Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Seems Sigma is rescueing Sony APS-C
#1
I was thinking about a A7 + 85mm but this looks quite good too. I really think it was a good decision by Sony to open the mount up a little bit. Better would be if it would be open like 43! One FX mount which is used by all companies so you can select the best.

https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=o...est_ob=550
#2
(01-08-2019, 12:01 PM)marco Wrote: I was thinking about a A7 + 85mm but this looks quite good too. I really think it was a good decision by Sony to open the mount up a little bit. Better would be if it would be open like 43! One FX mount which is used by all companies so you can select the best.

https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=o...est_ob=550

FX is a (nonsensical) Nikon term. Nikon only had APS-C and did not intend to go FF. They had a film SLR lens line up, and to distinguish their lenses especially designed for the smaller format digital DSLRs they coined the term "DX".

Later, when they returned on their idea to just do APS-C, they superfluously came up with "FX", which really serves no purpose.

And Sony's FF mirrorless mount is the worst of the bunch because of the (too) narrow throat.
#3
Till CaNikon released their FF mirrorless cameras nobody complained about the mount diameter of Sony cameras ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#4
Thank you for teaching me, I never would have known that without you! ;-)
#5
(01-09-2019, 11:49 AM)Klaus Wrote: Till CaNikon released their FF mirrorless cameras nobody complained about the mount diameter of Sony cameras ...

Yeah, the F.U.D. seems to be working.
#6
(01-09-2019, 11:49 AM)Klaus Wrote: Till CaNikon released their FF mirrorless cameras nobody complained about the mount diameter of Sony cameras ...

FF is even more stupid than FX Big Grin Both abbreviations share in common that one can quicker type them instead of talking of a 24×36 mm sensor.

FullFrame also means full size of any sensor. There's no HalfFrame or QuarterFrame, so FF is at least as meaningless or helpful as FX. And if one tries to refer to film-era APS (Advanced Photo System) is as right or wrong as if one tries to refer to a system abbreviation from one manufacturer. Most of us know meanwhile which sensor sizes we're talking about, no matter if FF or FX.
#7
(01-09-2019, 11:49 AM)Klaus Wrote: Till CaNikon released their FF mirrorless cameras nobody complained about the mount diameter of Sony cameras ...

I might be mistaken or thinking of a different camera; but I thought there were complaints during testing of wide angles because the narrow throat caused issues with the corners or maybe it was the lack of lenses on the sensor.... i forget the exact details.
#8
There are issues with large aperture lenses, with a lot of light loss. Because Sony on the A7/9 series very heavily lifts signal amplification with large aperture lenses, people do not complain because they are oblivious to the issue. Also the throat diamater is the reason why the STF lens is only 100mm and only f2.8, because Sony wanted round bokeh discs all over and the narrow mount limited the focal length and aperture with that in mind.

Canon and Nikon have not chosen a wider mount for no reason, even if the FUD-machine might want you to think that. With this new knowledge in mind, for sure the Sony FF mirrorless mount is the worst of the bunch to choose.

Wide angle issues (on APS-C "NEX" (5 and 7) and maybe some lenses on A7/9) were due to "incompatible" sensor stack glass thickness, not due to anything mount related.
#9
(01-10-2019, 02:53 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: There are issues with large aperture lenses, with a lot of light loss. Because Sony on the A7/9 series very heavily lifts signal amplification with large aperture lenses, people do not I  complain because they are oblivious to the issue. Also the throat diamater is the reason why the STF lens is only 100mm and only f2.8, because Sony wanted round bokeh discs all over and the narrow mount limited the focal length and aperture with that in mind.
The question is if it will be so important? I will never buy this heavy big lenses, and with the advent of computational imaging or how you want to name it this glass will gets less and less important anyway. A filter which is "improving" bokeh so that everything is sharp what you want but the rest is more or less blurred. I like to travel a lot and for that I want something small. I use now a RX1 but sometimes I need a different focal length. Maybe an 1inch compact would do the job,  mayvbe something different. 

Actually we will see if the size of the mount will be that important, I think openness of the mount is more important for me,  so I think L mount would better than E mount if they succeed and R and Z are the less desirables.
#10
(01-10-2019, 03:33 PM)marco Wrote:
(01-10-2019, 02:53 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: There are issues with large aperture lenses, with a lot of light loss. Because Sony on the A7/9 series very heavily lifts signal amplification with large aperture lenses, people do not I  complain because they are oblivious to the issue. Also the throat diamater is the reason why the STF lens is only 100mm and only f2.8, because Sony wanted round bokeh discs all over and the narrow mount limited the focal length and aperture with that in mind.
The question is if it will be so important? I will never buy this heavy big lenses, and with the advent of computational imaging or how you want to name it this glass will gets less and less important anyway. A filter which is "improving" bokeh so that everything is sharp what you want but the rest is more or less blurred. I like to travel a lot and for that I want something small. I use now a RX1 but sometimes I need a different focal length. Maybe an 1inch compact would do the job,  mayvbe something different. 

Actually we will see if the size of the mount will be that important, I think openness of the mount is more important for me,  so I think L mount would better than E mount if they succeed and R and Z are the less desirables.
You mean "will it be so important FOR ME". No, it probably will not be so important FOR YOU. Is the ultimate mount for mirrorless 135 format supposed to take you as blueprint, though? Or rather, should it allow for maximum design freedom, even for lenses YOU will never buy? I think the latter.

And why would "openness" be more important for you? You won't buy more than lets say a dozen lenses at most? Why would EOS R be less desirable? EF mount is widely supported (Zeiss, Samyang, Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, Voigtlander to name a few) so it is already possible to make 3rd party lenses with RF mount. How open do you want? I doubt Nikon Z is hard to support either?
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)