Bubble wrote:
REALLY? i'm the video guy here. I haven't see the problem or seeing the need to change the mount. You, on the other hand just assume video people have more problem with it? wow..
No. I'm the video guy here.
Maybe the A7s is better, but my A7 was a problem doing a pull with any of my legacy glass that wasn't IF, at least with my Leica R's. You can almost always solve this (almost) on any camera if you properly rig it with a BP and are supporting body and lens blah blah woof woof, but like I said it was "one of the reasons" I passed on the A7. I actually don't like the whole 'plastic sandwich' design no matter how well it works for some people so far, none of the cameras I own have a mount constructed this way (not even my Alexa).
So does anyone know if the A7r has the same plastic sandwich mount? I haven't looked at one that closely.
I also do have the occasional f stop reading '--' and have to switch off/on the camera or dismount/mount the lens. If that is because of the rotational play that so many people on here claim to be 'normal' or because of 'engineering tolerances' then thats just bullsh*t. Again, never experienced that with any other bodies/lenses.
I have the suspicion that if the Sony original mount has some wobble, it's not for the dual metal-plastic design of the bayonet ring but got the sloppiness of Sony's quality control. Judging by the posts here some A7r/A7 units don't wobble in the least ( like mine) while others do it appreciably.
In fact, a plastic spacer sandwitched between two pieces of rigid metal, with tightened screws, shouldn't make any wobble at all. Rigid plastic is not rubber; you can bend it or crack it, but not compress it.
What puzzles me is why they employ that design instead of a single metal ring like in the A7s. It can't be for economy reasons. I bet that is more expensive to manufacture a metal ring and a plastic spacer of the same thickness than a single piece of metal twice as wide.
Maybe they realized this after releasing the A7/A7r models and fixed their error in the A7s ?.
It would be interesting to know what the A7s owners have to say about the wobble, if any.
Maybe the A7s is better, but my A7 was a problem doing a pull with any of my legacy glass that wasn't IF, at least with my Leica R's. .
I also find and dislike rotational play on my A7R. But I don't know if this tough mount will solve it. If the culprit is the tolerance of the locking pin and my lens adapter (Leica R, Novoflex), then it seems the tough mount won't help.
Rotational play doesn't affect IQ, but it's an annoyance ergonomically speaking--for both stills and videos, as long as you focus manually.
artur5 wrote:
What puzzles me is why they employ that design instead of a single metal ring like in the A7s. It can't be for economy reasons. I bet that is more expensive to manufacture a metal ring and a plastic spacer of the same thickness than a single piece of metal twice as wide.
Maybe they realized this after releasing the A7/A7r models and fixed their error in the A7s ?.
It would be interesting to know what the A7s owners have to say about the wobble, if any.
I suspect the use of the plastic/metal sandwich mount on both the A7/A7r is more about product placement and marketing. For Minolta, the "7" series was always distinguished in some way form the more professional "9" series. I don't know what the shutter button on the A7s feels like but you can bet if/when we see the A9 series, the camera will be much more refined mechanically and materially.
When the A7 and A7r were originally released, my sense is that Sony sort of mislead folks a bit into thinking the A7r was the more robust, professional version with the metal front plate vs plastic of the A7. There was also more made about Weather resistance which turned out not to be so true. Anyway, the A7/A7r are basically the pseudo economy- value models with the more robust and refined "9" series to come.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I suspect the use of the plastic/metal sandwich mount on both the A7/A7r is more about product placement and marketing. For Minolta, the "7" series was always distinguished in some way form the more professional "9" series. I don't know what the shutter button on the A7s feels like but you can bet if/when we see the A9 series, the camera will be much more refined mechanically and materially
That would seem a foolhardy decision by Sony. Why would a company produce a product with an "inferior" component, to satisfy the marketing department, especially when warranty repairs would be the responsibility of Sony? The price of replacing the plastic "spacer" constitutes a minute portion of total warranty repair bill, with technicians, shipping, etc., making up the bulk. If the plastic spacer was indeed "inferior", Sony would incur much greater warranty repairs than had they used a metal spacer.
It's much more likely the plastic spacer was used because it was specified in the design concept. Sony knew long, heavy DLSR lenses would be adapted by the customer. How many forum posts of "my a7's face was ripped off when I dropped my telephoto a few inches" (one must understand forum participants never drop their equipment more than a "few inches", which all well engineered products should survive unscathed) would it take before the consumer soured on the a7? Much better the plastic spacer fail than writing off the entire camera.
Occam's razor is usually correct. "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
grahamb3 wrote:
That would seem a foolhardy decision by Sony. Why would a company produce a product with an "inferior" component, to satisfy the marketing department, especially when warranty repairs would be the responsibility of Sony? The price of replacing the plastic "spacer" constitutes a minute portion of total warranty repair bill, with technicians, shipping, etc., making up the bulk. If the plastic spacer was indeed "inferior", Sony would incur much greater warranty repairs than had they used a metal spacer.
It's much more likely the plastic spacer was used because it was specified in the design concept. Sony knew long, heavy DLSR lenses would be adapted by the customer. How many forum posts of "my a7's face was ripped off when I dropped my telephoto a few inches" (one must understand forum participants never drop their equipment more than a "few inches", which all well engineered products should survive unscathed) would it take before the consumer soured on the a7? Much better the plastic spacer fail than writing off the entire camera.
Occam's razor is usually correct. "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." ...Show more →
I do think it's telling that the A7s uses a full steel mount and Sony has said that was done to support the heavier lenses that might be used for video.
To think that marketing does not often dictate design decisions...
"How many forum posts of "my a7's face was ripped off..."
If you go back to page 1 of this thread, you can see from the image of the A7x design why the front of the camera can't be "ripped off" as you suggest. The lens mount screws directly into the cast part that the sensor attaches to on the other side. The front plate of the camera is not even attached to the lens mount directly.
Roger Cicala, a person that works with cameras and lenses every day, wrote an interesting blog entry. Although the essay concerns lens mounts, one would think the anecdotal observations would apply as well to camera mounts.
Here's the conclusion:
"When a plastic mount does break, people tend to freak out a bit because the lens is so obviously broken. From a repair standpoint, though, we love them. It takes 15 minutes to replace a broken plastic mount and the lens is as good as new. Metal mount lenses don’t break like that. Instead internal components and lens elements get shifted and bent. It can take several hours to return one of those to optical alignment."
grahamb3 wrote:
Roger Cicala, a person that works with cameras and lenses every day, wrote an interesting blog entry. Although the essay concerns lens mounts, one would think the anecdotal observations would apply as well to camera mounts.
Here's the conclusion:
"When a plastic mount does break, people tend to freak out a bit because the lens is so obviously broken. From a repair standpoint, though, we love them. It takes 15 minutes to replace a broken plastic mount and the lens is as good as new. Metal mount lenses don’t break like that. Instead internal components and lens elements get shifted and bent. It can take several hours to return one of those to optical alignment."...Show more →
Of course, the image and reference on page 1 I made was directly from Rogers tear down of the A7r. I'm not sure you can make the exact analogy about a camera mount and lens mount. I suppose if it made sense to use plastic flanges regardless of cost and marketing, we would see more of them on the high end cameras. I don't believe I have ever owned any other camera that used a plastic flange myself (maybe the Sony NEX 7 did?). It may very well be that the plastic flange turns out to be solid and trouble free over the life of the A7/A7r. Regardless, I do feel better using a full metal mount.
In the end, if you feel more comfortable using a metal mount, you made the right decision.
I've ordered the FotoDiox mount myself. I don't intend to change out the stock mount, but if I ever drop my camera with a telephoto lens attached "several inches", I'll have a replacement at hand.
In the end, if you feel more comfortable using a metal mount, you made the right decision.
I've ordered the FotoDiox mount myself. I don't intend to change out the stock mount, but if I ever drop my camera with a telephoto lens attached "several inches", I'll have a replacement at hand.
I originally did not plan on immediately changing out the mount myself but curiosity got the best of me. As I have said previously, in my case (I was not seeing any issue with the stock mount), the difference I feel is likely in my head!
mikedefieslife wrote:
The plastic flanges are plenty strong enough.
Oddly I find that my native kit lens has some play in it. Yet every adaper I have PK, F, MD, OM fits snuggly with no play at all.
From that I'd be more worried about the native lenses than the camera mount itself.
I have play on my 28-70 which is the only lens I own for my A7. I have ordered a Fotodiox Canon FD to NEX adaptor so will try that on the original mount first and report back.
The "Tough E mount" could come in play for something else than the plastic flange between the mount plates. I am using my A7R with different adapters for lenses, and the outside aluminum mount plate gets scratched a bit (the mount still works perfectly fine, it is more an optical looking thing). This brass "Tough E mount" plate might be more resistant against scratching from adapter pieces. Would be interesting if somebody else experienced a beneficial factor here in this regard.
I just had a look at my original mount and lens and I think the rotational play is caused by the hole on the lens mount not being a precise snug fit on the release pin on the mount. So that would mean the tough e-mount won't change that. Which also means the fault is probably with the lens and not the mount itself. As for the wobble, maybe the tough e-mount will improve that.
There is a big improvement when comparing the A7S mount compared to the A7R.
So, what is the consensus on the Fotodiox Tough E-mount? Worth the trouble?
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is a big improvement when comparing the A7S mount compared to the A7R.
So, what is the consensus on the Fotodiox Tough E-mount? Worth the trouble?
It made a minor improvement on my A7R, and a huge improvement in rigidity on my A7. The only drawback is that now my Novoflex adapters fit a little too tight (but still useable).
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is a big improvement when comparing the A7S mount compared to the A7R.
So, what is the consensus on the Fotodiox Tough E-mount? Worth the trouble?
Barely any trouble. I recently did this to my a6000, I swear it took 10 minutes at the most. I don't think you will ever get a consensus on whether it improves or stabilizes anything functionally but I've personally never like plastic components in the mount/bayonet interface.
