October 24, 2014, 09:02:18 AM

Author Topic: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras  (Read 60565 times)

seacritter

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • high-speed photography
    • View Profile
    • Splash Photography
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #195 on: October 19, 2013, 05:38:58 AM »
If you do a bunch of macro, a smaller sensor is preferred.   Just for the dof.  I've been shooting with the Mark II for a while.  I just switched my macro work to the GF6 with the 60mm macro.  The extended dof is really welcome.

On the other hand...  for my other stuff, I'm really getting excited about the 36mp Sony.  Especially if I can use an adapter and all of my "L" glass.  I've been a Canon shooter for a long time, but they don't seem to be keeping up with everyone else.  If the Sony will give me the option of all glass...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #195 on: October 19, 2013, 05:38:58 AM »

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1023
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #196 on: October 19, 2013, 06:10:44 AM »
I would buy the a7r but electronic first shutter curtain is a must for me and the a7r does not have it.

according to the specs listed in the table here:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced-compact-cameras/interchangeable-lens/first-look-sony-ilc-a7#Full_Review
the A7R (but not the A7) does have an "Electronic front curtain shutter". And X-sync is 1/250 vs. 1/160s for the A7.

TokyoDekopon

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #197 on: October 19, 2013, 08:27:35 AM »
according to the specs listed in the table here:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/advanced-compact-cameras/interchangeable-lens/first-look-sony-ilc-a7#Full_Review
the A7R (but not the A7) does have an "Electronic front curtain shutter". And X-sync is 1/250 vs. 1/160s for the A7.
That specs table on photoreview.com is wrong.
The following specs comparison is the correct one which is in line with the specs from Sony website.
http://photographylife.com/sony-a7-vs-a7r

AvTvM

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1023
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #198 on: October 19, 2013, 08:53:19 AM »
...
The following specs comparison is the correct one which is in line with the specs from Sony website.
http://photographylife.com/sony-a7-vs-a7r

Thanks!

so,
A7 =  Electronic first shutter curtain and 1/250s X-Sync
A7R = mechanical shutter and only 1/160s X-Sync

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #199 on: October 19, 2013, 09:21:31 AM »
If you do a bunch of macro, a smaller sensor is preferred.   Just for the dof.  I've been shooting with the Mark II for a while.  I just switched my macro work to the GF6 with the 60mm macro.  The extended dof is really welcome.

How can the sensor size determine how deep DOF you can get? You can always control it with the aperture. The most important difference would be what the effective FL of that lens is compared to whatever macro lens you use with the Canon. Even the higher pixel density is not as important since you are diffraction limited.

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #200 on: October 19, 2013, 10:32:16 AM »

More light comes with less DOF (assuming the same QE, etc.). There is no other way. That is why the best way is to think in equivalent terms. 100/2.8 on m43 is like 200/5.6 on FF. Same DOF, same FOV, same noise, same diffraction softening (but different resolution in general). In that sense, 70-200/4 is 1 stop faster that the 35-100/2.8 which is 70-200/5.6 equivalent. BTW, the recent m43 bodies have really good sensors.

Do not mention this to an m43 (only) owner. This makes them mad. They would insist that the 35-100/2.8 is 70-200/2.8 equivalent.


That may all be true, even the bit about making m43-only owners mad (I have two FF Canons and an Olympus E-M5, so I'm not in that category and don't know anyone who is), but I think it misses the point.  What matters (well, to me, at least) isn't whether m43 enthusiasts should stop saying that their 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 1.4 FF, but the extent to which you can approximate on an m43 the photos you take with, say, a FF Canon, and how the whole experience of taking the photos compares.  To the extent you can approximate, the weight comparisons posted above retain their point (give or take a lens or two).  To the extent you can't, the question becomes whether the difference in image quality is offset by the differences in weight, ergonomics, etc.  I can't remember what prompted me to rent an E-M5 (skepticism, probably), but I was amazed by close the images it makes can get when using the better m43 primes (sometimes barely distinguishable, if at all, all aided by such factors as superior IS and focusing accuracy for static subjects); I wouldn't have bought one otherwise. 

But don't tell this to a dslr owner who hasn't used a top-of-the-line m43 camera; it makes them mad....

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #201 on: October 19, 2013, 10:58:30 AM »
That may all be true, even the bit about making m43-only owners mad (I have two FF Canons and an Olympus E-M5, so I'm not in that category and don't know anyone who is), but I think it misses the point.  What matters (well, to me, at least) isn't whether m43 enthusiasts should stop saying that their 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 1.4 FF, but the extent to which you can approximate on an m43 the photos you take with, say, a FF Canon, and how the whole experience of taking the photos compares.  To the extent you can approximate, the weight comparisons posted above retain their point (give or take a lens or two). 

Actually, no. You can also "approximate" what brighter lenses can do on the same format, by using slower lenses, like the 40mm. You do not "approximate", you just accept the results as good enough for your specific purposes. There is also the mirrorless factor which helps with wide primes but the latter is not restricted to m43 as of this week.

Now, if you really want to approximate (what a lowly f/4 zoom on FF can do), you buy some monster like the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0. It is $800 more expensive that the already overpriced 24-70/4 IS, not to mention the 24-105, and 50% heavier, and larger. Or, you buy the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0. It is an 1.65kg monster selling for $2.5K only. The Canon 70-200/4 IS weighs and costs less than half of that and is even smaller. The m43 fans would tell you: those are f/2 zooms, show me an f/2 FF zoom. Well, unless you print that f/2 on your photos, they are f/4 equivalent zooms.

Quote
To the extent you can't, the question becomes whether the difference in image quality is offset by the differences in weight, ergonomics, etc. 

I agree with that, but this is a different topic. Most normal people would agree that the difference in IQ bewteen their cell phone and  a dSLR is not worth it.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #201 on: October 19, 2013, 10:58:30 AM »

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #202 on: October 19, 2013, 11:13:21 AM »

I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.


I do, provided size/weight matters - it's still the best affordable compact system.  As far as I can tell there are no pre-existing really small FF Sony or Minolta lenses, prime or zoom, and the new lenses announced for this system  aren't small either; and as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a small FF zoom of any focal length, period (is such a thing physically possible?).  So, if you want to retain compactness, you're limited - barring unknown future developments - to whatever small third party lenses you can attach (assuming they work well via adapters - and given how fussy 36mp sensors seem to be (see comments by Roger Cicala et al.), that's quite an assumption).

What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization.  Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it.  That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some. 

If these cameras had IS and an A-mount, I would pre-order one too (I wouldn't care if that required them to be a bit bigger; for me, size is the least of the advantages of ditching the mirror).  Instead, I'll wait and see if Sony makes a mirrorless FF A mount camera (at least one A mount camera will allegedly be announced early next year).  Until then, my Canon FFs and Olympus m43 will do just nicely....

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #203 on: October 19, 2013, 11:47:46 AM »
What matters (well, to me, at least) isn't whether m43 enthusiasts should stop saying that their 25mm 1.4 = 50mm 1.4 FF, but the extent to which you can approximate on an m43 the photos you take with, say, a FF Canon, and how the whole experience of taking the photos compares.  To the extent you can approximate, the weight comparisons posted above retain their point (give or take a lens or two). 

Actually, no. You can also "approximate" what brighter lenses can do on the same format, by using slower lenses, like the 40mm. You do not "approximate", you just accept the results as good enough for your specific purposes. There is also the mirrorless factor which helps with wide primes but the latter is not restricted to m43 as of this week.

Now, if you really want to approximate (what a lowly f/4 zoom on FF can do), you buy some monster like the Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0. It is $800 more expensive that the already overpriced 24-70/4 IS, not to mention the 24-105, and 50% heavier, and larger. Or, you buy the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0. It is an 1.65kg monster selling for $2.5K only. The Canon 70-200/4 IS weighs and costs less than half of that and is even smaller. The m43 fans would tell you: those are f/2 zooms, show me an f/2 FF zoom. Well, unless you print that f/2 on your photos, they are f/4 equivalent zooms.


I think this has become a disagreement over use of "approximate".  You seem to be looking for a lens that's a mechanical exact equivalent (I'm familiar with the lenses you're referring to above and I don't disagree with your point).  I was using it in the sense of "closely resembling" - I was referring to the resulting images, not how you achieve them - not "exactly the same".  For instance, although we're often told that m43 isn't good for shallow focus/background blur (this matters to me as I like taking very close-up "portraits" of flowers and other small things with blurred-out backgrounds), I've been pleasantly surprised by just how easy it is to conjure it up with the right combination of lens and relative distances.  If I put the Olympus 60mm macro lens on my E-M5, I can create, say, flower portraits that look similar to flower portraits taken with my 100mm L on my 6D or 5DIII (though to get comparable blur I'll have to get closer); the relative weight of the equipment isn't similar at all.  That's all I meant.  (If I thought they looked *the same* I wouldn't keep the heavy FF stuff.)

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #204 on: October 19, 2013, 12:02:02 PM »
If you forget for a moment about the format differences, it is 2 stops. We all know what that means. Sometimes it matters little, sometimes - a lot. That was my point.

Of course, the size would be different, not always in favor of the smaller sensor; and the price would be different - again, not always in favor of the smaller sensor. The m43 system have many more lenses designed for it than the Canon/Nikon crop systems but the good ones are very expensive for their equivalent apertures.

Another difference: f/3.4 on FF would be much sharper than the eq. f/1.7 on m43, and then you have all those problems with microlens vignetting at fast apertures.


Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4194
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #205 on: October 19, 2013, 12:23:45 PM »

I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.


What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization.  Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it.  That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some. 


I take a lot of photo with my 5D III + 50L + 85L II + 24-70 II. Is there an "IS" on any of these?

« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 12:31:22 PM by Dylan777 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 685
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #206 on: October 19, 2013, 12:37:18 PM »

I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.


What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization.  Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it.  That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some. 


I take a lot of photo with my 5D III + 50L + 85L II + 24-70 II. Is there an "IS" on any of these?

I wrote "in situations where IS is needed".  If you never need it and wouldn't benefit from it, well, good for you.  Either way, the size issue remains - just how much difference does the body size make if you're using something as big and heavy as the 85LII or 24-70 II, and what would the ergonomics be like of attaching one of those to a small body?

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4194
    • View Profile
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #207 on: October 19, 2013, 12:46:49 PM »

I just don't see the point of buying 17.3 x 13mm system anymore.


What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization.  Until now, any lens you attached to a Sony FF digital camera (or aps-c dslr) benefited from image stabilization; unsurprisingly, Sony's A-mount lenses don't have IS - they don't need it.  That's all changed now, of course, so in situations where IS is needed, unless you add a third party lens with IS or wait and buy new Sony lenses with IS, you'll need to use a tripod (as a tip-off, Sony adds a tripod mount to the adapter you'll need to attach A-mount lenses); and if you're going to use a tripod, there goes the size advantage and then some. 


I take a lot of photo with my 5D III + 50L + 85L II + 24-70 II. Is there an "IS" on any of these?

I wrote "in situations where IS is needed".  If you never need it and wouldn't benefit from it, well, good for you.  Either way, the size issue remains - just how much difference does the body size make if you're using something as big and heavy as the 85LII or 24-70 II, and what would the ergonomics be like of attaching one of those to a small body?

At least, you and I have this in common. I hate it, therefore, I'll get some Zeiss FE primes: 14,16 or 17mm, 55mm, and 85mm. That's all I need in compact system.

Everything else: 5D III + 24-70 II, 135L, 70-200 and 300mm f2.8 IS II (maybe x2 TC).
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #207 on: October 19, 2013, 12:46:49 PM »

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #208 on: October 19, 2013, 12:54:31 PM »
What's more, Sony has shot itself - or its customers - in the foot by not providing what has hitherto been a major selling point of Sony dslrs: in-body image stabilization.

A very good point, the m43 system has IS in their current bodies.


seacritter

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • high-speed photography
    • View Profile
    • Splash Photography
Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #209 on: October 19, 2013, 01:25:51 PM »
If you do a bunch of macro, a smaller sensor is preferred.   Just for the dof.  I've been shooting with the Mark II for a while.  I just switched my macro work to the GF6 with the 60mm macro.  The extended dof is really welcome.

How can the sensor size determine how deep DOF you can get? You can always control it with the aperture. The most important difference would be what the effective FL of that lens is compared to whatever macro lens you use with the Canon. Even the higher pixel density is not as important since you are diffraction limited.

The larger the sensor the shallower the depth of field.  Yes, aperture controls dof, but we start off with dof because of sensor size.  You can get a shallow dof with a point-and-shoot, but only extended out all the way with the smallest aperture that it has.  On the other side, the dof on a medium format is always incredibly shallow.  This is just physics...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Off Brand: Sony Announces the A7 & A7R Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras
« Reply #209 on: October 19, 2013, 01:25:51 PM »