Sony A7x lounge

Same building as y'day. different processing style.

rx1rII

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F1uD​5L

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F3MJ​mR

David Arbogast wrote in post #17932628
The Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8 ZA (9.91 oz) is a superior lens, but it is nearly twice the weight and length of the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (5.7 oz) Canon equivalent (aperture). No Canon equivalent to FE 28mm though.

Anyway, the only point I am highlighting is to say that mirrorless does not appear to offer any inherent size advantages over DSLR with regards to the lenses. There is about a 10 oz difference between bodies though (a7R vs 5DS R), which is significant.

Sorry david, although I quoted you I wasn't actually trying to counter your point. I agree that with the lenses there's no major size savings, and like you say the 55 is bigger than 50 stm. All I meant was the combination of the body and the lenses offers a small package which I find good and is one of many positives of mirrorless to me. Also with the 55 being smaller diameter than the canon lenses it gives me the illusion of it being smaller even though its longer and heavier. What I do notice is that in my smallest bag I can fit the a7rii with either the 28 or 55 attached and the other sitting loose and still have room to spare. When I had the canon I couldn't even fit the 5d3 and 35IS attached in that bag, I could only use it for the 5D3 and 40 pancake

I take back everything I said previously about touch screens and how pointless they are. Got my x70 today and just playing about with it to get a feel for it and see if its a keeper but the ability to choose the focus point by touch is amazing! I actually now wish the a7rii had this feature, its definately quicker than pressing the 4 way pad multiple times.

On another note any time I use a different camera nowadays it reminds me how amazing the a7rii actually is. I think I start taking some things for granted after a while and its not until I'm reminded of them

David Arbogast wrote in post #17932403
Speaking of adapted lenses vs native ones, for a long time I read people saying they want to shoot mirrorless to downsize their gear, but this photo caught my attention the other day: http://www.sonyalpharu​mors.com …st-it-changes-everything/

The a7R II with 24-70 GM is the same overall length as the 5DS R with 24-70L II. There is a slight weight savings, for sure, but on the whole mirrorless isn't typically proving to have much size advantage when there are equivalent lenses.

It was this realization that made me start the switch...I compared size and weight of my lenses to the Sony lenses and there was very little difference. I just can't go full switch yet...

TRhoads wrote in post #1793
I just can't go full switch yet...

Things work well enough for me with the metabones that I don't think ill ever fully switch. Would be nice for more lenses like the 28 and 55 to be released though, perhaps a cheap 85 and 135

my 10bucks lens

both handheld. IBIS helps.

The beauty of the Sony system for me is that you CAN choose to have very small and light lenses depending on the photo outing.
If you're willing to go with MF and are looking for size/weight, then you can carry a number of small legacy FD lenses and M-mount lenses and there it REALLY is quite a bit smaller and lighter.
And of course, you can still have an AF kit (which more likely will result in regular DSLR size lenses, more or less).

Here's a shot that shows how small some of the lenses can be compared to the Canon or Sony natives side by side.
Note the 2 M-mount Voigtlanders and their size.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/w7Xj​fV

I forget if I already posted there from last week.

Sunset in Newport Beach.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EYhW​8d

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E4dJ​H2

I have the is version. I also have a 1.4 tele converter. It works good on the Sony but I have always hated the noise the is makes when it's on. On the Sony or canon it's crazy noisy. Not sure why. The 2.8 is isn't noisy

What model did u get with no view finder. I have a Samsung nx 1000 with no viewfinder. I hate it. It's awkward to hold and hard to ficus manually. I don't use it much but I did recently get a fd adapter and put a Canon 35 mm f2.8 on it. So it's a small portable roughly 50mm camera now. I hated the screen only I got a screen loupe for it to make the screen into a view finder. Now it works awesome for manual ficus but it's ugly as all hell.

Wait--we're really comparing the FE 55 to the 50 STM? What's next, 5Dc vs A7r?

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17932954
Wait--we're really comparing the FE 55 to the 50 STM? What's next, 5Dc vs A7r?

Fe55 and 50L then. Canon is still smaller

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17932954
Wait--we're really comparing the FE 55 to the 50 STM? What's next, 5Dc vs A7r?

You are missing the point. The only point is simply that mirrorless does not enjoy any inherent size advantage over DSLRs with regards to lens construction at similar apertures. Of course the FE 55mm is optically superior in quality to the 50mm STM!

Let me put it this way: if you're a lens designer and you want to design a lens that is optimized for the a7 and you want to design another lens optimized for DSLR with the exact same performance/aperture/F​L you would end up with two lenses of similar size and weight.

I only referenced the 50mm STM because it has the same max aperture (f/1.8) as the FE 55mm, which makes it the most comparable lens from a size/weight standpoint.

I can say the debate has changed somewhat with 50mm's. The nifty fifty was borderline unusable in the past. Nobody really took that lens seriously and rightly so. AF was horrible and MF impossible. The 50 STM, I would definitely use as a daily driver, however the ship has sailed, so I shoot with what I shoot, and that's the A7 + FE55 instead of 6D + EF50L.

On a technical level, not much savings on the longer lenses. 55 marginally smaller than EF 50 stm + adapter. Batis 85 is only a little smaller than EF 85 + adapter, but compared 1:1 to the tamron 85 F1.8 VC, then it's a lot smaller. I shoot with the EF 100 f2 and EF 135 f2 personally, love them both optically. When I use them wide open for events, likelihood of larger than 8x10 print is pretty much very small, and even then not the end of the world if printed large shot wide open.

the weight savings starts building up on a more practical level. For instance, I have a OM 24mm, OM 200/FD 200. Tiny lenses, works on both DSLR and Mirrorless. On a technical level, no savings in weight, but practical level, I save quite a bit. I wouldnt use these lenses on DSLR, too tricky to MF. Using even the EF 24mm f2.8 and 70-200 f4 would be the practical (no full 1:1 replacements exist) comparison, I would have quite a bit more bulk with both lenses, and maybe twice the combined weight. Sony's FE 35 f2.8, yeah, plan on getting one to try out.

so in combination with body savings (often shoot 2 bodies), and lens savings here and there, it can definitely add up. Sure, I can step down to smaller sensor, have an EOS-M that the kids play with, but I find that I can make my setup small enough with the sony without having to fiddle with another body. I can lose the L bracket to make it smaller, but yeah, small enough not to matter. As long as I can have something that just clips to my belt, I'm good. No FF dslr can fit in a small package as say the sony A7 and FE 35. It'll be a bit wider, a bit taller, and protrude a bit more. 60% of my shooting is probably family snapshots, 1 lens, 1 body. 25-28%, some form of event photography/performanc​e, 2-3 lenses, 55 + 135 or 40 + 100. For the landscape stuff/dedicated photo outings, any gear can go. I'll either strap on my small belt if small gear or big belt if big gear. I will still shy from big gear when possible. 200 prime over 70-400 mostly.

as for the rest of the sony lineup, voigtlander E mount lenses (10, 12, 15) will be small and have no comparisons. ***Loxia 21/2.8 half size of ZE 21/2.8, batis 25/2 is a good bit smaller than the ZE 25/2, ***Loxia 35/2 good bit smaller than ZE 35/2.

*** Really specialized lenses.

So far, from 10mm - 35mm, you can definitely get smaller lenses, and on a practical level, that can definitely be extended. Add on the dual camera factor for some shooters, and it can be a significant savings in bulk and weight.

I think my goal for a landscape kit would be 10 - 21 - 55 - 200. I'm thinking that can work extremely well for me, as I generally love 12, 24, 55, 200 for landscape outings.

Yeah when designing lenses for the 35mm format, the physics are what they are. For normal and moderately wide focal lengths, the shorter flange distance allows to make some small primes without the need for a retrofocus design. Size can also be saved by doing things like undercorrecting distortion in the optical design (i.e. FE 28 and Batis 85). But if you want uncompromised optical performance, the lenses are going to be big.

Mirrorless cameras have gotten to the point where the are distinct advantages outside of size, and this is why the GM lenses now make sense. But the size advantages are still there if you're good with the 'limitations' the smaller lenses are coupled with (smaller max aperture and what-not). Depends on what your priorities are, but its nice to have choices and the ability to toggle between a large set-up and a small one simply by changing the lenses, but using the same camera body.

I do think that the mark II bodies sit in an awkward position size wise. Too small at times for serious/professional use. Too big at times for casual use. I think an a6 and an a9 are necessary at this point.