p.28 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
mogul wrote:
One error spotted, the 7r has 4 fps not 1.5.
Continuous shooting is indeed 4fps. Continuous AF shooting is 1.5fps.
There is an error on the exposure compensation chart. It's actually +/-5
+/-3 is the range from the dial.
p.28 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Looking at that 24-70 mounted on the A7, it looks like a regular 24-70 with a built in adapter tube. It makes me wonder @ hmmm ... since the area for the projected image to cover is the same on mirrorless or SLR, how much diff is there in the lens size weight for the Sony vs. Canon 24-70/2.8
According to the specs @ B&H, the Sony is 200g heavier, 2mm shorter and 5mm slimmer ... so much for the concept of a significant size & weight advantage because we've removed the mirror (at least with this lens). +1 @ likely better build, but still if your reason for getting juiced @ FF mirrorless is size/weight ... just something to be aware of.
p.28 #6 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
But that is of course the ZA version. The FE only weights 426 grams.
RustyBug wrote:
Looking at that 24-70 mounted on the A7 makes me wonder @ hmmm ... since the area for the projected image to cover is the same on mirrorless or SLR, how much diff is there in the lens size weight for the Sony vs. Canon 24-70/2.8
According to the specs @ B&H, the Sony is 200g heavier, 2mm shorter and 5mm slimmer ... so much for the concept of a significant size & weight advantage because we've removed the mirror (at least with this lens).
p.28 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
RustyBug wrote:
Looking at that 24-70 mounted on the A7, it looks like a regular 24-70 with a built in adapter tube. It makes me wonder @ hmmm ... since the area for the projected image to cover is the same on mirrorless or SLR, how much diff is there in the lens size weight for the Sony vs. Canon 24-70/2.8
According to the specs @ B&H, the Sony is 200g heavier, 2mm shorter and 5mm slimmer ... so much for the concept of a significant size & weight advantage because we've removed the mirror (at least with this lens). +1 @ likely better build, but still if your reason for getting juiced @ FF mirrorless is size/weight ... just something to be aware of.
Umm, how about comparing the EF 24-70/4 IS with the FE 24-70/4 instead?
FE 24-70/4: 426 grams, 95x73 mm, 67 mm filter, $1198
EF 24-70/4: 600 grams, 93x83 mm, 77 mm filter, $1499
Yes, the Canon has IS, but remember that it also sits 26 mm further away from the sensor, making it even bigger on the camera. Don't know why anyone would mount a f/2.8 zoom on such a tiny camera.
p.28 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
RustyBug wrote:
Someone who wants 2.8 instead of 4.0, I guess ... looks like we're giving away a full stop of light to get that smaller size.
I don't understand why you think that. The corresponding Canon lens with f/4 is larger and heavier. Are there any FF 24-70/4 zooms that are lighter and smaller than the FE?
p.28 #13 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Makten wrote:
I don't understand why you think that. The corresponding Canon lens with f/4 is larger and heavier. Are there any FF 24-70/4 zooms that are lighter and smaller than the FE?
I meant to go from 2.8 to 4.0 in general.
But, here is the corresponding Canon with IS. (I think I got the right one this time.)
83mm
93mm
600g
That makes the delta @ 1cm shorter and 170g lighter (sans IS) @ f4 vs. f4.
Hmmmm @ f4 with no IS and no IBIS.
p.28 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Once you start talking about zooms and teles, the size advantages of mirrorless diminishes. To me, the appeal of the system is primes, and, if you need a zoom or tele, the option is there, despite there not being a ton of size difference.
Edit: The weight saving by going from f/2.8 to f/4 is of course sort of the same on an SLR. So you don't lose anything with the a7, but you win the possbility of a lighter system because of other lenses than large zooms. And you get a much smaller and lighter camera, which makes more sense the smaller lenses you use.
douglasf13 wrote:
Once you start talking about zooms and teles, the size advantages of mirrorless diminishes. To me, the appeal of the system is primes, and, if you need a zoom or tele, the option is there, despite there not being a ton of size difference.
Yeah, but I think people are being fooled by the images of these zooms. Since the camera is so small, the 24-70 and even the 55 looks big, but I bet they will feel quite small IRL.
p.28 #20 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Well, one thing I'm pretty sure of is that the FE 35/2 will be smaller/lighter than my C/Y 35-70/3.4.
The image of that 24-70 just got me thinking, that's all. I'm not overly concerned with size/weight in absolute terms. +1 @ the way it feels, balances and handles will be the telling tale in that department. Of course the IQ will be paramount, but as things go I was just trying to get a (numeric) feel for the diff's.
Ooops. 
