Correct me if I'm wrong. But every reviewer out there that is testing the A7V is using a pre-production model? And isn't the actual camera at release to the public different?
As for video? I could care less. Maybe the cameras without video options might be less expensive!
zeitlos wrote:
But I'd say let's wait and see. Right now, it's just rumors (where did they originate from?).
An influencer heard it from another influencer, who heard from another influencer that a lens wasn't working for him. And now you've brought it up here.😅
I shoot both Sony and Canon. And while I don’t like the restrictions on third party lenses on Sony bodies, I still appreciate their stance more than Canon’s even more restrictive stance on their RF mount.
jhapeman wrote:
Its the price your pay for saving money.
Thanks, I chuckled reading this .
The price is only half of the equation. The other one, at least as valid, is the diversity.
There are numerous 3rd party offerings that are not available from Sony.
End of story .
It's an extremely short-sighted and limited view to consider 3rd party as only cheap alternative to Sony...
We don't, and even if we do we can't share, the details of the e-mount license signed (or not in some cases as speculated about chinese brands) by those companies producing lenses. We can assume it's pretty barebones and does not include updates introduced by Sony in the future. Having said that, it's simply plain stupid on Sony's part to break backwards compatibility with existing lenses.
Unless, of course, it's intentional...
Nifty Fifty wrote:
How did you get the idea that the EVF resolution has anything to do with the sensor resolution? Those are two completely different things. Which viewfinder is used is a marketing decision. Technically, the processor might play a role, but that's about it.
I don't think I did .
I just listed the EVF together with the sensor/image processing pipeline, as the issue is affected by the combination. The latter limiting the data stream / resolution available to EVF live feed, the former limiting the actual maximum resolution that can be displayed.
And sensor resolution is the most easily readable way for most people .
This makes me wonder if A9 (I or II) shows the same res drop as A7IV when focusing, as they share the same EVF I think, but not the rest of the image processing pipeline...
The price is only half of the equation. The other one, at least as valid, is the diversity.
There are numerous 3rd party offerings that are not available from Sony.
End of story .
It's an extremely short-sighted and limited view to consider 3rd party as only cheap alternative to Sony...
We don't, and even if we do we can't share, the details of the e-mount license signed (or not in some cases as speculated about chinese brands) by those companies producing lenses. We can assume it's pretty barebones and does not include updates introduced by Sony in the future. Having said that, it's simply plain stupid on Sony's part to break backwards compatibility with existing lenses.
Unless, of course, it's intentional...
Glad I could make you laugh but the reason there's a diversity of unusual choices is the 3rd parties go for the scraps. If you think those are volume sellers, that's why you're not running Sony. The big players know the big markets and make the lenses to fill that. They know what makes them money. The others have to take what scraps they can get. If it fills a tiny niche market, great, but don't fool yourself thinking Sony--or ANY other big player cares about that. If they did, Nikon and Canon would make their systems open and let others make lenses. If you're a fan of an unusual or niche lens, you benefit from that but don't fool yourself into thinking any major camera manufacturer cares about this.
Sony opened up the E-mount back in the day because they were looking to enter a new market for them and they had a legacy base from the A-mount days to consider as well. That's not the case now. That said, I don't think Sony really makes any decisions to make it harder for the 3rd party folks--they just don't do anything to make it easier, and why should they?
What are you going to do, switch to Canon or Nikon to use those third party lenses? In those cases you have to rely on another 3rd party reverse-engineering the mount with no license or support. Not exactly a better solution.
All of this was a pile of nothing anyway as it turns out there are no compatibility issues with the A7V--it was probably just a classic YouTube click-bait video. Tempest in a teapot and all of that.
jhapeman wrote:
Glad I could make you laugh but the reason there's a diversity of unusual choices is the 3rd parties go for the scraps. If you think those are volume sellers, that's why you're not running Sony. The big players know the big markets and make the lenses to fill that. They know what makes them money. The others have to take what scraps they can get. If it fills a tiny niche market, great, but don't fool yourself thinking Sony--or ANY other big player cares about that. If they did, Nikon and Canon would make their systems open and let others make lenses. If you're a fan of an unusual or niche lens, you benefit from that but don't fool yourself into thinking any major camera manufacturer cares about this.
Sony opened up the E-mount back in the day because they were looking to enter a new market for them and they had a legacy base from the A-mount days to consider as well. That's not the case now. That said, I don't think Sony really makes any decisions to make it harder for the 3rd party folks--they just don't do anything to make it easier, and why should they?
What are you going to do, switch to Canon or Nikon to use those third party lenses? In those cases you have to rely on another 3rd party reverse-engineering the mount with no license or support. Not exactly a better solution.
All of this was a pile of nothing anyway as it turns out there are no compatibility issues with the A7V--it was probably just a classic YouTube click-bait video. Tempest in a teapot and all of that. ...Show more →
Well, if you put it that way, I have to say I love my 35/1.2 scraps (AF at that!) .
As for the way Sony is managed, I actually believe asian companies (no offence, but I think its based in part on inherent mentality / cultural background) have a very antiquated approach as to how to run business. Kinda like waterfall vs agile, if you know what I mean. Sony goes for that safe / market-leader approach and that's okay. I, on the other hand, as an entrepreneur would try to, as you noticed, use every advantage (i.e. niche) I can find over my competitors. I admit I do lean towards startup vs corpo approach though. That is not what Sony believes is right in their current market position and, as I said, it's okay for them to do that.
And to answer you questions, yes some people actually do buy Nikon because they, for example, can use Sony TCs with Sigma 300-600/4 (oh, the abomination!) .
Are you also suggesting that since Sony started with open mount, because they were entering a new market, they should now close the mount as they have become the market leaders ?
mudlake wrote:
This will be irrelevant to most, but the evf display doesn’t drop resolution when you manually focus. That’s one of my biggest pleasures about the A7R5- it’s huge and beautiful .9x magnification viewfinder with all 9mp when using manual focus lenses. On an f1.4 or f/1.0 lens, it’s a joy looking through the viewfinder.
---------------------------------------------
Nifty Fifty wrote:
How did you get the idea that the EVF resolution has anything to do with the sensor resolution? Those are two completely different things. Which viewfinder is used is a marketing decision. Technically, the processor might play a role, but that's about it.
---------------------------------------------
jhapeman wrote:
Assuming any of this is even true, that's not an "own goal" or even a Sony problem. They develop their cameras for their lenses. Third parties are responsible for making sure they are compatible. If not, they can issue firmware updates or barring that, just make a new lens.
If you want to ensure full compatibility, buy a Sony lens. Otherwise, you have to accept that new camera models with new technologies might simply not have full compatibility with your lens. Its the price your pay for saving money.
---------------------------------------------
zeitlos wrote:
I see things differently than you, or rather, I agree with Wiesner in the video. Sony's advantage lies in its wide range of lenses, especially from third-party manufacturers. Competitors are now building equally good, if not better, camera bodies. But then it's good for Sony if their customers wouldn't have a problem with such a change in strategy. For me, a key reason for choosing the Sony system would disappear.
But I'd say let's wait and see. Right now, it's just rumors (where did they originate from?).
I think you are mistaken as is the guy on that video. This is no different than 3rd party software companies that have to keep up with the latest version of Windows and Apple Operating systems. Neither of those behemoths worry about their operating systems and 3rd party software compatibility. It,is up to those 3rd party companies to engage with those behemoths to ensure compatibility is maintained / remediated — and get involved (if they’re big enough, influence the development and) testing processes, and make the necessary code changes to their apps to maintain full compatibility with the new O/S
From my experience (about 40 years in software / solution development) ) the 3rd Party Software Companies and the business enterprises that use their software — must pay expensive enterprise support to ensure that new O/S development consider those business enterprises’ software compatibility. I am sure that this is probably the case in the license agreements with the 3rd party lens manufacturers.
I think you are mistaken as is the guy on that video. This is no different than 3rd party software companies that have to keep up with the latest version of Windows and Apple Operating systems. Neither of those behemoths worry about their operating systems and 3rd party software compatibility. It,is up to those 3rd party companies to engage with those behemoths to ensure compatibility is maintained / remediated — and get involved (if they’re big enough, influence the development and) testing processes, and make the necessary code changes to their apps to maintain full compatibility with the new O/S
Apple and Microsoft have beta releases for developers to test agains - not sure this is true for Sony and their camera firmware. Apple and Microsoft also give plenty of advanced notice when APIs are being deprecated.
You would think Sony would send beta firmware to the likes of Tamron and Sigma for testing but perhaps not.
duncangr wrote:
Apple and Microsoft have beta releases for developers to test agains - not sure this is true for Sony and their camera firmware. Apple and Microsoft also give plenty of advanced notice when APIs are being deprecated.
You would think Sony would send beta firmware to the likes of Tamron and Sigma for testing but perhaps not.
I would bet that they do — as I stated it’s most likely in their license agreements, at least with the big players (Sigma/Tamron),. I am also sure there are licensing tiers at lower costs that result in less support and/or access to beta versions, etc.
From what I have read online, Viltrox reverse engineerd Sony AF, like Sigma and Tamron used to do back in the DSLR days. If that is truly the case, their AF functionality is not guaranteed to work with new cameras and new firmware updates. I am sure Viltrox will put out a new patch soon to get things sort of working again. This is not a Sony problem, but a Viltrox problem.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
From what I have read online, Viltrox reverse engineerd Sony AF, like Sigma and Tamron used to do back in the DSLR days. If that is truly the case, their AF functionality is not guaranteed to work with new cameras and new firmware updates. I am sure Viltrox will put out a new patch soon to get things sort of working again. This is not a Sony problem, but a Viltrox problem.
I would say, first and foremost, it's a problem for the user.
My Sony A7 V should arrive by Wednesday. I don't have any Viltrox lenses, so I cannot verify/falsify it. Only Sony, Zeiss, Sigma, and Tamron. I'm still considering the TTArtisan 75 AF 2.0, since I loved it for the L-mount. But there shouldn't be any problems with Sigma/Tamron lenses, at least I haven't read anything about it so far.
Adobe ACR 18.1.1, LRC 15.1 and LR 9.1 all have preliminary support for A7V raw files.
So far they only support Lossless Compressed files.
There are no camera matching profiles yet.
If anyone in the US is looking to get the a7v and skip the Amazon/B&H mystery cue, Texas Media Systems in Austin has a shipment and may have unsold copies available. They’ve confirmed I’ll be getting one this week, my card was just charged. Talk to Terry Nixon, great guy and he’ll take care of you.
Not affiliated with them in any way, just a great small business I like to support. Stumbled across their site looking for the a7rII a decade ago when the preorder craze first started. They had one on my doorstep the day it was released. They did the same with the a7sII, a7sIII, a couple of Panasonic GH bodies and such. On the rare occasions I buy new, they’re clutch. I almost hate to post because they’re always my go-to when I have a case of FOMO and want to get in early haha.
.
.
The Sony A7 V.
