This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
p.43 #1Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
carstenw wrote:
Leica caters to the rich now.
and who want high quality small FF system!
Leica caters to the rich now.
and who want high quality small FF system!
Oct 06, 2013 at 06:00 PM
p.43 #2Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Wait a minute! I am rich now? 
I can honestly say (for my personal needs), the M240 is the best FF camera I have ever used. Yes, the system is slightly overpriced but the prices are not "insane" by any means... Worth every penny I say.
I can honestly say (for my personal needs), the M240 is the best FF camera I have ever used. Yes, the system is slightly overpriced but the prices are not "insane" by any means... Worth every penny I say.Oct 06, 2013 at 06:21 PM
p.43 #3Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Everyone chooses on special personal preferences, but the market is the sum total of it all. Top end FF sensors are the new game in town for people who don't care to or cannot pay $10,000 for a small body and 1-2 lenses.
In the Leica heydays of old film was the constant, not the variable...very different world now, Sony have effectively given their 'film' a stop more base ISO DR and 2 stops more high ISO over the M240, along with overall better colour response and signal. I would not choose an M240 at RX1 prices for these reasons.
There are many many users who would like a better result from less money, including the 'camera as tool, just give me top results' demographic.
Their market will definitely be affected, as will be used body prices.
All assuming 'most' M lenses work well on the new cameras, of course, and remembering a lot of users never shoot wide angles anyway. Leica will still be strong, as many like the RF experience and emphasise actually using the camera over end results obtained.
In the Leica heydays of old film was the constant, not the variable...very different world now, Sony have effectively given their 'film' a stop more base ISO DR and 2 stops more high ISO over the M240, along with overall better colour response and signal. I would not choose an M240 at RX1 prices for these reasons.
There are many many users who would like a better result from less money, including the 'camera as tool, just give me top results' demographic.
Their market will definitely be affected, as will be used body prices.
All assuming 'most' M lenses work well on the new cameras, of course, and remembering a lot of users never shoot wide angles anyway. Leica will still be strong, as many like the RF experience and emphasise actually using the camera over end results obtained.
Oct 06, 2013 at 07:30 PM
p.43 #4Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Here we go again.... I should never mentioned the word "Leica", or stating that I think it is ONE of the best cameras ever made. I never critize the choices people make wrt their camera purchases - to each their own. For MY personal needs, there are no other viable options available aside from Leica.
I never critize the choices people make wrt their camera purchases - to each their own. For MY personal needs, there are no other viable options available aside from Leica.Oct 06, 2013 at 08:57 PM
p.43 #5Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I definitely agree, Gary, Leicas are fantastic cameras. The performance is just way out of whack with the prices. In general, I could definitely put up with the prices for the lenses, but the performance levels of the cameras is way below that of the lenses, for the price.
Oct 07, 2013 at 03:25 AM
p.43 #6Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
philip_pj wrote:
wilhelm, a 24mm x 24mm crop from a 36Mp FF gives you 24Mp, not bad for a square with no additional vignetting other than by design. By my calcs, Sony's crop sensor (9.4% larger in area than Canon's) has a diameter of 28.3mm, radius 14.15mm.
Philip, I'm afraid that you're a bit optimistic. First, the Sony/Nikon APS-C sensor size isn't exactly 1.5X but 1.538X. Therefore. the diameter is 28,1mm. Second, it's easy to see in a diagram that a lens giving exactly a 28.1mm APS-C image circle won't cover a 24x24 square in a full frame sensor but barely a 20x20mm. square. This is a crop of aprox.15Mp from a 36Mp ff sensor..
Of course, it might be the case that some lenses project an image circle somehow bigger than the exact APS-C size. Then, it would cover more surface in a FF sensor.
wilhelm, a 24mm x 24mm crop from a 36Mp FF gives you 24Mp, not bad for a square with no additional vignetting other than by design. By my calcs, Sony's crop sensor (9.4% larger in area than Canon's) has a diameter of 28.3mm, radius 14.15mm.
Philip, I'm afraid that you're a bit optimistic. First, the Sony/Nikon APS-C sensor size isn't exactly 1.5X but 1.538X. Therefore. the diameter is 28,1mm. Second, it's easy to see in a diagram that a lens giving exactly a 28.1mm APS-C image circle won't cover a 24x24 square in a full frame sensor but barely a 20x20mm. square. This is a crop of aprox.15Mp from a 36Mp ff sensor..
Of course, it might be the case that some lenses project an image circle somehow bigger than the exact APS-C size. Then, it would cover more surface in a FF sensor.
Oct 07, 2013 at 04:57 AM
p.43 #7Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
SAR is reporting that the A7 has a 24MP sensor on PDAF and has an Anti Aliasing filter while the A7r has a 36MP Sensor without PDAF and also lacks an Anti Aliasing filter. This has a rumor of an SR5.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-a7-has-on-sensor-pdaf-while-a7r-has-not-but-comes-without-aa-filter/
Rich
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-a7-has-on-sensor-pdaf-while-a7r-has-not-but-comes-without-aa-filter/
Rich
Oct 07, 2013 at 05:57 AM
p.43 #8Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
So basically the A7 sems to be an updated version of the RX-1 with interchangeable lenses. Not bad really, specially seen the price. Have to wait for the results (both IQ and AF) to decide which one's more desirable....
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
Oct 07, 2013 at 07:12 AM
p.43 #9Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alba63 wrote:
So basically the A7 sems to be an updated version of the RX-1 with interchangeable lenses. Not bad really, specially seen the price. Have to wait for the results (both IQ and AF) to decide which one's more desirable....
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
Early results suggested that the RX1 might have infinity issues but that was later shown to be wrong (by more experienced shooters!). The RX1 performs great at any distance in my experience - and that's down to that incredibly versatile 35mm lens on the front. It seems to be a chameleon - great with portraits (for a moderate wide angle), great with landscape all while still providing a beautiful rendering and bokeh.
So basically the A7 sems to be an updated version of the RX-1 with interchangeable lenses. Not bad really, specially seen the price. Have to wait for the results (both IQ and AF) to decide which one's more desirable....
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
Early results suggested that the RX1 might have infinity issues but that was later shown to be wrong (by more experienced shooters!). The RX1 performs great at any distance in my experience - and that's down to that incredibly versatile 35mm lens on the front. It seems to be a chameleon - great with portraits (for a moderate wide angle), great with landscape all while still providing a beautiful rendering and bokeh.
Oct 07, 2013 at 07:30 AM
p.43 #10Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alba63 wrote:
So basically the A7 sems to be an updated version of the RX-1 with interchangeable lenses. Not bad really, specially seen the price. Have to wait for the results (both IQ and AF) to decide which one's more desirable....
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
Also the A7 and the A7r will have built in EVF which was an add on for the RX1. So, I would say these cameras are well priced. For many of us it is a question of purchasing one of these (I am leaning toward the A7r) or waiting for what Sony has in the wings as even more advanced.
Rich
So basically the A7 sems to be an updated version of the RX-1 with interchangeable lenses. Not bad really, specially seen the price. Have to wait for the results (both IQ and AF) to decide which one's more desirable....
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
Also the A7 and the A7r will have built in EVF which was an add on for the RX1. So, I would say these cameras are well priced. For many of us it is a question of purchasing one of these (I am leaning toward the A7r) or waiting for what Sony has in the wings as even more advanced.
Rich
Oct 07, 2013 at 07:35 AM
p.43 #11Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
naturephoto1 wrote:
Also the A7 and the A7r will have built in EVF which was an add on for the RX1. So, I would say these cameras are well priced. For many of us it is a question of purchasing one of these (I am leaning toward the A7r) or waiting for what Sony has in the wings as even more advanced.
Rich
I actually like the removable EVF on the RX1 because I use it on the RX100II as well. I think these prices are very reasonable but I keep hearing that voice in my head: "You get what you pay for"... I'm also very concerned about lenses for this new system, although less concerned now that I'm using 35mm (RX1) to do almost all my shooting!
Also the A7 and the A7r will have built in EVF which was an add on for the RX1. So, I would say these cameras are well priced. For many of us it is a question of purchasing one of these (I am leaning toward the A7r) or waiting for what Sony has in the wings as even more advanced.
Rich
I actually like the removable EVF on the RX1 because I use it on the RX100II as well. I think these prices are very reasonable but I keep hearing that voice in my head: "You get what you pay for"... I'm also very concerned about lenses for this new system, although less concerned now that I'm using 35mm (RX1) to do almost all my shooting!
Oct 07, 2013 at 07:41 AM
p.43 #12Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Vern Dewit wrote:
RichI actually like the removable EVF on the RX1 because I use it on the RX100II as well. I think these prices are very reasonable but I keep hearing that voice in my head: "You get what you pay for"... I'm also very concerned about lenses for this new system, although less concerned now that I'm using 35mm (RX1) to do almost all my shooting!
Vern,
For you using both cameras with the same EVF makes more sense, especially for your need for high performance and very light and small size for your backpacking adventures. For me, though I may do some lightweight backpacking and much more day hiking, due now to my age and to a lesser extent my health I am looking forward to using my legacy MF Leica R lenses and probably some small MF M mount lenses with a relatively small high performance FF mirrorless camera with a built in EVF. For me, less chance of loss or damage to the EVF.
Rich
naturephoto1 wrote
Also the A7 and the A7r will have built in EVF which was an add on for the RX1. So, I would say these cameras are well priced. For many of us it is a question of purchasing one of these (I am leaning toward the A7r) or waiting for what Sony has in the wings as even more advanced.Rich
Vern,
For you using both cameras with the same EVF makes more sense, especially for your need for high performance and very light and small size for your backpacking adventures. For me, though I may do some lightweight backpacking and much more day hiking, due now to my age and to a lesser extent my health I am looking forward to using my legacy MF Leica R lenses and probably some small MF M mount lenses with a relatively small high performance FF mirrorless camera with a built in EVF. For me, less chance of loss or damage to the EVF.
Rich
Oct 07, 2013 at 07:48 AM
p.43 #13Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Considering rarity of m240 price could be higher
Oct 07, 2013 at 09:03 AM
p.43 #14Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I see four reasons for buying A7 over A7r:
- less MP
- faster AF
- AA (moreover I am color-blind and don't see moire)
- cheaper ... but I'd have the same opinion if it was more expensive
- less MP
- faster AF
- AA (moreover I am color-blind and don't see moire)
- cheaper ... but I'd have the same opinion if it was more expensive
Oct 07, 2013 at 09:58 AM
p.43 #15Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
fracas wrote:
I see four reasons for buying A7 over A7r:
- less MP
- faster AF
- AA (moreover I am color-blind and don't see moire)
- cheaper ... but I'd have the same opinion if it was more expensive
Why do you find less MP to be a positive?
I see four reasons for buying A7 over A7r:
- less MP
- faster AF
- AA (moreover I am color-blind and don't see moire)
- cheaper ... but I'd have the same opinion if it was more expensive
Why do you find less MP to be a positive?
Oct 07, 2013 at 10:40 AM
p.43 #16Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jeff Kott wrote:
Why do you find less MP to be a positive?
I see it a bit the same way: If is not that it is "positive", myself I am just considering 24MP as enough. Heck, even my 12MP files from the 5d Mk1 printed excellently, let alone the 5dII, now this has 24. I also do no longer consider the lack of an AA filter als overly important. There is no free lunch, and at a certain level of detail frequency you will always get artefacts without the AA filter.
Not sure where the eternal chase for finest detail shall lead to....
Why do you find less MP to be a positive?
I see it a bit the same way: If is not that it is "positive", myself I am just considering 24MP as enough. Heck, even my 12MP files from the 5d Mk1 printed excellently, let alone the 5dII, now this has 24. I also do no longer consider the lack of an AA filter als overly important. There is no free lunch, and at a certain level of detail frequency you will always get artefacts without the AA filter.
Not sure where the eternal chase for finest detail shall lead to....
Oct 07, 2013 at 10:55 AM
p.43 #17Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
At base ISO, I prefer the files from my 24 megapixel Nex 7 to those of my 16 megapixel 5N. Personally, when moving to FF, I don't want to go too far backwards on pixel density.
Oct 07, 2013 at 11:00 AM
p.43 #18Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Yes, the Nex-7 (which I also have) is nice at base ISO, but in an image you do not see pixel density, but resolution. Pixel density is only relevant if you need more reach like in bird photography for crop. Otherwise a shot from the A7 with according lens and the Nex-7 (with same scene) will look very similar, except that probably the FF will have bit bit more clarity and less noise (also at base ISO).
Oct 07, 2013 at 11:12 AM
p.43 #19Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alba63 wrote:
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
after shooting nearly exclusively with the rx1 for a few months, i'm pretty sure those early results were due to user error. the only 35mm lens i've seen that might perform better at infinity than the rx1 lens is the zm 35/2, but it's very close and i've only compared files from an AA less leica to the version of the rx1 with an AA filter.
regarding the 2 versions of the upcoming NEX – i was initially thinking i would prefer the 24mp due to price, but if the 36mp one has no AA filter perhaps it is designed to perform better with rangefinder wides as well? that would definitely make it more attractive to me. the 24mp version is probably designed to be better and faster at AF, which is of no value to me...
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
after shooting nearly exclusively with the rx1 for a few months, i'm pretty sure those early results were due to user error. the only 35mm lens i've seen that might perform better at infinity than the rx1 lens is the zm 35/2, but it's very close and i've only compared files from an AA less leica to the version of the rx1 with an AA filter.
regarding the 2 versions of the upcoming NEX – i was initially thinking i would prefer the 24mp due to price, but if the 36mp one has no AA filter perhaps it is designed to perform better with rangefinder wides as well? that would definitely make it more attractive to me. the 24mp version is probably designed to be better and faster at AF, which is of no value to me...
Oct 07, 2013 at 11:48 AM
p.43 #20Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
BernieEarly results suggested that the RX1 might have infinity issues but that was later shown to be wrong (by more experienced shooters!). The RX1 performs great at any distance in my experience - and that's down to that incredibly versatile 35mm lens on the front. It seems to be a chameleon - great with portraits (for a moderate wide angle), great with landscape all while still providing a beautiful rendering and bokeh.
Agreed, and that's why I'm having a hard time getting excited about the FF NEX, since the RX1's lens can't be duplicated on it, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.
alba63 wrote
So basically the A7 sems to be an updated version of the RX-1 with interchangeable lenses. Not bad really, specially seen the price. Have to wait for the results (both IQ and AF) to decide which one's more desirable....I never held or used the RX-1, I just remember it not being optimal at infinity/ very small detail. Was that more due to the lens or to the AA filter/ sensor unit?
Bernie
Agreed, and that's why I'm having a hard time getting excited about the FF NEX, since the RX1's lens can't be duplicated on it, but I'm sure I'm in the minority.
Oct 07, 2013 at 12:07 PM