Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Not that I'm interested in, but just for fun.
Why wouldn't we start a thread like, "What are actually E-mount shortcomings, compared to Z and R mounts", to reverse things a bit, and to dig into it, rather than endlessly argue about super smart moves from Nikon and Canon, like beating a dead horse.
For example, why is Sony stabilization so poor compared to competition, as one reviewer calls it joke in recent video?
Is it because of tiny mount, or Sony just doesn't know how to do it, after 10+ years?
Or, why is Sony 200-600 (12.52" long) 50mm shorter at 600mm zoom than Nikon 180-600 (12.4" long), as per same reviewer.
Is it because of tiny mount, or there is something else here.
Or, why so many Sony lenses have focus breathing, then they introduced software correction to it.
If Nikon does, OMG, internet would go crazy, but Sony does it, it's a smart move, some would comment.
Someone said long time ago, offence is the best difference.
Doesn't constant attack to this matter about Z-mount size from some people here reminds to it?
Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Not that I'm interested in, but just for fun.
Why wouldn't we start a thread like, "What are actually E-mount shortcomings, compared to Z and R mounts", to reverse things a bit, and to dig into it, rather than endlessly argue about super smart moves from Nikon and Canon, like beating a dead horse.
For example, why is Sony stabilization so poor compared to competition, as one reviewer calls it joke in recent video?
Is it because of tiny mount, or Sony just doesn't know how to do it, after 10+ years?
Or, why is Sony 200-600 (12.52" long) 50mm shorter at 600mm zoom than Nikon 180-600 (12.4" long), as per same reviewer.
Is it because of tiny mount, or there is something else here.
Someone said long time ago, offence is the best difference.
Doesn't constant attack to this matter about Z-mount size from some people here reminds to it?
Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Not that I'm interested in, but just for fun.
Why wouldn't we start a thread like, "What are actually E-mount shortcomings, compared to Z and R mounts", to reverse things a bit, and to dig into it, rather than endlessly argue about super smart moves from Nikon and Canon, like beating a dead horse.
For example, why is Sony stabilization so poor compared to competition, as one reviewer calls it joke in recent video?
Is it because of tiny mount, or Sony just doesn't know how to do it, after 10+ years?
Or, why is Sony 200-600 (12.52" long) 50mm shorter than Nikon 180-600 (12.4" long), as per same reviewer.
Is it because of tiny mount, or there is something else here.
Someone said long time ago, offence is the best difference.
Doesn't constant attack to this matter about Z-mount size from some people here reminds to it?
Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Not that I'm interested in, but just for fun.
Why wouldn't we start a thread like, "What are actually E-mount shortcomings, compared to Z and R mounts", to reverse things a bit, and to dig into it, rather than endlessly argue about super smart moves from Nikon and Canon, like beating a dead horse.
For example, why is Sony stabilization so poor compared to competition, as one reviewer calls it joke in recent video?
Is it because of tiny mount, or Sony just doesn't know how to do it, after 10+ years?
Someone said long time ago, offence is the best difference.
Doesn't constant attack to this matter about Z-mount size from some people here reminds to it?
Sep 02, 2023 at 03:57 PM
Previous versions of cvrle59's message #16332274 « Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly? »
