It's difficult to make a direct comparison as an APS sized sensor puts a *lot* more strain on a lens compared to 135 FF. If we take the example of 24 MP.. that's ~6000 x 4000. On a FF that's (6000/2)/36 = 83.3 lp/mm. On ASP-C that's (6000/2)/23.4 = 128.2 lp/mm. A very high quality lens can perhaps deliver 50% MTF at 80 lp/mm. At 130 lp/mm you would be thrilled if you could get 30%. And very few lenses can do that. This is unavoidable no matter how good the sensor is.
Of course this applies to all spatial frequencies - you take a hit in micro contrast as they increase. Add to that the need to use wider lenses to get the same angle of view and you take another hit in terms of image quality. There are many individual exception but as a rule image performance is proportional to focal length - it's much easier to build a high performance tele lens than a good wide angle.
the NEX-7 looks fantastic to me! finally a mirrorless camera with a high quality evf that doesn't kill the form factor. if only it had IBIS i might never need a dslr. not sure about the 24/1.8 though, it seems like it will be just as big as my rokkor 24/2.8 plus adapter is on the NEX. i'm sure it'll probably perform better than the rokkor, but i'll have to see how it compares size wise to the zm 25/2.8. that extra stop would be very nice, but i'm not sure how often i'd carry it if it's too big.
sebboh wrote:
the NEX-7 looks fantastic to me! finally a mirrorless camera with a high quality evf that doesn't kill the form factor. if only it had IBIS i might never need a dslr. not sure about the 24/1.8 though, it seems like it will be just as big as my rokkor 24/2.8 plus adapter is on the NEX. i'm sure it'll probably perform better than the rokkor, but i'll have to see how it compares size wise to the zm 25/2.8. that extra stop would be very nice, but i'm not sure how often i'd carry it if it's too big.
I'm excited about the electronic shutter curtain. Not only does it only activate the physical shutter at the end of the exposure, but it also cuts the number of physical shutter actuations in half. That should go a long with with handholding at slower shutter speeds, as well as cutting down volume.
I feel the same way about the Zeiss 24. I think it's an acceptable size, considering its speed, but I'd be more likely to carry a Zeiss 24 that was f2.8 and much smaller, if they would have made that instead. Either way, there is still room for a fast, pancake standard lens. Maybe 3rd party will answer the call?
alundeb wrote:
If the next round of FF cameras come in the 30 MP range, they will offer little in resolution over what we have now because the pixel increment from 24 MP to 30 MP is too little. Tests with my Canon 70-200 II and teleconverters indicate that the lens will still resolve a little more detail on a 300 MP FF sensor than on a 200 MP FF sensor. I will not judge detail from the 24 MP APS-C sensor based on A77 or NEX 7 jpg files, since it it almost certain that NR is applied at all ISO's. We will have to use RAW....Show more →
I had said 30+MP above and I would expect at least the Nikon and Sony will be at the upper end around 39MP but we will have to wait and see. I do know that most FF wide angle lenses are challenged by the current 24MP a900 sensor. Longer lenses have really never been much of an issue.
Imaging Resource uses RAW images for their comparisons and tests. Those are the images I am basing my opinion on. There is still the variable of the lenses used though and I bet results may indeed be better with better glass.
douglasf13 wrote:
I feel the same way about the Zeiss 24. I think it's an acceptable size, considering its speed, but I'd be more likely to carry a Zeiss 24 that was f2.8 and much smaller, if they would have made that instead. Either way, there is still room for a fast, pancake standard lens. Maybe 3rd party will answer the call?
I think it should have been much, much smaller. The only thing that could have justified the size to me would have been the inclusion of a leaf shutter.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I had said 30+MP above and I would expect at least the Nikon and Sony will be at the upper end around 39MP but we will have to wait and see. I do know that most FF wide angle lenses are challenged by the current 24MP a900 sensor. Longer lenses have really never been much of an issue.
Imaging Resource uses RAW images for their comparisons and tests. Those are the images I am basing my opinion on. There is still the variable of the lenses used though and I bet results may indeed be better with better glass.
Those IR pics are camera jpegs. You can download some of the raws, but we've got nothing to process them with, yet. From their site:
"Comparometer - This tool lets you compare reference images from digital cameras side-by-side. These images are JPEGs straight from the camera..."
I'm not sure how much smaller Sony could make a 24/1.8, because their registrations distance is so short, and they apparently are working around issues at the edge of the sensor. The X100 lens is smaller, but, it is f2, and it has the advantage of placing many of the lens elements in the camera body itself, since it is a fixed lens.
sebboh wrote:
the NEX-7 looks fantastic to me! finally a mirrorless camera with a high quality evf that doesn't kill the form factor. if only it had IBIS i might never need a dslr. not sure about the 24/1.8 though, it seems like it will be just as big as my rokkor 24/2.8 plus adapter is on the NEX. i'm sure it'll probably perform better than the rokkor, but i'll have to see how it compares size wise to the zm 25/2.8. that extra stop would be very nice, but i'm not sure how often i'd carry it if it's too big.
The 24/1.8 is an AF lens though isn't it ? I would think that would be the main selling point of the lens, at least for most folks. As you mentioned, the Rokkor's are great bang for the buck, and the ZM 25 is an amazing lens as well. I found a little fringing with my ZM25 which probably shouldn't be a factor anymore, but certainly would of appreciated AF from time to time.
Guess Sony may have to go to a NEX9 to finally add the IBIS as well lol
Its a surprisingly nice feature to have I found on my PEN. Didn't really think it was needed, as I never had it only DSLR's etc and always got along just fine, as with my NEX, X100, M9 etc. Shorter focal lengths and faster glass always seemed to negate the need for it, especially as higher ISO performance got better and better
However, came to find that even with a decently fast lens, its actually not a bad feature to have and far more useful than I guessed. Fast prime, decent high ISO performance and then 3-4 extra stops of handholding ability due to IBIS ? Thats just a pretty fun combo for shooting at night and low light
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm not sure that there'll be much of a gap in performance between the two 24mp sensors. We'll have to see once we are able to process raws that aren't pre-production.
The comparisons at Imaging Resource with the a77 are based on RAW's I believe.
The glass though is likely nowhere near as good as the ALT glass you are using so that may make a big difference. I find IR to be fairly reliable overall though I have never found their results from the a900 to be as detailed as what I see (using very good primes).
The biggest issue I see for the NEX 7 is the lack of superb Sony Zeiss wide angle primes. For alt users, this will turn out to be a non issue as long as the sensor does not suffer color vignetting issues with very wide RF lenses. The thing which baffles me though is if the sensor is indeed immune to such issues, then why on earth would Sony not develop small, short, high quality RF lenses for the system. Seems like the 24 1.8 would have been the ideal place to start doing so.
millsart wrote:
The 24/1.8 is an AF lens though isn't it ? I would think that would be the main selling point of the lens, at least for most folks. As you mentioned, the Rokkor's are great bang for the buck, and the ZM 25 is an amazing lens as well. I found a little fringing with my ZM25 which probably shouldn't be a factor anymore, but certainly would of appreciated AF from time to time.
yes, in general i would expect AF is a selling point. i'm just talking about my own personal use for the camera though. for me autofocus is actually a small negative.
millsart wrote:
Guess Sony may have to go to a NEX9 to finally add the IBIS as well lol
Its a surprisingly nice feature to have I found on my PEN. Didn't really think it was needed, as I never had it only DSLR's etc and always got along just fine, as with my NEX, X100, M9 etc. Shorter focal lengths and faster glass always seemed to negate the need for it, especially as higher ISO performance got better and better
However, came to find that even with a decently fast lens, its actually not a bad feature to have and far more useful than I guessed. Fast prime, decent high ISO performance and then 3-4 extra stops of handholding ability due to IBIS ? Thats just a pretty fun combo for shooting at night and low light...Show more →
yeah, having come to the NEX from olympus i really miss the IBIS. it is fantastic in the 35-100mm equivalent focal range for social shooting. being able to drop iso 3 stops is awesome. also, i really like pictures where peoples heads are sharp but their limbs are blurred. it's a lot harder to do that without IBIS.
douglasf13 wrote:
Those IR pics are camera jpegs. You can download some of the raws, but we've got nothing to process them with, yet. From their site:
"Comparometer - This tool lets you compare reference images from digital cameras side-by-side. These images are JPEGs straight from the camera..."
I'm not sure how much smaller Sony could make a 24/1.8, because their registrations distance is so short, and they apparently are working around issues at the edge of the sensor. The X100 lens is smaller, but, it is f2, and it has the advantage of placing many of the lens elements in the camera body itself, since it is a fixed lens.
Your right about the jpegs. Why they even post the comparison is odd.
I wonder what issues Sony is dealing with at the sensors edge IF they fixed the known issue with RF lenses and non parallel angles. That issue may not be fixed which would explain the extreme reverse telephoto design of the 24 1.8.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Your right about the jpegs. Why they even post the comparison is odd.
I wonder what issues Sony is dealing with at the sensors edge IF they fixed the known issue with RF lenses and non parallel angles. That issue may not be fixed which would explain the extreme reverse telephoto design of the 24 1.8.
I'm wondering the same thing. No one seems to really be making short focus wides for their mirror less cams, as far as I can tell. That being said, had Sony made a 30/2 and 20/2.8 pancake like Samsung NX, I think it would satiate most users needs for smaller lenses. Granted, the lenses would be 7mm longer if maintaining the same design for NEX, because of the registration distances, but that is still pretty small.
The 24/1.8 is a unique choice for Sony in that no other mirror less formats have the same lens equivalent, and I'm sure they planned it that way, but I'd just as soon had a 30/2 pancake like the Samsung, because a little less speed and angle of view would be worth it, to me. In fact, if I wasn't interested in shooting manual lenses, I may have gone Samsung NX in the first place.
thrice wrote:
I wonder how many times I can post this image before it becomes common knowledge why symmetrical wide angles don't like CMOS sensors
I think you keep posting this graph and then don't read the responses. Joakim already mentioned that it's the micro lenses job to direct the light, and, once that happens, it's pretty much a straight shot down, so it doesn't matter if we're talking about CMOS or CCD. Where did you get that graph?
