Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: A7 vs other mirrorless options - quality/variety of lenses a real issue?  (Read 7172 times)
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


WWW
« on: December 01, 2013, 12:47:44 AM »
ReplyReply

 
      The A7 and A7r will almost certainly be VERY difficult to get the most out of from a lens perspective - the D3x and especially the D800(e) are notorious for being extremely picky about lenses. I have used both extensively, and I never found a zoom I really liked on the 800e (even the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor wasn't quite up to the sensor). There are some primes that are good enough to show off those sensors - the only one I ever shot much with was the 105 Micro VR - but I have always used zooms (apart from macro lenses), simply due to the nature of my photography - I don't doubt that there are a decent range of superb primes that take full advantage of the sensor.

     Assuming that the A7r is about as picky as the D800e, and the A7 is about as picky as a D3x, which doesn't seem a bad assumption, given the sensor similarities, how badly constrained will they be by available lenses? There seems to be little question that the 35mm Zeiss is a superb lens, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 55mm was equally good. I'm not sure about the Zeiss 24-70 zoom - some Sony Zeiss zooms are superb, but others, including the new 16-70 for NEX, aren't great. The Sony 28-70 kit lens will probably be cut to ribbons by those ultra-high resolution sensors, and that seems apparent in early reviews - I have seen few good words about that lens.

      Adapters are another question entirely - in addition to losing AF and image stabilization, they are hard to get completely straight - one more joint between body and lens that can be off by some fraction of a mm... Adapters are also notorious for not working terribly well on ultra wide lenses. At least right now, I see the line up of truly good lenses for the A7 (r) as stretching from about a 24 (Leica, among others, on a top-quality adapter) through 35 and 55mm Sony Zeiss lenses to 75 and 90mm rangefinder lenses, again on a top quality adapter. There is no really good option for a macro lens, either - the only possibilities will be FF DSLR lenses on adapters, making them even bigger than they already are, and no AF or IS. Above 90, the fact that adapted lenses will generally have no AF (or extremely slow AF at best) or IS seems a huge drawback.  If it is a superb lens, the 24-70 Zeiss will cover most of that range with AF and IS intact (although with no close focusing). There is also the option of really high end DSLR primes (Otus, etc.) on adapters, which will offer truly exceptional performance, at a huge cost in practicality.

     Outside that limited range, or with less expensive or more versatile lenses within the limited range, will the A7 (r) offer better image quality than other mirrorless options, once body and lens are considered together? I would not be AT ALL surprised if an E-M1 with the 12-40 f2.8 Olympus or an X-E2 with the beautiful 18-55 Fuji can actually outresolve the Sony with the kit lens (I have NO question that the Sony sensor is better, but will the lens give back the sensor's gains)? I am sure that the A7r with the Zeiss zoom will outresolve the competition, but at twice the price, and by how much? Will the A7 with the Zeiss zoom actually outresolve the Olympus and the Fuji by enough to matter most of the time - or are the Sonys specialized cameras which only show their superiority with a limited number of primes, losing stabilization and even AF.

    If the A7 and A7r do turn out to be severely lens-constrained, photographers will have to consider them VERY carefully, based upon their type of shooting. If you're a classic Leica rangefinder shooter, great - I'm 100% sure they'll turn in a better performance than anything except (possibly) an M240, at a much lower price (with the option of a couple of AF lenses). If I preferred primes at a range of moderate focal lengths, I'd have a Sony for sure. You also have the Otus and a couple of other options that offer medium-format image quality, at the cost of a ton of weight and bulk.

     If you prefer zooms, you have ONE lens choice (the Zeiss), if it turns out to be good enough - there is a good possibility that it won't really outresolve a lesser camera with a better lens. With no real reviews of the Zeiss yet, I'd speculate based on the history of Sony Zeiss zooms and the few preliminary shooter's reports that it has  (very roughly) a 33% chance of being no better than an E-M1 with the 12-40 or an X-E2 with the 18-55, a 33% chance of being only a little better (lens is letting the sensor down, but it is noticeably slightly better than the next-best mirrorless option), and a 33% chance of living up to at least the 24 mp sensor and possibly the 36, and being the best highly portable body/zoom combo by a wide margin. At first, there is no ultra wide zoom, and one telephoto zoom that may not live up to the sensor, only goes to 200mm, and is going to be big and heavy when it finally appears. If you want a macro lens, you're entirely out of luck so far... Sony's record on high-quality lenses for the NEX system isn't exactly stellar, either - more are starting to appear (and some, like the 10-18, seem very good), but the history has been a frustrating mishmash of multiple versions of the same consumer-grade zooms, with an occasional very nice prime thrown in.

   I ended up expanding my m4/3 system after very careful consideration of adding a Sony instead (I'm a zoom and macro shooter, because I do nature, but on long hikes, so I want neither the weight nor the bother of a bagful of primes), primarily because I thought I could equal the performance of anything except unstabilized primes and the very expensive A7r/Zeiss combo in a system with a lot more versatility. I am NOT claiming that my choice will be right for everyone, simply raising the question of how hard the new Sonys will be to pair with lenses, and how this affects their final IQ in the print compared to other mirrorless options. 


Dan
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7324


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2013, 01:05:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would suggest that many of the problems are overstated. Sony and Zeiss are capable of making fine lenses and we are going to see third party lenses like Sigma Art series.

There is a big but, high quality telephoto lenses for full frame 135 will never going to be small.

Best regards
Erik



      The A7 and A7r will almost certainly be VERY difficult to get the most out of from a lens perspective - the D3x and especially the D800(e) are notorious for being extremely picky about lenses. I have used both extensively, and I never found a zoom I really liked on the 800e (even the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor wasn't quite up to the sensor). There are some primes that are good enough to show off those sensors - the only one I ever shot much with was the 105 Micro VR - but I have always used zooms (apart from macro lenses), simply due to the nature of my photography - I don't doubt that there are a decent range of superb primes that take full advantage of the sensor.

     Assuming that the A7r is about as picky as the D800e, and the A7 is about as picky as a D3x, which doesn't seem a bad assumption, given the sensor similarities, how badly constrained will they be by available lenses? There seems to be little question that the 35mm Zeiss is a superb lens, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 55mm was equally good. I'm not sure about the Zeiss 24-70 zoom - some Sony Zeiss zooms are superb, but others, including the new 16-70 for NEX, aren't great. The Sony 28-70 kit lens will probably be cut to ribbons by those ultra-high resolution sensors, and that seems apparent in early reviews - I have seen few good words about that lens.

      Adapters are another question entirely - in addition to losing AF and image stabilization, they are hard to get completely straight - one more joint between body and lens that can be off by some fraction of a mm... Adapters are also notorious for not working terribly well on ultra wide lenses. At least right now, I see the line up of truly good lenses for the A7 (r) as stretching from about a 24 (Leica, among others, on a top-quality adapter) through 35 and 55mm Sony Zeiss lenses to 75 and 90mm rangefinder lenses, again on a top quality adapter. There is no really good option for a macro lens, either - the only possibilities will be FF DSLR lenses on adapters, making them even bigger than they already are, and no AF or IS. Above 90, the fact that adapted lenses will generally have no AF (or extremely slow AF at best) or IS seems a huge drawback.  If it is a superb lens, the 24-70 Zeiss will cover most of that range with AF and IS intact (although with no close focusing). There is also the option of really high end DSLR primes (Otus, etc.) on adapters, which will offer truly exceptional performance, at a huge cost in practicality.

     Outside that limited range, or with less expensive or more versatile lenses within the limited range, will the A7 (r) offer better image quality than other mirrorless options, once body and lens are considered together? I would not be AT ALL surprised if an E-M1 with the 12-40 f2.8 Olympus or an X-E2 with the beautiful 18-55 Fuji can actually outresolve the Sony with the kit lens (I have NO question that the Sony sensor is better, but will the lens give back the sensor's gains)? I am sure that the A7r with the Zeiss zoom will outresolve the competition, but at twice the price, and by how much? Will the A7 with the Zeiss zoom actually outresolve the Olympus and the Fuji by enough to matter most of the time - or are the Sonys specialized cameras which only show their superiority with a limited number of primes, losing stabilization and even AF.

    If the A7 and A7r do turn out to be severely lens-constrained, photographers will have to consider them VERY carefully, based upon their type of shooting. If you're a classic Leica rangefinder shooter, great - I'm 100% sure they'll turn in a better performance than anything except (possibly) an M240, at a much lower price (with the option of a couple of AF lenses). If I preferred primes at a range of moderate focal lengths, I'd have a Sony for sure. You also have the Otus and a couple of other options that offer medium-format image quality, at the cost of a ton of weight and bulk.

     If you prefer zooms, you have ONE lens choice (the Zeiss), if it turns out to be good enough - there is a good possibility that it won't really outresolve a lesser camera with a better lens. With no real reviews of the Zeiss yet, I'd speculate based on the history of Sony Zeiss zooms and the few preliminary shooter's reports that it has  (very roughly) a 33% chance of being no better than an E-M1 with the 12-40 or an X-E2 with the 18-55, a 33% chance of being only a little better (lens is letting the sensor down, but it is noticeably slightly better than the next-best mirrorless option), and a 33% chance of living up to at least the 24 mp sensor and possibly the 36, and being the best highly portable body/zoom combo by a wide margin. At first, there is no ultra wide zoom, and one telephoto zoom that may not live up to the sensor, only goes to 200mm, and is going to be big and heavy when it finally appears. If you want a macro lens, you're entirely out of luck so far... Sony's record on high-quality lenses for the NEX system isn't exactly stellar, either - more are starting to appear (and some, like the 10-18, seem very good), but the history has been a frustrating mishmash of multiple versions of the same consumer-grade zooms, with an occasional very nice prime thrown in.

   I ended up expanding my m4/3 system after very careful consideration of adding a Sony instead (I'm a zoom and macro shooter, because I do nature, but on long hikes, so I want neither the weight nor the bother of a bagful of primes), primarily because I thought I could equal the performance of anything except unstabilized primes and the very expensive A7r/Zeiss combo in a system with a lot more versatility. I am NOT claiming that my choice will be right for everyone, simply raising the question of how hard the new Sonys will be to pair with lenses, and how this affects their final IQ in the print compared to other mirrorless options. 


Dan

Logged

peterottaway
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2013, 04:50:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't received my A7r which will be used for the immediate future with adapters. So I can't say how my A mount Minolta and Sony lenses will perform, let alone my old Contax, Olympus and Voigtlander gear. But what I have with my A850 ( 24 MP ) full frame and Nex 7 ( 24 MP ) APS cameras, is yes like everything some lenses perform better than others - however real life results in print do not follow line pairs per mm or DXO tests.

Just because many wides and zooms don't make it past say 16 MP in theory it doesn't mean that with a " better " sensor something more can't be got out of them. Or that sometimes the high end performance is spread over a wider gamut of real life circumstances. All very circumstantial I know. I don't expect my Contax 18/4 or 35 - 135 zoom will perform the same as new FE lenses designed with the new sensors in mind.

Comparing the FF Sony with the Olympus - it is going to take Sony and Zeiss at least a couple of years to provide what Olympus and Panasonic have all ready provided. I will note that many of the current m43 lenses are more " kit " lenses than high end.

However if you are seriously into backpacking in tough terrain then the Olympus camera and sensor is most certainly good enough. After the old maxim about f 8 and being there still applies, even though I would suggest f 4 as being better with the m43. Grin

Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2013, 10:29:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I like it - f4 and be there... Fuji has a huge advantage over everyone (including the DSLR makers - there are plenty of junk Nikkors and EF lenses mixed  in with the real gems) except Leica in the uniform quality of their lens line (possible exception of the two XC lenses - Fuji realized they needed cheap kit lenses 2+ years into their system). m43 certainly has a ton of kit lenses, but there are quite a few beauties (including zooms) mixed in. There are two very nice normal zooms, both f2.8, and both as good as any DSLR f2.8 normal zoom, if not better - several reviews prefer the Olympus 12-40 optically over the 2 lb Nikkor 24-70, which inexcusably omits any form of stabilization. There is a world-class macro lens that weighs 6 ozs (usefully stabilized on the right body). There are a couple of short tele zooms, although telephoto is the biggest weakness of the system. There is a pro-grade ultrawide zoom (much smaller than any equivalent in another system), which unfortunately has a compatibility problem with the bodies it might go best with. I don't know much about the nice collection of fast primes (other than that it's there), because I don't tend to shoot those lenses. I'd say that, of the 40+ m43 lenses, there might be 10-15 exceptional optics, covering about the same range as the Fuji system, and including everything you'd find in a good DSLR system except the $3000+ long and fast lenses. Fuji covers about the same needs with fewer redundant choices, because they don't have Olympus and Panasonic versions of similar lenses, but doesn't have the lower-quality lenses that are cheaper for occasional use (or serve some odd need, where the other option is no lens at all). The best example of this is the mid-grade Panasonic 100-300 zoom - it's no pro lens (about equivalent to a Nikon VR ED or Canon IS USM 70-300 in the same price range), but what else has 600mm reach in a 1 lb package? I'd love to see a high-quality version of THAT lens (Canon has a variable-aperture 70-300 L that is roughly the same size as other 70-300s, but higher quality, so a pro-grade variable aperture telezoom is a possibility).
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 616


« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2013, 12:13:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I would suggest that many of the problems are overstated.

+1

and for the OP's nature and macro use, the loss of AF and the hazards of not having PerfectlyParallelPlanes in the adapters are grossly overstated.  There are many stellar lenses one can use on the a7 and a7r with adapters.  Wean yourself off the AF addiction and have some fun.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1090


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2013, 02:28:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I think sony rushed the A7(r).

I guess if you want a bargain 30 something megapixels and shoot everything pretty much stationary it's fine, probably good . . . but I think this is being sold more as a bargain leica than a replacement for a D800.

When It was announced I was excited.  An omd size camera that was full frame, had video capabilities but then I thought, oh, yea it's Sony so there has to be a blank space in their somewhere.

So the reviews on all lenses, sony and adapted lenses is slow to creeping slow with autofocus.

35 mpx doesn't mean much if  focus is missed.

Then there is the fact that the focus points don't cover the frame anymore than a standard dslr and low light focusing is out.

I kind of don't get that because the Olympus and the Panasonic will work in virtual darkness and the Olympus focus points cover about 80% of the frame the panasonic about 90%.

Also you don't have touch screen to adjust or pull focus on the Sony like you to the olympus and the Panasonic.

So I guess I kind of miss the point of this camera.  For the money if you need high megapixels it's not that much more to go with the Nikon d800 and have reliable focusing and a much more useable camera.

The weight won't matter much if you carry some lenses, because fast full frame 35mm lenses are big, no matter who makes them, so the body becomes secondary in weight.

It's not just autofocus, I manually focus a lot of cameras, the Olympus being the easiest, modern dslrs from Nikon and Canon the most difficult, but Sony seems to have negated the value of a evf if it doesn't cover more focus points, the lenses aren't lighter and manual to autofocus is hobbled, especially in low light.

I know most people won't compare a 4/3 camera to full frame, but working the Olympus and panasonic the only issues I have with them is after around 1,600 iso they get kind of painterly looking, if you kill track noise.

Though most cameras, even the 5d3 and 1dx gets a lot of softening applied over 1,000 iso, so no camera I've worked doesn't loose detail at higher isos.

For video the A7)r) is under the gh3 in specs and I'd be really surprised if it's more usable in video.  Today I'm editing a sequence  from Paris where the subjects walk parallel from behind a building, cross the street, make a 90 degree turn, walk at a different pace, then cross the street towards the camera.

I use a 100 to 300mm F4 to 5.6 pana lens on the gh3, not the fastest lens in the world and it held focus regardless of people crossing in front of the lens, cars passing, street signs in the way and it held on the faces.

If I had shot that manual focus I'm almost positive I would have had to cut it to a two or three shot.

I think we all know sony can make just about anything, but for some reason this camera seemed to come out rushed or held back. 

For some this camera probably will be great and I hope I'm wrong and firmware fixes some of the issues, but until then I'll wait for version 2 or 3.

IMO

BC
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2013, 03:20:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I have no personal stake in whether or not the A7 & A7r succeed in the marketplace and/or as creative tools. I'm curious about the cameras but not really interested, if you get my drift. But I will say this: I use my cameras to take advantage of the qualities of my lenses, not the other way around. There's just no way I'd give up using, for example, my '60s Leitz 50mm Summicron just because a particular camera's sensor is capable of outresolving it. So what?! I love the way that lens makes things look...end of story.

Now I might check out the latest 50mm Summicron ASPH, or maybe the Zeiss 55mm Otus, as an additional tool to give me a different look. But not as a replacement.

Photographs are holistic objects, more than just collections of pixels on a screen or ink dots on a print.

-Dave-
Logged
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2013, 04:28:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I received my A7 this week and it's a joy to use. I bought the kit lens for occasional use (might as well have it at the price) but I'll mostly use my Zuiko and Rokkor manual lenses.

I've managed to try all of my lenses via adapters apart from my 24mm and so far I've been unable to detect any issues at all. Manual focus is a joy either with the magnified view or peaking and I personally have found peaking to be very accurate, I have mine set to high and white.

I have a Panasonic G1 and a 5D and since getting the G1 I've hardly used the Canon and so recently sold off most of my lenses just keeping three. I can see myself using the Sony from now on and so may very well sell of the rest of my Canon gear although I may keep the G1 as it'll use the same lenses as the Sony via adapters.

The Sony is a joy to use and I can only nit pick a few things to change...

1. Fully articulated screen.
2. A button for switching between EVF and screen or the ability to assign that function to a c button.
3. A "My Menu" you could load with option you want.
4. Move c2 as I struggle to find and press it.
5. In Body IS.

One thing that did strike me, the high ISO ability of this camera is simply amazing.

Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2013, 10:38:23 PM »
ReplyReply

     I find any lens over 50mm equivalent pretty much useless without stabilization except on a tripod (in the Northeast, where we're dealing with a lot of woods and relatively dark exposures - this would be radically different in Arizona). I can almost guarantee that, handheld on a long hike, running the ISO up high enough to overcome a lack of stabilization will be worse than any competently stabilized camera. I also won't take any non-weathersealed camera out on a hike of any significant distance (long enough that I don't know the weather straight through at the beginning).
    For my use, that would leave the Sony with very limited lens selection - of course this varies tremendously with what you're doing - some photographers shoot one lens, and if that happens to be a focal length where there is a Zeiss prime available, and you don't care about the stabilization, it's the best camera in the world (unless that's its close relative, the RX1). I guess I'm just disappointed that there wasn't more versatility in the initial lineup. They got so much right that it is a shame to have the lens selection so screwy. It is so close to being a dream camera for backcountry landscape...
     If the Zeiss zoom proves to be a great lens, and they get out a similarly competent (and relatively compact) ultrawide zoom plus a macro lens, I'll rethink a lot of my skepticism. I know long glass will always be a weak point on FF - the laws of physics say it's going to be really heavy, and exotics like mirror lenses or diffractive lenses never quite live up to their promise... If the Sony gets lenses for 70-80% of my needs, and they aren't horribly heavy, I'll think about it really seriously.

                                       -Dan
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586



« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2013, 05:14:16 AM »
ReplyReply

- the D3x and especially the D800(e) are notorious for being extremely picky about lenses. I have used both extensively, and I never found a zoom I really liked on the 800e (even the 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor wasn't quite up to the sensor).


Dan


I have to ask how you can know that?

I moved to the D800 and D800e from a D3s and what I can say, without any fear of contradiction, is that all my lenses (including the Nikkor 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 "holy trinity") perform significantly better on the D800(e) machines than on the D3s. What I cannot know, of course, is whether any limit on image quality is being placed there by the lens or by the sensor. All that I (or anyone else) can see is the quality being produced by a particular sensor/lens combination. And all I can really say is what I started with - that those lenses, in combination with a D800 or D800e, produce better results than they did with a D3s (or D700).

As always, I will add the caveat that I make those judgements from the perspective of my standard photographic output - which is basically A3 prints for salon and competition purposes (albeit those prints may be from down to 20% of the original frame). I don't make huge posters, so cannot comment from that perspective.

What the sensors of the Nikon D800(e) show up tend to be limitations in user technique rather than limitations in lenses. I rather imagine (but can only imagine) that something similar might apply to the Sony A7(r).
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 05:19:52 AM by PhotoEcosse » Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2013, 05:43:31 AM »
ReplyReply

You'll likely get better optical performance with SLR lenses and an adaptor than native lenses esp at the wider end. Being so close to the sensor is a challenge (and a big one) for optics.

There are lots of considerations here, I personally see the A7's being picked up by "some" as an additional body. I really can't see Canikon users giving up their flash system, AF, and dedicated bodies in a complete system change. Depends on your subject and type of shooting, landscape fine few would care about AF here. For events, weddings and working shooters including sports etc, not a hope this will meet their needs.

You have to decide what you want, personally I think mirrorless has been overstated and isn't as mainstream as some think it is.
Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.
Full frame, uncertain how things pan out, but whilst I love full frame in some ways, for the vast majority of people it's not worth the asking price (right now)
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2013, 11:24:48 AM »
ReplyReply

and isn't as mainstream as some think it is.
mainstream is one consumer level body + 1-2 kit lens and no external flash... that is what mainstream is (P&S and cell phones not counted)... unless you are talking about FF sensor users.

Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
there are cameras below E-M1 with the same sensor and same AF...

APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.
when the was the last time you actually took the official (from manufacturer) sensor specs and compared the actual (not who knows where it camer from wikipedia sizes) size of imaging area in APS-C sensors and 43/m43 sensors ? specifically for Canon APS-C  Grin
Logged
Herbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2013, 11:45:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a A7r on order, should be in soon.  I found that the weight and size of my D800E was a drawback on shooting for me.

keep in mind I am 77, poor closeup eyeseight, and don't mind tripods.  As Brett Weston said: anything more than 100 yds from the car is not worth shooting.

I will hang on to the D800E and my big collection of Nikon and Zeiss ZF 2  lenses, but for getting off my duff and doing some around town shooting, the small camera is a real plus.  Nikon really needs to make a FF camera with EVF and a tilt out lcd.  Makes serious focusing way easier.

Sony will do well with their stuff, but they won't run Canikon out of business.  Room for all.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1090


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2013, 02:25:23 PM »
ReplyReply


You have to decide what you want, personally I think mirrorless has been overstated and isn't as mainstream as some think it is.
Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.
Full frame, uncertain how things pan out, but whilst I love full frame in some ways, for the vast majority of people it's not worth the asking price (right now)

I don't know what other profesisonals use, don't care, but our work has changed, especially for lifestyle advertising.

Consumers are wise to the over manicured cg look of products.  Car photos and cosmetics all look cg and nobody believes that their honda is going to look the website photo in their driveway.

The 43 system I bought for some faster video, faster than the RED ones', but I use the olympus because it's the same lens set and I can keep a continuous look for campaigns.

Also I just like it and probably will buy an em1 and no I don't think it's overpriced.  In fact it has better focus and usability than the Sony and I've shot my em-5 at 2000 iso, my 1dx (which is the king of high iso) at 4000 and they look virtually identical, which is a good comparison because you can open up 43 two stops to pull the same focus as a full frame camera.

Anyway today we shoot the  "real" look in still and motion and what the smaller cameras allow is getting in lower angles, small corners, using car mounts that are one axis and gaff tape rather than large 3 axis mounts, etc. etc.

Also we take a lot of equipment, but today we work fast, use leds, kinos law draw hmi vs. flash and grip trucks with 5 swings.  Today everyone has to multitask.

This (with the gh3)


Vs. this a few years ago where everything is constructed and shot with a 1ds3 (I think).


I think this style is a blowback to the twitter/facebook/instigram look and the fact that all the metrics I'm furnished state that nobody believes advertising anymore.

Maybe they never did, but now they're use to seeing published images that look "real" even if real is made to look real.

In other words we shoot more eggleston, less Avedon, if that makes sense and the A7 isn't really the electronic version of a lecia, it's more a electronic version of medium format camera.  Slower focus, more time per image.

For some it's great, for me not today, but i change my mind a lot.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 02:28:10 PM by bcooter » Logged

scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2013, 04:01:18 PM »
ReplyReply

     I find any lens over 50mm equivalent pretty much useless without stabilization except on a tripod (in the Northeast, where we're dealing with a lot of woods and relatively dark exposures - this would be radically different in Arizona). I can almost guarantee that, handheld on a long hike, running the ISO up high enough to overcome a lack of stabilization will be worse than any competently stabilized camera. I also won't take any non-weathersealed camera out on a hike of any significant distance (long enough that I don't know the weather straight through at the beginning).

I think the A7/R is weather sealed isn't it?

Regarding exposure and lenses over 50mm, I think you're possibly painting too dark a picture (groan...) I don't exactly live in the tropics (northern England) and yet have managed to get perfectly sharp images from my recent camera and unstabilised lens of choice - MFT and 50mm which would equate to 100mm on an A7.

Of course without IS you may need to up the ISO in lower light but it may still be worth it depending upon the performance of the sensor. What's IS worth? One stop? Two?
Logged
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2013, 04:04:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Choice is small and compact micro 4/3, with lots of lenses but a smaller sensor and their EM-1 is priced badly
APS-C mainstream for most be it DSLR or ILC systems, I think for most people this is the best compromise as prices are better and DOF control still good as well as decent low light.

There's lots of choice in MFT.

I've done extensive testing between MFT, APS-C and "FF" when I owned all three and I decided that the DoF differences between MFT and APS-C just weren't worth worrying about. There's next to no real world difference IMVHO.
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 334


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2013, 08:01:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure HOW weather sealed the Sonys are - they claim some level, but a D7100 and a D4 both claim weather sealing, yet one is much better sealed than the other. The E-M1 is sealed like a D4 (as is the Pentax K3), but Nikon and Canon won't seal anything less than a D4 or a 1D that well, to protect the profits on the big bodies. From the initial reports I'm reading on the Sonys (haven't physically seen one yet), they are more like a D7100?
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2013, 03:56:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would suggest that many of the problems are overstated. Sony and Zeiss are capable of making fine lenses and we are going to see third party lenses like Sigma Art series.


Agreed.  The entire premise to me at this point is to get the sensor better than any lens you can put on it, so the lens, whatever itís capabilities, isnít compromised by the sensor.  This idea of a sensor out resolving the glass has been thrown out with every sensor resolution increase since the 1Ds2, but to be honest if you really want to capture the nuance of a lens and avoid false color, over sampling seems to be the answer.

Additionally, as the sensors get better it is pushing the lens makers to improve the lenses.

While there most likely will come a time where we reach a point of little return, I think it may be more in the 50-80mp range than where we are now. (150 to 180mp on a MFDB)

I just shot the Nikon 14-24 on a Sony a7r and Iím impressed.  Sure technically according to some maybe the lens isnít quite up to the task, but the image was fantastic. It may be the one Nikon lens I keep as I migrate from my d800e kit to the Sony a7r.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2013, 05:16:09 PM »
ReplyReply

It may be the one Nikon lens I keep as I migrate from my d800e kit to the Sony a7r.

I noticed elsewhere you said "the Nikon sees a little use"; is that why you'll migrate to Sony a7r?
Logged
vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2013, 03:45:00 PM »
ReplyReply


I just shot the Nikon 14-24 on a Sony a7r and Iím impressed.  Sure technically according to some maybe the lens isnít quite up to the task, but the image was fantastic. It may be the one Nikon lens I keep as I migrate from my d800e kit to the Sony a7r.

Wayne,  what adapter did you use (Voightlander?) and how did you control aperture? 

Victor
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad