Canon and Nikon - Past Their Prime? by Kai Wong
- Thread starter Rienzphotoz
- Start date
+1Sella174 said:
The IQ of EF 50mm f/1.4 (with the Metabones adapter on the a7), is just as good, if not better, as when its mounted on my 5D MK III ... but it does not auto focus ... however, the focus peaking on the a7 makes focusing very quick ... I am not a person who likes manual focusing or manual lenses but after having used focus peaking on a7, I just love it ... it is incredible how fast you can actually focus accurately!Sella174 said:
Ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D ... I don't know if they are "funding" them but Sony does give away the Metabones adapter (of your mount choice) for free in Australia with every purchase of the a7 or the a7R (at least that was the offer when I was there a month ago).Sella174 said:
Upvote
0
;D ;D ;D ... I know he can be annoying but hate is a bit too strong ;D ... for me watching Kai's vids are more for entertainment and for a little of the unusual stuff that does not get covered by the other reviewers.MLfan3 said:
Upvote
0
Those are some awesome prime lenses you got there. Unfortunately, I've always been a lazy photographer, so pretty much stick with zoom lenses and never got into using prime lenses much (with the exception of the 100 L IS macro lens), the 3 small primes (40 / 50 & 85) that I have always been used more as "back-up" lenses ... but recently I got hooked to the focus peaking function in Sony a7, now I'm hooked to primes ... in fact, I am quite seriously considering to get the EF 14mm f/2.8 L II lens to go with an a7R that I plan on getting in the next month or so ... but I am torn between that setup and a Sony NEX6 (crop framed mirrorless camera) + 10-18mm f/4 lens ... my thought behind that consideration is to have a small size camera permanently mounted with an Ultra wide angle lens + the a7 with 24-70 f/4 lens (arriving on Sunday) + 5D MK III with 70-200 f/2.8 L II & EF 2x III extender ... that kind of setup (with a reach of 12mm to 400m) makes my travelling a lot more simple and I don't have to think about which lens to carry and which one to leave behind etc etc ... choices! choices! choices! the more you have the more difficult it gets :-\ :-\ :-\Dylan777 said:Rienzphotoz said:
Specs readers will not understand the weight & size of A7 series and Fuji mirrorless. I have stopped discussing/debating with specs readers. It doesn't do any good for both parties.
It's true that A7 series is not a pocketable camera, but it's SO MUCH smaller and lighter to walk around with. The BEST part being much smaller size camera is we don't look like a "photographer" on the street. Especially when you in another country.
For oversea travel, I'm good with just A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm + Zeiss FE 24-70 IS.
I understand you brother....did I mention stay with native Zeiss FE lenses ;D
Photos below show Zeiss FE 55mm size Vs some of Canon popular primes and zoom. From left to right - 50L, zeiss 55mm, Canon 85L II and Canon 24-70 II. The weight is HUGE diff.
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:
oh, excellent! please let us know how well (or not) it performs, once you had a chance to put it through its paces. IQ, AF, etc. - plus size-comparison pic vs. EF 50/1.4 that most of us are familiar with ... maybe in a separate thread, to make it easier to find. Thanks! 8)
Upvote
0
Rienzphotoz said:Those are some awesome prime lenses you got there. Unfortunately, I've always been a lazy photographer, so pretty much stick with zoom lenses and never got into using prime lenses much (with the exception of the 100 L IS macro lens), the 3 small primes (40 / 50 & 85) that I have always been used more as "back-up" lenses ... but recently I got hooked to the focus peaking function in Sony a7, now I'm hooked to primes ... in fact, I am quite seriously considering to get the EF 14mm f/2.8 L II lens to go with an a7R that I plan on getting in the next month or so ... but I am torn between that setup and a Sony NEX6 (crop framed mirrorless camera) + 10-18mm f/4 lens ... my thought behind that consideration is to have a small size camera permanently mounted with an Ultra wide angle lens + the a7 with 24-70 f/4 lens (arriving on Sunday) + 5D MK III with 70-200 f/2.8 L II & EF 2x III extender ... that kind of setup (with a reach of 12mm to 400m) makes my travelling a lot more simple and I don't have to think about which lens to carry and which one to leave behind etc etc ... choices! choices! choices! the more you have the more difficult it gets :-\ :-\ :-\Dylan777 said:Rienzphotoz said:
Specs readers will not understand the weight & size of A7 series and Fuji mirrorless. I have stopped discussing/debating with specs readers. It doesn't do any good for both parties.
It's true that A7 series is not a pocketable camera, but it's SO MUCH smaller and lighter to walk around with. The BEST part being much smaller size camera is we don't look like a "photographer" on the street. Especially when you in another country.
For oversea travel, I'm good with just A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm + Zeiss FE 24-70 IS.
I understand you brother
Photos below show Zeiss FE 55mm size Vs some of Canon popular primes and zoom. From left to right - 50L, zeiss 55mm, Canon 85L II and Canon 24-70 II. The weight is HUGE diff.
I rented Canon 14mm II, it's very nice lens. Keep in mind, there is no screw-on filter :-\ otherwise, you would see this lens under my signature.
I have Zeiss FE 24-70 f4 on pre-order as well. I believe shipment in US got delay until late Feb.
Enjoy your toys and let us know how you like it. My A7R will arrive this friday. I will post some photos with Zeiss FE 55mm
Below is one of few photos I took with A7 + Zeiss 55mm @ f1.8. straight out from camera, Zero edit, only resize to post here.
Attachments
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Ultimately Leica solved the problem by redesigning lenses, this generally ment making them larger, I'd guess either having a less recessed rear element or a more telecentric design. Bare in mind of course that your not just talking expensive lenses with Leica(the cheaper Zeiss M lenses are generally larger) but also lenses that do not have to deal with AF and in camera aperture control. Just look at the difference between the Nikon 50mm 1.2 and the Canon 50mm 1.2 to see the difference just AF can make.
* Once Mirrorless cameras will finally be "really right", i.e. "solid state" with no moving parts whatsoever inside [=no mechanical, but global electronic shutter] will have a LOT of advantages over (D)SLRs beyond bulk and weight. Here are the ones I am interested in:
- 100% vibration-free operation = benefits to image quality, especially "when it counts" = in challenging capture situations
- 100% silent operation possible = ability to get any images or the images you really want in many capture situations e.g. concerts, churches, theaters, candids
- flash X-sync down to 1/8000s ... or whatever shortest exposure time will be = images possible, that are currently totally unthinkable
- higher image quality - no misalignment of optical axis and sensor/focus plane possible - provided lens mount is solid and precise
- lmore bang for the buck - significantly fewer parts, no moving parts = significantly lower cost to makers, due to easier assembly, precision-alignment, quality control = lower prices for cameras possible (!)
- higher reliability = no more mechanical defects possible, only electronic issues = significantly less failure in use, significantly shorter repair-turnarounds ... just swap out a circuit board, finished. No re-alignment of components required
- much faster cameras possible ... fps as high as we want them possible - only limited by procssing power and bandwidth - and those follow Moore's law, so we'll have plenty, very soon
- better information at time of image capture - thanks to EVFs - which will continue to fast-evolve from "just acceptable in early 2014" to "absolutely mind-boggling" in the near future
And I am sure, we are still missing a few.
You seem to be doing exactly what I said in my post, listing many possible advantages of mirrorless in the future and then putting that towards the idea that everyone wants a very small body.
My guess is that lens size saving will be harder to achieve in FF not only because light angles become more of a factor but because more effort has already been put into downsizing FF designs. You look at a lot of the recent L updates and shaving size/weight has been part of it because your talking about lenses large enough to unbalance even FF bodies. ASPC and 43 DSLR's didn't ever really have this pressure, the higher end models are generally not far off FF bodies in size so balance was likely far less of an issue with their design.
Looking specifically at m43 and 43 I view the switch from DSLR to mirror less as actually less important than the switch in emphasis of lens design. Oly's 43 DSLR's really weren't designed at all to be size savers and instead looked to pack more performance into lenses a similar size to larger formats in order to equal them.
That's why I expect some APS-C mirrorless systems to be around for a few more years, until everything gives way to FF. Anybody "really into" photography - whether professionally or as an enthusist/amateur - will get FF MILCs [sized very compact or as large and heavy as a current pro-DSLR for those who prefer "large and heavy"], everybody else only interested in "snapping a few" will use their mobile devices ... which will get better and better IQ in extremely small form factors [think Google glass
Not sure I see that happening anytime soon, I think FF will become a larger part of companies profits as the lower end of the market is squeezed harder for price but ASPC will likely remain the larger market. The difference in sensor price becoming insignificant still seems along way away and you'd still be left with the difference in lens size/price.
You look at Reinz vacation setup for example, just a 50mm and 85mm lens is not something I see most people who are "really into" photography being happy with. Personally I'd want coverage at least from 16mm-200mm and possible longer depending on where I was visiting, likely some of it fast.
With the setup I look to La Palma a few weeks ago for example my D800 was only a small part of the weight, Nikon 16-35mm VR, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Nikon 80-200mm, Nikon 50mm 1.8. That's roughly 2.5 kg in lenses(not to mention the tripod and filters) that I wouldn't expect to be any smaller with a mirrorless system which most of them wouldn't balance on well anyway.
Upvote
0
Yeah, the "no filter" issue is what makes my decision very hard to make ... I have history of wrecking one lens and very nearly destroying the front element of my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, (you can see the damage at the top of that lens in the below image ... thankfully the B+W XS-Pro filter saved it) ... I move, in a lot of confined areas on our offshore rigs and the risk of getting the front element is high ... if I buy the $2500 EF 14mm f/2.8 L II lens, I'm pretty sure I'll keep it at home when I go on our rigs ... but with the 10-18mm f/4 lens, (which is also image stabilized) with a filter on, I'd feel a lot more confident + on the a7/a7R it works as 12-16mm full frame lens. But for the sake of having a dedicated & small body for the 10-18mm f/4 I am considering the NEX 6 or a5000 ... again the darned choices make the selection process a bit difficultDylan777 said:
Cool 8) ... I take it that the cute model is your daughter?Dylan777 said:
Attachments
Upvote
0
Interesting ... by the way, that 7-14mm f/4 lens is supposed to be very good ... I heard a lot of good things about that lens ... but its kind of ironic that such a small lens has such a long name i.e. Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 AsphSella174 said:
Upvote
0
Impressive 8) 8) 8)Dylan777 said:Rienzphotoz said:
Yes...that is my 5yrs
Upvote
0
Similar threads
