| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2013 10:58:02 AM · #1 |
Incase anyones interested in this sortof development.
Click this
I used bh cause i like their intro - not trying to sell or promote via them.
As much as i like the grip of a hefty body - i hope this move is part of a trend towards smaller, better camera tech.
Message edited by author 2013-10-16 11:01:21. |
|
|
|
10/16/2013 11:19:52 AM · #2 |
Ah, interesting times! I really like a lot of what Sony has put into these cameras. Full frame with that short a back-focus distance is a real challenge. It's only a matter of time before we see mirrorless entries from Canon and Nikon. In fact, I will predict that the future of the SLR as we know it is limited. The keys to eliminating the mirror box are an excellent EVF and high-performance AF using the main sensor. Both of these technologies are "getting there" although the performance is still short of "directly competitive." It's only a matter of time until mirrorless designs take over. The last SLR market to fall will be the high-frame-rate sports-oriented pro bodies.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2013 11:27:11 AM · #3 |
i think one of my favorite conveniences in these is that we are able to build apps for the camera. You get access to the API can apparently program it to do certain things without using third party devices (time lapse for example), eliminate the need for separate triggers if you own a smart phone, and really just avoid a lot of the extra stuff you might have needed to carry.
Its not just the size of the camera, its the overall package that they're trying to get lighter. By the time the next gen of this stuff comes out, i might be ready to make the switch.
Message edited by author 2013-10-16 11:28:32. |
|
|
|
10/16/2013 11:33:13 AM · #4 |
One interesting possibility with these cameras is the use of almost any vintage SLR lens. The register distance of the E-mount is so short that a mechanical adapter should be possible for almost any other system. The only thing that is necessary from the camera end is for the camera to operate correctly without recognizing a lens.
that would make the system even more flexible than Canon, which currently is the leader in acceptance of vintage lenses.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2013 11:46:51 AM · #5 |
| I do look forward to lighter systems. My "go bag" (one body, 2 lenses, cards, batteries) is about 20 lbs. I can still haul that around for quite some time, but I could sure go longer without that load :-) |
|
|
|
10/16/2013 11:57:34 AM · #6 |
Wow, I want one! Actually, I want all three! Interestingly priced lower than a Nikon D800, not to mention lower than the RX1.
I don't see a price on the RX10, but it looks like a winner as well. Full frame is great, but I do love my RX100, so imagine that camera with a 24-200mm F2.8 ZEISS lens! |
|
|
|
10/16/2013 12:04:48 PM · #7 |
|
|
|
10/16/2013 12:10:29 PM · #8 |
Your timing is perfect. I currently have a SONY NEX 7 which is an awesome camera I just wish the IQ was that of a hi-end camera like a 5D mark II. I've spent so much time comparing Nikon and Canon for an additional camera that I never saw this from Sony. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2013-10-16 12:10:36. |
|
|
|
10/16/2013 12:41:16 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
One interesting possibility with these cameras is the use of almost any vintage SLR lens. The register distance of the E-mount is so short that a mechanical adapter should be possible for almost any other system. The only thing that is necessary from the camera end is for the camera to operate correctly without recognizing a lens.
that would make the system even more flexible than Canon, which currently is the leader in acceptance of vintage lenses. |
exactly. (Even my Pentax dslr coughs and hiccups when I use old film lenses on it - the newer Pentax K01 does not). |
|
|
|
10/16/2013 12:59:13 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by tnun:
exactly. (Even my Pentax dslr coughs and hiccups when I use old film lenses on it - the newer Pentax K01 does not). |
Yep. The other manufacturers are discovering what folks with Canon have been enjoying - the pleasure of using old glass. It's definitely something that folks want to do. In fact, there are a number of other reasons that we might want to use the camera with an "alternative" lens. Those uses include using the camera with a telescope, using it with a microscope, pinhole photography... the list goes on.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2013 05:08:19 PM · #11 |
| The size and weight advantage of a mirrorless FF camera system may not be realized for use with native AF lenses judging by the lens specs, especially for fast glass. And for use with legacy glass, adapters will add significantly to the bulk of the combo and slightly to wt. Older glass may also have to be stopped down some for sharp corners and to avoid halation seen at maximum aperture. |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 05:28:15 AM · #12 |
I'm not getting too excited, having seen Sony deliver on paper but not in practice countless times...
I guess I'm with Thom on this one...
A sensor does not a camera system make |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 11:01:06 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by hsolakidis:
I'm not getting too excited, having seen Sony deliver on paper but not in practice countless times...
I guess I'm with Thom on this one...
A sensor does not a camera system make |
If the RX100 is an indication, you may need to re-think. Now, that said, a camera does not a system make. Lenses for this system will undoubtedly be good, but certainly expensive.
Message edited by author 2013-10-19 11:02:13. |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 03:00:41 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The size and weight advantage of a mirrorless FF camera system may not be realized for use with native AF lenses judging by the lens specs, especially for fast glass. And for use with legacy glass, adapters will add significantly to the bulk of the combo and slightly to wt. Older glass may also have to be stopped down some for sharp corners and to avoid halation seen at maximum aperture. |
Well a Zeiss, 24-70 FF F2.8 autofocus lens with OSS that weighs .62 lbs and is only 2.8" long sounds pretty darn good to me, especially at $1200.
Compare that to the Nikon 24-70 F2.8, without VR which is 5.24" long and weighs 1.98 lbs and costs $1800.
The Nikon is a great lens, but I'm pretty sure the Zeiss Variable Sonar T will be it's equal if not even better given the Zeiss reputation. Though build quality might not be equal.
ETA: Whoops, I see the 24-70 is F4, not 2.8. But still could be a great lens!
ETA2: The 70-200 F2.8 telephoto does look like the "regular size beast" though.
Message edited by author 2013-10-19 15:05:00. |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 03:03:46 PM · #15 |
| There's a part of me that's sorely tempted to start planning for ditching Canon and moving into a more compact format: the weight of gear I have to schlep about is pretty profound. Only problem, really, is "How do I replace the 17mm T/S?" |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 05:01:35 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a part of me that's sorely tempted to start planning for ditching Canon and moving into a more compact format: the weight of gear I have to schlep about is pretty profound. Only problem, really, is "How do I replace the 17mm T/S?" |
With an adapter, that would likely work on the mirrorless cams. Won't save you any weight, but you can use legacy lenses on these puppies. |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 05:19:23 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a part of me that's sorely tempted to start planning for ditching Canon and moving into a more compact format: the weight of gear I have to schlep about is pretty profound. Only problem, really, is "How do I replace the 17mm T/S?" |
It's true, the weight does get way up there pretty fast when you start throwing a bunch of FF glass and a body or two in the bag. My problem is, I cannot get my mind around the thought of moving two a smaller sensor. Nope, just can't do it.
I do think that in a couple years Canon will have a good competitor with native support for EF lenses, and that at least may save some weight on the body. Lenses, however, won't get any lighter. |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 05:39:05 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a part of me that's sorely tempted to start planning for ditching Canon and moving into a more compact format: the weight of gear I have to schlep about is pretty profound. Only problem, really, is "How do I replace the 17mm T/S?" |
I've been considering the same thing. I find myself not shooting because I don't want to deal with the weight of the lenses. But then when I start thinking about it, I can't actually part with any of my current gear.
My local shop has all of the interesting small cameras available to rent for very reasonable prices. I'm planning on spending some time with a couple and see what I think. The last time I tried to do this, I ended up going in completely the opposite direction, but small camera technology has improved a lot in the last few years, as my back has gotten worse, so it might be time... |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 05:43:59 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a part of me that's sorely tempted to start planning for ditching Canon and moving into a more compact format: the weight of gear I have to schlep about is pretty profound. Only problem, really, is "How do I replace the 17mm T/S?" |
With an adapter, that would likely work on the mirrorless cams. Won't save you any weight, but you can use legacy lenses on these puppies. |
Oh, I know I can get an adapter to fit it to the camera: what I'm NOT so sure of is how the tilt/shift functions will with with a completely different box around the sensor to contend with. In other words, would I still have a full range of movements available without vignetting? |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 06:06:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a part of me that's sorely tempted to start planning for ditching Canon and moving into a more compact format: the weight of gear I have to schlep about is pretty profound. Only problem, really, is "How do I replace the 17mm T/S?" |
It's true, the weight does get way up there pretty fast when you start throwing a bunch of FF glass and a body or two in the bag. My problem is, I cannot get my mind around the thought of moving two a smaller sensor. Nope, just can't do it.
I do think that in a couple years Canon will have a good competitor with native support for EF lenses, and that at least may save some weight on the body. Lenses, however, won't get any lighter. |
Well I see you haven't been spoiled by the RX100 yet. I took my RX100 and my D600 to the Grand Canyon. Other than not having the same range, the RX100 photos are in most cases as good as the D600 photos. And they don't have oil spots, which takes me 5-10 minutes per photo to get rid of. Plus, I don't have to wear a Cotton Carrier harness to hike with it (well I did, because I had both!).
Are you shooting a lot of really high ISO? The other night I had the RX100 with me when we went to see Sleeping Beauty (the ballet) and there was a drum circle on Jay Street. It was pretty dark and the RX100 ended up in the 5000-6400 ISO range. Shooting in RAW, the RX100 shots look great except at 100% (the RX100 sucks in JPEG at high ISO). But really, the Nikon images at 6400 aren't much different at 100%...other than the noise/grain being more significant in the RX100 because I was zoom limited. And it's only a 1" sensor. So I don't see the big deal if you had a sensor as good in the APS-C size or Micro-four thirds size.
I don't think Panasonic is at that level, but it seems like Olympus might be getting there.
For landscape shots, I'm not sure FF is really needed, or even desirable. I know David Muench went digital using a Panasonic FZ50 and a Canon G10 (presumably by never shooting above ISO 100--certainly a problem for the FZ50!).
And a RX10 with a 1" sensor and a 24-200mm F2.8 Zeiss Variable Sonnar *T sounds pretty good to me for 80% of my landscape photography at 2.6 lbs (well, I'd still miss my fisheye and extreme wide angle)! There's certainly a big class of shots it likely wouldn't be good for, in terms of macro, and shallow focus bokeh backgrounds. But at least they went down to 24mm...I shot mostly 24mm at Rickett's Glen this time (thought I'd give my 24-70 a workout instead of the 16-35. The 16-35 is sharp, but the 24-70 has less distortion and for most shots, it was easy to back up and use the 24 (actually, backup is the wrong word...in most cases, it just didn't require me getting close).
Another benefit of the mirrorless is the preview of the shot WHILE you're shooting (seeing the exposure exactly as it will be taken), and if it's not too sunny, being able to shoot very low to the ground using the swivel LCDs. The down side is that for M43, as one example, they are charging for glass like they are pro lens builds... which in most cases they are not! But for Zeiss, it might be worth it!
Anyway, that's me. What are you shooting that you feel demands full frame?
|
|
|
|
10/19/2013 06:25:41 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
t I'm NOT so sure of is how the tilt/shift functions will with with a completely different box around the sensor to contend with. In other words, would I still have a full range of movements available without vignetting? |
I can't see mechanical interference as being an issue, and here's why. The register distances of the mirrorless cameras are so short that a relatively long mechanical adapter is required... therefore movements should be no problem, mechanically. Now, the other thing to contend with is potential vignetting caused by the adapter and mount opening. Any system with a mount opening smaller than EOS, and a sensor located close to that opening, I think has the potential for problems. For mirrorless, I will wait for Canon's entry. |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 06:28:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Now, the other thing to contend with is potential vignetting caused by the adapter and mount opening. Any system with a mount opening smaller than EOS, and a sensor located close to that opening, I think has the potential for problems. |
That's what I'm talking about, sorry if that wasn't clear. The smaller box has got to limit the effective range of adjustment, at least if my old film experiences are anything to go by... |
|
|
|
10/19/2013 06:29:33 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Anyway, that's me. What are you shooting that you feel demands full frame? |
Demand is such a strong word, LOL!
I do love my creatively thin DoF, mind you, and of course that is so much easier to do with a larger sensor. And a larger sensor will always have an ISO advantage, given it implements the same technological improvements as its smaller siblings. And for landscape, it is true that there is right now no real compelling reason to be larger than APS-C, but that will change as 40+ MPx FF SLRs are released... and it will happen. Pixel count favors the larger sensor, for the same density.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2013 07:48:50 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Neil:
Anyway, that's me. What are you shooting that you feel demands full frame? |
Demand is such a strong word, LOL!
I do love my creatively thin DoF, mind you, and of course that is so much easier to do with a larger sensor. And a larger sensor will always have an ISO advantage, given it implements the same technological improvements as its smaller siblings. And for landscape, it is true that there is right now no real compelling reason to be larger than APS-C, but that will change as 40+ MPx FF SLRs are released... and it will happen. Pixel count favors the larger sensor, for the same density. |
Well I certainly agree with that...but on the other hand, the RX100 is 20MP! (And I actually think its high ISO Raw performance is better than the D7100...they messed up on that with the new non-Sony sensor!)
|
|
|
|
10/20/2013 08:18:47 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The size and weight advantage of a mirrorless FF camera system may not be realized for use with native AF lenses judging by the lens specs, especially for fast glass. And for use with legacy glass, adapters will add significantly to the bulk of the combo and slightly to wt. Older glass may also have to be stopped down some for sharp corners and to avoid halation seen at maximum aperture. |
Well a Zeiss, 24-70 FF F2.8 autofocus lens with OSS that weighs .62 lbs and is only 2.8" long sounds pretty darn good to me, especially at $1200.
Compare that to the Nikon 24-70 F2.8, without VR which is 5.24" long and weighs 1.98 lbs and costs $1800.
The Nikon is a great lens, but I'm pretty sure the Zeiss Variable Sonar T will be it's equal if not even better given the Zeiss reputation. Though build quality might not be equal.
ETA: Whoops, I see the 24-70 is F4, not 2.8. But still could be a great lens!
ETA2: The 70-200 F2.8 telephoto does look like the "regular size beast" though. |
Yeah, I was specifically looking at both 70-200s, 2.8 and 4,and compared with the Canon equivs saw no differences in size and weight. Their lenses still have to project a circle big enough to cover a FF sensor and will require large and heavy objectives to accomplish (so I've heard around the net from the "that's physics" crowd).
The success of the system will hinge on their new FE lenses. Pros will want fast zooms with quick and accurate AF and if they can't be appreciably reduced in size/wt compared with existing FF offerings then why bother switching? Bigger glass elements will require more powerful and larger AF motors and I don't remember reading if either camera has IBIS or not but IS in the lenses contribute to even greater bulk and wt.
Even with Zeiss at their back they have so far produced a middling collection of E lenses that haven't been all that well received for IQ, AF, or size. Sony, is an electronics company, not an optical one. We have yet to see how they tackle this challenge but the next 10 lenses to be announced through 2015 will probably tell a lot of what to expect. Btw, they now are working with Olympus engineers and the companies are trading parts and technologies. That's why Olympus did so well with the OM-D, it has a Sony sensor rather than a Panasonic one. I wouldn't be surprised if the two companies worked together on developing the same hybrid AF system in the A7(non r) and EM-1. Olympus is also selling them lens parts and guiding their lens technology development.
Cameras with EVFs, Live View, video, WiFi, and large sensors require more power and eat up batteries so that some of the size/wt savings will be negated by carrying more back up batteries.
Zooms may be the bane of this system and primes its salvation. |
|
