Sony beats Nikon to FF mirrorless

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Rich, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Sep 12, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Sep 12, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Me Guest

    It's very exciting - not.
    Another example of how Sony should stick to what they can do well, and
    forget about trying to be what they're not.
    Yep - the lens and sensor image quality will be superb.
    Too narrow FOV for landscape, too wide for portrait. So what's the
    point? I predict there will be a lot of (tame) cat photos on DPreview's
    forums. Oh - and "street photography". I can hardly wait.
     
    Me, Sep 12, 2012
    #3
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

     
    Rich, Sep 12, 2012
    #4
  5. Rich

    Alan Browne Guest

    Dead on arrival.

    If it could support existing Sony/Minolta lenses it would have a chance.
    Few but the well heeled and eccentrics are going to fork over that
    much cash for a 35mm FFL camera.

    If it dispensed single malt scotch that would be something else.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 12, 2012
    #5
  6. Rich

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Fixed focal length
    Can't remove the lens
    No viewfinder, optical or electronic
    Expensive

    Does it have any *good* features? Are there any advantages to it
    being mirrorless? The advantages of a mirrorless camera mainly
    have to do with being able to put lenses in places you otherwise
    couldn't. For example, I can get adapters for my micro four thirds
    that guarantee focus at infinity for other manufacturer's lenses.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 13, 2012
    #6
  7. Rich

    Me Guest

    There is an optional optical VF ($599) and EVF (price TBA).
    ! Lens hood $179 and thumb grip $249.
    No mirror slap/quiet operation, compact size, mechanical simplicity
    (possible - but probably not implemented in this camera).
     
    Me, Sep 13, 2012
    #7
  8. It's probably the most popular single field of view across all
    photographers and cameras. It's certainly the one that most of the film
    P&S had.

    Not good at all for cat photos, by the way, at least in my experience.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 13, 2012
    #8
  9. Rich

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Is the Lumix "pancake" lens that is so popular for micro-four-thirds
    supposed to be the equivalent? I remember there being some talk of
    its focal length being equal to the diagonal size of the sensor (it's
    actually about 11% shorter than that), but a 35mm fl lens on a full
    frame would be significantly shorter than that.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 13, 2012
    #9
  10. Rich

    Bruce Guest


    The consensus view is that 50mm is the most popular and 35mm comes
    second, but some way behind.


    That's true. For film P&S, the manufacturers provided a wider field
    of view than that from a 50mm so that tourists could get more into
    their vacation shots. In mass market film P&S, fixed focal lengths
    varied from 28mm (rare) thru 35mm, 38mm and 40mm (all very common)
    ending up with 42mm and 45mm (rare).
     
    Bruce, Sep 13, 2012
    #10
  11. Rich

    Me Guest

    It would be interesting to see prices from back in the late 70s or early
    80s when I first bought a 28mm lens (F2.8 AI Nikkor). I recall that it
    was expensive (it wasn't very good either - I lucked out and should have
    waited for the AI-s version).
    Were there any good but affordable slr lenses, wider than 35mm back
    then? My recollection of the time was that 24mm was out of my price
    range, and 18mm was unreachable and exotic - I don't recall knowing
    anybody who owned such a thing.
     
    Me, Sep 14, 2012
    #11
  12. Rich

    RichA Guest

     
    RichA, Sep 14, 2012
    #12
  13. But how much scotch would it have to dispense so you'd
    halluzinate the pictures you couldn't shoot with it then?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 14, 2012
    #13
  14. The Lumix 20mm f/1.7? I think of M43 as 2x, so that's 40mm-e by that
    standard. Haven't actually calculated diagonals. Or the 17mm? The
    20mm is the famous one, though; that and the Olympus 45/1.8 seem to be
    the really famous ones (with smaller followings for others including the
    Olympus 12mm f/2)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 15, 2012
    #14
  15. I've got some pages of photo ads out of the magazines on my site,
    covering some of that period.

    <http://dd-b.net/photography/PriceHistory/>

    Don't have the 28/2.8 in the 1973 ad, though (and it's all used prices,
    Olden was like that; bit of a scam really). I should go back and get
    more ads (after building the frame to get squarer pictures).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 15, 2012
    #15
  16. It was probably 1983 when I got fed up with my 24mm widest angle prime
    on my SLR often not being wide enough and went for a Vivitar 19mm
    f3.8. Good optical value at the time, but I soon found that I'd like
    to go even wider. But it wasn't possible to go wider without spending
    far more money and my photography hobby budget was seriously limited
    by having acquired a mortgage and a child. So 19mm ended up as being
    the widest I ever went with SLR lenses.

    My wanting to go wider was clearly not a passing fancy. My APS-C
    crop-sensor DSLR now has 8mm as its widest linear focal length. That's
    able to photograph all four walls of a room while standing in a corner
    of the room. Plus I have a fisheye for wider shots, which I sometimes
    computationally defish in order to get a nearly linear perspective
    projection which is wider than my 8mm gives.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 15, 2012
    #16
  17. Rich

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    That's the one. On the one hand, I read people raving about it, for
    the Olympus OM-D as well as the Lumix m4/3 cameras. On the other hand,
    I read about the "banding issue", which some people say happens at all
    ISO's, not just the higher values. I bought one so I could do some
    existing light photography, and I don't think I see any artifacts so
    far. This photo is a crop taken out of a landscape mode candid "action"
    shot:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7914457746/in/set-72157631369048820
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 17, 2012
    #17
  18. I use an EPL-2 as my "little" camera, with the 14/2.5, 20/1.7, and
    45/1.8 as my primary lenses. I do think the 20/1.7 is a great lens
    (certainly *outstanding* price/performance!).

    People on the Internet can make a name for themselves by identifying
    some very rare, hard to produce weird outcome, and promoting it as a big
    deal. I certainly haven't had any kind of "banding" problem in low
    light (and I got the EPL-2 because my LX3 just wasn't good enough in low
    light).

    The EPL-2 is tolerably useful in low light, though far inferior to my
    Nikon D700. But then that's *still* after all these years in the top
    group of low-light performers, and cost close to an order of magnitude
    more. And is NOT small or light. I'm kind of eyeing the new model that
    probably has the same sensor as the OM-D, which I used one night (a
    friend has one) and thought was very good, but it's a bit big for what I
    use my M43 gear for (my carry-everyehwere camera, not what I take to
    planned photo shoots).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 18, 2012
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.