Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
new Sony 24-70/2.8 GM, 70-200/2.8 GM and 85/1.4 GM plus TCs
#11
Have you seen the coverage of focus-points? 470 or something? AF wherever you want it, not where AF-module allows it? 8fps continuous shooting without mirror flapping? Alright, the small size is corrupted by the huge lenses. The genuine ones, that is. But with the right adapter, I can uses all my DSLR lenses - and take pictures silently. Other owners can use all their old but precious glass. There's simply no camera around with that kind of choice of lenses.

#12
Canon deposited a patent for moving sensor, you have a DSLR that can act as mirrorless this way you have the best of both worlds.

Canon seems to take the mirrorless issue seriously 

Would this hybrid system be the future of the cameras ?

 

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-for-mo...or-switch/

 

for the time being mirorless are slower to focus (however they are improving) and drain too much battery power, SLRs are still better however we will see wht the future will bring us

#13
Generalizing "(D)SLRs are still better than mirrorless" is quite a mouthful, Toni-A. And simply not true. "Draining too mucn power" as well, I recall my D7100, freshly bought, sucked the battery empty very quickly, no LV involved. It became better after a firmware update. And using a DSLR in LV, the situation goes quickly to the opposite. Every other camera dedicated to LV all the time is better than a DSLR doing at what they are less good (now I'm the one generalizing)

 

This moving sensor thing, are you having more information? Because right now, it's a pretty exotic solution. Maybe Canon has no access ro high resolution finder displays like the 4MP of the Leica SL 601? There's no real benefit of a mirror. It never was more precise than focusing on film/sensor plane  and it always caused some delay.

 

But I should shut up. As long as there are DSLR strongholds, I've a chance to sell mine to them   Big Grin

#14
Quote:Have you seen the coverage of focus-points? 470 or something? AF wherever you want it, not where AF-module allows it? 8fps continuous shooting without mirror flapping? Alright, the small size is corrupted by the huge lenses. The genuine ones, that is. But with the right adapter, I can uses all my DSLR lenses - and take pictures silently. Other owners can use all their old but precious glass. There's simply no camera around with that kind of choice of lenses.
JoJu, I cannot agree more about the focus points, it is nice to have them.

"... the right adapter" part I am not convinced here. I will buy expensive camera to replace the mirror with adapter ring? And even if you like the set up, how well the AF will work with none Sony lenses?

The old glass is good argument only IF you have it, other than that is just marketing bullet point.

And one more thing: We've been reading here and there how much cheaper the manufacturing cost of the mirror-less camera is... Well as a consumer I don't see that, quite the opposite actually.
#15
With these big lenses, the small and cramped mirrorless body seems more a bother than an asset. It seems like ergonomics concerns have been murdered in a pool of mirrorless-drool...

 

Take it away, G Master. Errr, I mean Beat Master G.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXphR_WHyN0

#16
@borisbg: About the costs: I paid around 500 for the X-E2 body. After the firmware update I pretty much have the same as a new X-E2s.The lenses are costly and as well a bit steeper priced than common DX glass for DSLRs - but that's the difference that Nikon manufactures the cheaper f/1.8 glass in China and Fuji is based in Japan with lower quantities of lenses. It's true, the A7RII or A7SII is expensive - but the A7II is reasonably priced and pretty competitive to other 24MP FF DSLRs.

 

Adapters are a huge field (and the good ones aren't cheap), but I've accepted that AF with Nikkors in front of a Fuji is wishful thinking. However, the genuine lenses are so much smaller than the FF glass, that I will use the DSLR when I need one of the FF lenses. Otherwise it's just too bulky, although manual focussing is quick with the focus aid.

 

As for the quality of the Sony lenses, I found the portrait gallery on DPReview quite convincing (85/1.4). And now I'm out in the rainy streets and try this 35/2 WR, how good it will behave in low light, we have carnival here in town.  ^_^
#17
Quote:With these big lenses, the small and cramped mirrorless body seems more a bother than an asset. It seems like ergonomics concerns have been murdered in a pool of mirrorless-drool...
Well, there has been much moaning and bleating in the various online forums about the need for f/2.8 FE zooms. But unfortunately, nobody has found a way to cheat the rules of physics AND common sense (Canon and Nikon do have a bit of magic for the first issue - the DO/PF tech - but it may be telling that they haven't used it in a mainstream zoom lens to date, only in the long telephotos).

Good fast lenses can't be made very small, unfortunately that's a fact of life so far.

#18
Hmmh, the 24-70/2.8 has dramatically better MTFs than the 24-70/4. 

The 70-200/2.8 has also improved vs the f/4.

#19
Quote:Hmmh, the 24-70/2.8 has dramatically better MTFs than the 24-70/4. 

The 70-200/2.8 has also improved vs the f/4.
How do the Sony´s MTF compare to the latest Canon and Nikon 2,8 Zooms?
#20
Quote:Hmmh, the 24-70/2.8 has dramatically better MTFs than the 24-70/4. 

The 70-200/2.8 has also improved vs the f/4.
 

Given the prices... The one stop faster doubles the $$$$ Great to see Sony can do it without a Zeiss badge on it.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)