The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

they could add it to a mount cameras too but that would require some effort

that 85 comparison with the Nikon is amusing too, the Nikon would be longer in size, but only by a couple of cm I guess (camera plus lens)
 
pingu666 said:
they could add it to a mount cameras too but that would require some effort

that 85 comparison with the Nikon is amusing too, the Nikon would be longer in size, but only by a couple of cm I guess (camera plus lens)
Click to expand...

Amusing how?
 
twist said:
How do they do that? It's not a fair comparison, the 1.4 would naturally be bigger/heavier.

A much better comparison is the Nikon 1.8g.

3.1 in. (80 mm) x 2.9 in. (73 mm)
350g
£349

Sigmas primes are a real bargain so are the Nikkor 1.8g range.
Click to expand...

Hmmm well, fair enough on the aperture point even accepting that I don't see anything too unfair about comparing a lens I used to own to one I could potentially own now :D

I still think that for a quality lens, although that's yet to be proved, they've done well to keep both the size and the weight down as a good lens tends to be bigger and heavier these days as we're seen with recent ART's and others. The Canon 85mm f1.8 weighs 425g but AFAIK it's a budget lens as is the Nikon and hopefully this Zeiss is aiming a little higher. I think the Zeiss will have to good to justify the price.
 
Last edited:
Rizvan said:
I wouldnt expect the A7R II to offer any significant leaps, most likely the same uplift in specification like the A7 to A7II.
Lets see if Sony will surprise us.
I think the Sony A9 will be the next big thing for FE, probably towards end of the year :)
Interesting times......
Click to expand...

I've read criticism's of the A7 series sensors more than once, apparently they're not the best Sony has and if that's true it raises the question of why not? Maybe there are licencing agreements with whoever Sony sells their best chips to which prevent Sony from using them in their own products. Whatever. It'd be nice to have this criticism killed off by Sony using their best chips in their own range of cameras.
 
woof woof said:
Hmmm well, fair enough on the aperture point even accepting that I don't see anything too unfair about comparing a lens I used to own to one I could potentially own now :D

I still think that for a quality lens, although that's yet to be proved, they've done well to keep both the size and the weight down as a good lens tends to be bigger and heavier these days as we're seen with recent ART's and others. The Canon 85mm f1.8 weighs 425g but AFAIK it's a budget lens as is the Nikon and hopefully this Zeiss is aiming a little higher. I think the Zeiss will have to good to justify the price.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 85 1.8g has a budget price, as far as IQ is concerned its one of the best scoring lenses on DXO mark. Its ridiculously good value for money.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-mounted-on-Nikon-D800E__814

Obviously its not an 85 but in comparison...

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18
 
Last edited:
In time I hope we get lenses like that and in that price range too but at the moment there's little sign that we will.

As I've said here many times, Sony seem to be aiming at the top end of the market and although that's very nice and laudable personally I don't need kit which is aiming to be amongst the very best mass market stuff on sale.

The reason I reference Sigma kit so much is that's mostly what I used on my Canon DSLR's. The Sigma lenses I had were superb but quite reasonably priced and to be honest I wouldn't need better than a Sigma 50mm or 85mm f1.4 or even their 20mm f1.8. Other excellent Siggy lenses I had included the 30mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8 and 12-24mm. All good lenses and I'd be very happy to see Sony lenses of that quality and in those respective price ranges.

I can't see it happening any time soon. Maybe if the range really takes off and eclipses Canon and Nikon, maybe then we'll see more lenses from Sony and even Sigma at cheaper prices.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Amusing how?
Click to expand...

alot of people buying into the oh its small and light and wonderful which it is at say sub 70mm, but above that the lenses haven't really been smaller or lighter than slr lenses

I'm also a bitter a mount user
 
pingu666 said:
alot of people buying into the oh its small and light and wonderful which it is at say sub 70mm, but above that the lenses haven't really been smaller or lighter than slr lenses

I'm also a bitter a mount user
Click to expand...

Correct, the lenses need to cope with a FF image circle, to do that they need to be bigger. Nothing they can do will change that and thats exactly why they are sticking with F4 zooms.
 
twist said:
Correct, the lenses need to cope with a FF image circle, to do that they need to be bigger. Nothing they can do will change that and thats exactly why they are sticking with F4 zooms.
Click to expand...
I imagine they will make larger lenses for a pro body e mount
 
pingu666 said:
alot of people buying into the oh its small and light and wonderful which it is at say sub 70mm, but above that the lenses haven't really been smaller or lighter than slr lenses

I'm also a bitter a mount user
Click to expand...

I suspect that's at least party due to Sony aiming more at the quality end of the market.

Even allowing for focal length, aperture and image circle there's a tendency for quality lenses to be bigger and heavier as more exotic glass, more lens elements and "quality" build often lead to more bulk and weight.
 
yeah there is that, but the advantages size wise disapear with longer focal lengths, at the moment
 
It depends, if you compare the Sony FE 70-200mm f4 OSS G with the Canon and Nikon f4 equivelents, isnt the Sony shorter and lighter? ;)
 
woof woof said:
I suspect that's at least party due to Sony aiming more at the quality end of the market.

Even allowing for focal length, aperture and image circle there's a tendency for quality lenses to be bigger and heavier as more exotic glass, more lens elements and "quality" build often lead to more bulk and weight.
Click to expand...

No, I dont think so, I still think the lenses are going to be the same or VERY similar to FF DSLR size and weight when they are the same spec.

Compare the 55mm 1.8, its big because of the extra elements vs say the Nikon 50 1.8g
Compare the new FE 85mm 1.8 to the Nikon 85mm 1.8g, its bigger and heavier because of elements and OSS

If those lenses had the exact same spec internals and build Id bet they would be the same sort of size and weight as the Nikkors.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
No, I dont think so, I still think the lenses are going to be the same or VERY similar to FF DSLR size and weight when they are the same spec.

Compare the 55mm 1.8, its big because of the extra elements vs say the Nikon 50 1.8g
Compare the new FE 85mm 1.8 to the Nikon 85mm 1.8g, its bigger and a lot heavier because of elements and OSS

If those lenses had the exact same spec internals Id bet they would be the same sort of size and weight as the Nikkors.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you :D

If they're the same spec (and you have to include some measure of quality/cost in that too) a mirrorless lens could be smaller if it's a design objective.

Personally I think that (other than the Sony 35mm f1.4 as it looks a bit big but I haven't looked at the spec or compared it to the Sigma ART, if here is one...) there's at least some evidence that Sony has tried to keep the size down and has arguably and to a degree succeeded.
 
woof woof said:
I've read criticism's of the A7 series sensors more than once, apparently they're not the best Sony has and if that's true it raises the question of why not? Maybe there are licencing agreements with whoever Sony sells their best chips to which prevent Sony from using them in their own products. Whatever. It'd be nice to have this criticism killed off by Sony using their best chips in their own range of cameras.
Click to expand...

It is strange however a lot of the comment appears to be that Sony's Image Processor isn't able to get the same results as Nikon seems able to extract with the same/similar Sony sensors (24mp/36mp)
 
woof woof said:
I'm not sure I follow you :D

If they're the same spec (and you have to include some measure of quality/cost in that too) a mirrorless lens could be smaller if it's a design objective.

Personally I think that (other than the Sony 35mm f1.4 as it looks a bit big but I haven't looked at the spec or compared it to the Sigma ART, if here is one...) there's at least some evidence that Sony has tried to keep the size down and has arguably and to a degree succeeded.
Click to expand...

Yes, the lens could be smaller than what they currently have if they lower spec but how much smaller than a FF dslr lens? Look at the 70-200 specs I posted.

I think as much as they try to keep it down its only ever going to be a few minor mm here and there where they feel they need to nip & tuck and thats going to be mostly with primes.

Another...

Sigma 35
Elements/Groups 13/11
77 x 94
665 g

Sony FE 35
Elements/Groups 12/8
78.5 x 112mm
630 g

Do you think the evidence points towards them succeeding?
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
It is strange however a lot of the comment appears to be that Sony's Image Processor isn't able to get the same results as Nikon seems able to extract with the same/similar Sony sensors (24mp/36mp)
Click to expand...

I think Sony are just holding back with their Bionz X Processor's :)
 
twist said:
Do you think the evidence points towards them succeeding?
Click to expand...

I'm an electronics engineer, or at least I was, not an optical/lens engineer :D but even so... to a degree, Yes.

These lenses are never going to be the size of MFT lenses or of Leica range finder lenses but looking at what's come out so far and the competition, not exact competition but roughly comparable or what isn't really all that comparable but at least exists :D Yes, I think that Sony are trying to limit the size. The choice of aperture alone with some of the lenses should show that and yes, I think that there is evidence of them succeeding... to a degree. Modern comparable quality 35mm AF lenses that are smaller than Sony/Zeiss lenses must be about as common as hens teeth.

Look at some of the Fuji lenses and they aren't even FF, anyway I haven't owned the Fuji's but I did own a couple of Canon EF-S lenses, I had the 10-20 and the 17-85 and both IMVHO were relatively poor lenses but the Sony 28-70mm is better than the 17-85mm as well as being AFAIK both smaller and lighter.

I'm pretty sure that if they gave size more weight (haha! see what I did there?) in the design proses they could make the lenses smaller and push what's possible with registration distance, AF and the image circle and I think that if they were prepared to compromise more on vignetting and all the rest of the technical quality they could reduce the size further but I guess that what they're doing at the moment is whilst trying to keep the size down also aiming towards the top of the market. I'd guess that cost is also a consideration and that you can't have small and top end quality and keep the cost reasonable. Not without Voodoo anyway.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Yes, the lens could be smaller than what they currently have if they lower spec but how much smaller than a FF dslr lens? Look at the 70-200 specs I posted.

I think as much as they try to keep it down its only ever going to be a few minor mm here and there where they feel they need to nip & tuck and thats going to be mostly with primes.

Another...

Sigma 35
Elements/Groups 13/11
77 x 94
665 g

Sony FE 35
Elements/Groups 12/8
78.5 x 112mm
630 g

Do you think the evidence points towards them succeeding?
Click to expand...

I think this is where crop/MFT can have an advantage.

Fujifilm 23/1.4:
Elements/Groups 11/8
72mm x 63mm
300g
 
dancook said:
Got some prints, one 30" x 20" and 18" x 12" from Sony A7S - looks great close up.
Click to expand...

Great stuff.

I'd not have doubted it for a second despite one quite vociferous and prolific poster on this forum insisting that you can't print from a 12mp camera.

I'm still averaging about one smallish print per week but nothing this week at all.
 
woof woof said:
Great stuff.

I'd not have doubted it for a second despite one quite vociferous and prolific poster on this forum insisting that you can't print from a 12mp camera.

I'm still averaging about one smallish print per week but nothing this week at all.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is a very good indication, a photo of a print :)

This is the full print A2

A2 Print by dancook1982, on Flickr

This is getting close to MFD of the 55m 1.8 lens to take a photo

A2 Print - Close Up by dancook1982, on Flickr

This last photo of the print was at ISO 500
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I've been reliably informed that you can't do that.

:D
Click to expand...

Well there's enough detail in there if you fill that area with your face! :D

The first photo is reference for the second really - since the first would be the size if you stood metres back
 
Last edited:
Wonder how people with the classic canon 5d manage to print big....

Point is you don't need 500mp sensor to print big
 
jonneymendoza said:
Wonder how people with the classic canon 5d manage to print big....

Point is you don't need 500mp sensor to print big
Click to expand...

The biggest I printed from my 12mp 5D was A3 and they're on someone's wall now. I do have several A3 prints from my 20D at home and that was 8mp. Of course you can print as big as you want from any file, the only questions are how you view (from what distance) and what quality is acceptable. All I can say is that for me my 8mp 20D pictures when printed to A3 and framed and on the wall are IMVHO as good as or indeed better than my 35mm prints. I say better because at least with the 20D I could correct vignetting and paint out things I didn't want in shot easily :D
 
Whilst not Sony kit, I shot this portrait on my old 40D with a single flash/soft box in the clients' conservatory :0)

View attachment 36008

And this is it printed 30x20 on their wall when I went back to shoot their younger son;

View attachment 36009

You don't always need the latest sensor to print big unless someone is inspecting it with a magnifying glass.

Edit: That's not taking anything away from your shot Dan where I can see the benefit of newer sensor
Tech showing excellent close up detail. Looks like an interesting shot to go on the wall too.
 
Last edited:
So... who's getting one of the Batis thingemyjigs?

I must admit that although I like my manual lenses I am tempted to get the recently introduced 28mm f2 and this new Batty 85mm f1.8.

I thought I'd read somewhere that Sony was imminently going to announce a 85mm or maybe I saw it on a rumour roadmap? Whatever... I'd expect a manufacturer to have a 85mm f1.something in their line up so I'd be surprised if Sony didn't announce one but I read in another place that the Sony lens that's been seen (or rumoured to have been seen) out in the world being testes was actually this Batty and that Sony and Zeiss may be in a cooperate and don't compete sort of arrangement like Panasonic and Olympus were in or seemed to be in (as they seemed to introduce lenses to alternatively fill out the prime lens range, although they did have competing "kit" lenses and do now seem to be introducing similar primes.)

So, does anyone think that Sony will introduce a 85mm f1.x sometime soon or is the Batty 85mm f1.8 all we are getting for the foreseeable? And... anyone tempted to buy the 25 or 85mm?

One thing that dies cross my mind is the OLED display. I do wonder what the expected life of this thing will be, exposed as it is, and if it would have been better to just have the info displayed in the EVF. The worst case scenario will be a lot of warranty repairs or ebay listings stating "OLED cloudy / not readable."

On the positive side I have an old LCD clock which although discoloured now is still working (but I have fixed it a couple of times - dry joints) and readable after over 30 years use.
 
Last edited:
Yep, I think there's probably quite a bit of cooperation going on but I still wonder if Sony will introduce a 85mm which is either cheaper or more expensive (a cheapo f1.8 or an expensive f1.4 or even f1.2???) than the Batty and therefore not directly competing as such. Not that I want to pay more but I'd very possibly consider a cheaper 85mm than the Batty.
 
Last edited:
Sony & Zeiss are very closely working together, doubt they will double up and compete with each other.
I am probably going to get the Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 but will see how good it is.
It won't be a cheap lens, I am guessing £1199.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top