Re: Official: Sony A7 and A7r full frame mirrorless announced!
Steve Spencer wrote: Jman13 wrote: safcraft wrote:
^^^^I think this image says it all.....almost the same size and a GIGANTIC difference in sensor size !
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
But that isn\'t a fair comparison. The optical characteristics of the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 would be matched by a 70-200 f/5.6 zoom. One doesn\'t exist (at least yet) and if it did it would not be much bigger than the 35-100 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 has a lot shallower depth of field and that matters to a lot of folks and a major reason that a lot of people schlep along a f/2.8 70-200 when there are excellent f/4 7-200s around. Note I do not have a hate on for micro 4/3rds. I have an OM-D (Em-5) and I plan to keep it and I even plan to get the Panny 35-100, but I know what I am getting and it is not the same as a 70-200 f/2.8 on full frame. Instead it is a much smaller lens that makes some sacrifices (primarily more depth of field or less shallow depth of field).
That\'s a 70-200/4 I showed there..that\'s not f/2.8. Yes, it\'s a 1 stop advantage in shallow DOF, but I\'m OK sacrificing that for the enormous size savings. We\'ve argued aperture equivalence to death...I don\'t view shallow DOF ability as the end-all be-all of photography. The fact is it\'s still a lot larger than many other systems. The kit f/3.5-5.6 is still larger than something like the Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4, and the Fuji has the same DOF characteristics.
The fact is, as the lenses get longer, they\'re going to be big, simply because of the focal lengths required. Anyway, my point is that it\'s disappointing that all the native lenses, save for the 35/2.8, are flippin\' huge right now. They have little to no size savings over their full frame DSLR counterparts...which limits the use of the system for me as a full system replacement.
It still has enormous value as a base camera for adapting lenses, as FF manual focus lenses are dramatically smaller than their AF counterparts, with rangefinder lenses being downright tiny. For adapting MF lenses between about 21mm and 135mm, this camera is awesome. The EVF capabilities with peaking make it far more desireable to me as a FF manual focus camera than any SLR.
If I pick one up, that\'s what I\'ll be using it for (and I may get the 24-70/4 as a good range AF lens for times I want that capability with a FF sensor, but I have absolutely no desire to use this as a full system replacement due to native lens size.
Re: Official: Sony A7 and A7r full frame mirrorless announced!
Steve Spencer wrote: Jman13 wrote: safcraft wrote:
^^^^I think this image says it all.....almost the same size and a GIGANTIC difference in sensor size !
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
But that isn\'t a fair comparison. The optical characteristics of the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 would be matched by a 70-200 f/5.6 zoom. One doesn\'t exist (at least yet) and if it did it would not be much bigger than the 35-100 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 has a lot shallower depth of field and that matters to a lot of folks and a major reason that a lot of people schlep along a f/2.8 70-200 when there are excellent f/4 7-200s around. Note I do not have a hate on for micro 4/3rds. I have an OM-D (Em-5) and I plan to keep it and I even plan to get the Panny 35-100, but I know what I am getting and it is not the same as a 70-200 f/2.8 on full frame. Instead it is a much smaller lens that makes some sacrifices (primarily more depth of field or less shallow depth of field).
That\'s a 70-200/4 I showed there..that\'s not f/2.8. Yes, it\'s a 1 stop advantage in shallow DOF, but I\'m OK sacrificing that for the enormous size savings. We\'ve argued aperture equivalence to death...I don\'t view shallow DOF ability as the end-all be-all of photography. The fact is it\'s still a lot larger than many other systems. The kit f/3.5-5.6 is still larger than something like the Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4, and the Fuji has the same DOF characteristics.
The fact is, as the lenses get longer, they\'re going to be big, simply because of the focal lengths required. Anyway, my point is that it\'s disappointing that all the native lenses, save for the 35/2.8, are flippin\' huge right now. They have little to no size savings over their full frame DSLR counterparts...which limits the use of the system for me as a full system replacement.
It still has enormous value as a base camera for adapting lenses, as FF manual focus lenses are dramatically smaller than their AF counterparts, with rangefinder lenses being downright tiny. For adapting MF lenses between about 21mm and 135mm, this camera is awesome. If I pick one up, that\'s what I\'ll be using it for (and I may get the 24-70/4 as a good range AF lens for times I want that capability with a FF sensor, but I have absolutely no desire to use this as a full system replacement due to native lens size.
Re: Official: Sony A7 and A7r full frame mirrorless announced!
Steve Spencer wrote: Jman13 wrote: safcraft wrote:
^^^^I think this image says it all.....almost the same size and a GIGANTIC difference in sensor size !
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
But that isn\'t a fair comparison. The optical characteristics of the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 would be matched by a 70-200 f/5.6 zoom. One doesn\'t exist (at least yet) and if it did it would not be much bigger than the 35-100 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 has a lot shallower depth of field and that matters to a lot of folks and a major reason that a lot of people schlep along a f/2.8 70-200 when there are excellent f/4 7-200s around. Note I do not have a hate on for micro 4/3rds. I have an OM-D (Em-5) and I plan to keep it and I even plan to get the Panny 35-100, but I know what I am getting and it is not the same as a 70-200 f/2.8 on full frame. Instead it is a much smaller lens that makes some sacrifices (primarily more depth of field or less shallow depth of field).
That\'s a 70-200/4 I showed there..that\'s not f/2.8. Yes, it\'s a 1 stop advantage in shallow DOF, but I\'m OK sacrificing that for the enormous size savings. We\'ve argued aperture equivalence to death...I don\'t view shallow DOF ability as the end-all be-all of photography. The fact is it\'s still a lot larger than many other systems. The kit f/3.5-5.6 is still larger than something like the Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4, and the Fuji has the same DOF characteristics.
The fact is, as the lenses get longer, they\'re going to be big, simply because of the focal lengths required. Anyway, my point is that it\'s disappointing that all the native lenses, save for the 35/2.8, are flippin\' huge right now. They have little to no size savings over their full frame DSLR counterparts...which limits the use of the system for me as a full system replacement.
It still has enormous value as a base camera for adapting lenses, as FF manual focus lenses are dramatically smaller than their FF counterparts, with rangefinder lenses being downright tiny. For adapting MF lenses between about 21mm and 135mm, this camera is awesome. If I pick one up, that\'s what I\'ll be using it for (and I may get the 24-70/4 as a good range AF lens for times I want that capability with a FF sensor, but I have absolutely no desire to use this as a full system replacement due to native lens size.
Re: Official: Sony A7 and A7r full frame mirrorless announced!
Steve Spencer wrote: Jman13 wrote: safcraft wrote:
^^^^I think this image says it all.....almost the same size and a GIGANTIC difference in sensor size !
Also gigantic difference in native lens size, especially with regards to the zooms. That Sony 70-200 is 2.3x heavier than the Panny 35-100 as well. There is no free lunch.
But that isn\'t a fair comparison. The optical characteristics of the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 would be matched by a 70-200 f/5.6 zoom. One doesn\'t exist (at least yet) and if it did it would not be much bigger than the 35-100 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 has a lot shallower depth of field and that matters to a lot of folks and a major reason that a lot of people schlep along a f/2.8 70-200 when there are excellent f/4 7-200s around. Note I do not have a hate on for micro 4/3rds. I have an OM-D (Em-5) and I plan to keep it and I even plan to get the Panny 35-100, but I know what I am getting and it is not the same as a 70-200 f/2.8 on full frame. Instead it is a much smaller lens that makes some sacrifices (primarily more depth of field or less shallow depth of field).
That\'s a 70-200/4 I showed there..that\'s not f/2.8. Yes, it\'s a 1 stop advantage in shallow DOF, but I\'m OK sacrificing that for the enormous size savings. We\'ve argued aperture equivalence to death...I don\'t view shallow DOF ability as the end-all be-all of photography. The fact is it\'s still a lot larger than many other systems. The kit f/3.5-5.6 is still larger than something like the Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4, and the Fuji has the same DOF characteristics.
The fact is, as the lenses get longer, they\'re going to be big, simply because of the focal lengths required.
Oct 16, 2013 at 09:59 AM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #11866663 « Official: Sony A7 and A7R Fullframe Mirrorless »
