Jump to content


Photo

Why Sony A Mount Is The Real Deal: A Critique Of E Mount Mirrorless

mirrorless Sony a7RII DSLR DSLT adapters

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Sator

Sator

    Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 March 2016 - 09:39 PM

There is a big fad for Sony FF mirrorless at the moment, and it is like watching lemmings following each other over the cliff. I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony FF mirrorless owner because I too was suckered into following the mindless herd over the cliff. It was a big mistake. How could I have been so foolish?

 

I understand this is a controversial claim, so let's go through the reasons for this bold statement. And before you accuse me of being a Sony hater, I should also say I have cross posted much of this on the Sony Alpha Forum and the A mount crowd are applauding. There is a simple question hanging over the full frame Sony FE mount system: what is the point of professional grade full frame mirrorless?

 

The first answer you will hear to this question is that full frame mirrorless is more compact. For example Maki Kimio of Sony stated in an interview:

 

 

AP: Can you summarise the benefit of choosing an Alpha 7-series camera over a DSLR in a single sentence? 

 

KM: Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.

 

 

Let's examine this allegation. I direct readers to camerasize.com where this comparison comes from:

 

a7RIIvs5DsRvsa99_24-70mmf2.8_zpstxugmcbb

From http://camerasize.co...286,377.56,ha,t

 

It shows the Sony a7RII, Canon 5Ds, and Sony a99 with a native 24-70mm f/2.8 lens mounted. As you can see, the total lengths are the same. Sony has failed to overcome the laws of physics. If you take something from the camera body, you have to give it back to the lens, and by the same amount. So you have a choice: either buy one big body and lots of small lenses, or one small body and lots of big lenses. The former is economical and the latter is more expensive. The more lenses you carry on you, the worse the size disadvantage for mirrorless becomes. With larger lenses, the lens-body balance on the Sony mirrorless is also odd: like a big turnip mounted on a matchbox.

 

In many cases, Sony FF mirrorless works out bigger:

 

a7RIIvsa99_85mmf1.4_sizecomparison_zpso1

http://camerasize.co...516,377.63,ha,t

 

This shows the a7RII with the new 85mm f/1.4 GM lens vs the a99 with the Sony-Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 lens. This time, FF mirrorless works out BIGGER than the rival DSLT model. The same thing happens when you compare it with a Canon DSLR:

 

Canon5DIIIvsSonya7RII_85mm_fast_sizecomp

http://camerasize.com/

 

Here the a7RII with the 85mm f/1.4 lens is bigger than the Canon 5DsR with the 85mm f/1.2 lens, despite the latter being half a stop faster.

 

The only time mirrorless works out more compact is when shooting with pancake lenses:

 

a7RIIvsa99_20mmf2.8_zpsxje6umbm.jpg

http://camerasize.com/

 

Here, the a7RII and a99 are shown with a 20mm f/2.0 lens. This was probably the original design intention of full frame mirrorless, but it became so irrationally popular that Sony started to develop more professional lenses for the system.

 

Sony and Zeiss seem to be peddling the revelation of the obvious that slow lenses make for more compactness as though this were some spectacular technological innovation. It seems that f/1.8 is the default maximum diameter for nearly all FE mount FF primes, with only a couple of exceptions. The absurdity is that the 85mm f/1.8 Zeiss Batis gives you the same shallow depth of field as the APS-C Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2. What is the point of shooting full frame if you can't get more subject isolation than you can from APS-C? The only reason to limit aperture to f/1.8 is to make the lens more compact. But look at this:

 

a7RIIvsD810vsXpRo2_85mmf1.8_zpschbdj21l.

http://camerasize.com/

 

Shown are the Sony a7RII with the Zeiss 85mm f/1.8 Batis, the Nikon D810 with the 85mm f/1.8, and the Fuji X-Pro2 with the 56mm f/1.2 lens. In terms of compactness, the APS-C Fuji is streets ahead. At maximum aperture all of these set-ups give you the same shallow depth of field.

 

If compactness really was your priority, you would be better off choosing the Fuji with the 56mm f/1.2, which also allows you to shoot faster in low light. The Sony makes up for the slowness of the lens with IBIS, but this won't help you stop action in low light. It makes no sense to limit the aperture speed on FF lenses merely for the sake of making a system more compact.

 

Even with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, there is questionable size benefit from shooting with a mirrorless:

 

a7RIIvs5DsR_niftyfifty_zpsmk8qg8qc.jpg

http://camerasize.com/

 

Here the a7RII is shown with the new 50mm f/1.8 and the 5DsR with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. If you carry multiple focal lengths around with you at once, then professional full frame mirrorless has a marked size disadvantage. Want a more compact professional camera system?—buy a DSLR!

 

Now that the realisation has slowly begun to sink in that once the lens size in taken into account size advantage is largely lost, there is talk from increasingly desperate people now begging for a "24-70mm f/2.0 FE mount lens that is more compact (sic) than the f/4.0 version". But the public have deluded themselves into thinking that Sony and Zeiss can collaborate to rewrite the laws of physics.

 

The next answer you will hear is that a FF mirrorless is still lighter and the width of the body might be a bit smaller. However, that is only because Sony put such a miniscule battery in their FF mirrorless bodies that you end up having to carry multiple batteries that negate any size advantage. You could make DLSR batteries smaller too, and they would still have better battery life than a mirrorless. The larger bodies found of DSLRs is more to improve ergonomics and could be made smaller if there were demand for this.

 

So once again we find ourselves back to the original question. Other than as an enthusiast's compact walkabout system for shooting with a single pancake lens: what is the point of professional full frame mirrorless? It certainly isn't certainly isn't because it is more compact used with professional grade lenses.

 

The next answer you will hear is that full frame mirrorless is better because of IBIS. That's like saying that Sony mirrorless is better because of the steak knives that they throw in. IBIS is hardly any more a unique technical feature inherent to the design of mirrorless cameras than either wifi or steak knives. Pentax have just incorporated IBIS into their K-1 DSLR, and Sony could have put IBIS into their A mount DSLT system. So IBIS gives full frame mirrorless no inherent technical advantage over other systems, but people are suckered in by the offer of steak knives.

 

But Houston, we have a problem. There is also a major flaw with the implementation of Sony E mount IBIS. The Sigma CEO has been quoted as expressing serious concern for the narrowness of the E mount diameter: "...the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses ... it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF".

 

We know that a narrow mount diameter is a big no-no with IBIS:

 

TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. It means the amount of light at the corners is reduced when the sensor is shifted. We could correct it digitally, but we don’t want to do it: we don’t want to compromise our image quality.

 

TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?

 

TAKASHI UENO: To cover the larger image circle, not only mount size (and body size), but also lens size must be bigger.

 

http://fujilove.com/...fujifilm-japan/

 

 

If you want IBIS, you have to design the mount in advance with a wider diameter, so that it doesn't compromise corner IQ as the sensor moves around. What you don't do is take an APS-C mount (NEX mount), turn it into a full frame mount, then forcibly retrofit IBIS onto a mount never designed to take it in the first place. That's why people expressed a lot of surprise when Sony added IBIS long after the launch of the full frame FE lens mirrorless series, since normally a mount has to be designed to take IBIS from the beginning.

 

Furthermore, Zeiss has admitted that the short flange distance of FE mount makes it technically challenging to design wide angle lenses:  “The short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses.” At short focal lengths, the light hits the corners at a steep angle, which is exacerbated by IBIS, when the sensor moves. It isn't without reason that Sony has yet to come up with any wide angle zoom lenses for the FE mount. They don't even have a 16-35mm f/2.8 zoom, one of the so-called zoom trinity of bread-and-butter professional lenses. We may never see anything like the Canon 11-24mm f/4 rectilinear lens for E mount, and it would hardly be predicted to perform well if it did appear.  It is a euphemism to call the FE mount "technically challenged". The more honest expression may well be "technically flawed", or just plain retarded.

 

It is interesting to compare the relative diameters of various mounts:

 

Minolta/Sony A mount: 49.7mm

Sony E mount: 46.1mm

Fuji X mount: 44mm

Canon EOS EF mount: 54mm

Pentax K mount: 44mm

 

From this you can that see Sony were better off putting IBIS into their A mount, which has a wider diameter, because it is more of a dedicated full frame mount, not an APS-C mount. Canon is in a better position to add IBIS to the EOS mount because it is so wide, and if sensor resolution goes up to 120MP we will probably need it to reduce the impact of handshake. You can also see that both Sony and Pentax are adding IBIS to excessively narrow mounts purely as a marketing ploy, with flagrant disregard towards optical fundamentals. It represents the victory of advertising over engineering. For the credulous it represents Sony's triumph over the laws of physics.

 

In any case, neither throwing in IBIS nor steak knives fails to convince us that mirrorless is an inherently better camera design. With that we return to the question: what is the point of professional FF mirrorless?

 

The next answer you get is that the main advantage of Sony mirrorless is that you can use non-native lenses with adapters. Asked about adapting Canon lenses, Sony manager Kimio Maki, said this:

 

 

Do you anticipate that someone who has a collection of long telephoto Canon lenses could potentially use them to shoot sports with the a7R II?

 

KM: I hope that our native lenses are better! But it will happen. I see people using Sony a7-series bodies and third-party lenses all the time ... because they already own the lenses. It works, but our native lenses are much better...

 

 

Adapters are grossly impractical to use. I have a lot of adapters for my a7II, and have accidentally taken the wrong one with me or have forgotten to pack one altogether. It's also an extra pair of lens caps to lose. Saying you chose FF mirrorless because of the size advantage so you can shoot with an adapted Canon lens is like saying that you're going on a holiday to Hawaii so you can enjoy skiing on powder snow. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Adapters are also fiddly, bulky, and they decisively kill whatever marginal advantage in compactness the body might allegedly once have had. Unfortunately, the body-adapter-lens combination ends up looking like some ungainly Dr. Seuss contraption:

 

 

SeussButterBattle_zpsckkf7q8u.jpg

 

 

Worse still, my Sony A to E mount adapter reduces light transmission by about a 1/2 stop, and you lose far too much of the native autofocus functionality, which gets immeasurably worse with Canon lenses. It is always far better to use native lenses—hence why Sony actually make native E mount lenses!!! As Maki rightly says "native lenses are much better". It's a grand statement of the obvious that no fanboys wants to hear. Nobody raves on and on about the fact that you can adapt some vintage MF lenses to Canon bodies then add focus peaking to the body with Magic Latern. Micro-misalignment between lens-adapter-body causes degradation of IQ in the corners particularly at shorter focal lengths (where due to the short flange distances and narrow mount diameter the E mount is "technically challenged" already because it was originally an APS-C mount). Being able to adapt vintage MF lenses might be cute and will have its niche, but for the vast majority of photographers, the last reason to choose mirrorless is as a vintage retro lens revivalist contraption. At the end of the day, when I pick my set of lenses for a shoot, I just find myself systematically avoiding the use of adapted lenses. I would gladly toss all of my adapters in the bin just to shoot with native lenses.

 

The next answer we get is that mirrorless is inherently superior because of live exposure preview. That means you get to preview the exposure in real time through the EVF before taking the picture. This is something that is not the default modus operandi on a DSLR, but a new hybrid viewfinder patent from Canon suggests exposure preview is soon coming to DSLRs. However, the Sony A mount cameras are DSLTs (Digital Single Lens Translucent), which already have an excellent EVF for live exposure preview, and can shoot much faster than a mirrorless as the mirror doesn't move and the autofocus is faster too. So once again it just isn’t true to say that live exposure preview through an EVF is the one extraordinary feature that elevates mirrorless to the status of being an inherently superior design over other alternatives.

 

So we find ourselves returning to the original question: what is the point of full frame mirrorless? When it comes to full frame professional grade mirrorless, the answer is that there is no point. People are buying into it because it is an irrational fad. You end up having to buy lots of big and expensive lenses for the one tiny body, when it is preferable to have lots of smaller lenses for the one big body, since the total lens-body combination is the same anyway due to physics. In actual fact the lens-body combination make professional full frame mirrorless multi-lens packages larger overall. The only time you get more compactness is when you shoot with just one short focal length pancake or quasi-pancake lens for use as a walkabout camera. The moment you carry around several professional lenses, all size advantage is lost.

 

The fad for a7 series full frame mirrorless cameras is driven by febrile exuberance, and Sony are merely responding to irrational market demand-supply forces, even though they know themselves that they were better off developing their A mount system, based as it is on superior optical design fundamentals. Sadly, Sony lost money on their a99, which wasn't the runaway success that their FF mirrorless series was. Their autofocus system, IBIS, and the 42MP BSI sensor would have reached their full potential on the dedicated professional full frame A mount system, and are being wasted on the FE mount mirrorless system.

 

Mirrorless FF Sony cameras are going through the usual cycle that goes with all novel technology. First some enthusiasts delirious with euphoria proclaim it to be the road to Elysian Fields, and boldly declare the DSLR dead. Next people find the Revolution to End All Revolutions brings its own set of problems, and it isn't the magical path to El Dorado it promised. Finally, people arrive at the more sober realisation that like rangefinders, it has its niche, along with its own peculiar set of pros and cons.



#2 grimlock361

grimlock361

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,054 posts
  • LocationLafayette, LA
  • Lenses:Canon 10-18 f/4.5–5.6
    Canon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6
    Canon 50 f/1.8
    Canon 100 f/2.8L
    Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6
    Canon 100-400f/4.5-5.6LII
    Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 C
    Canon EF 1.4X III Extender
  • Flashes:Speedlite 430ex II
    Speedlite 270ex II
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Canon EOS 7DM2
    Canon EOS 80D
    Canon EOS Rebel SL1
    Canon Powershot SX50HS
    Canon Powershot G15
    Canon EOS Elan 7NE (film)
    Canon EOS Rebel T2 (film)

Posted 31 March 2016 - 09:32 AM

Interesting.  I like your size comparisons. 


Portfolio:  http://361photo.net


#3 JBGreene

JBGreene

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,746 posts
  • LocationItaly
  • Lenses:Canon 500mm
    Sony ZEISS 55mm 1.8, Sony ZEISS 35mm 1.4, Sony 90mm Macro,
    Sony 70-200mm
  • Flashes:YONGNUO YN-560III x3
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Sony a7rii
    Canon 7D Mii

Posted 31 March 2016 - 11:49 AM

Well I personally am not a pro. However, the main reasons I love my sony are the electronic viewfinder. I'm completely happy with the native glass and have no problems with battery consumption rate. IBS is great due to being able to have IS on lenses that don't offer it. If you switched to Sony for the size reduction of the camera body alone then I'm sorry. Image quality is right there with the d810 and 5dsr. Tons of things each camera does well and some are suited for others more so.  Adaptors have came a long ways and continue  improving with time, I currently don't use one or have the need for one. The biggest down fall to me "if I was a professional" would be the single card slot. Different strokes for different folks as they say. I also have shot nikon and canon still currently use the canon for wildlife, so wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of any type.


  • Waylon likes this

#4 Chimpy

Chimpy

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,107 posts
  • LocationLiverpool England
  • Lenses:Canon 70-300 mm IS L
    Canon 100 mm IS L Macro
    Canon 24-105 mm IS L
    Canon 100- 400 mm IS L MK II
    Canon 50 mm f1.8 STM
    Canon 1.4 TC MK III
  • Flashes:Canon 580 EX II
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Canon EOS 1DX MK II
    Canon EOS 1DX
    Canon EOS 7D MK II
    Canon GX5
    Canon SX240 HS

Posted 31 March 2016 - 04:48 PM

Cool Sator, this is the same post that you posted on Canon Rumours? called "Why you should stick with your Canon DSLR and forget Sony FF mirror less"

 

Chimpy.



#5 JestePhotography

JestePhotography

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • LocationMosquitoville(lol), Alberta
  • Lenses:Nikon 400mm f2.8E FL ED VR
    Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 DG OS HSM sport
    Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-S VR IF ED
    Nikon 1.4, 1.7 and 2x TC
    Tripod: Manfrotto 055CXPRO3
    Gimbal Head: Jobu Designs BWG-HD3 Heavy Duty MKlll
  • Flashes:Yuongnuo 560lll
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D7000, Nikon D4S

Posted 31 March 2016 - 08:04 PM

Sony also has such "wonderful" customer service, Just ask Matt Granger...

#6 Sator

Sator

    Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 05:38 PM

Cool Sator, this is the same post that you posted on Canon Rumours? called "Why you should stick with your Canon DSLR and forget Sony FF mirror less"

 

Chimpy.

 

I have cross posted to several places, but in each case I have rewritten it a little bit so as to make it more relevant to the target audience. Each audience has generated a different discussion. For example on the Sony Alpha Forum it lead to an A mount vs FE mount debate. On the Fuji X forum it lead to a totally different discussion. Each time I have posted, I have also tweaked and improved it a little. 

 

Obviously, the responses have fallen in the category of either complete denial like "shut up" (sic!), devoid of any counterargument of substance, or gratitude that someone spend a great deal of time putting together a thought provoking and unbiased critical analysis.



#7 Sator

Sator

    Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 06:38 PM

Here is the latest inconvenient truth about Sony FF mirrorless to be uncovered:

 

LeicaSL_50mmf1.4Summicron_zpsrg5xxytw.jp

 

From: http://camerasize.co...12,596.354,ha,t

 

It shows the full frame mirrorless Leica SL with the 50mm f/1.4 Summicron, the Sony a7RII with the 90mm f/2.8 macro G, and the Canon 5DsR with the 50mm f/1.2 lens. I had to double check a couple of times to convince myself that the Leica 50mm Summicron really was that big and that no mistake had been made with lens choice.

 

The Leica SL full frame mirrorless mount diameter is wider than that of the FE mount (51mm vs. 46.1mm). This shows why Sony used an APS-C mount on their FF mirrorless model, because if you use a dedicated FF mount with dimensions more typical of a full frame mount like those of the Leica SL mount, it causes an even more massive blowout in the lens size! Now we understand the basis for the Sigma CEOs puzzlement when he said that: 

 

 "...the diameter [of the FE mount ] is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses ... it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF".

 

 

Sony simply had to put an APS-C lens mount into a full frame body, because otherwise a 50mm f/1.4 lens would have ended up the same size as a 90mm f/2.8 macro lens:

 

LeicaSL_50mmf1.4_vsSony_Canon_zpsuv0guxp

 

From: http://camerasize.co...95,596.538,ha,t

 

Here the Leica SL is shown with the 50mm f/1.4 Summicron, the Sony a7RII with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, and the Canon 5DSR with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 lens.

 

Yet even after putting an APS-C mount onto a full frame body, Sony still haven't reigned in the blow out in lens size on professional fast lenses as this comparison of 85mm f/1.4 lenses on the a7RII and the a99 shows:

 

a7RIIvsa99_85mmf1.4_sizecomparison_zpso1

 

The added difficulty in designing full frame lenses for an APS-C mount on a FF body explains why the roll out of lenses has been so slow and the resulting lenses more expensive. It explains the reluctance of Tamron and Sigma to make FE mount lenses, because they are concerned about the ability to recoup R&D cost. This means that if you want a system for which you can purchase competitively priced third party lenses, you should avoid the Sony FE mount.



#8 Sator

Sator

    Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 01 April 2016 - 08:37 PM

Well I personally am not a pro. However, the main reasons I love my sony are the electronic viewfinder. I'm completely happy with the native glass and have no problems with battery consumption rate. IBS is great due to being able to have IS on lenses that don't offer it. If you switched to Sony for the size reduction of the camera body alone then I'm sorry. Image quality is right there with the d810 and 5dsr. Tons of things each camera does well and some are suited for others more so.  Adaptors have came a long ways and continue  improving with time, I currently don't use one or have the need for one. The biggest down fall to me "if I was a professional" would be the single card slot. Different strokes for different folks as they say. I also have shot nikon and canon still currently use the canon for wildlife, so wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of any type.

 

My critique is really to help make people more critical and educated buyers.

 

I appreciate the value of exposure preview, but it is also found on the Sony DSLTs. If they had put the 42MP BSI sensor on a new Sony DSLT (like the a99), you would have had live exposure preview on a DSLR type of body. Exposure preview is hardly a feature unique to mirrorless that elevates it above other camera designs. 

 

There is also a patent registered for a Canon hybrid viewfinder. If added to a Canon, this will give you exposure preview on DSLRs too.

 

Yes, for now you get an excellent 42MP sensor with exposure preview, but this advantage will be far more incremental and short lived an advantage than we have supposed. Maybe just for now there is an advantage here over a Canon or Nikon DSLR, but it will be short lived. If you jumped ship every time another maker puts another "feature" into a rival model before they put it into your current camera system, you could end up jumping ship a lot of times. 



#9 JBGreene

JBGreene

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,746 posts
  • LocationItaly
  • Lenses:Canon 500mm
    Sony ZEISS 55mm 1.8, Sony ZEISS 35mm 1.4, Sony 90mm Macro,
    Sony 70-200mm
  • Flashes:YONGNUO YN-560III x3
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Sony a7rii
    Canon 7D Mii

Posted 02 April 2016 - 11:56 AM

My critique is really to help make people more critical and educated buyers.

 

I appreciate the value of exposure preview, but it is also found on the Sony DSLTs. If they had put the 42MP BSI sensor on a new Sony DSLT (like the a99), you would have had live exposure preview on a DSLR type of body. Exposure preview is hardly a feature unique to mirrorless that elevates it above other camera designs. 

 

There is also a patent registered for a Canon hybrid viewfinder. If added to a Canon, this will give you exposure preview on DSLRs too.

 

Yes, for now you get an excellent 42MP sensor with exposure preview, but this advantage will be far more incremental and short lived an advantage than we have supposed. Maybe just for now there is an advantage here over a Canon or Nikon DSLR, but it will be short lived. If you jumped ship every time another maker puts another "feature" into a rival model before they put it into your current camera system, you could end up jumping ship a lot of times. 

 

I agree with the jumping ship statement. At the time I was looking to get a FF camera and the features of the sony got me to purchase one. I don't regret the purchase one bit and think all the major camera brands make great products. I also find the size comparison photos a bit misleading due to the overhead shots only. I had a d7000 and currently have the a7rii and 7dmii and the sony is smaller than both of those. The 42mp sensor in the sony is the best out on 35mm body's currently according to DXO mark anyways. I have never used a non mirrorless sony so have nothing I can say about first hand use for them. It also seems Sony is stepping their lens game up. No camera or camera manufacturer are perfect. It does blow my mind that everyone doesn't use the electronic viewfinder, it's amazing; I would guess it has to due with battery life complaints and what I feel is the battery drainer for the Sony, not the size.


  • Waylon and like this

#10 Sator

Sator

    Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 02 April 2016 - 09:03 PM

I think the argument about just looking at the camera from above being potentially misleading is a fair one. I think people should think hard about overall dimensions. I agree that carrying an extra battery in a pocket adds less sensation of bulkiness in the camera bag than having a bigger body to fit a bigger battery, and many may feel this outweighs the inconvenience of remembering to carry spare fully charged batteries. The other factor is whether you are carrying one lens or multiple lenses. If carrying multiple lenses, as I often do, then each individual mirrorless lens will be longer overall than its DSLR equivalent.

 

Others may feel that DSLRs fill their hands better and have a better ergonomic feel precisely because of their larger size. People should test out the body-lens combination, as some may feel that having a larger lens on a smaller mirrorless body feels imbalanced. 

 

People should think about all of these form factors, which are more subtle than often supposed.

 

Here for interest's sake are views from the back of the Canon 5DsR vs Sony a7RII vs Leica SL (i.e. full frame DSLR vs mirrorless):

 

Canon5Dsvsa7RIIvsLeicaSL_bodysize_zpsdzi

 

Everyone will have a different set of requirements when it comes to shooting, and so there is no generic one-size-fits-all formula to tell you what is right.

 

 

A potential objection to the theory that Sony used an APS-C size mount on a full frame system to keep sizes down might be that mount diameter per se might not impact on lens size. Otherwise, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for the Canon EF (54mm diameter) and Nikon F (44m) mounts would be quite different in size. However, could it be possible that this may change when the flange distance is extremely narrow? After all the Fuji senior design planner says:

TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. [...]
 
TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?
 
TAKASHI UENO: To cover the larger image circle, not only mount size (and body size), but also lens size must be bigger.
 

 

 

I differ to experts in optics. Otherwise, the only reason for Sony to have kept the APS-C dimension of the NEX mount for the full frame use is to maintain the ability to mount FE lenses on their mirrorless APS-C bodies, which is quite possible. 

I should have thought of this before. The Leica SL 50mm f/1.4 Summicron vs. the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens on the Canon 5DsR:
 
 
LeicaSL50mmvsCanonSigma50mm_zpsczv3wgot.
 
Once again, so much for full frame mirrorless being necessarily more compact.
 
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is significantly smaller despite being a half stop faster, suggesting that lens design impacts more on dimensions than whether the body is mirrorless or DSLR:
 
 
LeicaSL50mm1.4vsCanon50mm1.2_zpsvhw3aojw
 
 


#11 JestePhotography

JestePhotography

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • LocationMosquitoville(lol), Alberta
  • Lenses:Nikon 400mm f2.8E FL ED VR
    Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 DG OS HSM sport
    Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-S VR IF ED
    Nikon 1.4, 1.7 and 2x TC
    Tripod: Manfrotto 055CXPRO3
    Gimbal Head: Jobu Designs BWG-HD3 Heavy Duty MKlll
  • Flashes:Yuongnuo 560lll
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D7000, Nikon D4S

Posted 02 April 2016 - 11:58 PM

The best part of any Sony is the sensor in a Nikon camera....

#12 JBGreene

JBGreene

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,746 posts
  • LocationItaly
  • Lenses:Canon 500mm
    Sony ZEISS 55mm 1.8, Sony ZEISS 35mm 1.4, Sony 90mm Macro,
    Sony 70-200mm
  • Flashes:YONGNUO YN-560III x3
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Sony a7rii
    Canon 7D Mii

Posted 03 April 2016 - 08:48 AM

The best part of any Sony is the sensor in a Nikon camera....

Lol, the hate is  real with you. 



#13 Notabot

Notabot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 04 April 2016 - 01:42 PM

There's many advantages to mirrorless fullframe.

  • Your theories, assumptions and quotes are generally flawed.
  • You're using conjecture, assumptions, argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority to prove arguments with flawed premises. 
  • You lack understanding regarding lens design and you're drawing false conclusions because of it.
  • Your comments about the mount stem from a lack of knowledge.
  • You've compared apples with oranges.

You have not mentioned the benefits of having a sensor closer to the mount; you've merely scared people into thinking it's bad--it is not bad. The only thing I really agree with you on is that Canon filed a patent, then again, it's kind of their thing. If you are actually interested in debating this, I'll try help you understand.

 
 

Sony also has such "wonderful" customer service, Just ask Matt Granger...

 

 

I had to threaten to sue Canon just to get them to fix a wonky viewfinder (it was at a 1.5 degree tilt causing my photos to be misaligned in every shot). When they did finally fix it, they left loads of dust in there. I don't doubt that the customer service from Sony is terrible, but I also think it depends on who you talk to that day.


  • Waylon likes this

#14 JestePhotography

JestePhotography

    Master Photographer

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • LocationMosquitoville(lol), Alberta
  • Lenses:Nikon 400mm f2.8E FL ED VR
    Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 DG OS HSM sport
    Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-S VR IF ED
    Nikon 1.4, 1.7 and 2x TC
    Tripod: Manfrotto 055CXPRO3
    Gimbal Head: Jobu Designs BWG-HD3 Heavy Duty MKlll
  • Flashes:Yuongnuo 560lll
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon D7000, Nikon D4S

Posted 05 April 2016 - 01:52 AM

I wouldn't actually count Sony out just yet, they are coming up with more FF high quality lenses and are constantly improving/testing boundaries. If they come out with a 400mm f2.8 things could get interesting.

#15 Notabot

Notabot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 11:43 AM

I have written a response to his article. I am not sure if the link is allowed, so please delete this if it is not :)


  • Waylon likes this

#16 ebit

ebit

    Super Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Lenses:Sigma Art 35mm F1.4
    Canon 85mm F1.8
    Canon 24-70mm L F2.8 II
    Canon 70-200mm L F2.8 IS II
    Fuji XF 16-55mm f2.8 LM WR
    Fuji XF 56mm F1.2 R
    Fuji XF 35mm f2 WR
    Fuji XF 50-140 LM OIS WR
    Fuji XF 1.4X TC
  • Flashes:Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT 2x
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Canon EOS 5D III
    Fuji X-T1
    Fuji X-T2
    Fuji X100T
    Sony RX-100

Posted 25 April 2016 - 04:58 PM

i think there are both sides to this argument.  honestly, I think its not a matter of IF mirrrorless becomes the professional standard.. its a matter of when...

 

sony is a pretty diversified company.. my views on sony haven't changed.. they make great sensors and their latest bodies i feel are almost like tech demos for their new sensors that will eventually trickle down to nikon!  lol that being said.. i could see how some people like sony ff mirrorless systems.. there are things people liek about it over nikon and canon..

 

on a personal note, I went with fuji specifically for that reason.. compactness.  sony is really slow to push lenses and has no clear road map.  fuji has continuously improved its cameras via firmware updates and has a roadmap of lenses.  not to mention the lenses range from huge constant aperture zooms, to small primes for street shooting.  







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: mirrorless, Sony, a7RII, DSLR, DSLT, adapters

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users