[ Discuss ] What is the attraction of Sony A7 compare to m43?

[bllimus]

NEX- New E-mount eXperience.

A7/A7R is still using E-mount, no longer new experience.

Haha

 

[Parka]

Not sure about you guys, the only reason why I came to m43 is because of the overall camera setup size.
Camera and lens has to be light, everything else can be a compromise.

 

[kei1309]

Yep. And sony just killed NEX. Will sony really support 3 mounts and produce all the necessary lenses for 3 mounts? Caveat emptor.

Lol. My bad. I stand corrected. Yes. Sony only has 2 mounts A & E. But 3 series of lenses. A mount, E mount. And E mount FE. Hmm. Putting too many eggs into different baskets IMHO.

It's still A-mount or E-mount.

Just that the lenses that are compatible with the FF image sensor are marked FE. Just like the A-mount lenses are DT for APS-C image circle coverage, and not marked DT for FF image circle coverage.

It's the same with Nikon's DX and FX lenses.

So it's a total of 4 series of lenses.

But i don't think that's an issue. FF lenses will work well on crop bodies, and people will buy them. Just that the APS-C lenses won't work in harmony as well as the FE lenses. But there's been some sort of review that claims that at least one of the APS-C lenses for the E-mount supports the FF sensor A7/7R.

I'd suggest you read up more on FX and DX lenses from both brands before slamming them

 

[tsammyc]

Not sure about you guys, the only reason why I came to m43 is because of the overall camera setup size.
Camera and lens has to be light, everything else can be a compromise.

I think portability for long telephoto and macro, where the other mounts lenses are either very big and heavy or no good.

However, full frame will have an advantage in image quality and Sony has shown that it can be a light small package similar to M43 for short focal lengths.

Nonetheless, M43 image quality has always been "good enough" even to most M43 owners a few years ago. With the new Sony and Panny sensors, it actually gets so close to APS-C and full frame, that you have to be a pixel peeper to care.

My personal take is to continue to use M43 for macro and long telephoto, but consider full frame for street and family portraits. Also for fun with rangefinder, older SLR lenses and ultra shallow DOF where I want one eye in focus. Haha. APS-C is dead to me. For traveling, only the RX100 fits in my shirt pocket.

 

[Oly5050]

Here is a link that compares the A7 with FE zoom and EM1 with 12-35 and 12-50 (they didn't have the 12-40)

Interestingly, the EM1+Panny lens is 802g, while the A7 with kit zoom is 769g

Also, the Oly/Panny would be FF equivalent 24-70 with FF DOF of 5.6, while the A7 would be 28-70 F3.5 to 5.6

The full frame sensor appears to have about 1.5 stops advantage over the EM1 sensor (from DXOMark), while the full frame lens is 0.5 to 2 stops slower, so both should take similar photos in low light...

http://j.mp/173jFjV

http://j.mp/173kgSF

Happy to see this that sony is comparable. But you are talking about dof equivalent. I am more interested in f-stop exposure equivalent.

In any case, I for one am interested in the A7. I will likely go hybrid keeping both Sony E/FE systems and the m4/3. I don't really care if the Sony range lens is limited or too big - I just only need one good compact lens from them. The E has the 16/2.5 pancake.

Btw, it was actually the Sony sensor in the em5 that got me impressed with the Sony sensor. Panny sensors really suck. I dislike the colours from them. Sony sensors are fantastic.

 

[Sispecho]

For those who have been using m4/3 cameras to adapt and use manual lenses. The A7 allows those manual full frame lenses which can be v small to be utilized fully. Especially those rangefinder lenses.

If im not mistaken, IQ will take a dip.

Those rangefinder lenses i think are designed for film, which can take a more angled incidence of the light ray than say to a digital sensor. What this means is that the image qulaity at the corners can be worse than what these lenses are desogned for.

 

[tsammyc]

If im not mistaken, IQ will take a dip.

Those rangefinder lenses i think are designed for film, which can take a more angled incidence of the light ray than say to a digital sensor. What this means is that the image qulaity at the corners can be worse than what these lenses are desogned for.

They work very well, but you have to design the camera correctly. As you know, the current Leica M series is digital full frame and uses those lenses. Apparently, Leica lenses look even better on Sony sensors. Usually above 35mm, there is no problem.

 

[tsammyc]

Happy to see this that sony is comparable. But you are talking about dof equivalent. I am more interested in f-stop exposure equivalent.

f-stop is one thing, but remember that the full frame sensors deal with high ISO noise better, so you can use ISO 6400 with relative impunity.

 

[ricleo]

If im not mistaken, IQ will take a dip.

Those rangefinder lenses i think are designed for film, which can take a more angled incidence of the light ray than say to a digital sensor. What this means is that the image qulaity at the corners can be worse than what these lenses are desogned for.

yes, agree with Tsammyc.

lenses from 35mm upwards have no problem with the RF lens design.

the lenses i will use with the sony are the 35mm 1.2/1.4, the 50 1.1 and a 75 1.8. All of them are relatively small compared to the full frame equivalents and even the m4/3 equivalents (35 1.4 is tiny, 75 1.8 similar size to oly 75 1.8. no 50 1.1 equivalent).

 

[seafood]

Not completely relevant to this thread but most of the points hold true .....

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/

 

[Agrivar]

It's still A-mount or E-mount.

Just that the lenses that are compatible with the FF image sensor are marked FE. Just like the A-mount lenses are DT for APS-C image circle coverage, and not marked DT for FF image circle coverage.

It's the same with Nikon's DX and FX lenses.

So it's a total of 4 series of lenses.

But i don't think that's an issue. FF lenses will work well on crop bodies, and people will buy them. Just that the APS-C lenses won't work in harmony as well as the FE lenses. But there's been some sort of review that claims that at least one of the APS-C lenses for the E-mount supports the FF sensor A7/7R.

I'd suggest you read up more on FX and DX lenses from both brands before slamming them

Nikon has fx dx and cx they have 3 series of lenses. The thing about it is that Canon or Nikon and do so and get away with it. They have so many people using their systems.

Sony doesnt. Sony is the wanna be in the FF arena. Their SLT tech just died, they created nex and less than 4 years canned it and renamed everything to Alpha. True they have A and E mount. They have A, E and FE lenses. So point to note. Sony doesnt have the installed base of Canikon. They will sooner or later kill something else and move on. Sony has a history of not sticking to their guns. They keep "innovating". But that is ok for consumer electronics not for a camera system. If you have the latest and greatest A mount zeiss lenses.. will you wonder what sony is trying to do with the new FE? If you have already invested in E mount Glass... suddenly whats the roadmap for your NEX or E lenses? True, they can be used on the A7. But the image will be cropped to 10mpx.

Point im making is Sony is so wishy washy. That is my subjective opinion. Agree or disagree. Doesnt matter to me. But this is a m4/3 forum, and I'm letting those of us who are using m4/3 that they should count their blessings that Oly and Panny are so committed to only ONE mount and ONE series of lenses. True that they got burnt in the past by 4/3, so they have learnt their lesson and i applaud them for sticking to their guns. At least since I bought into m4/3, my first lens can still be used and the m4/3 consortium is still going strong.. You dont see Oly or Panny creating a nano 4/3 mount or lenses etc..

 

[Oly5050]

Must say the Nikon dF looks good man....

 

[Agrivar]

Not completely relevant to this thread but most of the points hold true .....

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/full-frame-v-micro-four-thirds/

Exactly.. FF is not for everyone..

 

[Agrivar]

Must say the Nikon dF looks good man....

looks like a hulk

 

[microcosm]

Nikon has fx dx and cx they have 3 series of lenses. The thing about it is that Canon or Nikon and do so and get away with it. They have so many people using their systems.

Sony doesnt. Sony is the wanna be in the FF arena. Their SLT tech just died, they created nex and less than 4 years canned it and renamed everything to Alpha. True they have A and E mount. They have A, E and FE lenses. So point to note. Sony doesnt have the installed base of Canikon. They will sooner or later kill something else and move on. Sony has a history of not sticking to their guns. They keep "innovating". But that is ok for consumer electronics not for a camera system. If you have the latest and greatest A mount zeiss lenses.. will you wonder what sony is trying to do with the new FE? If you have already invested in E mount Glass... suddenly whats the roadmap for your NEX or E lenses? True, they can be used on the A7. But the image will be cropped to 10mpx.

Point im making is Sony is so wishy washy. That is my subjective opinion. Agree or disagree. Doesnt matter to me. But this is a m4/3 forum, and I'm letting those of us who are using m4/3 that they should count their blessings that Oly and Panny are so committed to only ONE mount and ONE series of lenses. True that they got burnt in the past by 4/3, so they have learnt their lesson and i applaud them for sticking to their guns. At least since I bought into m4/3, my first lens can still be used and the m4/3 consortium is still going strong.. You dont see Oly or Panny creating a nano 4/3 mount or lenses etc..

Absolutely true. In fact, that is the reason I dropped the idea of getting a D800 and bought the E-M1 instead. For all the HG and SHG glass still sitting inside my dry cab, waiting for the day that they can be resurrected.

Must say the Nikon dF looks good man....

I agree about the Df. Brings me back to the days when I first started shooting Nikon. Oh why did I sell off those rare primes 10 years ago? If I still had them, I will be buying this Df. Unfortunately, I don't, and this means even if I am going to buy a 135FF camera, it will be a D800-ish camera with a EVF. Not the Df. No matter how pretty she is.

Exactly.. FF is not for everyone..

Every system have their strengths and weaknesses. I had friends who "moved on" to FF and they came back again because they missed the deeper DOF when shooting macros and products for magazines. Yes, products. Since 16MP is more than enough for editorial work, why bother to carry heavy equipment when a MFT system is enough to get the job done (and be paid). Even if someone were to give me a Leica M9 system now, I don't think I will ever do it justice since this does not fall into my shooting style.

So find a system that suits your needs. If you are shooting portraiture and love thin bokeh, then yes, move to the larger sensor system (even consider medium format), but if you are a travel photographer, a macro shooter, or even a street photographer, I think MFT will be good for your health. Literally.

 

[ricohflex]

MFT has a future because we have an ageing population. Old folks don't want to carry very heavy things all day long.
And they want very fast autofocus.
Past a certain point of sensor size/MP count, MFT photos are good enough for personal record keeping/tour memories.

Some of the people I know who buy fancy cameras and take Raw photos, unfortunately - do not even know how to operate their computers properly. Not to mention post processing the Raw files. They just follow the trend.

Sony is in rapid evolution stage and the dynamic changes may be unsettling for some who bought into their cameras.

Sony will leave some things in the dust.

Welcome to the club. I learnt that the hard way, believing the Sony advertisements about how good their Minidisc system was and how committed Sony was to the Minisdisc.

 

[ricleo]

Welcome to the club. I learnt that the hard way, believing the Sony advertisements about how good their Minidisc system was and how committed Sony was to the Minisdisc.

true hehe.... i too believed that the minidisc was the future. small size, recordable and re-recordable.... but of course with the advent of the mp3 player the minidisc could not survive.

 

[microcosm]

true hehe.... i too believed that the minidisc was the future. small size, recordable and re-recordable.... but of course with the advent of the mp3 player the minidisc could not survive.

Glad to know I wasn't alone. But the good thing is, they STILL work today... been 15 years.

 

[seafood]

I love Sony. I mean their Trinitrons. And their Walkmans.

And I used to love the Minoltas. Their SRT303b. And XD7s. And ...... their Rokkors.

And the Yashica FRs/DX with the Zeiss T* lenses ....my dream! And beyond my childhood dreams ...the Contax RTS-es. Even the Contax G.

Today they live on in the Sony FE system (and I really don't mean the E mount/system!). The day the FE system comes up with a Zeiss T* 24-70/80 f2.8 that is half the size of the Nikkor 24-70/f2.8, I am into the Sony FE system.

Now the Nikon Df ...... another thread

 

[seafood]

As I see it, this Sony mirrorless FE system offers the potential of a 35FF system with lenses the size of the present APS-C systems. If this spells the demise of any systems, it'll be the APSC system. If true portability is the aim, then the m43 system is the answer. APSC would just be an incremental difference to the 43 sensor. To get a better "bang-for-your-buck" difference the natural progression would be to full 35mm FF sensor size. Or even medium format.

Because of the shorter flange-sensor distance of the mirrorless FE system, and improvement of EVFs, the potential for 35FF quality with optics half the size is a reality, e.g. downsizing of 43 to m43 lenses.

I always thought APSC systems were ....... neither here nor there.