FF NEX would personally be the Holly Grail of cameras for me.
If the A99 (or whatever it will be called) allowed for similar alt lens use with either a translucent mirror that could be flipped up or if fully mirrorless then I would consider that it as well.
douglasf13 wrote:
The A99 is rumored to have an improved EVF, and, although there are certainly advantages to a good OVF, it's hard to argue against the advantages of an EVF when it comes to manual focusing adapted lenses, because of image magnification and peaking.
I just can't trust peaking yet.. sometimes it's close but not really that accurate. After missing several shots I just use magnification everytime I MF.
yes, magnification is great but so far l MF with my NEX slower than MF with my D700.
ytwong wrote:
I just can't trust peaking yet.. sometimes it's close but not really that accurate. After missing several shots I just use magnification everytime I MF.
yes, magnification is great but so far l MF with my NEX slower than MF with my D700.
i find peaking to be more accurate than any of the stock screens on current FF dslrs for fast lenses, but it's still not accurate enough for me to count on at apertures wider than f/2. if i'm shooting fast moving action at those apertures i have to either bracket (the only thing 10fps is good for) or zoom in and manually focus trap.
douglasf13 wrote:
It would need to be an LA-EA3, because I don't believe the first two models pass a 35mm image circle.
Right that's why I suggested an A99 setup all based on full frame components. A Sony Pro 9 that combines both A and NEX line in an oversized NEX7 and it's components. That would do it for me. It would fit with adapters to Zeiss glass, Canon glass, Nikon lenses and focus peaking would do enough for me to forget everything so often said about the limited NEX system. Why is it a problem if almost every other system could connect? And yes, with SteadyShot Sony's parade horse IBIS
douglasf13 wrote:
The A99 is rumored to have an improved EVF, and, although there are certainly advantages to a good OVF, it's hard to argue against the advantages of an EVF when it comes to manual focusing adapted lenses, because of image magnification and peaking.
+1. Even though OVFs are much better to look through IMO, focusing fast glass is quite a different experience between the NEX 7 and 5D2. Peaking on the other hand, I only find accurate on WAs or stopped down enough to ensure a good in focus range.
mawz wrote:
SAR never attaches more than SR3 to single-sourced rumours.
how convient.
KT: "I spoke with two people today who sell Sony products."
SAR: "I am sure Kirk is telling us the truth"
Sales people would tell you the a900 had a 900 megapixel sensor if that would get you to listen to the verbal diarrhea that non-stop flows from their mouths.
ricardovaste wrote:
What is this about flip away SLT mirror? I've seen someone do a test with it and without it on an a55, and you can't see any difference.
Fro critical, long term use, the SLT mirror is just one more potential problem waiting to happen - something most Pro's don't want to have to worry about. What happens when it gets dirty? How do you clean it? When will some weird stray reflection show up? How much contrast will I loose from my high end Zeiss or Leica glass? Even if it turns out to be perfect in use (I have seen what looked like contrast differences between NEX-7 and a77 in tests though), there is still that nagging feeling that it's a potential image robbing/ problem prone surface between the lens and sensor. I don't think it belongs on a no compromise, high end Pro camera myself. I don't think I'm alone.
ytwong wrote:
I'm more interested in this statement... why using a translucent mirror means higher compatibility with legacy lens? Canon 5D is quite hard to beat for legacy lens compatibility (SLR lens only of course).
Because of the room between the mount and the edge of the mirror, the Sony a900 experiences less mirror hang on lenses with protruding rear elements than any Canon or Nikon FF. This is good for M42 and some specific Leica R lenses, as well as certain MD lenses that are popular to convert. In many cases the a900 is the only FF digital to which some of those lenses can be adapted. Remove the swinging mirror (or remove the mirror entirely), then lenses that need extra MMs inside the mount for conversion will have plenty of room.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Fro critical, long term use, the SLT mirror is just one more potential problem waiting to happen - something most Pro's don't want to have to worry about. What happens when it gets dirty? How do you clean it? When will some weird stray reflection show up? How much contrast will I loose from my high end Zeiss or Leica glass? Even if it turns out to be perfect in use (I have seen what looked like contrast differences between NEX-7 and a77 in tests though), there is still that nagging feeling that it's a potential image robbing/ problem prone surface between the lens and sensor. I don't think it belongs on a no compromise, high end Pro camera myself. I don't think I'm alone....Show more →
As long as it's as easy to remove as the a55 mirror, I'm okay with it. I still love the OVF of the a900, but the EVF on the NEX-7 has grown on me, so I wouldn't be completely adverse to switching, particularly if it's an improved EVF.
freaklikeme wrote:
As long as it's as easy to remove as the a55 mirror, I'm okay with it. I still love the OVF of the a900, but the EVF on the NEX-7 has grown on me, so I wouldn't be completely adverse to switching, particularly if it's an improved EVF.
I could deal with the EVF, particularly since it would likely be even better than the already good one in the NEX-7. I don't know about removing the translucent mirror. Seems like it might possibly result in some sort of issue since the camera would have been designed with it's use in mind. For instance, is it's effect taken into account as part of the AA filter? Would the camera be more prone to moire without it? Color balance/ WB (is it truly neutral)? Other decreased functionality/ changes (exposure metering, ISO)? I have no idea, just wondering what other aspects the translucent mirror might effect in the camera design.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't know about removing the translucent mirror. Seems like it might possibly result in some sort of issue since the camera would have been designed with it's use in mind. For instance, is it's effect taken into account as part of the AA filter? Would the camera be more prone to moire without it? Color balance/ WB (is it truly neutral)? Other decreased functionality/ changes (exposure metering, ISO)? I have no idea, just wondering what other aspects the translucent mirror might effect in the camera design.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I could deal with the EVF, particularly since it would likely be even better than the already good one in the NEX-7. I don't know about removing the translucent mirror. Seems like it might possibly result in some sort of issue since the camera would have been designed with it's use in mind. For instance, is it's effect taken into account as part of the AA filter? Would the camera be more prone to moire without it? Color balance/ WB (is it truly neutral)? Other decreased functionality/ changes (exposure metering, ISO)? I have no idea, just wondering what other aspects the translucent mirror might effect in the camera design. ...Show more →
AF is obviously gone, but otherwise I can't find any reported problems with IQ once the mirror's removed. On the a55, at least, it looks like it improves sharpness (if you put faith in this shooter's testing).
freaklikeme wrote:
AF is obviously gone, but otherwise I can't find any reported problems with IQ once the mirror's removed. On the a55, at least, it looks like in improves sharpness (if you put faith in this shooter's testing).
Yeah, AF would be nice to have on occasion. I think what everyone really wants is just a larger, FF mirrorless option - a NEX-7 on steroids.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yeah, AF would be nice to have on occasion. I think what everyone really wants is just a larger, FF mirrorless option - a NEX-7 on steroids.
