Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm not arguing it's a huge margin.
My point is that we don't see readily how the larger mount helps, because the new possibilities have been spread out over a large number of incremental gains:
- price
- weight (and size, though that's up to debate, because F mount lenses can now share a common FTZ adapter)
- less aberrations
- less distortion
- less color shift
- less focus breathing and focus shift
I don't know how exactly, say, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S lens improves over a hypothetical F mount lens, but I was able to do casual photography at night using that lens as a poor man's zoom, i.e. with cropping, for focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm, and got better overall image quality than any F mount lens can do. (For telephoto lenses, the effect is probably limited, as the F mount Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E has similar image quality, but cannot do normal angles of view.)
Interesting that you use the Nikon 50mm 1.2 S as your example in this discussion.It doesn't demonstrate superiority of the larger mount when compared to the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM with a smaller mount.
The Nikon is not optically superior to the Sony in sharpness, aberrations, or rendering.
The Nikon is huge by comparison being 150mm long, 1090gms, with an 82mm filter thread. The Sony is only 108mm long, 778gms, and only a 72mm filter thread.
Even at this much smaller size the Sony has a programable button, an aperture ring that offers click and no click options, and AF/MF switch. The ergonomics when using it are far superior.
The Nikon is not simpler to design/build having 17 elements in 15 groups as opposed to 14 elements in 10 groups.
The Nikon has only 9 aperture blades, the Sony has 11 making bokeh a bit smoother/rounder.
The Sony is much faster and more accurate in focusing.
The lenses have about the same price in the market, so not meaningfully less expensive.
There may be other lenses in the S line that show the advantages of the larger mount. But the 50mm 1.2S is not one of those. The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM shows that the smaller E mount is capable of competing at the highest level. It is one of my top picks in a Sony lens.
Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm not arguing it's a huge margin.
My point is that we don't see readily how the larger mount helps, because the new possibilities have been spread out over a large number of incremental gains:
- price
- weight (and size, though that's up to debate, because F mount lenses can now share a common FTZ adapter)
- less aberrations
- less distortion
- less color shift
- less focus breathing and focus shift
I don't know how exactly, say, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S lens improves over a hypothetical F mount lens, but I was able to do casual photography at night using that lens as a poor man's zoom, i.e. with cropping, for focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm, and got better overall image quality than any F mount lens can do. (For telephoto lenses, the effect is probably limited, as the F mount Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E has similar image quality, but cannot do normal angles of view.)
Interesting that you use the Nikon 50mm 1.2 S as your example in this discussion.It doesn't demonstrate superiority of the larger mount when compared to the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM with a smaller mount.
The Nikon is not optically superior to the Sony in sharpness, aberrations, or rendering.
The Nikon is huge by comparison being 150mm long, 1090gms, with an 82mm filter thread. The Sony is only 108mm long, 778gms, and only a 72mm filter thread.
Even at this much smaller size the Sony has a programable button, an aperture ring that offers click and no click options, and AF/MF switch. The ergonomics when using it are far superior.
The Nikon is not simpler to design/build having 17 elements in 15 groups as opposed to 14 elements in 10 groups.
The Nikon has only 9 aperture blades, the Sony has 11 making bokeh a bit smoother/rounder.
The Sony is much faster and more accurate in focusing.
The lenses have about the same price in the market, so not meaningfully less expensive.
There may be other lenses in the S line that show the advantages of the larger mount. But the 50mm 1.2S is not one of those.
Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I'm not arguing it's a huge margin.
My point is that we don't see readily how the larger mount helps, because the new possibilities have been spread out over a large number of incremental gains:
- price
- weight (and size, though that's up to debate, because F mount lenses can now share a common FTZ adapter)
- less aberrations
- less distortion
- less color shift
- less focus breathing and focus shift
I don't know how exactly, say, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S lens improves over a hypothetical F mount lens, but I was able to do casual photography at night using that lens as a poor man's zoom, i.e. with cropping, for focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm, and got better overall image quality than any F mount lens can do. (For telephoto lenses, the effect is probably limited, as the F mount Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E has similar image quality, but cannot do normal angles of view.)
Interesting that you use the Nikon 50mm 1.2 S as your example in this discussion.It doesn't demonstrate superiority of the larger mount when compared to the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM with a smaller mount.
The Nikon is not optically superior to the Sony in sharpness, aberrations, or rendering.
The Nikon is huge by comparison being 150mm long, 1090gms, with an 82mm filter thread. The Sony is only 108mm long, 778gms, and only a 72mm filter thread.
The Nikon is not simpler to design/build having 17 elements in 15 groups as opposed to 14 elements in 10 groups.
The Nikon has only 9 aperture blades, the Sony has 11 making bokeh a bit smoother/rounder.
The Sony is much faster and more accurate in focusing.
The lenses have about the same price in the market, so not meaningfully less expensive.
There may be other lenses in the S line that show the advantages of the larger mount. But the 50mm 1.2S is not one of those.
Aug 24, 2023 at 07:33 PM
Previous versions of 1bwana1's message #16324981 « Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly? »
