National Geographic photographer Bob Krist explains why he moved to Sony

[EdB]

Bob Krist states on the website: "Yes, with a permanently fixed Zeiss zoom lens with the 35mm equivalent of a 24-200mm f/2.8 [...]"

This is mathematically wrong. There is a linear relationship between aperture, focal length and sensor size. A lens of with this size on a 1" sensor is not equivalent to 200mm 2.8 in 35mm full-frame terms. This is not an opinion, this is a mathematical fact. And it doesnt matter if Bob is photographer of the year or century, it is still WRONG.

Jon_D have you ever seen in your live a 200mm 2.8 full-frame lense? Maybe there is a reason why they are so big and or do you think they just make it so big and expensive for fun.

Do your homework in basic photography unerstanding before harassing other people on this forum. Thanks

An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.

35mm lenses are big because the sensor is big, reduce the size of the sensor and you can reduce the size of the lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

 

[EdB]

Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

The word equivalent is pretty much universally used to compare focal length, I don't see an issue with that. DPR, LL and a host of other review sites use it.

 

[Loswr]

An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.

Oh, just the DoF is different? Well, that's ok then...I mean, it's not like DoF matters for pictures, or like photographers care about DoF or anything like that, right?? It's a smaller sensor, so is noise or anything like that different? Or is that something else that doesn't matter?

If you say 8.8-73.3mm f/2.8, that's fine. Saying it gives a field of view equivalent to 24-200mm on FF/35mm is fine. Calling it 24-200mm f/2.8 is a lie, since f/number is focal length / iris diaphragm diameter. Calling it equivalent to 24-200mm f/2.8 on FF/35mm is also a lie, the DoF for equivalent framing is different, which means they can't be equivalent. It might be done commonly, but it's still a lie. People exceed the posted speed limit all the time, it doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.

 

[Don Haines]

An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.

Oh, just the DoF is different? Well, that's ok then...I mean, it's not like DoF matters for pictures, or like photographers care about DoF or anything like that, right?? It's a smaller sensor, so is noise or anything like that different? Or is that something else that doesn't matter?

If you say 8.8-73.3mm f/2.8, that's fine. Saying it gives a field of view equivalent to 24-200mm on FF/35mm is fine. Calling it 24-200mm f/2.8 is a lie, since f/number is focal length / iris diaphragm diameter. Calling it equivalent to 24-200mm f/2.8 on FF/35mm is also a lie, the DoF for equivalent framing is different, which means they can't be equivalent. It might be done commonly, but it's still a lie. People exceed the posted speed limit all the time, it doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.

That's why I love my SX-50.... it really does have a 1200mm F6.5lens

 

[Don Haines]

Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

+1

It's a ratio.... A/B = C You can't change A without changing B if you are keeping C a constant ...

If the equivalent length is 200mm then the equivalent F is 7.6.....

but to really be accurate, the focal length is 8.8 to 73.3mm and the F stop is 2.8.... period... the optical properties are what the are and short of Harry Potter magic, will remain so..... and the sensor has much tinier pixels than FF so it samples much more densely over a smaller area... and people will forever be confused with "equivalence" Did I mention that people will forever be confused with equivalence?

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes an f2.8 is an f2.8, but the term equivalent was used and if you do that for focal length it is disingenuous to not also do it for aperture, after all the focal length doesn't change either.

The word equivalent is pretty much universally used to compare focal length, I don't see an issue with that. DPR, LL and a host of other review sites use it.

Er, no it isn't. It is used regularly by bad photography journalists who are too damn lazy to be accurate and are looking for any excuse to get a job in auto journalism, and by marketing departments who know very well how misleading it is and don't care to be honest with their consumers.

Take a look here for the true meaning of equivalent with regards photography http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

 

[Don Haines]

Equivalence is a lot like a car in the US can be driven 30 miles on a gallon of gas. The same car in Canada can only go for 12.7 kilometers on a litre of fuel.... and then someone says that as their car crosses the border it magically changes from 30 miles per gallon to 30 miles per litre....

 

[AcutancePhotography]

And why would they feel the need to announce to the world that they change brand if the don't get paid? Hello, I switched to Sony I feel it is so important that you know it so I am having this press conference!

In today's cultural where people photograph what they eat and post it on the Internets Tubes, you are surprised that someone would make a video about their decision to switch camera manufacturers. ;D

 

[Steve]

]
In today's cultural where people photograph what they eat and post it on the Internets Tubes, you are surprised that someone would make a video about their decision to switch camera manufacturers. ;D

Scott Kelby makes an hour long infomercial on the 7DII - he's just giving us some information, guys, totally no ulterior motives. Promise

National Geographic photographer makes a blog post about switching to Sony - Shill! Hack! Liar! Bad photographer!

 

[ifp]

Scott Kelby makes an hour long infomercial on the 7DII - he's just giving us some information, guys, totally no ulterior motives. Promise

National Geographic photographer makes a blog post about switching to Sony - Shill! Hack! Liar! Bad photographer!

To be fair, I've seen Kelby referred to as a hack/shill/liar/bad photographer on this forum numerous times. Maybe all that was before he switched to Canon though. :

 

[Don Haines]

Scott Kelby makes an hour long infomercial on the 7DII - he's just giving us some information, guys, totally no ulterior motives. Promise

National Geographic photographer makes a blog post about switching to Sony - Shill! Hack! Liar! Bad photographer!

To be fair, I've seen Kelby referred to as a hack/shill/liar/bad photographer on this forum numerous times. Maybe all that was before he switched to Canon though. :

Yeah, but he earns more money through photography than almost all of us do..... and how many times have people argued that it is getting paid that makes you a pro....

 

[Steve]

Yeah, but he earns more money through photography than almost all of us do..... and how many times have people argued that it is getting paid that makes you a pro....

I'd be willing to wager that Kelby makes more $$$'s selling how-to books, workshops and all the other assorted products and services that pop up when you google his name than he does selling photos. Not saying he's not a pro shooter, just that I would imagine he trades on that for self-promotion to make real money.

 

[Woody]

http://www.oldmaninmotion.com/four-great-still-shooting-feats-my-sub-1k-mirrorless-can-do-that-my-3k-dslr-cant/

He left Nikon APS-C for Sony:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/another-nail-in-the-dx.html

It's about reduced size/weight and video capabilities, both offered by Sony A6000.

Clearly, Bob has no need for:
- lightweight f/4 telephoto lens
- >= 100 mm macro lens
- accessories such as dedicated wireless remote (prefer not to use phone)
- reliable AF tracking

 

[Jon_D]

- reliable AF tracking

the A6000 tracking abilities are better than canons rebel line of DSLR´s.
and that´s the competition too the A6000 from a price point.
you have to pay a lot more for a canon camera to get a better AF than the A6000s.

and BOB is no sports photographer. so yes he has no need for a 1DX or D4s AF.

That the Sony A6000 can deliver 4-6 sharp images per second on a reasonably regular basis is very impressive for a mirrorless ILC camera costing 1/10th the price of the D4S.

can´t wait until sony releases the A7000.
the mirrorless AF makes bigger steps than the phase detection AF in DSLR´s.
i can see it matching traditional PD in 2 years if development continues with the same speed.

i am pretty happy with the A6000 AF.
it´s not a camera for BIF anyway.

features like the eye focusing are just great and they work.
i guess it´s nothing a pro photographer would use regulary... but i know that many customers who just want a good camera to make family pictures love it.
i have put the function on the C2 custom button and i use it more and more because it works so well.

 

[AprilForever]

- reliable AF tracking

the A6000 tracking abilities are better than canons rebel line of DSLR´s.
and that´s the competition too the A6000 from a price point.
you have to pay a lot more for a canon camera to get a better AF than the A6000s.

and BOB is no sports photographer. so yes he has no need for a 1DX or D4s AF.

That the Sony A6000 can deliver 4-6 sharp images per second on a reasonably regular basis is very impressive for a mirrorless ILC camera costing 1/10th the price of the D4S.

can´t wait until sony releases the A7000.
the mirrorless AF makes bigger steps than the phase detection AF in DSLR´s.
i can see it matching traditional PD in 2 years if development continues with the same speed.

i am pretty happy with the A6000 AF.
it´s not a camera for BIF anyway.

features like the eye focusing are just great and they work.
i guess it´s nothing a pro photographer would use regulary... but i know that many customers who just want a good camera to make family pictures love it.
i have put the function on the C2 custom button and i use it more and more because it works so well.

So now you are admitting you are BOB, and this name is a sock puppet?

 

[albron00]

Probably... one day I'll switch to Sony 8)

 

[gadgeteer]

Sony are their own worst enemy. The A7 series are amazing cameras. Professional's all over should be lining up to buy them. Which pro wouldn't like a lightweight body that doesn't make you feel like you've had a workout after using it for a day.

Unfortunately Sony seem to always completely miss the point. Which amateur is going to blow so much money on the A7s? Very few. But pros need more than just a fancy body. We need professional lenses. Where's the E mount 24-70 f2.8? 70-200 2.8? Where are the standard primes? I mean come on. Samsung are bringing out the NX-1 and have already announced the 17-50 & 50-150 2.8 glass!

So meanwhile Sony don't bother to introduce lenses we'd actually want and instead bring out new camera bodies every week! : :

 

[moreorless]

Sony are their own worst enemy. The A7 series are amazing cameras. Professional's all over should be lining up to buy them. Which pro wouldn't like a lightweight body that doesn't make you feel like you've had a workout after using it for a day.

Unfortunately Sony seem to always completely miss the point. Which amateur is going to blow so much money on the A7s? Very few. But pros need more than just a fancy body. We need professional lenses. Where's the E mount 24-70 f2.8? 70-200 2.8? Where are the standard primes? I mean come on. Samsung are bringing out the NX-1 and have already announced the 17-50 & 50-150 2.8 glass!

So meanwhile Sony don't bother to introduce lenses we'd actually want and instead bring out new camera bodies every week! : :

Sony know that F/2.8 glass would be too large to balance with the A7 cameras, it might also have issues with the mount size.

 

[Diko]

An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.

Oh, just the DoF is different? Well, that's ok then...I mean, it's not like DoF matters for pictures, or like photographers care about DoF or anything like that, right?? It's a smaller sensor, so is noise or anything like that different? Or is that something else that doesn't matter?

If you say 8.8-73.3mm f/2.8, that's fine. Saying it gives a field of view equivalent to 24-200mm on FF/35mm is fine. Calling it 24-200mm f/2.8 is a lie, since f/number is focal length / iris diaphragm diameter. Calling it equivalent to 24-200mm f/2.8 on FF/35mm is also a lie, the DoF for equivalent framing is different, which means they can't be equivalent. It might be done commonly, but it's still a lie. People exceed the posted speed limit all the time, it doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.

You couldn't hold it now, could you?

Alas I saw it too late :-(