FlyPenFly wrote:
How does Leica M mount get away with such small lenses on ff?
With software communication between lens and body. Each lens has a different process to it . Maybe Sony may ask Voigtlander to do the same for them.
Again...they should have VL instead of Zeiss
In regards to corner improvements, go to page 10 of the Xitek link I posted above. The OP in that thread shows how much sharper the corners are with the NEX-C3 when using the ZM 21. I also saw a thread on dpreview where a guy compared the NEX-C3 to the NEX-5 using the ZM 35/2.8, and the corners are even sharper with that lens on the C3. I look forward to even more comparisons.
Let me see if I understand it correctly: if Sony solves the acute incident light angle edge performance, the ability to introduce lenses closer to the size of RF glass will be possible.
If so, then it's not the lens design that should be in question but mainly the sensor.
dasrocket wrote:
Let me see if I understand it correctly: if Sony solves the acute incident light angle edge performance, the ability to introduce lenses closer to the size of RF glass will be possible.
If so, then it's not the lens design that should be in question but mainly the sensor.
Is that correct?
We all wish you are correct.
If Sony gave us a lens with huge color shift and poor edge performance they would be major criticized. Instead they chose to adjust the sensor and see what the market asked for the NEX series. I believe they are in the right track. Brilliant realy.
If Sony (or Cosina/Voigt/Zeiss) can make an AF prime lens 21mm to 35mm with a minimum of f2 aperture, at the size of the RF glass (like X100 did) they will sell like hotcakes.
True compactness with prime IQ ? Then the NEX-7 makes sense...
I think people are overreacting to the size of the new Zeiss 24mm f/1.8. It is very close in size to the ZM 25 f/2.8 and it is of course a stop and a third faster. The 24 f/1.8 is actually 35 grams lighter than the ZM 25 f/2.8 and is at most a cm longer and about 3mm wider in diameter (the 24 f/1.8 has 49mm filter threads and the ZM 25 f/2.8 has 46mm filter threads and neither lens is much wider than the threads). It is hard to tell the exact size of the ZM because the Zeiss site lists it with caps. There it is listed as 53mm in diameter and 71mm in length. The 24 f/1.8 is listed as 63mm in diameter and 65.5mm in length at the Sony Store and it is unclear whether is is with or without caps. Suffice it to say if the Zeiss 24 f/1.8 it bigger than the ZM 25 f/2.8 it is about as much bigger as putting on the caps.
safcraft wrote:
Why do people keep braggin about a FF NEX and still wish for a small kit ?
If Sony/Zeiss could put out small pancake lenses, they would. But this is a APS-C sized sensor so it is not easy.
If you think these lens are big, in a FF NEX they would have to be even bigger !!!
Maybe Sony should have partnered with Voigtlander instead of Zeiss...wrong Germans!?
even if the lenses do need to be more telecentric than the m lenses for a hypothetical FF NEX (i don't think we'll see one anytime soon), the camera and lens combination would still be much smaller than the smallest FF dslr. any significant improvement over those bloated designs is great in my book and i think a decent number of photographers feel the same. judging from the performance of the NEX-C3 though, i suspect sony could make a FF sensor that would work just fine with the 28 cron and 35 summilux, which is all i want. those lenses are plenty small and i don't want autofocus, and don't really care whether anything wider than 28mm works anyway since i'm not much into ultra wide shooting. i'm not under the mistaken assumption that my desires represent a measurable chunk of the camera buying public though.
If Sony gave us a lens with huge color shift and poor edge performance they would be major criticized. Instead they chose to adjust the sensor and see what the market asked for the NEX series. I believe they are in the right track. Brilliant realy.
If Sony (or Cosina/Voigt/Zeiss) can make an AF prime lens 21mm to 35mm with a minimum of f2 aperture, at the size of the RF glass (like X100 did) they will sell like hotcakes.
True compactness with prime IQ ? Then the NEX-7 makes sense...
I think you bring up a good point. Leica has to cater to decades worth of lens designs with the M9, and Leica users seem content with the way Leica uses software correction to fix problems. I think if Sony we're to release smaller, short focus lenses that needed software correction, they would get raked over the coals. Granted, m4/3 doesn't get a lot of criticism for the massive barrel distortion in some of their pancakes, so maybe that would be the good route to go?
Ultimately, I think if Sony made one lens like the Samsung 30/2, a lot of the lens size chatter would quiet down. Hopefully one of the 3rd party makers steps up.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think people are overreacting to the size of the new Zeiss 24mm f/1.8. It is very close in size to the ZM 25 f/2.8 and it is of course a stop and a third faster. The 24 f/1.8 is actually 35 grams lighter than the ZM 25 f/2.8 and is at most a cm longer and about 3mm wider in diameter (the 24 f/1.8 has 49mm filter threads and the ZM 25 f/2.8 has 46mm filter threads and neither lens is much wider than the threads). It is hard to tell the exact size of the ZM because the Zeiss site lists it with caps. There it is listed as 53mm in diameter and 71mm in length. The 24 f/1.8 is listed as 63mm in diameter and 65.5mm in length at the Sony Store and it is unclear whether is is with or without caps. Suffice it to say if the Zeiss 24 f/1.8 it bigger than the ZM 25 f/2.8 it is about as much bigger as putting on the caps....Show more →
I think you're right. Even though it is designed for a smaller sensor than the ZM 25, I think the 24/1.8 is not overly big. That's why I was hoping for something a little longer and a little slower, since that would seemingly make designing a smaller lens much easier, like with the Samsung 30/2 that I mentioned above.
I think Sony got caught up in the idea of making the fastest 35mm-ish equivalent in auto-focus mirrorless, but that bit them in the butt a little in terms of size.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Perhaps the best thing about the NEX-7 is that it might finally get Canon and Nikon off their butts and force them to compete in this space!
I don't really think it makes much sense for them too, its a small and rather oversaturated market, with m4/3, NEX, Samsung, Ricoh etc all already in it.
How much overall market share would Canon be able to really take of it, and how much of their total photographic business would that amount even be ?
Its not just a question of producing a body either, but one also needs to have a good lineup of glass, which takes time and more R&D budget.
I just don't think its good business sense to compete in every single market segment just because some other companies have a product, especially when its quite saturated already.
Really the only ones that would still win from that are Voigtlander/Zeiss and anyone making lens adapters etc. Expands their total market but for anyone else, it rather reduces the market share further.
Sure its probably better for photographers the more companies there are, as it drives innovation and also results in lower pricing for the most part, but as I've said again and again, none of these companies are trying to do whats best for photographers, they are trying to do whats best for the shareholders and the bottom line.
Its a segment now that really has to be done right to have a chance as well. Can't come with just a body and 2 kit zooms with more a year down the pipeline, people won't go for it vs more mature systems.
m4/3 has a mature system, and NEX is finally starting to grow to where there are some choices (but still not enough for many, such as myself)
Only way I could see Canon etc getting a big chunk is to come with a full lineup right off the bat, but the expense of that would be quite high and how much market is there really ?
How many in the market are already satisfied and invested in m4/3 or NEX ?
Is there that many people who have money in hand and just haven't found a current product line that works for them ? If so would Canon really be able to make something that would make them jump ?
Would any NEX or m4/3 users totally jump ship ?
Or would Canon have a fantastic system, that maybe many NEX or m4/3 users would say is nice, but that they aren't going to switch systems for ?
Just sounds to me rather risky and they could have a fantastic product that could be a big flop for the bottom line, or they could come with a weak system that would also be a flop.
I mean look at what Pentax did with the Q ? They put a lot of money into the R&D of that and its a bomb before its even out of the gate. No real market for it.
millsart wrote:
How much overall market share would Canon be able to really take of it, and how much of their total photographic business would that amount even be ?
this is the big question. many people are predicting that mirrorless wonders like the NEX and µ4/3 will nearly completely replace low end dslrs (rebels, nikon d3100 and d5100, etc). if this is the case, not participating will have huge ramifications for canikon's bottom line as these cameras drive most of their sales. keep in mind most of the people who buy these cameras just use the kit lens and keep the camera in auto mode.
millsart wrote:
How many in the market are already satisfied and invested in m4/3 or NEX ?
Is there that many people who have money in hand and just haven't found a current product line that works for them ? If so would Canon really be able to make something that would make them jump ?
Would any NEX or m4/3 users totally jump ship ?
i have never found a camera/lens line that totally works for me (film or digital) and am always ready to jump to something better if it comes along.
millsart wrote:
Or would Canon have a fantastic system, that maybe many NEX or m4/3 users would say is nice, but that they aren't going to switch systems for ?
Just sounds to me rather risky and they could have a fantastic product that could be a big flop for the bottom line, or they could come with a weak system that would also be a flop.
many consumers are very brand oriented in terms of what they are willing to buy. both canon and nikon have a lot of name recognition and respect in the photographic community that sony, panasonic, and samsung don't have. there are a lot of people that just won't take a camera seriously if it isn't made by canikon. this means that the current market for mirrorless cameras is significantly smaller than it could be because canikon haven't entered. whether there are enough of such people for one of the big two to easily break into the market so late is another question.
millsart wrote:
I don't really think it makes much sense for them too, its a small and rather oversaturated market, with m4/3, NEX, Samsung, Ricoh etc all already in it.
How much overall market share would Canon be able to really take of it, and how much of their total photographic business would that amount even be ?
Its not just a question of producing a body either, but one also needs to have a good lineup of glass, which takes time and more R&D budget.
I just don't think its good business sense to compete in every single market segment just because some other companies have a product, especially when its quite saturated already.
Really the only ones that would still win from that are Voigtlander/Zeiss and anyone making lens adapters etc. Expands their total market but for anyone else, it rather reduces the market share further.
Sure its probably better for photographers the more companies there are, as it drives innovation and also results in lower pricing for the most part, but as I've said again and again, none of these companies are trying to do whats best for photographers, they are trying to do whats best for the shareholders and the bottom line.
Its a segment now that really has to be done right to have a chance as well. Can't come with just a body and 2 kit zooms with more a year down the pipeline, people won't go for it vs more mature systems.
m4/3 has a mature system, and NEX is finally starting to grow to where there are some choices (but still not enough for many, such as myself)
Only way I could see Canon etc getting a big chunk is to come with a full lineup right off the bat, but the expense of that would be quite high and how much market is there really ?
How many in the market are already satisfied and invested in m4/3 or NEX ?
Is there that many people who have money in hand and just haven't found a current product line that works for them ? If so would Canon really be able to make something that would make them jump ?
Would any NEX or m4/3 users totally jump ship ?
Or would Canon have a fantastic system, that maybe many NEX or m4/3 users would say is nice, but that they aren't going to switch systems for ?
Just sounds to me rather risky and they could have a fantastic product that could be a big flop for the bottom line, or they could come with a weak system that would also be a flop.
I mean look at what Pentax did with the Q ? They put a lot of money into the R&D of that and its a bomb before its even out of the gate. No real market for it.
Just seems like they would want to participate in a growing market segment like the mirrorless cameras rather than the stagnant to declining segment they are in. If they are not careful, both will be left behind as it's obvious this is where things are headed.
Pentax put a tiny sensor in the Q which was a huge mistake - possibly one Nikon is also about to make.
M43 may have nice overall systems but I don't put NEX in that category due to the lack of a decent lens range. Sony is vulnerable here IF Canon or Nikon came to market with a full lens line. At the moment, both are probably being held back out of fear of cannibalizing their DSLR lines.
sebboh wrote:
this is the big question. many people are predicting that mirrorless wonders like the NEX and µ4/3 will nearly completely replace low end dslrs (rebels, nikon d3100 and d5100, etc). if this is the case, not participating will have huge ramifications for canikon's bottom line as these cameras drive most of their sales. keep in mind most of the people who buy these cameras just use the kit lens and keep the camera in auto mode.
+1
I don't think Canon and Nikon can afford NOT to compete if they plan to be selling cameras five years from now!
The mirrorless market is very real, and certainly the numbers are hard to ignore. Just for example, here are the DSLR/Mirrorless sales rankings from BCN for Japan in April 2011:
April 2011 Sales
1) 11.4% CANON EOS Kiss X4
2) 10.8% NIKON D3100
3) 08.1% SONY NEX-5
4) 07.7% NIKON D90
5) 06.6% CANON EOS Kiss X5
6) 05.5% PANASONIC LUMIX DMC-GF2
7) 04.9% CANON EOS 60D
8) 04.4% OLYMPUS PEN Lite E-PL2
9) 04.1% NIKON D7000
10) 03.9% OLYMPUS PEN Lite E-PL1
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Just seems like they would want to participate in a growing market segment like the mirrorless cameras rather than the stagnant to declining segment they are in. If they are not careful, both will be left behind as it's obvious this is where things are headed.
Pentax put a tiny sensor in the Q which was a huge mistake - possibly one Nikon is also about to make.
M43 may have nice overall systems but I don't put NEX in that category due to the lack of a decent lens range. Sony is vulnerable here IF Canon or Nikon came to market with a full lens line. At the moment, both are probably being held back out of fear of cannibalizing their DSLR lines....Show more →
I would call the NEX lens line decent at this point, in light of the 4 new lenses coming out soon.
I am really not interested in how large -or not- the Zeiss 24 f:1.8 turns out to be. That is, not interested until its performance is revealed. From there, two possibilities. One: it is a true Zeiss, in the same ball park as its other Z* lenses (quite a wide ball park). Then, very simply, it will be quite unique in the mirrorless space: top-notch prime performance with autofocus and 225g. I very much doubt that it being "a little too large" will actually cost it many sales, because, as discussed above, it will be the only game in town. We may not like the bulk, we will bitch in Internet fora, but we will still buy the lens...
Two: its performance is disappointing, and, then, were it smaller, it would still be disappointing.
Sum-up: Zeiss is all about performance. Size is only a very distant second decision factor.
douglasf13 wrote:
I would call the NEX lens line decent at this point, in light of the 4 new lenses coming out soon.
There are still no decent wide angle primes that have a chance of taking advantage of the NEX-7 sensor beyond the 35mm equiv. Zeiss 24 1.8. To me, that's a huge hole. Heck, even the widish kit zoom will not be able to cope.
