Which FF mirrorless

Brazo said:
I’ve just got a feeling the elite models weren’t affected by the rrod?
Click to expand...

Could be the case, I had the original 360 prior to that but again never had the issue. I sold that to get a Wii, got that out of my system and then took advantage of a sweet 50% trade in bonus in Gamestop on the Elite, pretty much got it for the Wii with a few controllers and games. Pity it's worth bugger all now as I have that gaming bug creeping back in, wouldn't mind a One or Ps4
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Hi Chris,

one of my other main interests is Hi-Fi and Sony was always seen as a 'joke' in terms of quality when comparing to products from companies like Linn, PT, Naim, Audio technica etc.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I can still recall the shocking and ear-opening day when I was able to compare a Quad amplifier driving Quad electrostatics, and a Naim amp driving them. I built a turntable (adapted from a Thorens) which I considered a bit better than a Linn. However, calling Sony a "joke" in comparison is rather like the exaggeration of those camera gear-heads who consider Canon sensors a joke compared to Nikon or Sony's. Linn and Naim were small companies who pushed the available technology that little bit further by using the almost heretical (in terms of engineering orthodoxy) experimental insights of extraordinarily talented engineers. That's very hard to duplicate in a huge diverse company like Sony. We should also take into account, in hifi, the differences in the oriental ear compared to the rather special British ear for sound quality.

A special problem area that digital camera technology has to deal with is a sophisticated amalgamation of computer software, digital electronics, analogue electronics, and the control of tiny powerful electric motors of rather diverse kinds, from electromagnetic to piezo-electric. I've seen from the inside the difficulties most large British engineering firms have with dealing with such diverse areas of technology. Each technological area has its own fiercely competitive management structure, and "collaboration" between them is hammered out by escalating disputes to levels of management so high and sophisticated that nobody is left round the table who understands any of the technological details.

I've no idea how Sony is organised or how they do it, but I've been impressed by how well they often (not always) manage to arrange fruitful intelligent collaboration between different technological domains, and how well they often (not always) handle innovation. When disruptively innovative technological changes are made available to a large established industry it's often the case that some of the top companies find the the necessary changes so organisationally, conceptually, and culturally difficult that they die instead of adapting. That happened when computer technology shifted from transistors to LSI and then again to VLSI. It happened in the camera industry in the shift from film to digital sensors. It's happening again in the shift from DSLR to mirrorless.

In other words I think it more likely that Sony will still be making top quality exchangeable lens cameras in twenty years than Canon or Nikon.



Even budget Hi-Fi such as Rega were far better quality in terms of engineering and sound quality.
Click to expand...
I can't comment on that, knowing nothing of Rega, or of Sony's budget hifi offerings.

Their TV's are also being criticised for poor quality components with offerings from Panasonic and Samsung being much better quality.
Click to expand...

They once were very good at TVs. I have heard that they no longer are. I know too little of that area to comment.

In engineering instruments again Sony is regarded as fairly poor quality with products from Mitutoyo being the Japanese standard in Metrology; so yes, our experiences are quite different.
Click to expand...

Interesting, since that is an area with very clearly defined and easily measurable standards of excellence. Again I confess to ignorance.

Interestingly there are a high number of people in Japan that believe Sony put a 'time switch' in their products that stop them working after a set length of time (a bit like Apple with their batteries) - I believe this is probably a myth but could be down to actual component failure.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of thing that can happen to any very large engineering company when the accountants and salesdroids acquire too much power. I do worry about the power that Sony's legal copyright and patent experts have exerted over some of their products. I'm still however an admiring fan of how they're managing to innovate and integrate the diverse technological domains involved in camera technology.

I currently have three film cameras that are over 35 years old that work flawlessly from Nikon and Rollei - the two Sony cameras I have owned developed faults after three years and were useless after five years.
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested in a comparison between your Sony cameras and Nikon and Rollei cameras of similar vintage, technology, and price range.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
.............:)

Ignore my views then but you can't ignore exploding batteries, laptops that just suddenly die, 'bugs' in firmware that stops products working..............hence the Japanese population have a mistrust of Sony products and they are desperately trying to stop that mistrust spreading to the rest of the world
Click to expand...

lol seriously....... :eek:
 
chris malcolm said:
I'd be more interested in a comparison between your Sony cameras and Nikon and Rollei cameras of similar vintage, technology, and price range.
Click to expand...

I bet my DSLRs have had more shots put through them (shutter count) in 3 years than all his film cameras combined in 35 years. Reliability isn't all about age, a camera sitting on the shelve and take 1 roll of film once a blue moon judged against a camera being shot 4,000 frames every weekend for 6 months of the year?

(quick back of the fag packet sums - when I sold the 5D3, they had around 320k shot between them, that over 30 years....roughly equate to 9,000 roll of film which means to even break even, you need to shoot a roll of 36 Monday to Friday every week without fail for 30 years to get to that number.)

So yes, I am pretty confident he won't have shot a roll of 36, 5 days a week for 30 years. Even halved that would be a lot of film and a lot of money.
 
Last edited:
chris malcolm said:
I know what you mean. I can still recall the shocking and ear-opening day when I was able to compare a Quad amplifier driving Quad electrostatics, and a Naim amp driving them. I built a turntable (adapted from a Thorens) which I considered a bit better than a Linn. However, calling Sony a "joke" in comparison is rather like the exaggeration of those camera gear-heads who consider Canon sensors a joke compared to Nikon or Sony's. Linn and Naim were small companies who pushed the available technology that little bit further by using the almost heretical (in terms of engineering orthodoxy) experimental insights of extraordinarily talented engineers. That's very hard to duplicate in a huge diverse company like Sony.
Click to expand...

:) Very interesting Chris; my first turntable was a Thorens; I now own the linn Sondek - love the rich warm sounds but probably not that 'accurate' in it's reproduction. In terms of the engineering, when I looked at sony turntables their engineering was pretty poor; they were using bronzed bushings rather than bearings, the tonearms flexed considerably and their direct drive motors had a lot of 'hum'.

In respect to the part I have put in bold from your post; I completely agree! Modern digital cameras are all pretty awesome at what they do and lets face it, these forums really do nit pick at the differences - most of which can be probably worked round by a very slight change in technique!

Like you, I have no idea how Sony is actually structured; is it small individual entities or just one giant company? I do believe it's financial sector is bigger than it's electronics. We all know and understand that a business has to make money and to be fair to them Sony are great innovators of technology but all this R & D needs to be paid for, likewise the frequent (for cameras) releases of new models will cost significant sums of money on the development of each model.

The Sony cameras have a fantastic spec sheet and great performance yet they appear to be able to 'undercut' the opposition on price. I know they make the sensors themselves but can't believe the likes of Nikon are paying over the odds for this part of their cameras. Likewise, several generations down the line for Sony I can't see them still providing loss leaders so the savings must be happening somewhere for them to remain profitable.

For some reason I got 'flamed' for posting this link yesterday:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7054587/The-myth-of-the-Sony-kill-switch.html

The article states that the Japanese think that Sony are so unreliable they have created a myth which some strongly believe! The myth is Sony products have a 'time kill switch' incorporated in them similar to the Apple products. Is their unreliability a result of cheap components? I don't know in respect to their cameras but the engineering in their Hi-Fi when I looked at it certainly wasn't the best.

Here is a quote from that article:
Daily Telegraph said:
Sony products are often avoided in Japan due to a genuine belief that they just don't last
Click to expand...

Daily Telegraph said:
Of course, the company is extremely keen to keep this rumour out of Europe, an area where its products’ reputation is still justifiably very good. But the legend is spreading across the internet, with Western tech forums being slowly flooded with horror stories of products breaking soon after warranties expire.
Click to expand...
.

N.B. - These are not my words; they are from an article published by someone else! I have linked it to show why I have concerns; it isn't just me beeing a 'Sony hater' there are numerous people talking about it in Sony's own back yard.


Raymond Lin said:
I bet my DSLRs have had more shots put through them (shutter count) in 3 years than all his film cameras combined in 35 years. Reliability isn't all about age, a camera sitting on the shelve and take 1 roll of film once a blue moon judged against a camera being shot 4,000 frames every weekend for 6 months of the year?

(quick back of the fag packet sums - when I sold the 5D3, they had around 320k shot between them, that over 30 years....roughly equate to 9,000 roll of film which means to even break even, you need to shoot a roll of 36 Monday to Friday every week without fail for 30 years to get to that number.)

So yes, I am pretty confident he won't have shot a roll of 36, 5 days a week for 30 years. Even halved that would be a lot of film and a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Raymond 'two card' Lin - see, here you go again making wild assumptions - you have no idea about what or how I use camera gear!
 
Last edited:
I'd not thought Sony hifi was ever classed as true hifi.

Same league as Technics maybe but not on the same playing field as NAD or Cambridge Audio (not to everyone's taste I know).
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I'd not thought Sony hifi was ever classed as true hifi.

Same league as Technics maybe but not on the same playing field as NAD or Cambridge Audio (not to everyone's taste I know).
Click to expand...

TBH Technics (Panasonic) were much better engineered than the Sony offerings - their Direct drive turntables were extremely good for DJ use and compared favourable to other turntables in their price bracket.
 
I've never had anything by Sony fail before it simply became obselete, maybe I'm lucky? Or maybe this whataboutery is just selection bias.
 
Cagey75 said:
Could be the case, I had the original 360 prior to that but again never had the issue. I sold that to get a Wii, got that out of my system and then took advantage of a sweet 50% trade in bonus in Gamestop on the Elite, pretty much got it for the Wii with a few controllers and games. Pity it's worth bugger all now as I have that gaming bug creeping back in, wouldn't mind a One or Ps4
Click to expand...
shame just sold my one for £260 to CEX
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Raymond 'two card' Lin - see, here you go again making wild assumptions - you have no idea about what or how I use camera gear!
Click to expand...

LOL, you either have shot 9000 rolls of film or you haven't. It's not an assumption, it's just a yes or no answer.

Give up Fraser, and by calling people names you have lowered yourself to Trump territory.

Your debating methods is like many forum trolls everywhere, when the facts don't support you, you go onto little things like English grammar, hit them where it hurts eh? then name calling. Grow up.
 
Last edited:
This thread has massively gone sideways lol.
My advice is to try out the Sony A7 III and all its features... Eye-AF is a very useful tool.
I wouldn’t worry about reliability, I have owned 7 Sony bodies to date and neither have failed or self-destructed to the point I felt like they were unreliable :)
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
shame just sold my one for £260 to CEX
Click to expand...

Which console? CEX don't tend to offer great cash amounts, or did you take a voucher?

Riz_Guru said:
This thread has massively gone sideways lol.
My advice is to try out the Sony A7 III and all its features... Eye-AF is a very useful tool.
I wouldn’t worry about reliability, I have owned 7 Sony bodies to date and neither have failed or self-destructed to the point I felt like they were unreliable :)
Click to expand...

Aye, sure let's turn this one into a Sony thread too ... :rolleyes:

:p
 
Raymond Lin said:
LOL, you either have shot 9000 rolls of film or you haven't. It's not an assumption, it's just a yes or no answer.

Give up Fraser, and by calling people names you have lowered yourself to Trump territory.

Your debating methods is like many forum trolls everywhere, when the facts don't support you, you go onto little things like English grammar, hit them where it hurts eh? then name calling. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Guessing he is calling me names
 
Fraser Euan White said:
The Sony cameras have a fantastic spec sheet and great performance yet they appear to be able to 'undercut' the opposition on price. I know they make the sensors themselves but can't believe the likes of Nikon are paying over the odds for this part of their cameras. Likewise, several generations down the line for Sony I can't see them still providing loss leaders so the savings must be happening somewhere for them to remain profitable.
Click to expand...

Mirrorless are cheaper to manufacture than traditional DSLR as they remove the costly precision pentaprism assembly (and we know it's costly, because all the DSLR manufacturers, including Sony when they made DSLR, use pentamirror units in their lower end models to keep the cost low.

Sony are also on their 3rd gen FF cameras - their cameras are evolutions of their previous models, which helps reduce costs - hence Sony can 'undercut' traditional DSLR because manufacturing is cheaper, and 'undercut' the new Canon and Nikon Mirrorless because they are selling an evolution, rather than brand new ground up model.

As for sensor costs - I don't know, but as far as Sony as a whole is concerned, if a FF sensor costs £100, and the rest of the camera £500 (this are arbitrary numbers, btw, I've no idea how much they actually cost to manufacture), and Sony and Nikon both want to make 30% profit (another arbitrary number, the numbers are just to help explain), then Sony Sensors can either
A) Sell sensors to Nikon and Sony Camera for £130
Nikon then sells cameras for £130 + £500 = £630 + 30% = £819
Sony Camera sells for £130 + (£500 + 30%) = 500 = £780 - AS Sony OVERALL has already made the 30% profit on the sensor, so doesn't need to add it on again
B) Sell sensors to Nikon for £130, but to Sony Camera for £100
The Nikon still costs £819, the Sony now costs £600 + 30% = £780 - again, the Sony undercuts the Nikon.

So how can Sony 'undercut' Canon - again, there's a simple possible explanation - which is that as Sony is the largest global manufacturer of imaging sensors, it will have economies of scale, meaning it costs Sony less to manufacture a sensor than Canon - so allowing Sony to 'undercut' Canon and still make a proffit.

Obviously, I don't have any inside knowledge of the specific numbers involved, but it's clear that it is perfectly possible for the apparent price advantage of Sony to be down to it's dominance of the sensor market - making it's costs effectively less than both it's big rivals.
 
Raymond Lin said:
If you shoot people...Sony A73.

Actually, A73 period.

Because the others you can’t get native 35/85 lenses on them and if you are started from scratch, don’t buy an adaptor and get an old EF or F mount for the new R or Z bodies.

Get a Sony A73, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4.
Click to expand...


A7R III.

Don't forget the R.

Better res, better viewfinder.

And Sony only because it is finally considered stable in the 3rd generation. The rest are beta test kit so far.

Some of us are sticking with good old dSLRs for now.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Can I ask why you actually want a FF mirrorless?

Personally I would go for a Leica M series - amazing lenses for what you want.
Click to expand...

Tripple or quadruple cost and no autofocus is a big deal for most of us. Same way I can't bring an industrial printer home in a ferrari even if I ever had one!
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Tripple or quadruple cost and no autofocus is a big deal for most of us. Same way I can't bring an industrial printer home in a ferrari even if I ever had one!
Click to expand...

Can't really argue against cost but if you are seriously buying a 'system' to last a lifetime you can be assured the Leica lenses (probably body as well) would do this. (I think if we look at several people on the 'gear forums' who have switched from one system to another then the costs wouldn't be massively different - maybe wrong?)

Autofocus - agree for some it really is useful but I'm still in the camp where I reckon I can focus my MF Nikon as quickly for most scenarios. By the time you have set focus modes and focus points the Leica shooter has probably captured some great pics!

Landscape/street/portrait I would say autofocus isn't necessary but we all work in different ways.
 
Last edited:
Faldrax said:
Mirrorless are cheaper to manufacture than traditional DSLR as they remove the costly precision pentaprism assembly (and we know it's costly, because all the DSLR manufacturers, including Sony when they made DSLR, use pentamirror units in their lower end models to keep the cost low.

Sony are also on their 3rd gen FF cameras - their cameras are evolutions of their previous models, which helps reduce costs - hence Sony can 'undercut' traditional DSLR because manufacturing is cheaper, and 'undercut' the new Canon and Nikon Mirrorless because they are selling an evolution, rather than brand new ground up model.

As for sensor costs - I don't know, but as far as Sony as a whole is concerned, if a FF sensor costs £100, and the rest of the camera £500 (this are arbitrary numbers, btw, I've no idea how much they actually cost to manufacture), and Sony and Nikon both want to make 30% profit (another arbitrary number, the numbers are just to help explain), then Sony Sensors can either
A) Sell sensors to Nikon and Sony Camera for £130
Nikon then sells cameras for £130 + £500 = £630 + 30% = £819
Sony Camera sells for £130 + (£500 + 30%) = 500 = £780 - AS Sony OVERALL has already made the 30% profit on the sensor, so doesn't need to add it on again
B) Sell sensors to Nikon for £130, but to Sony Camera for £100
The Nikon still costs £819, the Sony now costs £600 + 30% = £780 - again, the Sony undercuts the Nikon.

So how can Sony 'undercut' Canon - again, there's a simple possible explanation - which is that as Sony is the largest global manufacturer of imaging sensors, it will have economies of scale, meaning it costs Sony less to manufacture a sensor than Canon - so allowing Sony to 'undercut' Canon and still make a proffit.

Obviously, I don't have any inside knowledge of the specific numbers involved, but it's clear that it is perfectly possible for the apparent price advantage of Sony to be down to it's dominance of the sensor market - making it's costs effectively less than both it's big rivals.
Click to expand...

Completely agree Jonathan - economies of scale may well be in favour of Sony.

When I stated about undercutting I was referring to the new mirrorless options from their competitors, mirrorless for the reasons you explain are cheaper and simpler to manufacturer and this is one of the reasons why it will be the future.

Although their cameras are 'evolutionary' they have impressively managed to produce a very good product in a relatively short space of time - this must have cost some serious development money that needs to be re-couped before profits are made.

Anyway - it is all speculation as there won't be many that know the finances/strategies of any company.
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Autofocus - agree for some it really is useful but I'm still in the camp where I reckon I can focus my MF Nikon as quickly for most scenarios. By the time you have set focus modes and focus points the Leica shooter has probably captured some great pics!
Click to expand...

Utter b****x.
Autofocus is set up how I like to use it the day I buy the camera. When I need to use the camera, I pick it up and use it. I’ll have rattled off 10 shotswhile the Leica user is still polishing his lcd screen.

I was a late adopter of AF, for me it had to ‘just work’ and be at least as good as I was at focussing. And for me with decent Canon lenses and bodies, that was 20 years ago.

The idea most of us swap focussing modes constantly is a joke. The camera is set up to just work.

It’s like suggesting s 1980s Golf GT I will beat a new Porsche because the driver of the modern car will take an age to set up the launch control and suspension modes.
 
Last edited:
You can swap focusing modes between shots, can change the mode without moving the camera from your eye. You can literally have AF-On with 1 mode and AEL with another, hold while shoot, 2 different modes. Change between them in the time you can blink.
 
Phil V said:
Utter b****x.
Autofocus is set up how I like to use it the day I buy the camera. When I need to use the camera, I pick it up and use it. I’ll have rattled off 10 shotswhile the Leica user is still polishing his lcd screen.

I was a late adopter of AF, for me it had to ‘just work’ and be at least as good as I was at focussing. And for me with decent Canon lenses and bodies, that was 20 years ago.

The idea most of us swap focussing modes constantly is a joke. The camera is set up to just work.

It’s like suggesting s 1980s Golf GT I will beat a new Porsche because the driver of the modern car will take an age to set up the launch control and suspension modes.
Click to expand...
What are focussing modes :D
 
I use single point mode almost always, the other times I'm manual focusing, and I can do that quicker and more precise for macro where you have about 2mm DOF
 
Phil V said:
Utter b****x.
Autofocus is set up how I like to use it the day I buy the camera. When I need to use the camera, I pick it up and use it. I’ll have rattled off 10 shotswhile the Leica user is still polishing his lcd screen.

I was a late adopter of AF, for me it had to ‘just work’ and be at least as good as I was at focussing. And for me with decent Canon lenses and bodies, that was 20 years ago.

The idea most of us swap focussing modes constantly is a joke. The camera is set up to just work.

It’s like suggesting s 1980s Golf GT I will beat a new Porsche because the driver of the modern car will take an age to set up the launch control and suspension modes.
Click to expand...


Steady Phil!

I switch focusing modes and also switch focus points when using my DSLR.

For Landscape/Portrait/Street use I prefer to manually focus and think my film camera with a focusing screen designed for MF is everybit as quick TBH - by the time I have moved focus point or re-composed the image I could have focused a lens manually.

Do you really believe autofocus is needed for Landscape or Portrait photography?

For Motorsport I find AF very useful - like I said we are all different - amatuers may well not have the 'familiarity' with their gear like @Raymond Lin & yourself have so takes us longer adjusting modes/focus point - I know you personally say you don't change this but many do.

In respect to Raymonds reply - I also don't have to take the camera from my eye when using my F3, I also don't have to move a focus point or re-compose - I just turn the barrel of a lens a very short distance; takes less than a couple of tenths of seconds usually - about the time it takes to find the joystick on my DSLR, let alone moving it accross the numerous focus points to where I want it! (Or AFL or back button etc)

Focus tracking though - different story for me where AF wins everytime.
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Can't really argue against cost but if you are seriously buying a 'system' to last a lifetime you can be assured the Leica lenses (probably body as well) would do this. (I think if we look at several people on the 'gear forums' who have switched from one system to another then the costs wouldn't be massively different - maybe wrong?)

Autofocus - agree for some it really is useful but I'm still in the camp where I reckon I can focus my MF Nikon as quickly for most scenarios. By the time you have set focus modes and focus points the Leica shooter has probably captured some great pics!

Landscape/street/portrait I would say autofocus isn't necessary but we all work in different ways.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure about the longevity of the latest digital leica's. The guts are all fragile electronics, and probably no different to your average panasonic. The connections and storage will be obsolete before even the last 35mm roll of film is sold. Firewire and CDs are great examples how quickly the tech age. The glass will last for ages.

While I would agree landscapes and architecture can be easily done with manual focus particularly with wider lenses, I wouldn't be so confident from 70mm onwards. I don't think you have any over 90mm on leica and that is a real shame. I frequently reach for 200 or even 400mm.

I certainly wouldn't be confident using MF for portraits. Tiny bit out of focus image is basically good for the trash. It is quick too unless the settings as long as you keep the defaults quite universal (just like ISO, aperture and so on - no good if you set ISO100 f/16 and it is dim and you want split second snap)
 
LongLensPhotography said:
While I would agree landscapes and architecture can be easily done with manual focus particularly with wider lenses, I wouldn't be so confident from 70mm onwards. I don't think you have any over 90mm on leica and that is a real shame. I frequently reach for 200 or even 400mm.
Click to expand...


First post from the OP...........

AndrewSt said:
Now in a position to purchase a new camera and not currently heavily invested in any system.

Wanting FF as I often shoot with a narrow DOF, and most of my shots are between 35 and 85mm. Don't need long lenses for sports or wildlife.

Which way would you go given the current choices and why?
Click to expand...

I did suggest the Leica option before the OP stated his interest is in the Sony system so, TBH I am only replying to answer points raised by other people in respect to using a Rangefinder.

The Leica is incredibly expensive but if you are looking at building a system to last a lifetime then there is fun to be had slowly building a system from Leica as the years go by..........owning a Leica is more than owning just a camera IMO but I appreciate again people have different viewpoints on this.

(I don't own a Leica but would love to!)
 
Last edited:
Fraser Euan White said:
Do you really believe autofocus is needed for Landscape or Portrait photography?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe autofocus is needed for anything. ;)
But I also believe I’m quicker and better at focussing an AF camera with AF than by manually focussing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top