p.98 #1 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
freaklikeme wrote:
But isn't it fair to question it if it makes native-mount lens design more complicated and forces longer designs than a wider, slightly deeper mount might?
Personally, I'm thrilled with the cameras as is, but if I cared at all about native-mount glass, I would be wondering what kind of design compromises will be made in the coming lenses in order to accommodate the E-mount and register.
It is fair to question it, and also to want for something better or different.
But saying that they made the register too short is out of order. In the context of APS-C the short register is essential for the compactness of a NEX-5N camera with a pancake lens on it. If they had made the E-miount bigger from start, the NEX system wouldn't have been as appealing.
The fact that they reused the E-mount for the FF cameras also has benefits. The 35 mm f/1.8 OSS has usable corners only cropped for square aspect ratio. The 55-210 is a very compact tele zoom that works with a crop factor of 1.2
p.98 #2 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
The NEX-5 argument is fair, but I am talking about the FF (FE?) E-mount. I don't see any major advantages to using the same mount as before. They could use the same protocol. They could make an adapter between both.
Really, it has been decades now that Canon's EF mount design has been trumpeted as ingenious. Why did Sony make such a small mount?
In the end, we will see. Maybe it won't be an impediment after all. Maybe the 50/12 and 85/1.2 lenses are just around the corner, and the 35/2 as well. 24/1.4, it is all coming down the pipeline.
Or not. Has anyone seen any diagrams for what the largest rear element can be on an FE lens? The mount is not only small, the contacts are also large and not particularly out of the way, which limits it further.
p.98 #3 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Yes, the size of the camera is smaller than anyone needs. Especially thinner. They could easily have made room for a bigger battery. There have been reports here of two hours of use under normal conditions. WTF? So if you go out for the day, you need four batteries? This is one of those "we are the best in the world at making small electronic devices so let's make it as small as we can to impress everyone" things. Bad thinking.
I use L-brackets when I go out. I doubt I can get at the battery with that placement.
Carsten,
RRS made access to the Battery Compartment for the Fujifilm X-E1 accessible with their L Bracket and Grip:
p.98 #4 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Can an Australian member with an Australia-sourced A7 or A7r confirm the available video frame rates? I have had extensive dialogue with Sony Australia and they cannot tell me... one rep claimed that the Aussie model has both the 60/50, 30/25, and 24 fps, and that these pairs are selectable via the PAL/NTSC selection option in the menu:
PAL/NTSC Selector (only for 1080 50i compatible models)
(Setup menu)
He claims that selecting one or the other then allows selection of either the 50/25 ("PAL) or 60/30/24 ("NTSC") frame rates. Can someone check and confirm—if all frame rates are available, I will source an Australian model. if only 50/25 are available, I will need to source a US model, because my other three cameras have the 60/30/24 frame rates. TIA, kl
p.98 #5 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
JonathanP wrote:
I must be being a bit dense here - I don't understand why a shallower mount is a disadvantage. It doesn't prevent a lens design that requires a longer glass<>sensor distance, that lens simply needs a longer housing (but overall no worse than an equivalent shorter tube on a fatter body). The shallower mount does offer the extra flexibility and compromises that can be used to create shorter lenses if required. I don't see a downside to that?
It puzzles me why people use as the basis for size comparison of interchangeable lens systems a single lens mounted on a camera. Once you start to carry multiple lenses, the shorter register system will almost always lose, because the extra length has to be on every lens instead of once on the camera turret. We have seen that most lenses don't take advantage of the short register distances e.g. because of ray angle in wides.
I'm finding the size of my A7R just right for my requirements.
If my requirements were to carry the camera with a single OM-FE adapter permanently fitted and two or three OM Zuikos, I might think so too.
p.98 #7 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
melcat wrote:
It puzzles me why people use as the basis for size comparison of interchangeable lens systems a single lens mounted on a camera. Once you start to carry multiple lenses, the shorter register system will almost always lose, because the extra length has to be on every lens instead of once on the camera turret. We have seen that most lenses don't take advantage of the short register distances e.g. because of ray angle in wides.
If my requirements were to carry the camera with a single OM-FE adapter permanently fitted and two or three OM Zuikos, I might think so too. ...Show more →
Well, for me, it is about a) getting the thing out of the bag and b) storage in bag.
Storing a few spare batteries in a bag is something completely different from having to pull out a behemoth of a camera each time I want to take a shot. The same principle applies for a deeper mount.
I find it fascinating that people go out of their way to damn a camera that is the closest thing to perfect for many alt-users so far in my history on this forum.
p.98 #8 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
melcat wrote:
It puzzles me why people use as the basis for size comparison of interchangeable lens systems a single lens mounted on a camera. Once you start to carry multiple lenses, the shorter register system will almost always lose, because the extra length has to be on every lens instead of once on the camera turret. We have seen that most lenses don't take advantage of the short register distances e.g. because of ray angle in wides.
I guess there is a specific preferences at work here. FMers overwhelmingly use lenses in the 28-85 range, especially 35-58, and focus more on specific rendering characteristics. There are some SWA users as well, and they will have trouble finding compact wides for their A7/A7R cameras. There is some limited hope for a few lenses, but putting together a small, yet complete and flexible kit with consistent rendering (read: system, as opposed to several individual character-lenses) remains a challenge for now.
p.98 #9 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
ulrikft2 wrote:
Well, for me, it is about a) getting the thing out of the bag and b) storage in bag.
Storing a few spare batteries in a bag is something completely different from having to pull out a behemoth of a camera each time I want to take a shot. The same principle applies for a deeper mount.
I find it fascinating that people go out of their way to damn a camera that is the closest thing to perfect for many alt-users so far in my history on this forum.
I guess I need to make this clear one more time: I am not damning the camera, I am pointing out several things which could have been significantly better. Large difference. It is still a very cool thing, just unnecessarily flawed.
p.98 #10 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
ulrikft2 wrote:
Storing a few spare batteries in a bag is something completely different from having to pull out a behemoth of a camera each time I want to take a shot. The same principle applies for a deeper mount.
I would hardly call an OM-4 a "behemoth", and that is roughly what the camera would look like with a longer turret.
p.98 #11 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
I guess I need to make this clear one more time: I am not damning the camera, I am pointing out several things which could have been significantly better. Large difference. It is still a very cool thing, just unnecessarily flawed.
I guess we also need to make one thing clear one more time: What you call "unnecessarily flawed" (E-mount, battery compatibility, control wheels and button layout, etc) is actually a benefit for some other poeple, including me.
It is ok to have a discussion and disagree on requirements. I do understand that you want things different and respect your wish for that.
p.98 #12 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Yes, the size of the camera is smaller than anyone needs. Especially thinner. They could easily have made room for a bigger battery. There have been reports here of two hours of use under normal conditions. WTF? So if you go out for the day, you need four batteries?
I use L-brackets when I go out. I doubt I can get at the battery with that placement.
I use a RRS L-bracket on my NEX-7 and there is no obstruction to the battery flap as the bracket does not extend that far. I don't see why the a7 should present any problem either unless, perhaps, you are using a universal bracket.
When I asked Richard about the MF lenses that Zeiss was going to make, he indicated that Zeiss had just decided to go forward to make them several days ago and at this point they did not know what focal lengths or the number of lenses that they planned to make (at this time). Richard suggested that lenses would probably be available for show at Photokina next year (2014). He also indicated that the lenses would be coming from Zeiss and not from Sony. He indicated that Zeiss understood the problems of using adapters with lens (and RF lenses) and they were going to look at their existing designs to try to figure out what they would use including possibly Distagon or Sonnar (not Biogon I believe to issues) and that the lenses would have native mounts with the adapter (lengths?) built in and they would have all of the contacts and interaction with these new lenses and with the camera bodies themselves. That way there would be communication between the camera and these new lenses.
p.98 #14 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
As much I am not fond of the D800's live view, I have never missed focus with it, so this is more of an aesthetic concern, isn't it?
No, not just "aesthetic". When I owned the D800e, I found myself frustratingly racking focus back and forth trying to ascertain perfect focus but was never fully confident with what I saw in Live View image because of the line skipping flaw. Is it in perfect focus or is it slightly off? No clue going by the Live View image. I found Live View use on the D800e a very tiresome and trying exercise, one which I simply could not live with in day to day use. This was in a darkened studio environment with modeling lights so perhaps it's better in bright daylight. To me, that's an actual usage/ functional issue, not just one of "aesthetics".
p.98 #16 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
Did you miss focus, or were you just not certain at the time of capture?
I don't use live view only in daylight, but have also used it in very dark places, such as during urbex trips.
No, in the end, everything was in focus. Getting there was "Death by 1000 cuts". This was for a client so it took a lot longer to do the job due to the D800e Live View implementation. This was also compounded by the other Live View bug which Nikon has since addressed (where the Live View image only reflected the actual exposure setting, a severe issue for studio photographers using strobes. I had to constantly change my exposure setting just to even see the Live View image).
p.98 #17 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
I had the same problem with the exposure, but was able to get work done by switching between M and A modes, similar to what Samuli is doing with his 5DII.
I have to admit that it might well be slower to focus properly, and as such, while not really being a bug, it is more than just an aesthetic issue, i.e. a suboptimal workflow issue.
But in my experience, it does work in the end. I would much prefer it without the line skipping, but I don't know what compromises that might have entailed in price and battery life, so I am hesitant to judge.
p.98 #18 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
Flawed according to you. I could argue that all previous fat FF cameraslike the D800E were flawed because of unnecessary weight and size.
For me, my A7R is the optimal camera. I use my existing adapters and batteries, and the only flaws my NEX-7 had, the awkward menu system, and the non-standard flash socket, have been fixed.
I see myself using this camera for a very long time. I can't really think of anything that's missing or bad. Lenses will come, but who cares? I can use an 85/1.2 today. I can even get auto focus for it if I want. If that isn't fantastic I don't know what is.
carstenw wrote:
I guess I need to make this clear one more time: I am not damning the camera, I am pointing out several things which could have been significantly better. Large difference. It is still a very cool thing, just unnecessarily flawed.
p.98 #19 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
carstenw wrote:
The NEX-5 argument is fair, but I am talking about the FF (FE?) E-mount. I don't see any major advantages to using the same mount as before. They could use the same protocol. They could make an adapter between both.
Really, it has been decades now that Canon's EF mount design has been trumpeted as ingenious. Why did Sony make such a small mount?
In the end, we will see. Maybe it won't be an impediment after all. Maybe the 50/12 and 85/1.2 lenses are just around the corner, and the 35/2 as well. 24/1.4, it is all coming down the pipeline.
Or not. Has anyone seen any diagrams for what the largest rear element can be on an FE lens? The mount is not only small, the contacts are also large and not particularly out of the way, which limits it further....Show more →
Agreed. E-mount was apparently only designed for aps-c in the first place. Had Sony made a new, wider mount for the A7, it would have allowed faster and shorter lenses. I guess Sony didn't want to create even more mount confusion by introducing a third mount, and they wanted to leave the option of using aps-c lenses on the A7, unfortunately.
p.98 #20 · Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless
douglasf13 wrote:
Agreed. E-mount was apparently only designed for aps-c in the first place. Had Sony made a new, wider mount for the A7, it would have allowed faster and shorter lenses. I guess Sony didn't want to create even more mount confusion by introducing a third mount, and they wanted to leave the option of using aps-c lenses on the A7, unfortunately.
Douglas,
We still do not know if Sony did or did not have in the back of their minds that the e-mount could be used for FF or it was just by luck.
But by so doing it also allowed us the users to mount a tremendous number of lenses through the usage of adapters and not requiring us to Leitax many of them as in Leica R lenses which would have been required for the Sony A mount and quite possibly a third mount.
