Matt Grum wrote:
The choice of megapixel count seems closely tied to 4K video to me, it's almost exactly twice the width of a 4K frame. It's that or someone at Sony has been reading The Hitchiker's Guide a bit too much...
+1
Looks like Sony is trying to win the 4k arms race by leapfrogging what Panasonic and Samsung have rolled out. Given the fact that 4k has gone downmarket to the RX10/100, everything will be 4k capable going forward and pixel counts that are more friendly to some sort of down scaling makes sense. Plus they can charge more since Canon/Nikon have nothing in the affordable 4k space... yet.
ebrandon wrote:
My understanding is that the lossy compression of RAW files is happening at the sensor read-out / hardware level to speed up processing.
I'm tired of people saying Sony is stupid not to offer lossless RAW, as if it were just a simple menu option to include it. You can agree or disagree with the hardware design decision that was made, but please stop acting as if the Sony engineers are just stupid or stubborn because the R&D and engineering that goes into a camera like this makes rocket science look easy.
No. It does border on stupidity for them to concern themselves with speed this much on such a high-resolution camera, especially when they have two other cameras in their lineup that they could have made into high-speed action cameras.
Nikon has previously also done variable FPS with the use of 12-bit RAW restrictions, BTW. It's not like this was their only option. Sony merely de-value certain things because they know they're not dealbreakers, and that's fine, but it's a corporate philosophy I find hard to swallow. For the record, there are plenty of things I find hard to swallow about all camera makers, I am merely here to point them out, shine a light on them, so that improvements are made sooner than later.
If too many people just say "oh well!" then change will take forever.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, but if you rely on contrast detect AF to correct for micro adjust with Sony A mount and Canon EF mount lenses, then you can't expect fast AF. That will slow things down substantially. I expect that in time Sony will offer micro adjust for A mount lenses, but I think we will be out of luck for Canon lenses.
well, that's a bit of an assumption. Maybe the PDAF does 99% of the prediction work for the CDAF, with the CDAF making the final decision. Just assumptions at this point, noone really knows how exactly the hybrid system works, other than using a bit of both technologies.
my assumption that CDAF is only being used for precision, while PDAF is use for the quick movements. Logically, that would make the most sense, however, just a guess and nothing more.
hiepphotog wrote:
Matthew, let's just say you cornered yourself in with those lenses and insisted on saying Sony system is not right for you. So what are you trying to do here? Arguing your points of picking a Nikon in a Sony forum or trying to convert some to the other camp? I think all Sony users here prefer the EVF over the OVF system for their kinds of shooting, astro and nighttime landscapes included (I'm one). We do have a different set of lenses than yours to accomplish the same goal while being smaller and lighter. If one can treat any main feature as "nothing," I can go on and on as to why I would never pick a Nikon system since all the advantages would weigh nothing to me (Samyang EXIF, built-in exposure delay, etc.). Well clearly, they are since I'm a Sony shooter. But to be clear, I pick the tool that fits my style. If and when Nikon is able to produce a mirrorless camera that would exceed a Sony camera in all the features that I value at a reasonable price point, I would jump ship. Right now, I don't see that happens any time soon....Show more →
I have never bothered to actively attempt at "converting" folks, I get enough people coming to me directly asking for advice on this or that switch. I only give out that kind of information if people ask for it.
I'm mainly just here to bring fair light to the whole situation, in case any folks find themselves in my exact situation, and are feeling tempted but for the wrong reasons. (Weight / price)
There are plenty of good reasons to want this camera, but at 22 oz and $3200, being lightweight or affordable are no longer advantages that this mirrorless system can tout very broadly. I simply want to point out that anyone considering this camera should place great value on the rest of the features.
Fair enough?
Jun 11, 2015 at 12:19 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
matthewsaville wrote:
I have never bothered to actively attempt at "converting" folks, I get enough people coming to me directly asking for advice on this or that switch. I only give out that kind of information if people ask for it.
I'm mainly just here to bring fair light to the whole situation, in case any folks find themselves in my exact situation, and are feeling tempted but for the wrong reasons. (Weight / price)
There are plenty of good reasons to want this camera, but at 22 oz and $3200, being lightweight or affordable are no longer advantages that this mirrorless system can tout very broadly. I simply want to point out that anyone considering this camera should place great value on the rest of the features.
Yeah, but at 625g vs. 840g for the Nikon D750 and at 126 X 96 X 60 mm (W X H X D) vs. 140 X 113 X 78 mm (W X H X D) for the Nikon, I think some people might consider the weight and size a significant factor. It is to me vs. other FF DSLRs. You might not think those differences are a reason to buy the camera, but I think there will be some people who do.
Batty_F wrote:
So you're saying that tethered image transfer is likely to take 4 seconds on the A7r 2, since the A7r 1 takes 3 seconds? 4 seconds per shot is pretty unacceptable.
Transfer using USB3 and USB2 on the D800 with Capture One is pretty much the same, just under 3 seconds (from memory). Transfer using Firewire 800 on our Leaf 40 megapixel back was 3-4 seconds. What you are saying is 'pretty unacceptable' is in fact what the industry has long been used to when working with these kinds of resolutions. I can't see many studios or pros shooting tethered who would flunk a camera because it, at a tiny fraction of the price, is tethering at the same speeds as the digital backs which until now had been the only way to achieve that level of resolution.
Talking of which, anyone interested in a Leaf Aptus II-8 back (Mamiya mount)? We were selling it anyway. All things considered this new Sony is not the camera for us to upgrade our D800e's to. Not enough of a resolution increase and the lossy compression is potentially a problem for our usage. No rush, those Nikons are hard core workhorses.
millsart wrote:
I think the Leica value as of late has been a bit like Beanie Babies or Dot Com stocks. Around what, 5 years ago Leica got really popular. The M9 was kind of the first high resolution, compact FF option, and it was great.
Look at how many forum regulars here on FM all got the RF bug, I know I did. Glass demand was greater than supply. We were paying silly money for even discontinued M39 Voigtlander optics and Zeiss ZM stuff was going for greater than new value etc. I think I paid nearly a grand for a ZM 35/2.8 Biogon C lol
It felt like you really couldn't lose money but then over time the supply caught up, new mirrorless options came out, we had access to a bunch of high quality, yet far cheaper Canon FDn, OM, Rokkor etc optics we could play with for 1/10th the cost etc.
New Leica bodies like the Monochrome and 240 came out and while very nice, the $7K+ price tags were tough to swallow, and while many of us had some glass, we couldn't really continue down the Leica path
I ended up selling my M9 (and my M8.2), both of which I bought used for a decent price, maybe 80% of what I paid for them. Certainly would of been a far bigger hit if I had bought them new.
Now days I think a used M9 probably will go for about what you bought it for, but certainly not the $6k or so they used to sell for in a day on the B&S forum. New M240 or similar is also going to lose a few thousand dollars over a few years. I don't think any modern digital body is ever going to really appreciate.
Might do a little better with certain glass, but since there isn't a 6 month wait for a Lux, used values will be less than readily available new prices. ZM, VC etc glass also isn't going to appreciate.
I don't think Leica is an investment these days in the slightest, and while I do agree it holds its value well for certain models (Not all) the same can be said for some Sony gear.
The 55/1.8 FE for example.... I bought one when the A7 first came out for about $800, and you can still sell that lens for $750 or so easily. Its held its value very well.
Same can't be said for the A7 body, but lens like the 70-200 f4 aren't going to drop too much.
High quality glass, regardless of mount (given its still supported) will retain value far better than bodies do. I think we all pretty much know this, and that is why its probably better to "invest" in glass, rather than bodies.
Adding a 16-35 probably will do more to improve ones photographic enjoyment/options than a new body will, and will also still be useful on a new body down the road, even when todays latest and greatest body is selling at 50%....Show more →
Now you added glass into the equation - I fully agree here especially since the FE lenses are all pretty new regarding the release dates. No matter which brand it is, electronic camera bodies will all depreciate rather sooner than later.
Beni wrote:
Transfer using USB3 and USB2 on the D800 with Capture One is pretty much the same, just under 3 seconds (from memory). Transfer using Firewire 800 on our Leaf 40 megapixel back was 3-4 seconds. What you are saying is 'pretty unacceptable' is in fact what the industry has long been used to when working with these kinds of resolutions. I can't see many studios or pros shooting tethered who would flunk a camera because it, at a tiny fraction of the price, is tethering at the same speeds as the digital backs which until now had been the only way to achieve that level of resolution.
Talking of which, anyone interested in a Leaf Aptus II-8 back (Mamiya mount)? We were selling it anyway. All things considered this new Sony is not the camera for us to upgrade our D800e's to. Not enough of a resolution increase and the lossy compression is potentially a problem for our usage. No rush, those Nikons are hard core workhorses....Show more →
Thanks Beni was detained trying to answer this but the new A7RII might actually pick up speed as well because of the new faster processor but again the bottleneck usually lies on the computer side. Industry standard is pretty much around 3 seconds. Again we are pushing big data here. We need to remember as well C1 supports Sony cameras directly now. No hot folders and such so it increase functionality and a little speed. To be honest to get these type of speeds we spent a fortune on MF backs and now this has changed for the better and will continue too.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, but if you rely on contrast detect AF to correct for micro adjust with Sony A mount and Canon EF mount lenses, then you can't expect fast AF. That will slow things down substantially. I expect that in time Sony will offer micro adjust for A mount lenses, but I think we will be out of luck for Canon lenses.
I don't think the mirrorless cameras with PDAF use PDAF exclusively. The PDAF takes you very close and then the final adjustment is done by CDAF, so micro adjust should not be needed. As far as I know due to the small size of on-chip PDAF sensors they are not as sensitive as DSLR PDAF sensors so their accuracy is limited.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, but at 625g vs. 840g for the Nikon D750 and at 126 X 96 X 60 mm (W X H X D) vs. 140 X 113 X 78 mm (W X H X D) for the Nikon, I think some people might consider the weight and size a significant factor. It is to me vs. other FF DSLRs. You might not think those differences are a reason to buy the camera, but I think there will be some people who do.
That's only 4 oz apart, and spare Sony batteries weigh 1.5 oz each, so even a weight weenie backpacker such as myself would be happy to carry a D750 around.
The size advantage is actually much more prominent, and as someone who does enjoy bringing multiple cameras into the wilderness, the space savings of comparing 2-3 A7-series bodies versus 2-3 full-frame DSLRs is what is truly massive.
GMPhotography wrote:
Thanks Beni was detained trying to answer this but the new A7RII might actually pick up speed as well because of the new faster processor but again the bottleneck usually lies on the computer side. Industry standard is pretty much around 3 seconds. Again we are pushing big data here. We need to remember as well C1 supports Sony cameras directly now. No hot folders and such so it increase functionality and a little speed. To be honest to get these type of speeds we spent a fortune on MF backs and now this has changed for the better and will continue too. ...Show more →
I do notice however that LV is still not supported in C1 8.3, they announced that it was supported, then it didn't work with the new firmware and since then nothing. Sony and C1 have to get their act together and that means quick and full support. This kind of problem is not pro friendly.
Agree the wait times for camera support on new releases is still lacking big time. I almost want to wait until it comes but I have no patience. I'll use Adobe raw. Hate it and Lightroom both. But that's a whole thread on its own. Lol
Hi folks, I have a question on shooting 4K in 'Super 35mm' mode. I know this dimension is similar to APS-C size. in that case, can this mean that I can use crop-body lenses on Sony A7r II and shoot 4K video? It would be nice if I can use my 18-105mm E lens, at least for video.
I think your all missing the big picture on size and weight. Please name me any camera at 42mpx that is this small and light weight. Anyone care to even take a stab at it. NOTHING IN 35mm. MEdium format Pentax 645 and Leica S are 18 wheelers. Next would be Hassy and Phase backs and cameras more 18 wheelers. Seriously you all sound like a bunch of wimps. Be a man for god sake.
Okay just joking but seriously we are not carrying bricks here. The battery comments I'm on the floor laughing my arch off. You can't carry a couple extra small batteries.
Okay I'm intentional giving you all a hard time but think about what your writing here. These systems all have compromises
Jun 11, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
matthewsaville wrote:
That's only 4 oz apart, and spare Sony batteries weigh 1.5 oz each, so even a weight weenie backpacker such as myself would be happy to carry a D750 around.
The size advantage is actually much more prominent, and as someone who does enjoy bringing multiple cameras into the wilderness, the space savings of comparing 2-3 A7-series bodies versus 2-3 full-frame DSLRs is what is truly massive.
No, it is 215g or 7.5 oz. Very close to half a pound. 454g in a pound so 227g is a half pound. I don't know where you get 4 oz. My more general point, however, is that whatever it is it is about a quarter of the weight of a smaller sized DSLR and that might matter to some and it does matter to me. I definitely notice the difference between my 5D MK II and my A7 II, which is a similar difference.
) earlier in the thread.
We were selling it anyway. All things considered this new Sony is not the camera for us to upgrade our D800e's to. Not enough of a resolution increase and the lossy compression is potentially a problem for our usage. No rush, those Nikons are hard core workhorses.