Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony NEX system - Full-frame too on the way ?  (Read 23858 times)
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1451


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2010, 09:55:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I handled the NEX with the pancake 16mm, the Olympus, and the Panasonic GF-1 last weekend. I liked them all for different reasons -- but I spent my money on the GF-1 with the 20mm lens. Felt like the best fit for my style of shooting, and what I wanted in a compact camera.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2010, 04:56:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Sony have quite clearly targeted the nx5 at p&s users that want to take a step up rather than dslr users wanting a light/small take anywhere camera so hopefully this is just the first step for them and a full frame nx5 targeted at serious photographers is around the corner. We always had 'full frame' 35mm film p&s cameras and while digital does have it's challenges at this size perhaps sony can make this happen.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2010, 09:05:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChristophC
The concept of a FF EVIL camera is just too good for not happening.
My guess is that if this happens, it will be done first by a company that can offer the most in the way of 35mm format SLR lenses that work adequately through adaptors, to complement the initially more limited selection of new lenses dedicated to the new system. Those lens designs might also be usable for adaption to versions in the new mount.

And that probably means Canon: unlike Sony's Alpha mount system, all Canon EF lenses have AF motors (all 30 million of them?), which will almost surely be needed for AF with a mirror-less body, since I doubt any new system will use the dying approach of in-body AF motors. Canon's experience in video and getting decent CD AF performance on its SLR bodies will help too. Nikon is the second most likely option, with far more lenses with AF motors than Sony, less than Canon --- but Nikon seems to be going the other way, for a smaller, lighter system based on a smaller-than-DSLR format like 17mm diagonal.


And it might be that with mirror-less systems, a trade-off is at work of gaining smaller size and weight and other conveniences at some sacrifice in still imaging performance aspects like IQ and AF speed, and so long as there is a disadvantage for those with a high priority on those performance factors, it will make little sense to introduce a mirror-less system that is burdened with the higher cost and greater bulk of larger than mainstream format sensor and lenses. (Rangefinder style compact, symmetric, manual-focus-only primes are not a viable option, so do not bring Leica M system size into the discussion!)
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2010, 10:40:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
My guess is that if this happens, it will be done first by a company that can offer the most in the way of 35mm format SLR lenses that work adequately through adaptors, to complement the initially more limited selection of new lenses dedicated to the new system. Those lens designs might also be usable for adaption to versions in the new mount.

And that probably means Canon: unlike Sony's Alpha mount system, all Canon EF lenses have AF motors (all 30 million of them?), which will almost surely be needed for AF with a mirror-less body, since I doubt any new system will use the dying approach of in-body AF motors. Canon's experience in video and getting decent CD AF performance on its SLR bodies will help too. Nikon is the second most likely option, with far more lenses with AF motors than Sony, less than Canon --- but Nikon seems to be going the other way, for a smaller, lighter system based on a smaller-than-DSLR format like 17mm diagonal.


And it might be that with mirror-less systems, a trade-off is at work of gaining smaller size and weight and other conveniences at some sacrifice in still imaging performance aspects like IQ and AF speed, and so long as there is a disadvantage for those with a high priority on those performance factors, it will make little sense to introduce a mirror-less system that is burdened with the higher cost and greater bulk of larger than mainstream format sensor and lenses. (Rangefinder style compact, symmetric, manual-focus-only primes are not a viable option, so do not bring Leica M system size into the discussion!)

  A big problem with FF sensors in an EVIL type camera will be corner smearing, assuming that short registration distances and non-retrofocal lenses are the goal.  Digital sensors just don't handle those extreme light angles well.  The Sony NEX already has a mount near the diameter of the fullframe a-mount in order to accommodate large image circles in relation to APS-C, and I would imagine that even bigger mounts than what we currently see in FF DSLRs would be desirable in a compact FF EVIL.

  Now, of course, if small size isn't a goal, and retrofocus wides and/or registration distances similar to what we see in our current DSLRs are an option, then none of the above is an issue.  Someone could just remove the mirror assembly and prism, replace it with an EVF setup, and things would be fine.

  Ultimately, I think you may be correct that the trade-off for size will trump the need for 35mm sensors in small EVIL cameras.

Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2010, 11:02:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Can't these issues be fixed with lens specific software correction inside the camera or with the raw converter?

What I really like about the FF EVIL idea is the possibility of symmetric near distortion free super wide angles
and generally faster lenses with smaller size.
E.G. the Zeiss 15 mm f 1/2.8 M-mount wide angle is such a lens and I don't think it has an equivalent in the DSLR family.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 11:05:20 AM by ChristophC » Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2010, 02:29:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I might chip in that there is an underlying obsession with many that so called "Full Frame", which is based on the once so popular 35mm film format, which is a bit of a red herring in the digital era.  The format is unnecessarily large for a compact bodied camera.  Sensors with half or quarter the area are producing photos of easily good enough quality for most purposes (including posters and magazines) already and things will only get better.  Sony has shown that, even at APSC size, with all their effort at producing an amazingly small body, the lens size is already quite big.  The rumoured baby Nikon is going the right way.  And please, don't tell me that a bigger sensor has more depth of field control.  90+% of the time we want more depth of field, not less!  Subject isolation is better done by technique in most cases anyway.

Don.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 02:30:45 PM by Deep » Logged

Don
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7401


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2010, 02:39:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My point would be that there are advantages to getting rid of the mirror. Would Sony make a full frame camera with EVIL design at reasonable I would absolutely buy it, because of exact focusing.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Deep
I might chip in that there is an underlying obsession with many that so called "Full Frame", which is based on the once so popular 35mm film format, which is a bit of a red herring in the digital era.  The format is unnecessarily large for a compact bodied camera.  Sensors with half or quarter the area are producing photos of easily good enough quality for most purposes (including posters and magazines) already and things will only get better.  Sony has shown that, even at APSC size, with all their effort at producing an amazingly small body, the lens size is already quite big.  The rumoured baby Nikon is going the right way.  And please, don't tell me that a bigger sensor has more depth of field control.  90+% of the time we want more depth of field, not less!  Subject isolation is better done by technique in most cases anyway.

Don.
Logged

Vivec
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2010, 04:44:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Deep
The rumoured baby Nikon is going the right way.  And please, don't tell me that a bigger sensor has more depth of field control.  90+% of the time we want more depth of field, not less!  Subject isolation is better done by technique in most cases anyway.

Right -- just like a few years ago when Nikon did just DX and declared they would never do FX (full frame) since that didn't make sense...  we all know what happened  

And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a  small size and weight.
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2010, 05:49:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

My point would be that there are advantages to getting rid of the mirror. Would Sony make a full frame camera with EVIL design at reasonable I would absolutely buy it, because of exact focusing.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Vivec
Right -- just like a few years ago when Nikon did just DX and declared they would never do FX (full frame) since that didn't make sense... we all know what happened  

And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a small size and weight.

+1 to both
Logged

MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2010, 06:24:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Vivec
And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a  small size and weight.

Indeed. That is also before we get onto the ever greater demands on lenses with small sensors and high iso noise problems. I'd love a NEX type camera that could shot easily get a decent ISO 3200 like my D700, Cameras of this type are often used in demanding situations like low light with no tripod.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2010, 07:31:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: douglasf13
Now, of course, if small size isn't a goal, and retrofocus wides and/or registration distances similar to what we see in our current DSLRs are an option, then none of the above is an issue.  Someone could just remove the mirror assembly and prism, replace it with an EVF setup, and things would be fine.
Quite true, but if smaller size and lower weight than a DSLR is not a goal, one might as well just use a DSLR with Live View. To the idea that an EVIL camera still has some advantage because the EVF is sometimes preferable to either OVF or rear-screen Live View, I reply that a DSLR could also offer an EVF, probably as an optional clip-on as with some m4/3 models. And the main objection I can see to that is some increased bulk, which brings us back to where we started -- how much do size and weight matter, in particular to those who demand "film-sized" sensors?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2010, 07:47:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Vivec
... it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control.
Those factors plus cost maybe? There are some problems with thinking that the same format will be the ideal balance in digital as it was with film:
- image quality at equal format size is far higher for digital than for film, pushing the balance towards smaller formats
- cost at equal format size is far higher for digital than for film, pushing the balance towards smaller formats
- evidence from the market place: almost eight years after the first "full frame revolution" (Kodak 14N, Canon 1Ds), and almost five years after the "second revolution" (Canon 5D), the smaller DSLR formats still outsell 35mm format by well over ten to one, and the 35m format DSLRs still cost far more than most SLR users have ever for a camera.

P. S. on size. It is laughable to suggest to a telephoto enthusiast like me that the 400mm and longer lenses I would want in 35mm format are anywhere near to an ideal balance of size (and price) vs performance. For most SLR users, the bulk of such telephoto lenses was merely the price we had to pay in the bad old days when film offered far inferior combinations of resolution and low light performance than electronic sensors now can.

P. P. S. on DOF control. By the end of the era of 35mm film cameras, the great majority of users of those cameras used them with zoom lenses of maybe f/5.6 at the long end on SLRs, slower on the compacts that accounted for the great majority of 35mm film cameras. Thus the DOF control they had was no more than the smaller mainstream DSLR formats now offer when used with lenses of suitably low minimum f-stops. So the mainstream DSLR formats like EF-S and DX can match or exceed the IQ and DOF control that most people were getting with 35mm film back then.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 08:19:50 AM by BJL » Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2010, 03:56:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Vivec
Right -- just like a few years ago when Nikon did just DX and declared they would never do FX (full frame) since that didn't make sense...  we all know what happened  

And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a  small size and weight.

Well, as has just been pointed out, what counts for film does not count for digital.  35mm became popular in film days because smaller formats (APS, 110 for example) just did not cut it when enlargements were required.  Anyone wanting big prints eventually moved towards larger formats too.  In film days, we put up with big lenses and shallow depth of field - it was always a struggle to keep shutter speeds high enough without losing depth of field but we did it because there were no practical options.  I know, I have had many 35mm cameras and larger.  I choose to shoot with the 4/3 system because there is LESS compromise than larger formats.  I get sufficient image quality to impress my clients so would gain nothing in 99% of cases by using a larger format.  It is erroneous to suggest what counted in film days is still correct for digital capture.

And a note on this current fascination with shallow depth of field.  My flatmate has a Sony 900 - a lovely camera.  Testing the Zeiss 85/1.4, I was amazed that I could not get a whole eyebrow in focus at f1.4!  My standard portrait lens in film days was a Canon 100/2.8 but I had to stop it down to f4 or 5.6 to have a sufficient d.o.f. for good portraiture (subject in focus but isolated from background)  The internet is plastered with "show-off" shallow d.o.f. photos which would be so much better if the photographer had actually stopped the lens down a bit and controlled the photo.  This thing has become an obsession!

APS-C and 4/3 are liberating.  Something even smaller could be even better.

Don
Logged

Don
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2010, 11:12:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
And the main objection I can see to that is some increased bulk, which brings us back to where we started -- how much do size and weight matter, in particular to those who demand "film-sized" sensors?

The NEX 16mm f/2.8, with a built-in ultra-sonic ring-motor, weighs in at 70gms and is "pancakey" in profile.....a 24x36mm version of this lens would have weighed say 90gms.  How much do you think an equivalent retrofocal dSLR 16mm f/2.8 would have weighed ?
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2010, 11:34:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
- evidence from the market place: almost eight years after the first "full frame revolution" (Kodak 14N, Canon 1Ds), and almost five years after the "second revolution" (Canon 5D), the smaller DSLR formats still outsell 35mm format by well over ten to one, and the 35m format DSLRs still cost far more than most SLR users have ever for a camera.

You forgot to add (with your classic deceptiveness and sneering approach, that is visible both here and also in DPR) that the "ten to one" ratio is of course fueled on by the cheap-as-dirt 1.6x Rebels, the 1.5x D40s, the D60s, the A200s, the A300s, the 2.0x lower-end 4/3 products, the 1.7x Sigma products  and a variety of such mish-mash formats, while the 1.0x sensored brethren are all magnesium-alloy bodied weather-sealed behemoths that command a far higher margin, thus increasing the price of entry of ownership.  

At one time, Nikon was churning out 12,000 D3s from their Sendai plant when it got released and for the first whole year, the $4000 D3 was just sold-out everywhere.   Sure, they could not churn out as many D3s as say the D60s to balance out some of that 10 to 1 ratio that you speak about, but the 5.8 BILLION dollars in sales revenue that the D3 single-handedly generated in its very first year (not counting the even more critical secondary demand in lenses and such that it would have triggered off additionally), was not a bad investment decision from Nikon's perspective.

You have time and again shown your disdain for 35mm Full-frame all these years.  We all know that.  You don't have to repeatedly make the same old tired points, again and again.  Let it go, fellow and move on.

Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2010, 11:46:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Deep
Testing the Zeiss 85/1.4, I was amazed that I could not get a whole eyebrow in focus at f1.4!

Did you not know that if you needed more DOF, you just had to stop it down as needed and/or step farther away ?    And did you position the camera right in front of them to take the picture, to only have the eyebrow in focus at f/1.4 ?  And if so, then I would be curious to know why, other than to prove some kind of esoteric point ?

Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2010, 11:46:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
You forgot to add (with your classic deceptiveness and sneering approach, that is visible both here and also in DPR) that the "ten to one" ratio is of course fueled on by the cheap-as-dirt 1.6x Rebels, the 1.5x D40s, the D60s, the A200s, the A300s, the 2.0x lower-end 4/3 products, the 1.7x Sigma products  and a variety of such mish-mash formats, while the 1.0x sensored brethren are all magnesium-alloy bodied weather-sealed behemoths that command a far higher margin, thus increasing the price of entry of ownership.  

At one time, Nikon was churning out 12,000 D3s from their Sendai plant when it got released and for the first whole year, the $4000 D3 was just sold-out everywhere.   Sure, they could not churn out as many D3s as say the D60s to balance out some of that 10 to 1 ratio that you speak about, but the 5.8 BILLION dollars in sales revenue that the D3 single-handedly generated in its very first year (not counting the even more critical secondary demand in lenses and such that it would have triggered off additionally), was not a bad investment decision from Nikon's perspective.

You have time and again shown your disdain for 35mm Full-frame all these years.  We all know that.  You don't have to repeatedly make the same old tired points, again and again.  Let it go, fellow and move on.

Where did you get that $5.8B number?
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2010, 11:50:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Where did you get that $5.8B number?

12000 x 12 x $4000 = 5.76 Billion USD (rough estimate)
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2010, 11:53:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
12000 x 12 x $4000 = 5.76 Billion USD (rough estimate)

I figured that.  Where did you get those numbers from?  Does Nikon publish numbers in their reports?
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2010, 12:32:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
Did you not know that if you needed more DOF, you just had to stop it down as needed and/or step farther away ?    And did you position the camera right in front of them to take the picture, to only have the eyebrow in focus at f/1.4 ?  And if so, then I would be curious to know why, other than to prove some kind of esoteric point ?
Hmm.  You missed my point completely.  But, reading your post before your reply to mine, I'd say you don't want to know?  Fair enough.

Don
Logged

Don
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad