We're planning a series of in-depth articles at 16-9 comparing the Sony A700, A350 and flagship cameras and associated lenses with a view to assessing their viability as Canon/Nikon options.
hubsand wrote:
There are already AF-confirming M42 adaptors for the Sony Minolta mount. This requires a 0.9mm differential in registration – exactly the same as the Contax/Yashica mount. A Sony-CY adaptor looks perfectly viable, as does Sony-Olympus and Sony-Leica versions, which are easier to adapt, with longer flange distances.
I'm no expert on this stuff but I was curious yesterday about the adaptability of the A-mount. I mean the mount is nothing new yet no seems to be adapting them. So I took one of my Leica R lens to see if the width or other issues with the A-mount (Sony) would be a problem. What I found is that the Leica R won't fit into the A-mount due to mechanical interference. So, does this mean you can't build an adapter that will fit and give infinity focus? By comparision I can take the same Leica lens and insert it flush into a EOS mount and still have enough play to move it around. So, does this tell anyone anything more about the adaptability issue?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
No, it's the excellent Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8. Already seen a preliminary review in an Aussie photo magazine and they say it's very high performer, sharp wide open, excellent colour and contrast and well controlled distortion and CA.
Here I thought Sony was REALLY going to make their presence known...
you're behind the times. 2007 will be the peak DSLR market growth year at 42%. this year, they are talking in the low 20% range and by 2010 ro 2011, it will become mostly a replacement market.
Herb...
I.G.I. wrote:
I am a bit skeptical to be honest. Some predict/expect 2008 to be the last year for the DSLR bubble of wild expansion and monumental sales.
Sony still has great potential in the DSLR market. With demands from press and media to blur the lines between the DSLR camera and the video camera Sony could very well once again become a very active player when DSLR's begin shooting ultra highdef video.
I don't know about how the body looks, I tend to prefer the look to my 1Ds body, it just looks much more like a camera I would like to associate myself with, but again, if it works out ergonomically, I will have to move over to it, as I have never gotten used to how the Canon feels under hand, and Nikon can not mount my Oly gear. I know they have made Oly to Minolta mount adapters, hoping they are still around for the Alpha mount, and if that new 24x36 sensor cam has any real promise at the Sony store close by, it will be well worth switching away from the god forsaken handling of the Canon, and I would welcome the smaller size with the compact Oly lenses.
As stated above, with use of M42 glass, and hopefully C/Y (or a re-release of the 21mm Distagon in the alpha mount with AF and the in body IS...), I can not see any reason not to move. The Sony implementation of Minolta technology, such as AF activation when your eye presses near the viewfinder, etc. is just fantastic, and so far, those cheap Alpha cams still feel better built then my 1Ds, and well far ahead of the 5D build.
Heres to hoping for an OM to A mount adapter in the near future!
Since few of my lenses are Canon and the rest are CY/Oly, if the Sony exceeds in image quality I will certainly be looking hard at it. 24 megapixel, small body, inbuilt IS and AF Zeiss lenses are fairly compelling. Low light image quality could be a deal-breaker though, since IS doesn't freeze people. It's going to be great to have Canon, Nikon and Sony thrashing it out at the top.
I did check out the Zony AF 85 f1.4 at focus and found the manual focus ring had noticable give in it. It was worse than my Canon L's. With a 24 megapixel camera at wide apertures you will need to focus very accurately to make the extra pixels count, either using liveview or tireless bracketing, and a focus ring with a degree or two of wobble will be a real nuisance.
Javier Munoz wrote:
Go to chase a politician, or shoot an athletic meeting all day long with a camera with weird button placement and I will show you how fast that stop of better noise will go to the second hand market.
Show me a professional photographer who can't manage to hit the right buttons on his camera and I'll show you an unemployed photographer.
I think the biggest hurdle for SONY and expensive toy buying brand loyals is, well, SONY in front of the pentaprism; somehow, the brand does not have serious consideration yet. I am not saying it should not, I am saying it DOES not. So bodies like this one will help them a lot in getting that recognition.
Cameras are really,electronics these days, in the sense that they do not require a camera company to make them. What you need is to put in place a smart, knowledgable group of photo equipment management, coupled with bottomless pockets and a large electronics manufacturing facility, a contract with a respected glass manufacturer and, voila! a camera company!
...hmmm, something is missing here......
...oh yeah! A group of GOOD product designers!!! SONY, pleeeaaasseeee, even your walkman designers can do a better job, who did you hire, the Olympus design team here?
BTW, in answer to all those who dont see the value of good design, take a look at what the IPOD did for APPLE, the new BEETLE did for VW, the new CTS did for Cadillac, the new....
Exactly my thinking. It even goes against Zeiss' theory about the optical superiority of manual focusing. The whole ZF line was built around it. That's why we here all use manual focusing lenses: because the manual mechanism allows for precision in the lens mechanics not possible with AF lenses.
When I first manipulated the 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 at a Sony showroom, I was expecting the focusing ring to be on par with their ZF and C/Y lenses. I was quite disappointed.
brainiac wrote:
Since few of my lenses are Canon and the rest are CY/Oly, if the Sony exceeds in image quality I will certainly be looking hard at it. 24 megapixel, small body, inbuilt IS and AF Zeiss lenses are fairly compelling. Low light image quality could be a deal-breaker though, since IS doesn't freeze people. It's going to be great to have Canon, Nikon and Sony thrashing it out at the top.
I did check out the Zony AF 85 f1.4 at focus and found the manual focus ring had noticable give in it. It was worse than my Canon L's. With a 24 megapixel camera at wide apertures you will need to focus very accurately to make the extra pixels count, either using liveview or tireless bracketing, and a focus ring with a degree or two of wobble will be a real nuisance....Show more →
fwiw, the F6's vertical grip was an accessory. frankly i'd rather not carry around the extra lbs if i don't need to.
and of course canon wasn't going to make the 5D with built in grip and seals. 5D sales have been pretty darn good as it is, and canon certainly wouldn't want to cut their own throat by making it too much of a 1Ds competitor.
brainiac wrote:
Since few of my lenses are Canon and the rest are CY/Oly, if the Sony exceeds in image quality I will certainly be looking hard at it. 24 megapixel, small body, inbuilt IS and AF Zeiss lenses are fairly compelling. Low light image quality could be a deal-breaker though, since IS doesn't freeze people. It's going to be great to have Canon, Nikon and Sony thrashing it out at the top.
I did check out the Zony AF 85 f1.4 at focus and found the manual focus ring had noticable give in it. It was worse than my Canon L's. With a 24 megapixel camera at wide apertures you will need to focus very accurately to make the extra pixels count, either using liveview or tireless bracketing, and a focus ring with a degree or two of wobble will be a real nuisance....Show more →
Hmmm. Richard: I hadn't seriously considered this camera until you mentioned your OM & C/Y lens collection. That's what I mostly use too, and if they are easy to mount to the Sony Alpha body, I should be watching this development more closely (I am in the market for a full-frame body later this year, and was hoping for a good 5D replacement.) Do you know if the adapters already exist? If not, I assume the register differences make the mount compatible (haven't checked the list of film-plane registers yet).
edwardkaraa wrote:
Exactly my thinking. It even goes against Zeiss' theory about the optical superiority of manual focusing. The whole ZF line was built around it. That's why we here all use manual focusing lenses: because the manual mechanism allows for precision in the lens mechanics not possible with AF lenses.
I shoot manual focus with manual focus lenses because I have to, not because I want to. Sometimes manual focus is better, but not having the option to AF is not a strength.
I'll go out on a limb and claim that if I could figure out a way to wave my magic wand and make any MF lens AF and I charged $100 for the privilege, I'd be a millionaire.
CKrueger wrote:
I shoot manual focus with manual focus lenses because I have to, not because I want to. Sometimes manual focus is better, but not having the option to AF is not a strength.
I'll go out on a limb and claim that if I could figure out a way to wave my magic wand and make any MF lens AF and I charged $100 for the privilege, I'd be a millionaire.
Hehehe, who wouldn't? Unfortunately, in our real world, manufacturers have to make some compromises in order to let lens elements move smoothly enough for AF, from lighter organic glass to not as tight focusing mechanisms with shorter travel. If you could use your magic wand, probably you could transform your MF lenses to AF, but they would be very slow focusing
As far as I'm concerned, I do prefer MF over AF because I like to compose and then focus rather than focus and recompose.
But who wouldn't take an AF Canon 85/1.2 over a MF one? IMHO, it's better to have slow AF than no AF at all.
I guess i just haven't been unhappy with the MF rings on most of my better lenses. My 85/1.8 has short travel, but my Olympus 50/1.8 or Pentax 50/1.4 don't really get the job done any better than my Canon 50/1.4. Their focus rings are damped and feel nice, but I'd give up a little butter for AF anyday. (And it's not like you really NEED to... Sigma's EX lenses generally have that nice "wet" feel.)
htbyron wrote:
...OM & C/Y lens...if they are easy to mount to the Sony Alpha body...I assume the register differences make the mount compatible (haven't checked the list of film-plane registers yet).
I understand the Minolta mount is fairly similar to the EOS. But remember that it's not just about register distance; it's also about the mount diameter and the peculiarities of the bayonet flanges themselves. I am sure others know more about the possibility of mounting other lenses. Nikon F's are probably the easiest lenses to adapt since the register is long and the mouth is narrow.
If I could have my 85Lmk2 converted to the calibre of MF found in the CY lenses, I wouldn't hesitate. The lens is ideally for use between f1.2 and f2.8, and at those apertures Canon AF isn't accurate enough. It's even worse if you have to focus-recompose. The electronic MF ring doesn't give you appropriate force-feedback, and I suspect that it isn't quite linear in the way that old-fashioned manual focus rings are.
Focus-recompose slows down the process of taking a picture, but it also fails to get accurate focus at wide apertures. When the picture matters, I always resort to MF.
Having no give in the focus ring is important because really accurate focus is found by oscillating the focal point back and forth by smaller and smaller increments around the desired focus point. Give clips that process since the last oscillation or two fails to move the lens. This give could seriously reduce focus accuracy just when it's needed: 24 megapixels.
10x magnification in liveview with an old MF lens is the best of all methods. I don't believe that any DSLR AF system beats it.
I'll go out on a limb and claim that if I could figure out a way to wave my magic wand and make any MF lens AF and I charged $100 for the privilege, I'd be a millionaire.
Was it the Contax RX which moved the film back and forth? Neat trick. Did it work? I never tried one.
