Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

http://sonyalphalab.co​m …-and-Ultra-Wide-Converter

Compare with the Nikon 20mm f/1.8. As you get wider, or more telephoto, or compare at similar prices, or start incorporating zoom ranges, the differences aren't as stark.

idkdc wrote in post #18340605
It is a good point of comparison because the equivalent exists on DSLR - cheap and sharp-ish. I would say that there isn't a compact yet expensive high quality DSLR lens because of design objective and target market, not because it isn't possible. Strip the IS from the 24mm f/2.8 IS and 35mm f/2 IS, add metal casing or weather sealing, add 19+ autofocus points, add a joystick in a 6D; it's very doable if Canon wanted (they might not). On the other hand, Sony doesn't have cheap and sharp lenses like the 40mm pancake, the 24mm pancake and the super sharp 18-55 IS and 10-18 (or M equivalent 22mm f/2, 11-22mm, 35 macro with light built in) lenses. I would say that this isn't because Sony isn't capable, just that it has focused on another target market.

Look at it this way: Canon has chosen cheap, sharp STM lenses, and f/2 lenses with IS; Nikon has chosen medium-priced f/1.8 lenses to pursue; Sony has chosen expensive Batis lenses to pursue and the 28mm f/2 is their one cheap bang for buck lens.

you can add the FE 50 and FE 85, not to mention, actual canon lenses. of course the 18, 21, 25, 35, and 55 is good too.

Charlie wrote in post #18340610
you can add the FE 50 and FE 85, not to mention, actual canon lenses. of course the 18, 21, 25, 35, and 55 is good too.

I forgot the FE 85 1.8 existed, mostly because all I hear about is the Batis. Isn't the FE50 very similar in size to Canon's plastic fantastic?

18, 21, 25, 35 and 55 are Batis / Zeiss branded lenses? Again, I think the difference is just philosophy in design objectives, cost and pricing and target users / markets. I don't think a $1000 50mm f/1.8 would sell well to DSLR users as zoom lenses like the 16-35mm f/4L IS or cheap 50mm f/1.8 or medium price (still sharp) f/2 IS lenses or f/1.8 lenses for Nikon would.

idkdc wrote in post #18340605
It is a good point of comparison because the equivalent exists on DSLR - cheap and sharp-ish. I would say that there isn't a compact yet expensive high quality DSLR lens because of design objective and target market, not because it isn't possible.

No. It's literally not possible on a DSLR because of the need for a retrofocus design for DSLR lenses.

The best apples to apples comparison are the difference in size between the zeiss loxia 21 made for the FE mount and the zeiss milvus 21 made for DSLR bodies. Same manufacturer, priced similarly, very close optically, but the Loxia is much smaller.

If you're paying $1K for the 55 1.8, you're doing it wrong. That said, DXO rates it one of the best lenses in the world.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18340626
If you're paying $1K for the 55 1.8, you're doing it wrong. That said, DXO rates it one of the best lenses in the world.

That's MSRP. I know it's a decent lens.

mystik610 wrote in post #18340624
No. It's literally not possible on a DSLR because of the need for a retrofocus design for DSLR lenses.

The best apples to apples comparison are the difference in size between the zeiss loxia 21 made for the FE mount and the zeiss milvus 21 made for DSLR bodies. Same manufacturer, priced similarly, very close optically, but the Loxia is much smaller.

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=183​40624&i=i189921841
forum: Changing Camera Brands

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=183​40624&i=i178531342
forum: Changing Camera Brands

That's pretty convincing. Thank you for the share. What are the limits of the shorter flange distance of the E mount with size? F/1.4 lenses? Ultrawide? Ultratelephoto? Zoom lenses?

Wow I really want one now...the Loxia, I mean. Hmm...that's a sure steep price. Always wanted a Milvus or Otus, just never got around to buying one with all those pesky autofocus lenses around.

idkdc wrote in post #18340635
That's pretty convincing. Thank you for the share. What are the limits of the shorter flange distance of the E mount with size? F/1.4 lenses? Ultrawide? Ultratelephoto? Zoom lenses?

Focal length is the biggest factor in leveraging size. The need for retrofocus designs in DSLR's is for wide angle lenses...my guess is 40mm is the threshold due to the 40mm pancake.

Once you start getting into medium telephoto focal length the size advantages start to diminish....but the type of photography that favors size tends to favor wide angle....landscapers, travel photography, street, etc. This is where the draw of the a7 cameras have mostly been until now.

idkdc wrote in post #18340635
That's pretty convincing. Thank you for the share. What are the limits of the shorter flange distance of the E mount with size? F/1.4 lenses? Ultrawide? Ultratelephoto? Zoom lenses?

The majority of the differences come when focal length < flange distance or at least the mirror clearance distance.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18340626
If you're paying $1K for the 55 1.8, you're doing it wrong. That said, DXO rates it one of the best lenses in the world.

I have this lens, its the best "normal" I have owned and that includes more expensive Leitz lenses, I paid a fair bit less than the list price somewhere around £500 I recall. Given I use this lens 95% of the time its cost is worth every penny and I consider for my use it would be worth paying the list for.

mcluckie wrote in post #18340274
I feel the same about Sony. I'm really considering Leica again; Fuji is a crop.

Which Fuji? Technically both Fuji X and Fuji MF are crops

bobbyz wrote in post #18340884
Which Fuji? Technically both Fuji X and Fuji MF are crops

yeah, technically the Hasselblad digital is a crop, smaller than 6x6!

Hogloff wrote in post #18340500
I do a lot of serious landscape work and truthfully I have never met a single photographer shooting a Fuji system...lots of Nikon 810 and Canon 5dsr and some Sony cameras, but no Fuji or Olympus cameras.

Same logic, I shoot lot of sports, birds, never ever seen one Sony. Just depends on what you shoot.

I do like that Sony is pushing tech. But man those superteles are going to be really expensive and they only have one 300mm f2.8.

bobbyz wrote in post #18340886
Same logic, I shoot lot of sports, birds, never ever seen one Sony. Just depends on what you shoot.

That is a good point for the "is Canon doomed" discussion.

I have never - not even once in my life - seen someone using a Sony mirrorless while afield. Yet I have seen hundreds of folks using Canon DSLRs and dozens of folks using Nikon DSLRs.

In fact, the only time I have even seen a Sony mirrorless camera is at my photography club meetings, where a member brings his with him to the meetings. Every other member has a DSLR.

.