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.64 #1Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
maybe not, after all: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcache.nevkontakte.com%2Fproxy.html#go=http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131015_2-Sony-A7R.html
Oct 15, 2013 at 02:09 AM
p.64 #2Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Sony/Zeiss ZA FE 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Sony/Sony-55f1_8,sm.jpg
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Sony/Sony-55f1_8,sm.jpg
Oct 15, 2013 at 02:15 AM
p.64 #3Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
465g... thats 30g lighter than the OMD EM1 
this whole passage is very interesting:
As I wrote several months ago in those editorials, APS-C and full frame offer a vastly larger sensor at similar or lower weight!
OK, we can show some scenarios to argue with that, but let’s look at one real-world case. Small variations are just not relevant to the core idea, which is that the weight difference is more modest than one might think.
Compare the size and weight:
- Sony A7R: 465g with battery and card + 120g for the 35/2.8 lens.
- Olympus E-M1: 497g with battery and card + 120g for the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens.
Wow. The Sony A7R full frame camera with equivalent lens is lighter than the equivalent Olympus E-M1 Micro Four Thirds setup.
Actually, the ƒ/2.8 lens on full frame would have to be ƒ/1.0 (!) on MFT to be equivalent in depth of field and blur potential. So the Sony wins there also.
Oh, and the Sony A7R has 36 megapixels in which each of those pixels is larger in area than the 16 megapixels of the E-M1. 2.25X the pixels in 3.8 times the area = more and larger and higher quality pixels. Case closed for anyone looking for image quality at similar size/weight equivalence, at least for the ~35mm focal length.
this whole passage is very interesting:
As I wrote several months ago in those editorials, APS-C and full frame offer a vastly larger sensor at similar or lower weight!
OK, we can show some scenarios to argue with that, but let’s look at one real-world case. Small variations are just not relevant to the core idea, which is that the weight difference is more modest than one might think.
Compare the size and weight:
- Sony A7R: 465g with battery and card + 120g for the 35/2.8 lens.
- Olympus E-M1: 497g with battery and card + 120g for the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 lens.
Wow. The Sony A7R full frame camera with equivalent lens is lighter than the equivalent Olympus E-M1 Micro Four Thirds setup.
Actually, the ƒ/2.8 lens on full frame would have to be ƒ/1.0 (!) on MFT to be equivalent in depth of field and blur potential. So the Sony wins there also.
Oh, and the Sony A7R has 36 megapixels in which each of those pixels is larger in area than the 16 megapixels of the E-M1. 2.25X the pixels in 3.8 times the area = more and larger and higher quality pixels. Case closed for anyone looking for image quality at similar size/weight equivalence, at least for the ~35mm focal length.
Oct 15, 2013 at 02:41 AM
p.64 #4Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
twoeye wrote:
Sony/Zeiss ZA FE 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Sony/Sony-55f1_8,sm.jpg
It looks to be around the same size or slightly smaller than the ZA 24mm f1.8.
Sony/Zeiss ZA FE 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Sony/Sony-55f1_8,sm.jpg
It looks to be around the same size or slightly smaller than the ZA 24mm f1.8.
Oct 15, 2013 at 02:57 AM
p.64 #5Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
naturephoto1 wrote:
There is no mention in the specs about the cameras being able to accept a wired remote. I hope they do. Otherwise I do not know of any way of using remotes for a variety of functions including for lighting photos.
Rich
I Agree, Sony is known not to have a proper wired remote, although it looks like there is a IR receiver on the front and the rumors says they will have built in Wi-Fi so you should be able to control it using a smartphone. But I still prefer to use a proper wired remote for shooting star trails.
There is no mention in the specs about the cameras being able to accept a wired remote. I hope they do. Otherwise I do not know of any way of using remotes for a variety of functions including for lighting photos.
Rich
I Agree, Sony is known not to have a proper wired remote, although it looks like there is a IR receiver on the front and the rumors says they will have built in Wi-Fi so you should be able to control it using a smartphone. But I still prefer to use a proper wired remote for shooting star trails.
Oct 15, 2013 at 03:20 AM
p.64 #6Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
The Rumors says the Sony 70-200 f4 weighs 840g (Without the lens collar), the Canon 70-200 f4 IS weighs 760g, and the Nikon 70-200 f4 VR weighs 900g.
Oct 15, 2013 at 03:50 AM
p.64 #7Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
SAR puts the price of the 55/1.8 at an absurd €1100. Are they smoking crack? I don't care how good it is, unless your name is Leica, you can't charge over a grand for an f/1.8 normal. (And even if your name is Leica, it's a crazy price for their Summicrons, but that's just me)
The rumored size of the 70-200/4 is exactly why I think a FF mirror less makes less sense as a full kit replacement than the smaller sensored systems. It's awesome for adapting lenses and in the wide to short telephoto range with moderate apertures, but telephotos are going to be awkwardly large in these cameras.
The rumored size of the 70-200/4 is exactly why I think a FF mirror less makes less sense as a full kit replacement than the smaller sensored systems. It's awesome for adapting lenses and in the wide to short telephoto range with moderate apertures, but telephotos are going to be awkwardly large in these cameras.
Oct 15, 2013 at 04:40 AM
p.64 #8Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
I'm sure Sony and sigma will produce a cheaper normal lens for you in the future. Like Roger at lens rental said, people complain about the price at announcement, but if the lens lives up to the billing, they eventually change their mind and say it's too cheap. Let's wait and see. The price gives me comfort that Zeiss did extra work to make it stellar.
Oct 15, 2013 at 05:26 AM
p.64 #9Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
Are they smoking crack? I don't care how good it is, unless your name is Leica, you can't charge over a grand for an f/1.8 normal.
You don't care how good it is? Hmm. I think a lot of people do. You want to get the best from the great sensors. I couldn't care less that it's 1100 euro IF the performance turns out to be stellar (something that has yet to be seen though).
Are they smoking crack? I don't care how good it is, unless your name is Leica, you can't charge over a grand for an f/1.8 normal.
You don't care how good it is? Hmm. I think a lot of people do. You want to get the best from the great sensors. I couldn't care less that it's 1100 euro IF the performance turns out to be stellar (something that has yet to be seen though).
Oct 15, 2013 at 05:27 AM
p.64 #10Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sflxn wrote:
I'm sure Sony and sigma will produce a cheaper normal lens for you in the future. Like Roger at lens rental said, people complain about the price at announcement, but if the lens lives up to the billing, they eventually change their mind and say it's too cheap. Let's wait and see. The price gives me comfort that Zeiss did extra work to make it stellar.
I think FE-mount lenses will be a rather small market for Sigma and other third-party lens manufacturers, at least initially.
I'm sure Sony and sigma will produce a cheaper normal lens for you in the future. Like Roger at lens rental said, people complain about the price at announcement, but if the lens lives up to the billing, they eventually change their mind and say it's too cheap. Let's wait and see. The price gives me comfort that Zeiss did extra work to make it stellar.
I think FE-mount lenses will be a rather small market for Sigma and other third-party lens manufacturers, at least initially.
Oct 15, 2013 at 05:31 AM
p.64 #11Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
twoeye wrote:
Sony/Zeiss ZA FE 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Sony/Sony-55f1_8,sm.jpg
Why so big and still only 1.8? Why wouldnt they use an old trusted formula for a 1.4 lens, the flange distance cant be the reason as they could let the inner part of the lens be a tube given the chosen enormous size for this F/1.8 piece
Sony/Zeiss ZA FE 55mm f/1.8 Sonnar:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/Sony/Sony-55f1_8,sm.jpg
Why so big and still only 1.8? Why wouldnt they use an old trusted formula for a 1.4 lens, the flange distance cant be the reason as they could let the inner part of the lens be a tube given the chosen enormous size for this F/1.8 piece
Oct 15, 2013 at 05:35 AM
p.64 #12Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
If your name is Zeiss, you can easily charge 1100€ for this lens. Of course, if your name is Leica, you charge triple that, and your product will be back logged for months 
Jman13 wrote:
SAR puts the price of the 55/1.8 at an absurd €1100. Are they smoking crack? I don't care how good it is, unless your name is Leica, you can't charge over a grand for an f/1.8 normal. (And even if your name is Leica, it's a crazy price for their Summicrons, but that's just me)
The rumored size of the 70-200/4 is exactly why I think a FF mirror less makes less sense as a full kit replacement than the smaller sensored systems. It's awesome for adapting lenses and in the wide to short telephoto range with moderate apertures, but telephotos...Show more →
Jman13 wrote:
SAR puts the price of the 55/1.8 at an absurd €1100. Are they smoking crack? I don't care how good it is, unless your name is Leica, you can't charge over a grand for an f/1.8 normal. (And even if your name is Leica, it's a crazy price for their Summicrons, but that's just me)
The rumored size of the 70-200/4 is exactly why I think a FF mirror less makes less sense as a full kit replacement than the smaller sensored systems. It's awesome for adapting lenses and in the wide to short telephoto range with moderate apertures, but telephotos...Show more →
Oct 15, 2013 at 05:37 AM
p.64 #13Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Yeah, I don't care how good it is. €1100 for an f/1.8 normal is highway robbery. At $400, I'd say it had better be outstanding, at $600, you're pushing the boundaries of acceptable. At $1100+, you're smoking something.
This is TRIPLE the price of the other main manufacturers 50/1.4s and about 10 times the price of a typical 50/1.8. Yes, in sure it will be optically better, but Zeiss' own 50/1.4 planar is only $725. This is nearly double that cost, for an f/1.8 normal.
You want to spend that kind of cash for those lenses, be my guest. Me? No. To put it in perspective, it would be like them charging $6,500 for a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.
This is TRIPLE the price of the other main manufacturers 50/1.4s and about 10 times the price of a typical 50/1.8. Yes, in sure it will be optically better, but Zeiss' own 50/1.4 planar is only $725. This is nearly double that cost, for an f/1.8 normal.
You want to spend that kind of cash for those lenses, be my guest. Me? No. To put it in perspective, it would be like them charging $6,500 for a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.
Oct 15, 2013 at 05:48 AM
p.64 #14Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Ok, but there's one thing I don't understand then Jordan. You own the Olympus 75/1.8 which is only a littlebit cheaper than the rumored price of that 55/1.8 over here. A lens for a much smaller sensor, also f1.8, SLR variants (85/1.8) costing only a fraction of that,... That's another way to put things into perspective
Oct 15, 2013 at 05:57 AM
p.64 #15Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, I don't care how good it is. €1100 for an f/1.8 normal is highway robbery...
Seriously, why would you care? You don't have any 50mm lens you like? The whole point of this new FF NEX
is to put ANY lens on it and enjoy the full frame results. Why are you even looking at those new lenses?
Auto focus, I guess, might be an answer...
Yeah, I don't care how good it is. €1100 for an f/1.8 normal is highway robbery...
Seriously, why would you care? You don't have any 50mm lens you like? The whole point of this new FF NEX
is to put ANY lens on it and enjoy the full frame results. Why are you even looking at those new lenses?
Auto focus, I guess, might be an answer...
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:03 AM
p.64 #16Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
How good the new lenses are is IMHO very much an open question. "Pure Zeiss" releases have been remarkable of late, including the Optus 55, the Z* 135, the Touit 12 and 32. I am not sure yet about the Sony-Zeiss 16-70, though Phillip Reeve's endorsement is a significant thumbs-up. OTOH, the 24mm Sony-Zeiss ZA left me stone cold. Thus, if the new lenses are Zeiss, I expect them to be excellent indeed. If they are Sony-Zeiss, more caution is in order
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:10 AM
p.64 #17Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Yes and the 35/2 Sonnar on my RX1 is absolutely stunning too Philippe.
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:19 AM
p.64 #18Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
55mm 1.8 is very similar to Sony Zeiss 24 1.8 $1100. Sony 50 1.8 lens is also similar size which is cheaper and maybe might work in FF w/ some amendment to the back. Of course there are lots of small 50mm options...
24-70mm is 460g vs Oly 12-40 382g vs Panasonic 305g vs Fuji 18-55 330g vs Sony Zeiss 16-70 308g.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 06:29 AM · View previous versions
24-70mm is 460g vs Oly 12-40 382g vs Panasonic 305g vs Fuji 18-55 330g vs Sony Zeiss 16-70 308g.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 06:29 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:22 AM
p.64 #19Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jochenb wrote:
Ok, but there's one thing I don't understand then Jordan. You own the Olympus 75/1.8 which is only a littlebit cheaper than the rumored price of that 55/1.8 over here. A lens for a much smaller sensor, also f1.8, SLR variants (85/1.8) costing only a fraction of that,... That's another way to put things into perspective
This is exactly my point. The Oly 75/1.8, which is one of the very best lenses I've used on ANY camera, costs $849. The Canon 85/1.8 costs $419, and the Nikon costs $489. So the Olympus costs 71% more than the Nikon 85/1.8. A steep price increase, but worth it for what amounts to a longer lens that is absolutely brilliant optically.
This lens costs 400% more than the Nikon 50/1.8 and 900% more than the Canon 50/1.8. If this Zeiss were $400, I'd view it as a reasonable price should the optics be outstanding. Heck, if it was $600, I'd view it as probably worth it. If Nikon or Canon came out with a new 50/1.8 priced at $1,100, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE would be calling them insane for charging that, regardless of how good optically it is. Which means that a large group of people are willing to shell out a LOT of money simply for the little Zeiss badge on the lens.
snowboarder wrote:
Seriously, why would you care? You don't have any 50mm lens you like? The whole point of this new FF NEX
is to put ANY lens on it and enjoy the full frame results. Why are you even looking at those new lenses?
Auto focus, I guess, might be an answer...
Why do I care? I'm a photographer, and I have no brand loyalty. I'm interested in all new systems. Do I think I'll probably switch to this? No...the size constraints are such that I'll probably want to stick to a smaller format, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibilities. While I don't particularly care for the NEX cameras I've used, I did really like the RX100, and I'm sure I'd like the RX1....the cameras look really good. And the pricing on the cameras looks to be extremely aggressive, which is awesome. But if they are only pricing the cameras cheap so that they can absolutely rape you on the lenses, then it's something to be aware of. I like adapting lenses, and this is nothing against the cameras, which look really good (and really well priced), but I also use AF lenses quite a lot...most of the time actually, and if I were to go into this system, an AF 50mm would be at the top of my list for things to get.
I had the Sigma 50/1.4 (and the Canon 50/1.4...and for a short time the Canon 50/1.2L, but I didn't view the 1/3 stop as worth it over the Sigma 50, so I returned it) when I shot full frame Canon. Actually, I still have the Sigma 50/1.4 and my 1Ds II because I haven't gotten around to selling them. I shoot with the 25/1.4 on m4/3 and the 35/1.4 on Fuji. Those two lenses are relatively expensive for normal lenses, but they are f/1.4 and they fit the system well and are optically outstanding....they're also half the price of this 55/1.8.
Using Jochen's example above, this same pricing on the 55/1.8 would translate into the somewhat leaked 85/1.8 being priced around $2,500. Would you view that as reasonable? Would you view the rumored 70-200/4 as reasonable at a price of around $6,500? Because those are the same markups over the Nikon version as this 55/1.8 is.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 06:34 AM · View previous versions
Ok, but there's one thing I don't understand then Jordan. You own the Olympus 75/1.8 which is only a littlebit cheaper than the rumored price of that 55/1.8 over here. A lens for a much smaller sensor, also f1.8, SLR variants (85/1.8) costing only a fraction of that,... That's another way to put things into perspective
This is exactly my point. The Oly 75/1.8, which is one of the very best lenses I've used on ANY camera, costs $849. The Canon 85/1.8 costs $419, and the Nikon costs $489. So the Olympus costs 71% more than the Nikon 85/1.8. A steep price increase, but worth it for what amounts to a longer lens that is absolutely brilliant optically.
This lens costs 400% more than the Nikon 50/1.8 and 900% more than the Canon 50/1.8. If this Zeiss were $400, I'd view it as a reasonable price should the optics be outstanding. Heck, if it was $600, I'd view it as probably worth it. If Nikon or Canon came out with a new 50/1.8 priced at $1,100, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE would be calling them insane for charging that, regardless of how good optically it is. Which means that a large group of people are willing to shell out a LOT of money simply for the little Zeiss badge on the lens.
snowboarder wrote:
Seriously, why would you care? You don't have any 50mm lens you like? The whole point of this new FF NEX
is to put ANY lens on it and enjoy the full frame results. Why are you even looking at those new lenses?
Auto focus, I guess, might be an answer...
Why do I care? I'm a photographer, and I have no brand loyalty. I'm interested in all new systems. Do I think I'll probably switch to this? No...the size constraints are such that I'll probably want to stick to a smaller format, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibilities. While I don't particularly care for the NEX cameras I've used, I did really like the RX100, and I'm sure I'd like the RX1....the cameras look really good. And the pricing on the cameras looks to be extremely aggressive, which is awesome. But if they are only pricing the cameras cheap so that they can absolutely rape you on the lenses, then it's something to be aware of. I like adapting lenses, and this is nothing against the cameras, which look really good (and really well priced), but I also use AF lenses quite a lot...most of the time actually, and if I were to go into this system, an AF 50mm would be at the top of my list for things to get.
I had the Sigma 50/1.4 (and the Canon 50/1.4...and for a short time the Canon 50/1.2L, but I didn't view the 1/3 stop as worth it over the Sigma 50, so I returned it) when I shot full frame Canon. Actually, I still have the Sigma 50/1.4 and my 1Ds II because I haven't gotten around to selling them. I shoot with the 25/1.4 on m4/3 and the 35/1.4 on Fuji. Those two lenses are relatively expensive for normal lenses, but they are f/1.4 and they fit the system well and are optically outstanding....they're also half the price of this 55/1.8.
Using Jochen's example above, this same pricing on the 55/1.8 would translate into the somewhat leaked 85/1.8 being priced around $2,500. Would you view that as reasonable? Would you view the rumored 70-200/4 as reasonable at a price of around $6,500? Because those are the same markups over the Nikon version as this 55/1.8 is.
Edited on Oct 15, 2013 at 06:34 AM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:27 AM
p.64 #20Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
philber wrote:
I am not sure yet about the Sony-Zeiss 16-70, though Phillip Reeve's endorsement is a significant thumbs-up.
I liked the lens quite a bit, but I am not the "my corners have to be sharp as a razorblade"-guy. the SEL1670 did many things right like versatility, contrast, central sharpness and size.
If I had judged only from the corner sharpness point of view the review would have been rather negative.
I am really looking forwad to testing the G28 on the A7. Hopefully the A7 doesn't work worse with RF lenses than the A7r, because I don't care for the resolution and couldn't afford it.
I am not sure yet about the Sony-Zeiss 16-70, though Phillip Reeve's endorsement is a significant thumbs-up.
I liked the lens quite a bit, but I am not the "my corners have to be sharp as a razorblade"-guy. the SEL1670 did many things right like versatility, contrast, central sharpness and size.
If I had judged only from the corner sharpness point of view the review would have been rather negative.
I am really looking forwad to testing the G28 on the A7. Hopefully the A7 doesn't work worse with RF lenses than the A7r, because I don't care for the resolution and couldn't afford it.
Oct 15, 2013 at 06:30 AM