"Sony Upsets full frame market"

[msm]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

 

[Loswr]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

You mean like the FE 35/1.4, which is slightly lighter but also slightly longer than the Canon 35/1.4L II? Or the slow-for-a-short-prime FE 35/2.8 which is the same weight and 50% longer than the Canon 40/2.8 STM? Or maybe you mean crappy f/2.8 zooms like the FE 24-70/2.8GM or FE 70-200/2.8GM, which are the same size or larger than the Canon equivalents?

 

[Maiaibing]

Interestinggoogle did the translation, but it is clear enough) "The autofocus of the standard zoom works very quickly and quietly. The '85, however was the automatic focusing perceptible noises and also worked not quite as fast"

So the 85 is slow noisy and expensive...

I'd be upset about that.

Sounds like the Canon 85 f/1.2... although I don't find it "loud".

 

[Loswr]

Interestinggoogle did the translation, but it is clear enough) "The autofocus of the standard zoom works very quickly and quietly. The '85, however was the automatic focusing perceptible noises and also worked not quite as fast"

So the 85 is slow noisy and expensive...

I'd be upset about that.

Sounds like the Canon 85 f/1.2... although I don't find it "loud".

Yeah, the FE 85/1.4 GM is also 2.5 cm longer than the 85/1.2L II, although the Canon's extra 1/2-stop of glass makes it 200 g heavier.

 

[msm]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

You mean like the FE 35/1.4, which is slightly lighter but also slightly longer than the Canon 35/1.4L II? Or the slow-for-a-short-prime FE 35/2.8 which is the same weight and 50% longer than the Canon 40/2.8 STM? Or maybe you mean crappy f/2.8 zooms like the FE 24-70/2.8GM or FE 70-200/2.8GM, which are the same size or larger than the Canon equivalents?

I mean like crappy EF 24-70 2.8 ii with nasty nisen bokeh and annoying field curvature at 800grams when you can use ~300g 25/2 batis and ~300g FE 55 1.8 who both are sharper wide open, give at least 1 more stop light, have perfect flat field and much smoother bokeh. On top of that the Sony lenses are stabilized in a lighter full frame body than Canon can offer.

 

[Loswr]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

You mean like the FE 35/1.4, which is slightly lighter but also slightly longer than the Canon 35/1.4L II? Or the slow-for-a-short-prime FE 35/2.8 which is the same weight and 50% longer than the Canon 40/2.8 STM? Or maybe you mean crappy f/2.8 zooms like the FE 24-70/2.8GM or FE 70-200/2.8GM, which are the same size or larger than the Canon equivalents?

I mean like crappy EF 24-70 2.8 ii with nasty nisen bokeh and annoying field curvature at 800grams when you can use ~300g 25/2 batis and ~300g FE 55 1.8 who both are sharper wide open, give at least 1 more stop light, has perfect flat field and much smoother bokeh. On top of that the Sony lenses are stabilized in a lighter full frame body than Canon can offer.

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move. Why did Sony even bother with those f/2.8 GM zoom lenses? :

 

[msm]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

You mean like the FE 35/1.4, which is slightly lighter but also slightly longer than the Canon 35/1.4L II? Or the slow-for-a-short-prime FE 35/2.8 which is the same weight and 50% longer than the Canon 40/2.8 STM? Or maybe you mean crappy f/2.8 zooms like the FE 24-70/2.8GM or FE 70-200/2.8GM, which are the same size or larger than the Canon equivalents?

I mean like crappy EF 24-70 2.8 ii with nasty nisen bokeh and annoying field curvature at 800grams when you can use ~300g 25/2 batis and ~300g FE 55 1.8 who both are sharper wide open, give at least 1 more stop light, has perfect flat field and much smoother bokeh. On top of that the Sony lenses are stabilized in a lighter full frame body than Canon can offer.

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move. Why did Sony even bother with those f/2.8 GM zoom lenses? :

You can shoot moving subjects with primes too you know, why do you think sport shooters use 300mm and 400mm f2.8 lenses? And Sony bother because there is a demand for it. But obviously those lenses are not meant for the part of the market who want to keep size and weight down.

 

[Loswr]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

You mean like the FE 35/1.4, which is slightly lighter but also slightly longer than the Canon 35/1.4L II? Or the slow-for-a-short-prime FE 35/2.8 which is the same weight and 50% longer than the Canon 40/2.8 STM? Or maybe you mean crappy f/2.8 zooms like the FE 24-70/2.8GM or FE 70-200/2.8GM, which are the same size or larger than the Canon equivalents?

I mean like crappy EF 24-70 2.8 ii with nasty nisen bokeh and annoying field curvature at 800grams when you can use ~300g 25/2 batis and ~300g FE 55 1.8 who both are sharper wide open, give at least 1 more stop light, has perfect flat field and much smoother bokeh. On top of that the Sony lenses are stabilized in a lighter full frame body than Canon can offer.

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move. Why did Sony even bother with those f/2.8 GM zoom lenses? :

You can shoot moving subjects with primes too you know, why do you think sport shooters use 300mm and 400mm f2.8 lenses? And Sony bother because there is a demand for it. But obviously those lenses are not meant for the part of the market who want to keep size and weight down.

Missing the point, typical. When the player runs right up to the shorts shooter, does s/he keep using the supertele lens? No, s/he has a second camera – probably with a standard zoom. Is a pair of Sony FF MILCs with prime lenses lighter than a single camera with a zoom?

 

[msm]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

You mean like the FE 35/1.4, which is slightly lighter but also slightly longer than the Canon 35/1.4L II? Or the slow-for-a-short-prime FE 35/2.8 which is the same weight and 50% longer than the Canon 40/2.8 STM? Or maybe you mean crappy f/2.8 zooms like the FE 24-70/2.8GM or FE 70-200/2.8GM, which are the same size or larger than the Canon equivalents?

I mean like crappy EF 24-70 2.8 ii with nasty nisen bokeh and annoying field curvature at 800grams when you can use ~300g 25/2 batis and ~300g FE 55 1.8 who both are sharper wide open, give at least 1 more stop light, has perfect flat field and much smoother bokeh. On top of that the Sony lenses are stabilized in a lighter full frame body than Canon can offer.

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move. Why did Sony even bother with those f/2.8 GM zoom lenses? :

You can shoot moving subjects with primes too you know, why do you think sport shooters use 300mm and 400mm f2.8 lenses? And Sony bother because there is a demand for it. But obviously those lenses are not meant for the part of the market who want to keep size and weight down.

Missing the point, typical. When the player runs right up to the shorts shooter, does s/he keep using the supertele lens? No, s/he has a second camera – probably with a standard zoom. Is a pair of Sony FF MILCs with prime lenses lighter than a single camera with a zoom?

If I shoot sports I don't shoot with a Sony mirrorless. Sports is a niche, most photographers shoot other things you know. So your digression is mostly irrelevant.

But to answer to your digression, I don't mind shooting action with a prime on my 1DX, I can't follow a player like with a zoom with a prime no but I find I often do not need to. Usually the best shots are when something happens and often that happens at a specific place so you can position correctly in advance. Of course there are situations where zooms are preferred too.

 

[Loswr]

So your digression is mostly irrelevant.

To be clear, it was your digression.

 

[kaswindell]

+1 lighter and smaller don't go together with FF. Only with smaller sensors and brands as suggested by you.

It does. Just not with those crappy 2.8 zooms. Instead look at the top quality small to medium size primes that are now available natively in FE mount.

You mean like the FE 35/1.4, which is slightly lighter but also slightly longer than the Canon 35/1.4L II? Or the slow-for-a-short-prime FE 35/2.8 which is the same weight and 50% longer than the Canon 40/2.8 STM? Or maybe you mean crappy f/2.8 zooms like the FE 24-70/2.8GM or FE 70-200/2.8GM, which are the same size or larger than the Canon equivalents?

I mean like crappy EF 24-70 2.8 ii with nasty nisen bokeh and annoying field curvature at 800grams when you can use ~300g 25/2 batis and ~300g FE 55 1.8 who both are sharper wide open, give at least 1 more stop light, has perfect flat field and much smoother bokeh. On top of that the Sony lenses are stabilized in a lighter full frame body than Canon can offer.

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move. Why did Sony even bother with those f/2.8 GM zoom lenses? :

You can shoot moving subjects with primes too you know, why do you think sport shooters use 300mm and 400mm f2.8 lenses? And Sony bother because there is a demand for it. But obviously those lenses are not meant for the part of the market who want to keep size and weight down.

Missing the point, typical. When the player runs right up to the shorts shooter, does s/he keep using the supertele lens? No, s/he has a second camera – probably with a standard zoom. Is a pair of Sony FF MILCs with prime lenses lighter than a single camera with a zoom?

Sure, sports shooters use primes. And back in the days of film, so did everybody else, including me. I have 6 Canon FDn lenses, a 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2.0, 200/2.8, and 300/4.0 that I used with a motorized A-1 and an FTb to shoot a variety of subjects, including sports, but zooms today are so good you don't need to bother with the bother, and I, like many others, use zooms, including the guys from USA Today, Boston Globe and AP that were photographing the Georgia Tech/Boston College basketball game next to me last weekend. Sports shooters will use primes mostly on 300mm+ lenses when they need the large apertures to let them keep the ISO down (relatively speaking) and shutter speed up. And yes, all of them (but not me, sadly) had at least two 1DX/D4 class bodies, each with a different zoom.

 

[msm]

So your digression is mostly irrelevant.

To be clear, it was your digression.

Eh... Who started to talk about moving subjects again?

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move.

 

[Loswr]

So your digression is mostly irrelevant.

To be clear, it was your digression.

Eh... Who started to talk about moving subjects again?

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move.

We were discussing wide and normal lenses, and I was talking about people in general. You are the one who digressed into sports and supertele primes, then called it an irrelevant niche. Time to go get your metacognition checked.

 

[msm]

So your digression is mostly irrelevant.

To be clear, it was your digression.

Eh... Who started to talk about moving subjects again?

I'm glad you always have time to change lenses as subjects move.

We were discussing wide and normal lenses, and I was talking about people in general. You are the one who digressed into sports and supertele primes, then called it an irrelevant niche. Time to go get your metacognition checked.

Except I didn't digress into sports, it was just an example which you digressed into.

 

[Loswr]

Except I didn't digress into sports, it was just an example which you digressed into.

You can shoot moving subjects with primes too you know, why do you think sport shooters use 300mm and 400mm f2.8 lenses?

You provided the example. I thought using an example which you raised might better enable you to understand the point. Sadly but unsurprisingly, it didn't help.

 

[martti]

Do you guys really have to spoil the ambiance here with your peeing contests?
Just asking.

 

[Loswr]

Do you guys really have to spoil the ambiance here with your peeing contests?
Just asking.

A thread entitled 'Sony Upsets full frame market' is a silly premise to begin with, there's nothing to spoil here. Just saying.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

They ain't cheap - and they're not that durable. Marginal ergonomics and minimal lenses. The financials are not great and Sony has a tendency to dump under-performing business units. Sony may have a bright future in imaging - professional television gear, sensors, and other ancilary stuff, but the efforts in prosumer photography is questionable. Like Samsung and Pentax our friends as Sony will continue to be an innovative but minor league player. Look for Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Fuji to dominate for the next ten years.

 

[3kramd5]

Do you guys really have to spoil the ambiance here with your peeing contests?
Just asking.

A thread entitled 'Sony Upsets full frame market' is a silly premise to begin with, there's nothing to spoil here. Just saying.

But I digress

 

[martti]

Do you guys really have to spoil the ambiance here with your peeing contests?
Just asking.

A thread entitled 'Sony Upsets full frame market' is a silly premise to begin with, there's nothing to spoil here. Just saying.

Silence is golden, golden
but my eyes still see


(Brian Poole and The Tremeloes)