Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands
Thread started 20 Apr 2017 (Thursday) 11:15
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

 
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,445 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
May 14, 2017 08:10 |  #871

bobbyz wrote in post #18354241 (external link)
So when shooting Sony with twice the amount of light, I can shoot 1/2 the ISO? Just trying to understand the logic. bg blur I give you that. I think we get too gungho on bg blur thing. f1.2 on crop is plenty shallow. And at the ridiculous high ISOs most of the shots to me just don't look that good.

no.

you'd have to compensate the ISO to match.

Fuji + F1.2 + ISO 1600

would need to be matched with

Sony + F1.8 + ISO 3200

Assuming both are the same T stop of course. Both would produce similar amounts of blur and noise.

My original reply was pointed towards corndog, who made the claim that fuji was smaller and that sony provided minimal weight weight/size savings.

sometimes, sometimes not is the answer, and I came up with two popular focal lengths at the top of my head to counter the claim.

now if I start comparing the rest of sony's smaller gear such as the 16-35, 24-70, 28-70, 18, 21, 25, 50, you'll start to see that the fuji size is more similar than not.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
CheshireCat
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
CheshireCat's Avatar
2,303 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Sunny California
May 14, 2017 08:24 |  #872
banned

bobbyz wrote in post #18354298 (external link)
Can you post some.:) Hopefully not a cat picture.

Good news: I have no cats.
Bad news: I have no such lens (yet). :)

But you can watch the movie "Barry Lyndon", in which Kubrick has shot several low-light scenes using a custom Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 (also converted to a wider FL of 35mm).

Also, it is relatively easy to convert a 50/1.0 lens for FF reflex cameras into a 35/0.7 for mirrorless APS-C by means of a reverse-teleconverter group inserted where the mirrorbox used to be.
Another reason to love mirrorless cameras ;)


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

LOG IN TO REPLY
corndog ­ cabernet
Senior Member
corndog cabernet's Avatar
Joined May 2010
State of chaos
Post has been edited 5 months ago by corndog cabernet.
May 14, 2017 15:34 |  #873

Charlie wrote in post #18353967 (external link)
FYI, the Fuji 56 1.2 is actually heavier than FE 85 1.8...

The 23 f2 also bigger and heavier than the 35 f2.8

I get that these lens will behave similarly at their maximum aperture as far as DOF is concerned, but the Fuji lenses still let in twice the light.. to it's given sensor.

Charlie wrote in post #18354183 (external link)
I'm just comparing equivalent amounts of light, considering the sony sensor lets in twice the amount of light compared to the fuji.

lens listed are equivalent FOV, background blur, and total amount of light.

The Sony sensor doesn't let in twice the light. It captures twice the light on the sensor. Another way to think of it is that the FF sensor is twice as good at capturing available photons but doesn't help throughput at all. Your "total amount of light" doesn't help photographic speed.

Charlie wrote in post #18354327 (external link)
no.

you'd have to compensate the ISO to match.

Fuji + F1.2 + ISO 1600

would need to be matched with

Sony + F1.8 + ISO 3200

Assuming both are the same T stop of course. Both would produce similar amounts of blur and noise.

My original reply was pointed towards corndog, who made the claim that fuji was smaller and that sony provided minimal weight weight/size savings.

sometimes, sometimes not is the answer, and I came up with two popular focal lengths at the top of my head to counter the claim.

now if I start comparing the rest of sony's smaller gear such as the 16-35, 24-70, 28-70, 18, 21, 25, 50, you'll start to see that the fuji size is more similar than not.

The T-stop thing is irrelevant to me because the transmission ratios among similar focal lengths and designs will be um, similar. A faster lens, all other things being equal, will still allow one to shoot with less light. The comparisons you make do have merit though, but the perfect equivalency thing I'm not quite buying for there are other variables. Granted some may favor the FF sensor, some may not. Vignetting and lens complexity come to mind. Harder to build a lens that corrects and illuminates evenly a FF sensor than an APS sensor, while maintaining a compact, light design.

If one does accept your equivalency argument in it's entirety, then you do make a good case for Sony FF. As an aside, the Fuji prime lens offerings are very attractive for their selection. And the moniker Fuji will always be way cooler than Sony ;-)a




LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,445 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
May 14, 2017 16:04 |  #874

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18354581 (external link)
I get that these lens will behave similarly at their maximum aperture as far as DOF is concerned, but the Fuji lenses still let in twice the light.. to it's given sensor.

The Sony sensor doesn't let in twice the light. It captures twice the light on the sensor. Another way to think of it is that the FF sensor is twice as good at capturing available photons but doesn't help throughput at all. Your "total amount of light" doesn't help photographic speed.

The T-stop thing is irrelevant to me because the transmission ratios among similar focal lengths and designs will be um, similar. A faster lens, all other things being equal, will still allow one to shoot with less light. The comparisons you make do have merit though, but the perfect equivalency thing I'm not quite buying for there are other variables. Granted some may favor the FF sensor, some may not. Vignetting and lens complexity come to mind. Harder to build a lens that corrects and illuminates evenly a FF sensor than an APS sensor, while maintaining a compact, light design.

If one does accept your equivalency argument in it's entirety, then you do make a good case for Sony FF. As an aside, the Fuji prime lens offerings are very attractive for their selection. And the moniker Fuji will always be way cooler than Sony ;-)a

you're doing your best find truth in your phrase: "The Sony sensor doesn't let in twice the light. It captures twice the light on the sensor." You're confusing the rate of light, aperture vs the amount of light, exposure.

"A faster lens, all other things being equal, will still allow one to shoot with less light."......

well, sensor size is clearly not equal, so all things are NOT equal.

My equivalency argument isnt wrong.

a low light scenario may have you shooting F1.2, 1/125, ISO 3200 on fuji APS. If using sony with a slower F1.8, 1/125, ISO 6400, I can get roughly the same exposure with similar amounts of noise. the noise can be verified via comparison tool: https://www.dpreview.c​om ...75&y=-0.16313088109495283 (external link)

DOF can be verified with DOF calculator. http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html (external link)


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
alex66
Member
181 posts
Joined Feb 2006
May 14, 2017 16:06 |  #875

corndog cabernet wrote in post #18354581 (external link)
If one does accept your equivalency argument in it's entirety, then you do make a good case for Sony FF. As an aside, the Fuji prime lens offerings are very attractive for their selection. And the moniker Fuji will always be way cooler than Sony ;-)a

I do like the look of Fuji's prime range if it was not for my affinity with 50's and Zeiss designs at that I would be tempted by a Fuji, the 35mm equivalent looks fabulous if that was the FL I used instinctively then I would most likely gone Fuji.


Stuff
Feed Your Head

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,084 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
May 14, 2017 16:45 |  #876

I'd pick Fuji glass over Sony bodies.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
May 14, 2017 17:03 |  #877

And Leica and Zeiss over Sony or Fuji.




LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
rantercsr's Avatar
Joined Mar 2014
May 14, 2017 17:05 as a reply to airfrogusmc's post |  #878

you would say that  :p


Canon 80D//Rebel T4i//EF50 f1.4 //EFS 24mm F2.8//EFS 18-55//EFS 10-18 //EFS 55-250
Pentax k1000* k50 f2*135 f2.
Fuji XT2 // xf 23mm f2/ xf50 f2 WR
https://www.instagram.​com/shotbypops/ (external link) MYflickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
May 14, 2017 17:16 |  #879

rantercsr wrote in post #18354636 (external link)
you would say that  :p

Ha Ha of course because I have found it to be true.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,305 posts
Joined Apr 2003
British Columbia
May 14, 2017 17:34 |  #880

Chet wrote in post #18352767 (external link)
Tell them they are welcome to screen capture the watermarked proofs then for memories. Do you ask a baker for the left over batter used to make their cake? NO you don't.


Talley wrote in post #18354629 (external link)
I'd pick Fuji glass over Sony bodies.

Well I'd pick Sony full frame sensors over any crop any day. For me, the buck stops with the sensor.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,305 posts
Joined Apr 2003
British Columbia
May 14, 2017 17:35 |  #881

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18354634 (external link)
And Leica and Zeiss over Sony or Fuji.

Zeiss glass on a Sony body...nirvana!!!!




LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been edited 5 months ago by airfrogusmc.
May 14, 2017 17:42 |  #882

Hogloff wrote in post #18354659 (external link)
Zeiss glass on a Sony body...nirvana!!!!

Leica M glass on a Leica M beyond nirvana.

Will be adding a new M 10 to the stable as soon as it comes in..
14 months or so wait.




LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
Goldmember
mdvaden's Avatar
Joined Mar 2009
Beaverton, Oregon
Post has been last edited 5 months ago by mdvaden. 3 edits done in total.
May 14, 2017 17:50 |  #883

CheshireCat wrote in post #18332998 (external link)
... and Canon is still sleeping... :(

If AF performance with Metabones is at least comparable, I don't see any reason why I should not sell the 1Dx and switch to Sony.

For years I've been disappointed by Canon's lack of innovation.

When Sony released the A7rii ... their inability to incorporate even old technology of good battery life means they were so far below innovation. If Sony couldn't innovate a good battery or a camera that would not shut down due to overheating, they were ones lacking in innovation.

Now with the A9, Sony may actually have something that's truly innovative. The A9 sounds like something I could enjoy, but I get so many awesome photos from a 5D mk iii and 5DS already, I see little need to look at a Sony or even another Canon for while.

If anything, Sony may actually have a fighting chance now to keep going even if Canon or Nikon release comparable technology. Consider this ... until just recently, Sony was relying on other company's lens selections, metabones and consumers overlooking their own deficiencies to keep pace. Honestly, that's all Sony has really done is keep pace. when all the facets are put together. Maybe from this point forward they will really see which company moves ahead in the race. I think Sony has some cool options, but honestly, so does Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc..


vadenphotography.comexternal link . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Pageexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
alex66
Member
181 posts
Joined Feb 2006
May 14, 2017 17:50 |  #884

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18354660 (external link)
Leica M glass on a Leica M beyond nirvana.

I preferred the Zeiss M mount glass, just something about the way it rendered the scene, though that was all with film. Also wonderful in the film world Contax and Leica R, owned the first and borrowed the second, fantastic lenses from both. Will always go for a Zeiss lens and especially a Sonnar over any other though.


Stuff
Feed Your Head

LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Post has been last edited 5 months ago by airfrogusmc. 3 edits done in total.
May 14, 2017 18:34 |  #885

alex66 wrote in post #18354664 (external link)
I preferred the Zeiss M mount glass, just something about the way it rendered the scene, though that was all with film. Also wonderful in the film world Contax and Leica R, owned the first and borrowed the second, fantastic lenses from both. Will always go for a Zeiss lens and especially a Sonnar over any other though.


And I do like some Zeiss ZM glass better than Leica M but not all the many. My favorite 35mm lens I have ever shot with for sharpness and rendering is the 35 Lux FLE. Not as fond of Leica R as I am of M glass. Love Zeiss Hasselblad. The 180 CF and 50 FLE CF are beautiful lenses. I had 3 500 C/Ms in the 80s and 90s.

35 Lux asph FLE on my MM I stand by that as beyond nirvana. I also really like the 24 Emarit 2.8 ASPH

I also have a 35 Biogon C that is a really nice lens especially considering the price.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

53,961 views & 621 likes for this thread
Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00258 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is rwag100
987 guests, 491 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016