Why You Should Stick with Your Canon DSLR and Forget Sony FF Mirrorless

[dak723]

I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store.

This is not to say that there is nothing advantageous to mirrorless. I have owned Olympus m4/3 cameras - and because it is both 4/3 and mirrorless, then the size and weight advantage is real. Mirrorless is great - but not for FF, in my opinion.

you are comparing jpeq? and you cant see the difference in DR? well of course lol

No, comparing RAW. Why do assume I was comparing JPG? Perhaps because you are arrogant and stupid...LOL!

 

[scyrene]

The other thing that strikes me about this thread *AND* the timing of this thread is that maybe it is an indication that IQ of the 5DX (or 5D Mark IV) will be a little better than the 5D Mark III but still nowhere near Sony's A7R Mark II? And although it will have a 4K video mode, it won't have the resolution of the A7R Mark II either.

Conspiracy theories? I really doubt these threads have anything to do with the company.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The other thing that strikes me about this thread *AND* the timing of this thread is that maybe it is an indication that IQ of the 5DX (or 5D Mark IV) will be a little better than the 5D Mark III but still nowhere near Sony's A7R Mark II? And although it will have a 4K video mode, it won't have the resolution of the A7R Mark II either.

Conspiracy theories? I really doubt these threads have anything to do with the company.

You forgot to pack your tinfoil hat for your trip to dilbertland, didn't you?

 

[msm]

That's what happens when you put a proper full frame mount into a full frame mirrorless camera instead of doing what Sony has done in putting in an APS-C mount. Sony have taken a big risk in creating mirrorless full frame cameras, and by differentiating themselves from the competition have created a splash, but there are sound optical engineering reasons why Sony's competitors refuse to go down the path Sony has either boldly or rashly rushed down.

Yeah I am sure a random internet expert such as yourself know this better than Sony, based on some random quotes you have managed to pull completely out of context from the internet. :

And fyi, lens size is usually not dictated by mount diameter. You got the EF 50mm f1.4 lens which weighs 300g, you got the Sigma Art at almost 900g and you got the Zeizz Otus weighing over 1kg which all work just as good adapted to FE mount cameras as they do on Canon cameras. And you can adapt Leica M lenses to the SL, which means it can use the 300g Leica 50 1.4. Lens designs matter. Just pulling random lenses and comparing size from camerasize.com proves absolutely nothing.

 

[IglooEater]

You forgot to pack your tinfoil hat for your trip to dilbertland, didn't you?

You don't need it- it never rains in dilbertland. In fact their are never even any clouds. Nor does the sun set, as evidenced by the fact that only ISO 100 is necessary.

 

[scyrene]

You forgot to pack your tinfoil hat for your trip to dilbertland, didn't you?

You don't need it- it never rains in dilbertland. In fact their are never even any clouds. Nor does the sun set, as evidenced by the fact that only ISO 100 is necessary.

Tinfoil does have a very high dynamic range though.

 

[Sator]

I should have thought of this before. The Leica SL 50mm f/1.4 Summicron vs the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens on the Canon 5DsR:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,596.400,596.305,ha,t



Once again, so much for full frame mirrorless being more compact.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is smaller than either despite being a half stop faster, suggesting that lens design impacts more on dimensions than whether the body is mirrorless or DSLR:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,596.354,596.305,624.395,ha,t



I will leave it to others to argue that because they don't like the Canon 50mm f/1.2 that therefore it is larger than the Leica SL Summicron, thereby definitively proving that FF mirrorless systems are more compact.

 

[Sator]

The point about mount diameter not impacting on lens size might be a fair one. Otherwise, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for the Canon (54mm) and Nikon (44m diameter) mounts would be quite different in size. However, could it be possible that this may change when the flange distance is extremely narrow? After all the Fuji senior design planner says:

TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS.

TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?

TAKASHI UENO: To cover the larger image circle, not only mount size (and body size), but also lens size must be bigger.

http://fujilove.com/our-highest-priority-is-always-image-quality-interview-with-takashi-ueno-and-shusuke-kozaki-from-fujifilm-japan/

I differ to experts in optics. Otherwise, the only reason for Sony to have kept the APS-C dimension of the NEX mount for the full frame use is to maintain the ability to mount FE lenses on their mirrorless APS-C bodies, which is quite possible.

 

[j-nord]

Would you compare the size of a F250 and a Corolla and criticize the F250 because of its size?

The F250 is built for a specific purpose as is the Corolla.

So too is the Canon 50/1.2L (just as any of the people here that think the IQ of the 50/1.2L is acceptable.)

The thing is, none of the other 50mm lenses are built for the same purpose and are thus different in size.

What does the F250, corolla, and 50L have to do with the DSLR vs Sony FF mirrorless debate?

 

[msm]

The point about mount diameter not impacting on lens size might be a fair one. Otherwise, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for the Canon (54mm) and Nikon (44m diameter) mounts would be quite different in size. However, could it be possible that this may change when the flange distance is extremely narrow? After all the Fuji senior design planner says:

I don't know anything about Fuji and their lenses, however I think you should be careful putting too much into quotes like this. It is written by a journalist (and they usually have about 0 technical understanding) and in this case it is probably translated by someone as well. And lastly managers aren't always physicists, they often have business education. There are just so many layers where something can be misunderstood here. Anyways Sony has demonstrated that this is simply not the case for A7 series with their excellent IBIS implementation which works well also on adapted lenses.

It is not harder to design lenses for Sony A7 cameras than for DSLR, the fact that pretty much all of them adapt well demonstrates that, you can simple take existing designs and remount them. What Zeiss means with their quote is that it is harder to design lenses that *take advantage of* the smaller register distance. Example: Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21 vs Zeiss Milvus 2.8/21. They say it was much harder to design the Loxia, however they pulled it off and the Loxia performs at a similar optically quality but at the same time it is cheaper, compact and weighs less than half of the really big Milvus lens.

 

[Larsskv]

The point about mount diameter not impacting on lens size might be a fair one. Otherwise, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for the Canon (54mm) and Nikon (44m diameter) mounts would be quite different in size. However, could it be possible that this may change when the flange distance is extremely narrow? After all the Fuji senior design planner says:

I don't know anything about Fuji and their lenses, however I think you should be careful putting too much into quotes like this. It is written by a journalist (and they usually have about 0 technical understanding) and in this case it is probably translated by someone as well. And lastly managers aren't always physicists, they often have business education. There are just so many layers where something can be misunderstood here. Anyways Sony has demonstrated that this is simply not the case for A7 series with their excellent IBIS implementation which works well also on adapted lenses.

It is not harder to design lenses for Sony A7 cameras than for DSLR, the fact that pretty much all of them adapt well demonstrates that, you can simple take existing designs and remount them. What Zeiss means with their quote is that it is harder to design lenses that *take advantage of* the smaller register distance. Example: Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21 vs Zeiss Milvus 2.8/21. They say it was much harder to design the Loxia, however they pulled it off and the Loxia performs at a similar optically quality but at the same time it is cheaper, compact and weighs less than half of the really big Milvus lens.

Keep telling yourself that Sony A7 was carefully planned and tested into every last detail before release, and that Fuji don't know what they are doing. You are free to spend your money on Sony gear (unless you are paid by S) but please don't try to convince others into believing it is wise putting money into a Sony system. I'm getting more and more convinced that Sony discover many things they wish was different with the A7, and that they are likely to change physical aspects, such as the lens mount, the thickness of the sensor stack and the batteries. It would be upsetting for those having invested in Sony lenses, but then again, it isn't likely that they would last very long, since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.

 

[msm]

Keep telling yourself that Sony A7 was carefully planned and tested into every last detail before release, and that Fuji don't know what they are doing. You are free to spend your money on Sony gear (unless you are paid by S) but please don't try to convince others into believing it is wise putting money into a Sony system. I'm getting more and more convinced that Sony discover many things they wish was different with the A7, and that they are likely to change physical aspects, such as the lens mount, the thickness of the sensor stack and the batteries. It would be upsetting for those having invested in Sony lenses, but then again, it isn't likely that they would last very long, since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.

Where have I implied that Fuji don't know what they are doing or tried to convince anyone to buy Sony? If you have some reading glasses it is time to put them on.

Unless you are an optics engineer without actual understanding of the implications of sensor stack thickness, register distance, mount diameter etc, I would just rather see you stop writing garbage about it based on random crap you find on the internet.

And the idea that they would change the mount now after making 16 lenses is just ridiculous, Sony is a company, their job is to make money just like Canon. Just throwing away all that R&D when they finally have found a niche where they enjoy growth seems rather unlikely to say the least. They'll ditch the e mount when it no longer earns them money, same thing will Canon do with EF mount when it no longer earns them money.

 

[msm]

since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.

And how do you know this? :

 

[Larsskv]

since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.

And how do you know this? :

Thank you for asking. I will answer with the first things that come to mind...

Lets first take the mirrorless APS-C size line up. Sony has released a ton of crap lenses, and has only managed to make less than a handful that does ok in tests. You will have to look hard to find a single Sony lens that can match any of the equivalent Canon EOS-M lenses in (image) quality, size and price. Then take into consideration that Sony has been in the mirrorless APS-C market for way longer than Canon. Even so, Canon has released five EOS-M lenses that all beat every equivalent Sony lens, even those that are way more expensive.

Lens rentals have shown us that Sony lenses generally have large sample variation. They have reported many issues with Sony lenses caused by poorly thought out solutions. The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!

Matt Granger has had issues with his A7RII, and Sony repair center has proved themselves useless for his needs.

Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.

 

[neuroanatomist]

since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.

And how do you know this? :

Thank you for asking. I will answer with the first things that come to mind...

Lets first take the mirrorless APS-C size line up. Sony has released a ton of crap lenses, and has only managed to make less than a handful that does ok in tests. You will have to look hard to find a single Sony lens that can match any of the equivalent Canon EOS-M lenses in (image) quality, size and price. Then take into consideration that Sony has been in the mirrorless APS-C market for way longer than Canon. Even so, Canon has released five EOS-M lenses that all beat every equivalent Sony lens, even those that are way more expensive.

Lens rentals have shown us that Sony lenses generally have large sample variation. They have reported many issues with Sony lenses caused by poorly thought out solutions. The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!

Matt Granger has had issues with his A7RII, and Sony repair center has proved themselves useless for his needs.

Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.

I think that msm has a valid point – you don't and can't know the importance Sony places on quality. Maybe it's a very high priority for them...and they just suck at execution.

 

[bwud]

The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!

I don't own any OEM Sony lenses, and don't take this as a defense of their design, but:

Without detailed knowledge of the specific loads and specific materials, your triumphant statement that Sony doesn't care about quality as evidenced by use of glue is unfounded.

Adhesive can very well be the best engineered solution.

 

[Larsskv]

The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!

I don't own any OEM Sony lenses, and don't take this as a defense of their design, but:

Without detailed knowledge of the specific loads and specific materials, your triumphant statement that Sony doesn't care about quality as evidenced by use of glue is unfounded.

Adhesive can very well be the best engineered solution.

The many AF failures of that lens, described by lensrentals, more than suggests that it is a poor engineered solution.

 

[msm]

Lens rentals have shown us that Sony lenses generally have large sample variation. They have reported many issues with Sony lenses caused by poorly thought out solutions. The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!

They have shown us that 2 particular lenses have large sample variations. Of course you read that as "Sony lenses generally have large sample variation". Which is not what Roger writes.

Matt Granger has had issues with his A7RII, and Sony repair center has proved themselves useless for his needs.

Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.

Nah that's of course not part of their strategy, thats obviously why they are in the process of adding professional services :.

 

[bwud]

The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!

I don't own any OEM Sony lenses, and don't take this as a defense of their design, but:

Without detailed knowledge of the specific loads and specific materials, your triumphant statement that Sony doesn't care about quality as evidenced by use of glue is unfounded.

Adhesive can very well be the best engineered solution.

The many AF failures of that lens, described by lensrentals, more than suggests that it is a poor engineered solution.

I'm not at all familiar with that lens. I did find an article in which Roger at LensRentals described a singular failure due to a glued joint. Is that a common failure or a one-off (which could be a workmanship issue rather than design, or infant mortality, etc)?

The article says "The lens is very cleanly designed and modular. We’d never been inside of one before, but had it completely disassembled in less than 45 minutes (it will take less than 30 minutes next time). The construction is robust for a small lens and there are several very nice touches, like the cushions under the extending barrel to keep the mechanism smooth," which doesn't suggest that quality isn't a priority. It even later suggests that the glue joint is an outlier in an otherwise thoughtful design.

I don't have the lens, nor will I buy one, but comments suggesting a specific design choice was made due to a lack of concern for quality are spurious.

I do own one dead canon 24-105 due to a common failed flex cable, but don't question canon's commitment to quality.

 

[Larsskv]

The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!

I don't own any OEM Sony lenses, and don't take this as a defense of their design, but:

Without detailed knowledge of the specific loads and specific materials, your triumphant statement that Sony doesn't care about quality as evidenced by use of glue is unfounded.

Adhesive can very well be the best engineered solution.

The many AF failures of that lens, described by lensrentals, more than suggests that it is a poor engineered solution.

I'm not at all familiar with that lens. I did find an article in which Roger at LensRentals described a singular failure due to a glued joint. Is that a common failure or a one-off (which could be a workmanship issue rather than design, or infant mortality, etc)?

The article says "The lens is very cleanly designed and modular. We’d never been inside of one before, but had it completely disassembled in less than 45 minutes (it will take less than 30 minutes next time). The construction is robust for a small lens and there are several very nice touches, like the cushions under the extending barrel to keep the mechanism smooth," which doesn't suggest that quality isn't a priority. It even later suggests that the glue joint is an outlier in an otherwise thoughtful design.

I don't have the lens, nor will I buy one, but comments suggesting a specific design choice was made due to a lack of concern for quality are spurious.

I do own one dead canon 24-105 due to a common failed flex cable, but don't question canon's commitment to quality.

I understand where you stand, and therefore why you didn´t quote this:

"My summary is that the 24-70 f/4 OSS Vario-Sonar is just what I’ve come to expect from Sony lately. Some amazingly great stuff, some rather apparently stupid stuff", or this:

"I would add that glue applied to smooth surfaces is unlikely to hold up forever on a frequently moving part where the force of movement is across the axis of the glue. A tiny notch or clamp from the plastic mount to the coil would have created a much more robust connection and not cost a dime if someone had simply designed it properly in the first place. So much of the lens is so thoughtfully engineered that it’s a shame such a critical connection apparently was engineered as an afterthought."

And you should be aware, that expensive 55mm f/1.8 has the same solution. From the teardown of the Sony 35 f/1.4:

"We did a teardown of the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 lens, showing some weaknesses in the electromagnetic AF system. We’ve been inside the 55mm FE f/1.8 lens and it has a very similar system."