust WB in the VF on the KM5d) or goof about in menus.

That BT is the nub of the matter, goofing about in menus whilst on a hectic, situation changing rapidly shoot is not on. This is why I groaned so much when Sony threw away the excellent UI that was the Dynax7D. So, yes, I bought both A100 and A700 and use them quite a bit, mostly the 700 now but still value the D7D.

If the distance is great and I am max zoom challenged then the extra pixel density of the A700 is useful. I miss a vertical grip for the A100 so that one often goes out with one of my grandchildren now with a Minolta 75-300mm attached. I have even attached a Raynox DCR 5320 Pro to that for him to assist with macro work. A 5600HSD on top with a Stofen attached (or a Metz 54 MZ-4i with SCA 3302 - I like the twin flash of this one for other work) manages to provide enough fill flash although I have managed to fit the 1200 ring-flash and 2400 twin-flash units, the latter using a Cokin B series filter ring and hood section (square - clip on additionals as required) with the twin flash heads gaffer taped to the hood when I am doing macro.

Not to say it's of no use in some situations of course it is..but I simply need to "see" my subject and clearly without any junk in the way and plastered all over the screen. An EVF destroys any concept of pre visualisation. In short I'm not interested in them..

I couldn't agree more. How easy is it to follow fast moving subjects like aircraft, birds or insects with EVF, I have not tried but I can imagine the difficulty.

With that and the 'mirror' trends posited it looks like my days of buying new Sony kit are over. Unless...?

[David Kilpatrick]

Barry - the lens is not close to the sensor. The 16mm is actually a retrofocus design, with a flange back focus of 18mm. The rear nodal point is around 20mm, it is more or less the same as designing a 35mm wide-angle for a full frame body in terms of the degree of retrofocus design. That's why it is not a Distagon-type lens in the traditional sense, but the tiny 5-element optical configuration is indeed a retrofocus and places the lens further from the film plane that a conventional 16mm. It actually moves the rear glass to a position you would expect to find in a 24mm full frame built for Leica, but it's more telecentric as it's a 16mm built for APS-C.

I do not know how to undo the damage done by dPreview and a few others relating to this lens. I can assure you that it is really is not 'bad' it's very 'good' with one specific weakness only, a sudden death of sharpness in the extreme corners (caused not by aberrations but a steep curvature of field).

Here is an example, processed with all corrections turned off - no lens profile, no CA or vignetting changes, and it is one half-stop down from wide open at f/3.2, and it is a hand-held 1/30th through a Pentax UV filter and then a thick sheet of plate glass (the children were doing a make-your-own class at the Lindt chocolate museum in Cologne):



Here is a 100% clip is the centre - the corners are certainly softer, but when the subject is detailed, this level of sharpness extends top to bottom and end to end. You should be able to tell a fair amount from the full pic repro anyway:



Results like this can't be achieved with, say, a 15 or 16mm Voigtlander or Zeiss non-retrofocus wide angle even if limited to f/5.6 maximum aperture and used stopped down. The 16mm pancake is NOT a poor lens which has let the NEX down, it's exactly the reverse, a highly innovative and successful design which no other maker has yet matched. Even Panasonic, trying to keep up, can only offer a 14mm f/2.5 of similar design at photokina (they need a 12mm to match it). Samsung has announced that they will have a 16mm f/2.8 by 2011 for the NX-100.

I can't express how frustrated I am at the amount of negative comment flying around about this lens, sometimes from owners who have no idea how to use such a lens.

Here is a straight-on shot, processed using my ACR lens profile to make a minor tweak to straight lines, this one is at f/7.1 and ISO 1250 on the NEX-5, and has been processed with default (quite strong) NR and no sharpening at all:



I know plenty of wide-angle users who say the first shot is 'distorted' and that they get 'distortion' when what they mean is that they don't keep the camera perfectly lined up, as in the second shot, for verticals. Now look at the extreme top corner, a very under-lit low contrast area, from this shot at a moderate working aperture:



Even the tiny dots in the ceiling boards are visible, and the smoke/fire detector head is well rendered.

I'm using this lens on the NEX-5 daily for serious, very high quality output and it is quite simply not the poor design which some claim. Nor, for that matter, was the sample I used in Croatia and nor was the third sample received with a NEX-3 kit. My view is that the reviewers or testers probably have not worked with wide-angles as much as I have, it's been a lifelong specialisation from the first 17mm Soligor back in 1974 through to the 45mm Docter Optik f/4.5 on 5 x 4 in the 1990s. I've owned everything from the Brooks Veriwide to the Hasselblad SWC, Pentax 6 x 7cm with 45mm, RB67 with 50mm, Mamiya 645 with 35mm, the MD 17mm, the AF 20mm, even my CLE kit had a 20mm Russar - and earlier on an adapted 21mm Minolta.

I know wide-angles really well, how they perform, what happens with typical designs when you focus too close (as required by most lens-testing charts), when you can use them wide open and when to stop down. The NEX plus 16mm is actually one of the best camera and lens combos I have owned, and I'm considering getting that stupidly expensive optical finder.

David

[alphaomega]

It looks as if Omega892 will follow Barry out of the Sony fold but I wonder if Sony's eyballs will be focusing more on sales statistics such as these (from sonyalpharumors) http://bcnranking.jp/category/subcategory_0008.html
Don't understand any Japanese but it looks as if as at 21 September the NEX5 occupied positions 5 and 6 and A55 moving into 7 for sales in Japan. It must have been a long time since Sony has done so well in non P&S cameras and none of the three are DSLRs. So the die has been cast. Whatever the Barry and Omega892 brigade complain about, the Sony future belongs to SLT and E-mount. I will personally stay with DSLR (A580) but future customers in quantity will be well drilled into accepting electronic displays, be it EVF or screens (or both). As far as I can see, those who do not like it should migrate now.
I am sure David is right on the 16mm E-mount. As DPReview stated, most users will never note the faint mirror reflections observed in A33/55. It will not be an issue for the multitude. Only a few pixel peepers. I am sure Sony won't mind if they migrate and start hassling their competitors instead.

[pakodominguez]

Ah but FF and APS-C are not the same. Put a prime on APS-C and it should do better by some margin. FF is harder for obvious reasons.

I challenge you to find a 16mm rectilinear, even a brand new design, on the NEX and see if it perform better than the SEM 16mm f2.8...

I want to do a small test at 24mm (I own 5 lenses from different ages, alas i already sold the VLC...) on the NEX and see how they improved a well regarded focal distance's lens, I'll try during this week...

[bfitzgerald]

I don't have a NEX (nor will I ever) so I cannot test anything (and yes I did handle one). If the lens is so great why did photozone thump it then? (oh I hear the cries of samples variation..sure I'll buy it) Still looks zoom quality to me and not prime. And we're talking around a 24mm equivalent, when you get to UWA (below that) things get much more demanding edges wise.
NEX isn't for me that is very obvious

As for Omega892 many more will not be pleased with the signals coming out of Sony. This will probably be the most controversial move from Sony to date. I suppose it's not unexpected considering their track record and being an electronics company as opposed to a traditional camera maker. I used to find that a strange line to take from other users, now I understand exactly what they were on about.

[catalytic]

I do not know how to undo the damage done by dPreview and a few others relating to this lens. I can assure you that it is really is not 'bad' it's very 'good' with one specific weakness only, a sudden death of sharpness in the extreme corners (caused not by aberrations but a steep curvature of field).[...]

The 16mm pancake is NOT a poor lens which has let the NEX down, it's exactly the reverse, a highly innovative and successful design which no other maker has yet matched. [...]

I know wide-angles really well, how they perform, what happens with typical designs when you focus too close (as required by most lens-testing charts), when you can use them wide open and when to stop down.

Well, i do respect your experience and knowledge of wide-angles, but i think it's a bit unusual that the lens had been panned consistently in lens tests across the Net and then Sony issues a statement saying that the lenses were all pre-production lenses and not representative of the performance of production level units. It appears that the re-tested dpreview sample garners better test results, but it is still not that stellar compared with other lenses (i don't consider old 24mm full-frame lenses to be good performers, so the fact that the NEX 16 is better than them is not comforting).

I don't know if Photozone used a pre-production sample (they usually don't), but the unit they tested showed horrible results -- non-existent resolution in the corners and sky-high CA exceeding 2.6 pixels in width. I don't know the exact testing methodology that Klaus uses, but i asked him if the results in the corners were abnormally low due to field curvature. He replied that they follow the focus field across the frame when testing resolution so that wouldn't happen. I can only think that lens testing may have necessitate closer than ideal focus distances, which would lower results as you indicated.

Now, there is no question that one should not expect too much from such a low cost lens -- that is something i forget with this lens, and i'm sure i'm not the only one -- but i think most people are referring to its performance on an absolute basis, not relative to its cost (which may or may not be right).