p.3 #1 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Lol I found that rather humorous myself. Like the closed mount Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD Lens for Nikon Z that cost $1700 vs. the untouchable 50-150 with a price tag of $4000. Go figure.
RoamingScott wrote:
Ah yes, the famously closed mount that has access to tons of 3rd party lenses, including every Sony.
p.3 #2 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Wowza... Today I woke up in a brave new world where the Nikon fans are proud by the lens variety of the Z-mount... soon to be joined by Canon fans bragging about power management, and Fuji fans bragging about autofocus.... in the Sony gear forum.
p.3 #4 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
What’s your point? That Tamron lens was available first in Sony mount and the Sony 50-150 is a constant f/2 so it’s going to more expensive. And it’s first party so there’s that. I don’t consider Nikon closed but I don’t think your examples make your point.
Camerabag wrote:
Lol I found that rather humorous myself. Like the closed mount Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD Lens for Nikon Z that cost $1700 vs. the untouchable 50-150 with a price tag of $4000. Go figure.
p.3 #5 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
gdanmitchell wrote:
Pardon me for being dense, but I’m unfamiliar with the abbreviation “PDR.” I assume that the DR part is dynamic range, but the “P?”
Photographic Dynamic Range. It is Bill Claff's term for the dynamic range that is measured by him and reported at his website Photons to Photos. He is a very respected imaging engineer, and his website is considered the gold standard for measures of virtually all cameras' dynamic range and some of their other imaging attributes.
The website can be dense at times, but he also has some good non-technical explanations posted there. He is a major resource.
p.3 #6 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Camerabag wrote:
Pixel dynamic range
How is it different from the traditional concept of dynamic range? (A search on “pixel dynamic range” turned up nothing.) If one guy uses it on his website and it is found nowhere else… ;-)
- - -
Someone wrote:
What a fascinating block of useless hyperbole.
p.3 #7 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
I'm fully aware the Tamron was a available first in Sony mount and my point is that Nikon is not a closed lens system. And considering the $2300 dollar price tag to gain a 1 stop difference makes the claim that the 50-150 is untouchable rather ridiculous. It's kind of like the claim the Z8 is huge according to shadow9d9.
shadow9d9 is all about small and lightweight but if you look at the 50-150's size, it's massive compared to the Tamron. And yes the Sony is heavier. And hey the Tamron can widen out to 35mm. The Sony could be a tad sharper but I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference especially for $2300.
jwpstl wrote:
What’s your point? That Tamron lens was available first in Sony mount and the Sony 50-150 is a constant f/2 so it’s going to more expensive. And it’s first party so there’s that. I don’t consider Nikon closed but I don’t think your examples make your point.
p.3 #8 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
I should have put a ? mark after my response to you. Chiron chimed in with "Photographic Dynamic Range"
gdanmitchell wrote:
How is it different from the traditional concept of dynamic range? (A search on “pixel dynamic range” turned up nothing.) If one guy uses it on his website and it is found nowhere else… ;-)
p.3 #12 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
I'd like to close this thread out by saying thank you to everyone for their feedback, you've given me a lot to consider.
Based on what's been revealed, I am likely to start out with an A7Rv, 24-105/4 G and the 12-24/4 G and the Viltrox 50 as my initial trial set. I may actually rent both the A1ii and A7Rv with a few of the G and GM lenses to trial first, but am reasonably confident the above kit will suit my initial needs. Maybe Dan and I can connect and do this jointly since he and I live nearby each other -- and I wasn't aware he was also considering this kind of move until he replied in this thread.
Side note so folks understand: I do also appreciate Scott's mentioning the Z8 and 24-120 -- he knows me from the Nikon board and knew I liked that lens a lot on my Z9 which has the same sensor as the smaller body Z8.
But again, I am hoping to keep size down and so this is more of a size v quality of output trial exploration for me.
p.3 #13 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice
Jack Flesher wrote:
I'd like to close this thread out by saying thank you to everyone for their feedback, you've given me a lot to consider.
Based on what's been revealed, I am likely to start out with an A7Rv, 24-105/4 G and the 12-24/4 G and the Viltrox 50 as my initial trial set. I may actually rent both the A1ii and A7Rv with a few of the G and GM lenses to trial first, but am reasonably confident the above kit will suit my initial needs. Maybe Dan and I can connect and do this jointly since he and I live nearby each other -- and I wasn't aware he was also considering this kind of move until he replied in this thread.
Side note so folks understand: I do also appreciate Scott's mentioning the Z8 and 24-120 -- he knows me from the Nikon board and knew I liked that lens a lot on my Z9 which has the same sensor as the smaller body Z8.
But again, I am hoping to keep size down and so this is more of a size v quality of output trial exploration for me.
I also appreciate the helpful information shared in this thread. I’m still not as close to deciding on specific gear or the timing as Jack is, but a clearer picture is starting to emerge.
One thing that I’m still wrestling with — and which I’m sure I’ll resolve — is that the particular set of lenses that I’ve long used on my other FF system (16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400) might not be the only option to consider on Sony. I need to play around with some of the alternative Sony options that would cover roughly the same range, but with rather different lenses.
