p.38 #1 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
A Nikon Ambassador is not really the best technical source to quote. But either way, it is not too important how Nikon did it, but that the Plena is the first of its kind.
He said it like that is how Nikon explained it to him.
The Plena is not the first lens designed this way. Sigma did a whole line of lenses based on this concept. I am sure many lenses employ it to some extent. I think it is likely the the wide Z mount is an advantage in executing this kind if design. It also seems that Nikon has pushed it further than others. But throttled back a bit to reduce front element size.
In any case, the Plena will create wonderfull images, with a unique visual signature. Kudos to Nikon for building such a lens.
p.38 #2 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
A Nikon Ambassador is not really the best technical source to quote. But either way, it is not too important how Nikon did it, but that the Plena is the first of its kind.
Well for some brand protection reasons you seem bent on denying how this lens works no matter what. Maybe you will accept the word from Nikon themselves. Here is Marc Cruz from Nikon discussing how it works with Seth Miranda. Seth got his information directly from Nikon.
They don't seem to think that using this design method of diminishes the lens at all. Neither do I.
p.38 #3 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Buckeye2604 wrote:
Wow, that picture actually puts into perspective how impressive the bokeh is for the Plena. The bokeh balls near the center of the GM 135, which still doesn’t look perfectly round to me, look like the edges on the Plena. However, I’d wager that for a majority the presence of cat eye bokeh isn’t that important.
Nikon says that they have not been able to totally eliminate the out of round Boken near the edges either. They claim the bokeh will be "Lemon shaped" as you move from center. Similar to the image you referenced from my earlier post.
p.38 #4 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
Well since for some brand protection reasons you seem bent on denying how this lens works no matter what. Maybe you will except the word from Nikon themselves. Here is Marc Cruz from Nikon discussing how it works with Seth Miranda. Seth got his information directly from Nikon.
They don't seem to think that using this design method of diminishes the lens at all. Neither do I.
&t=283s
Thank you for that fun video. I don't know who Marc Cruz is so I had to Google the guy. He was a sale/service rep kinda guy so I would not expect him to understand/know any deep technical aspect. The 1-hour long video really shows Seth is not a guy to discuss about technical aspect either. He might be a good photographer, but his understanding of camera and lens tech seems insufficient to confer authoritative standing.
This reminds me a lot of what the Sigma CEO guy said a few years back about how he believed that a mirrorless 35mm lens would be just as big as a DSLR one. A lot of people here quoted him to point out the impossibility of designing a small mirrorless 35mm. Yet Sony ultimately vindicated this assertion, underscoring the unpredictability of technological advancements. So only the lowly engineering team would know any substantive technical insights.
In my capacity as an armchair commentator without a background in optical engineering, I avoid participation in brand-centric debates. Just from my understanding of an optical system, I posit that the distinctive attributes of Nikon's Plena technology elude facile replication by other brands. The complexity involved transcends a mere design for a projection larger than that of a full-frame sensor.
p.38 #5 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
Thank you for that fun video. I don't know who Marc Cruz is so I had to Google the guy. He was a sale/service rep kinda guy so I would not expect him to understand/know any deep technical aspect. The 1-hour long video really shows Seth is not a guy to discuss about technical aspect either. He might be a good photographer, but his understanding of camera and lens tech seems insufficient to confer authoritative standing.
This reminds me a lot of what the Sigma CEO guy said a few years back about how he believed that a mirrorless 35mm lens would be just as big as a DSLR one. A lot of people here quoted him to point out the impossibility of designing a small mirrorless 35mm. Yet Sony ultimately vindicated this assertion, underscoring the unpredictability of technological advancements. So only the lowly engineering team would know any substantive technical insights.
In my capacity as an armchair commentator without a background in optical engineering, I avoid participation in brand-centric debates. Just from my understanding of an optical system, I posit that the distinctive attributes of Nikon's Plena technology elude facile replication by other brands. The complexity involved transcends a mere design for a projection larger than that of a full-frame sensor....Show more →
There are also interviews out there from Nikon engineers subtitled in English from Japanese that confirm what Marc Cruz is saying. Marc Cruz has been briefed and trained by Nikon technical people on the technology. This is the norm for people in his position. He is the guy who is trained to pass this knowledge on to Nikons distribution channel, and customers. This is just normal process. Marc Cruz is in a much better place than any "arm chair commentator" to know what Nikon has engineered. I see no evidence that leads me to doubt his veracity.
I am confident that other manufactures could in fact re-create the Plena given the current state of engineering, and the depth of knowledge in optical physics available to the engineering community. This is reinforced by Sigma having implemented a similar approach to lens design years before Nikon developed the Plena. This did result in Sigma making larger and heavier lenses, which may have colored the CEOs statements you pointed out.
The logic which you approach the subject matches the discord in your very next statement. You deny participating in brand centric debates, and then in your very next sentence say no other brand could do the complex thing Nikon just did. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you write such blatantly discordanate and contradictory things? Just saying...
Just to confirm the Sigma case, here is a discussion about one of the lenses that Sigma produced with this concept from over 4 years ago. Notice that the benefits match up with what Nikon is saying today.
"Speaking of “extra glass”, what about the bokeh? Not only does the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Sports exhibit an impressive ability to render even “busy” types of backgrounds very soft and buttery, but I also think there is something else about this lens’ optical design. In other words, why so much glass, if other brands are “getting the job done” with less glass? (Indeed, this is the only 70-200mm to jump up from 77mm to 82mm filter threads, if I am not mistaken.)
More glass can give a larger image circle. A larger image circle can render bokeh in the image corners as more circular, and less of a “cats’ eye” effect. This is definitely noticeable with the Sigma 70-200 Sport. In other words, it’s almost as if you’re using this lens in some sort of cropped mode, even on a full-frame camera."
p.38 #6 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
1bwana1 wrote:
There are also interviews out there from Nikon engineers subtitled in English from Japanese that confirm what Marc Cruz is saying. Marc Cruz has been briefed and trained by Nikon technical people on the technology. This is the norm for people in his position. He is the guy who is trained to pass this knowledge on to Nikons distribution channel, and customers. This is just normal process. Marc Cruz is in a much better place than any "arm chair commentator" to know what Nikon has engineered. I see no evidence that leads me to doubt his veracity.
I am confident that other manufactures could in fact re-create the Plena given the current state of engineering, and the depth of knowledge in optical physics available to the engineering community. This is reinforced by Sigma having implemented a similar approach to lens design years before Nikon developed the Plena. This did result in Sigma making larger and heavier lenses, which may have colored the CEOs statements you pointed out.
The logic which you approach the subject matches the discord in your very next statement. You deny participating in brand centric debates, and then in your very next sentence say no other brand could do the complex thing Nikon just did. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you write such blatantly discordanate and contradictory things? Just saying...
p.38 #7 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
Not seeing this going anywhere fruitful for the current topic, I would like to disengage from this discussion
Ok. Thanks for an interesting and polite discussion.
Oct 06, 2023 at 12:13 AM
berimbolo Offline • • • [X]
p.38 #8 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
I'm guessing that something wildlife centered is going to be launched by Sony very soon. Melissa Groo (well known wildlife photographer) said she was filming something for a new Sony release.
Oct 08, 2023 at 12:18 PM
duncang Offline • • • [X]
p.38 #9 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
hiepphotog wrote:
Thank you for that fun video. I don't know who Marc Cruz is so I had to Google the guy. He was a sale/service rep kinda guy so I would not expect him to understand/know any deep technical aspect. The 1-hour long video really shows Seth is not a guy to discuss about technical aspect either. He might be a good photographer, but his understanding of camera and lens tech seems insufficient to confer authoritative standing.
This reminds me a lot of what the Sigma CEO guy said a few years back about how he believed that a mirrorless 35mm lens would be just as big as a DSLR one. A lot of people here quoted him to point out the impossibility of designing a small mirrorless 35mm. Yet Sony ultimately vindicated this assertion, underscoring the unpredictability of technological advancements. So only the lowly engineering team would know any substantive technical insights.
In my capacity as an armchair commentator without a background in optical engineering, I avoid participation in brand-centric debates. Just from my understanding of an optical system, I posit that the distinctive attributes of Nikon's Plena technology elude facile replication by other brands. The complexity involved transcends a mere design for a projection larger than that of a full-frame sensor....Show more →
You claim to have no knowledge that the complexity you talk of even exists and yet you claim it does, and on top of that self confessed lack of knowledge you dismiss out of hand claims made by a Nikon sales rep who most likely has been briefed by the Nikon technical staff.
If I put the Canon 135mm lens on the R7 APS-C camera wouldn't the outcome be the same - at least in terms of projection of the image on the sensor and better bokeh or cats eyes edge to edge on the APS-C sensor.
You think there is some secret sauce to be able to design a lens for a medium format camera sensor and then put it on a FF body or are you suggesting that the Nikon guy who said that that is what they have done is wrong and they did it some other secret and much more complicated way ?
That's a big claim for someone with zero knowledge of the subject.
Either way the Sony 135mm costs AUD2600 and the Nikon 135 costs AUD4200, and I am just like wtf, it better be really good. Or is Nikon just taking loyalty a bit too far ?
But then the 180-600 is more also expensive than the Sony 200-600 and, well we know how that one turned out.
I think Nikon are just behind and have realised they have some super loyal customers and they are just gouging their customers.
p.38 #10 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
So I did a little experiment just to approximate the effects of cropping and oversized image circle. If you look at the MTF charts for the two lenses I tested doing so will get you very strong edge to edge sharpness, and little vignetting or other aberrations.
I took some images to see the effect on getting round to as Nikon puts it lemon shaped bokeh balls.
This is very far from an ideal test. Lots of room for criticism. It is not designed to compare these lenses directly to Plena. Too many discrepancies in focal lengths, apertures, zoom/prime etc.. But it does give an idea of what the potential of the larger image circle may be. It also gives a technique to achieve images where the benefits of such cropping might be realized if the image is shot with this intent from the beginning.
I strung up some Christmas lights to provide pinpoint light sources. I used a light stand with a
The first lens is my 50mm f1/2 GM shot at f/1.8 to match the Plena aperture. As you can see the bokeh balls are smooth round and soft. As expected from such a very high optical quality lens.There are just some small misshapen ones very far out to the edges that a very small crop would eliminate. In fact the required crop is so small that when shot on my 60mpx sensor I will end up with similar resolution size to a Z8/9.
The second two are from the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II zoom lens. I don't have a 135 FL prime. So, I shot at max aperture where performance is likely the worst. The first image is full frame. You can see that the bokeh balls do suffer distortion out toward the edges. he second shot without touching anything except toggling to crop mode. Overall the bokeh balls are also not as smooth or soft as the 50mm, and do show some onion rings. I think this is expected of even a very high quality zoom. But the cropped image bokeh balls are very nicely shapped and would not be objected to by most.
So, as we can see the benefits of designing a larger image circle in respect to the sensor size are real. This, even in lenses where this concept was not optimized in design. It also seems applicable across focal lengths. It is a technique I will likely try in real shooting when it seems appropriate. Another trick in the bag...
p.38 #11 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
duncang wrote:
You claim to have no knowledge that the complexity you talk of even exists and yet you claim it does, and on top of that self confessed lack of knowledge you dismiss out of hand claims made by a Nikon sales rep who most likely has been briefed by the Nikon technical staff.
If I put the Canon 135mm lens on the R7 APS-C camera wouldn't the outcome be the same - at least in terms of projection of the image on the sensor and better bokeh or cats eyes edge to edge on the APS-C sensor.
You think there is some secret sauce to be able to design a lens for a medium format camera sensor and then put it on a FF body or are you suggesting that the Nikon guy who said that that is what they have done is wrong and they did it some other secret and much more complicated way ?
That's a big claim for someone with zero knowledge of the subject.
Either way the Sony 135mm costs AUD2600 and the Nikon 135 costs AUD4200, and I am just like wtf, it better be really good. Or is Nikon just taking loyalty a bit too far ?
But then the 180-600 is more also expensive than the Sony 200-600 and, well we know how that one turned out.
I think Nikon are just behind and have realised they have some super loyal customers and they are just gouging their customers.
I just hope it works out well for them long term. ...Show more →
p.38 #12 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
Having shot mirrorless on all three of them, extensively in wedding/sport environments
AF - Sony, Canon is very close
Files - Sony/Nikon, Canon is getting closer but still does not have the ultimate DR
1.2/1.4 Native Glass - Availability and Size and Weight - Sony by a landslide
The Future, health of company, updates - Sony
For some, the size/weight doesn't matter,
if that is you, I could see you lean another way
p.38 #13 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
SAR has just posted the rumored price of the A9III. As of todays rumor the price is the same as the A9II at $4,500. Which would be nice, except with all the rumored bells and whistles that are supposed to be in the A9III I would have expected it to be more. Unless they are trying to be competitive with the NIkon Z8.
p.38 #14 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
duncang wrote:
You claim to have no knowledge that the complexity you talk of even exists and yet you claim it does, and on top of that self confessed lack of knowledge you dismiss out of hand claims made by a Nikon sales rep who most likely has been briefed by the Nikon technical staff.
If I put the Canon 135mm lens on the R7 APS-C camera wouldn't the outcome be the same - at least in terms of projection of the image on the sensor and better bokeh or cats eyes edge to edge on the APS-C sensor.
You think there is some secret sauce to be able to design a lens for a medium format camera sensor and then put it on a FF body or are you suggesting that the Nikon guy who said that that is what they have done is wrong and they did it some other secret and much more complicated way ?
That's a big claim for someone with zero knowledge of the subject.
Either way the Sony 135mm costs AUD2600 and the Nikon 135 costs AUD4200, and I am just like wtf, it better be really good. Or is Nikon just taking loyalty a bit too far ?
But then the 180-600 is more also expensive than the Sony 200-600 and, well we know how that one turned out.
I think Nikon are just behind and have realised they have some super loyal customers and they are just gouging their customers.
I just hope it works out well for them long term. ...Show more →
You guys really get screwed on pricing in Australia. Here in the US, the Sony 135/1.8 is $2,100 and the new Nikon Plena is $2,500
p.38 #15 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
AZHeaven wrote:
SAR has just posted the rumored price of the A9III. As of todays rumor the price is the same as the A9II at $4,500. Which would be nice, except with all the rumored bells and whistles that are supposed to be in the A9III I would have expected it to be more. Unless they are trying to be competitive with the NIkon Z8.
p.38 #18 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
AZHeaven wrote:
SAR has just posted the rumored price of the A9III. As of todays rumor the price is the same as the A9II at $4,500. Which would be nice, except with all the rumored bells and whistles that are supposed to be in the A9III I would have expected it to be more. Unless they are trying to be competitive with the NIkon Z8.
The A9/A9ii both launched at $4500. SAR is big brained!
Sony cameras are horribly overpriced for what they are in today's market. $4500 for the A9iii seems low if you think about inflation since the A9, but seems just about right when you consider the Z8 exists and does everything the A9ii does, and more, and better, for $500 less dollars today.
p.38 #19 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
RoamingScott wrote:
The A9/A9ii both launched at $4500. SAR is big brained!
Sony cameras are horribly overpriced for what they are in today's market. $4500 for the A9iii seems low if you think about inflation since the A9, but seems just about right when you consider the Z8 exists and does everything the A9ii does, and more, and better, for $500 less dollars today.
Well let’s see what we get for $4500 to see if it’s worth it. To me the biggest question is the sensor resolution and don’t currently believe any of the rumors around that feature. If it’s in the 42 Mpixel range what else would it need to make it worth $4500. Is 30 fps 14-but lossless uncompressed RAW enough?
p.38 #20 · The new Nikon Z8 vs the Sony A7RV and potential A9III
swldstn wrote:
Well let’s see what we get for $4500 to see if it’s worth it. To me the biggest question is the sensor resolution and don’t currently believe any of the rumors around that feature. If it’s in the 42 Mpixel range what else would it need to make it worth $4500. Is 30 fps 14-but lossless uncompressed RAW enough?
Sony has no reason to have a 42mp stacked sensor camera when the A1, the clear flagship of the company, exists. I don't pay enough attention to Sony patents to know what sensors they have that they haven't used yet, but I certainly don't think the A9iii will exceed a stacked version of the A7iv 33mp sensor.
Sony, in their newfound Canon-ical boldness, NEED to have sharp differentiation between the A9 and A1 lines if they wish to charge $2000 more for the latter's successor.
Hopefully the A9iii gets the A7R5 LCD and the A1's EVF if nothing else for $4500. Those are both better than their direct competitors around the $4000 price point (from a spec perspective). Maybe the A1 EVF would work without so many caveats on a lower res sensor.
There is also reason to believe that the core A1 sensor will be simply reused with the A1ii, as on paper, it's believe that it was hamstrung to a degree by the SoC and memory buffers. The theoretical ceiling on the A1 sensor wasn't fully reached.
