Sony announced new f2.8 lenses

[astroNikon]

Oh they will and switching to mirrorless isn't the big deal people think it is. Canon and Nikon will do just fine if they stay the course and let Sony do all the legwork in figuring out how to make a mirrorless camera that professionals want to use.

And by then SONY will have all the good patents for this and Nikon/Canon are going to have to scramble to figure out methods around those patents. Not a good strategy in the way companies push for contracts to use patents as a separate income stream or product blocks. Just look at all the lawsuits between Apple and Samsung in recent years.

Just think if SONY made some incredible sensors. They could totally dominate the market.
Oh wait, they do make sensors already don't they

 

[cherylynne1]

I just want to replace the Nikon vs. Canon debate with a Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony debate.

Although I do worry that if Sony ever got the automatic respect that Nikon and Canon get that they would stop working so hard to be innovative. The thing I love most about Sony is that I can just picture them trolling the internet, waiting for people to say, "Camera manufacturers will never be able to ______" and then saying, "Screw you! Let's do it!"

Sony took their time, despite public outcry, to create the 2.8 zooms that the big two have already embedded in their lineups, and because of this, they may be the best we've ever seen. But what I don't get is why they still can't figure out the whole UX/UI thing on their cameras.

I was hoping that they were taking so long because they were going to introduce a compact 24-70 2.8 as small as the 16-70. Physics say no, but Sony says yes, right?

 

[IronMaskDuval]

I just want to replace the Nikon vs. Canon debate with a Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony debate.

Although I do worry that if Sony ever got the automatic respect that Nikon and Canon get that they would stop working so hard to be innovative. The thing I love most about Sony is that I can just picture them trolling the internet, waiting for people to say, "Camera manufacturers will never be able to ______" and then saying, "Screw you! Let's do it!"

Sony took their time, despite public outcry, to create the 2.8 zooms that the big two have already embedded in their lineups, and because of this, they may be the best we've ever seen. But what I don't get is why they still can't figure out the whole UX/UI thing on their cameras.

I was hoping that they were taking so long because they were going to introduce a compact 24-70 2.8 as small as the 16-70. Physics say no, but Sony says yes, right?

I really like where Sony is headed, and I think they are suffering a bit from being complacent from the success of the cybershot series. Now that they're getting some footing, they need to hire a design team for the looks of the cameras as well as the user interface of the cameras.

 

[runnah]

Oh they will and switching to mirrorless isn't the big deal people think it is. Canon and Nikon will do just fine if they stay the course and let Sony do all the legwork in figuring out how to make a mirrorless camera that professionals want to use.

And by then SONY will have all the good patents for this and Nikon/Canon are going to have to scramble to figure out methods around those patents. Not a good strategy in the way companies push for contracts to use patents as a separate income stream or product blocks. Just look at all the lawsuits between Apple and Samsung in recent years.

Just think if SONY made some incredible sensors. They could totally dominate the market.
Oh wait, they do make sensors already don't they

Why would they work around those patents when they can just buy the sensors from sony? Nikon already does that if I recall.

And since I am being frank I will say the tech s impressive the low light capabilities of the A7s2 are a bit of a novelty.

 

[goodguy]

One big problem is that Sony is stealing lots of users from both Canon and Nikon, people who moved to Sony will not be moving back to Nikon or Canon, as long as Sony keeps producing good modern mirrorless then the company we DSLR users own will have less buyers thus less money for R&D thus we are going to get potentially inferior product.
I say Nikon and Canon need to hit the iron now when its still hot, when they are still leading.
I am sure they can produce mirrorless but for their reasons they stick to DSLR.
No doubt current DSLRs are very good but unless I am mistaking the market wants mirrorless and users vote with their wallets.

 

[tirediron]

One big problem is that Sony is stealing lots of users from both Canon and Nikon, people who moved to Sony will not be moving back to Nikon or Canon, as long as Sony keeps producing good modern mirrorless then the company we DSLR users own will have less buyers thus less money for R&D thus we are going to get potentially inferior product.
I say Nikon and Canon need to hit the iron now when its still hot, when they are still leading.
I am sure they can produce mirrorless but for their reasons they stick to DSLR.
No doubt current DSLRs are very good but unless I am mistaking the market wants mirrorless and users vote with their wallets.

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the big attraction to "better" mirrorless cameras? I have to admit, I don't get it...

 

[goodguy]

One big problem is that Sony is stealing lots of users from both Canon and Nikon, people who moved to Sony will not be moving back to Nikon or Canon, as long as Sony keeps producing good modern mirrorless then the company we DSLR users own will have less buyers thus less money for R&D thus we are going to get potentially inferior product.
I say Nikon and Canon need to hit the iron now when its still hot, when they are still leading.
I am sure they can produce mirrorless but for their reasons they stick to DSLR.
No doubt current DSLRs are very good but unless I am mistaking the market wants mirrorless and users vote with their wallets.

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the big attraction to "better" mirrorless cameras? I have to admit, I don't get it...

I dont, those who move from Canon/Nikon to Sony does.

 

[cherylynne1]

For pros who do studio work or events where they're going to need a bag full of lighting and other accessories anyway, I don't think there is a big attraction to mirrorless. Saving a few ounces is not a big deal to them.

But then you have pros who are hiking to remote locations and taking the smallest kit possible. It could matter to them. If they ever manage to make full frame telezooms that are tiny, pair them with a silent shutter, and get the EVF to track as well as DSLRs, then every National Geographic photographer will be snatching it off the shelves. I know, I know, it's impossible. But so was a compact full frame, especially one whose sensor scored higher than any other. And the fact that we keep closing the gap on this mystical camera is very exciting to a lot of people.

For now, though, most of the people buying them are first time camera buyers. They're the MWACs and Uncle Bobs and lots of them won't ever buy another lens. But some of them will, and some of them will go on to be renown photographers. And when they're ready to advance, Sony already has a pro line and pro lenses in place waiting for them.

I think it's very significant that mirrorless is competing so well against the entry level DSLRs. You ask any mom who's planning a Disneyland trip if she'd like the same image quality in a smaller, lighter package and she'll say yes. It is getting harder and harder to push DSLRs to that crowd. And since these cameras are going to the zoo and the park and the birthday parties every day rather than gathering dust on a shelf, their friends see it and ask which camera they have. And most mirrorless owners are very enthusiastic about their cameras.

I do think Sony is playing the long game. I think they're excited about current pros that make the switch and will pay them to promote the reason why, but they know that most pros have too much invested to switch. They're going after first time camera buyers and first time full frame buyers. It's not going to happen overnight, and maybe not for another ten or twenty years or so, but if Nikon and Canon don't find a way to get the new photographers then they will eventually die out.

 

[Ido]

With this push/foray into high-grade, fast zoom lenses compatible with 35mm sensors, we have to finally understand that mirrorless is not just about size. The size advantage we’re used to associating with mirrorless is all but gone with lenses like the G-Master trio: 24-70mm f/2.8 (note that it lacks image stabilization, probably to maintain sane size/weight—similar move to what Fuji did with the 16-55mm f/2.8, though Sony now has IBIS to back it up), 85mm f/1.4, and especially the 70-200mm f/2.8.

With the mirror box gone, what we have is basically a DSLR in Live View mode. But with the EVF-equipped cameras, we’re not restricted to just the rear screen—we can use the same Live View in the eye-level viewfinder. This is the difference between DSLR and mirrorless cameras, not size. Any other difference is specific to the comparison of certain models, and cannot be a generalization for the types of cameras.

As I see it, mirrorless cameras don’t have to replace the DSLRs—they just bring another view of the world, literally. It’s actually to the benefit of all of us if some manufacturers still produce DSLRs, as we can still have the choice between an optical viewfinder and an electronic one, as the photographer sees fit.

Of course, as technology progresses, electronic viewfinders will only get better and better. They will be able to show even greater dynamic range, amplify light levels in low light even more (to make it easier to compose the shot in such low light that you can hardly see anything with the naked eye), and have such smooth transitions and fast refresh times that you won’t even notice it’s an electronic display. Blackout times will become so minimal, that you’ll be able to shoot fast bursts without missing a beat. But still, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so the optical viewfinder should always have its place.

So far, those who prefer the constant Live View in the eye-level viewfinder had to make some compromises if they’re used to DSLRs. At the very beginning, when Micro Four Thirds was the only mirrorless system, you had to compromise on the sensor size. Then came APS-C mirrorless cameras, which gave at least some DSLR users the same sensor size they were used to, but lenses were lacking. Then the lens lineup for APS-C started filling in with faster and better lenses. At the same time, Sony gave full-frame DSLR users the same sensor size they were used to, but again lacking in lenses. Well, that lack of lenses is now gone for a lot of those users.

Obviously, Sony isn’t revolutionizing anything with these lenses. Canon and Nikon have had their versions of them for a long time now. This is just Sony doing what they’re supposed to do: filling out the FE lens lineup with lenses that professional photographers would use. And these three lenses—especially the 24-70 and 70-200—are without a doubt lenses that professionals would use on occasions that call for them, and a lot of occasions call for those types of lenses.
They will be very good lenses. They better be, considering how expensive they are, and also how big they are: the 24-70 costs as much as the Nikon VR and more than the Canon L II, and it’s bigger and heavier than the Canon; the 85mm f/1.4 is more expensive than the Nikon, and is over 25% heavier; the 70-200 will be expensive—it’s made up of 32 elements!

This is the direction I see mirrorless going: please highly demanding professionals first, worry about size and weight later. Give those D5/1D-X and D810/5D-S/5D-III a comparable camera with Live View in the viewfinder, and surround it with the lenses they need. Well, that’s at least where the Sony α7/FE and, to a slightly lesser extent, Fuji X systems are going; Micro Four Thirds is still about a balance that’s tilted a lot more towards portability and lightweight. And the Sony APS-C system isn’t going anywhere: it’s just Sony’s playground for ideas before they make it into α7 bodies.

 

[table1349]

Betamax.

 

[runnah]

So whats the advantage of mirrorless if not the size? Frankly thus far there are none that I can think of.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

So whats the advantage of mirrorless if not the size? Frankly thus far there are none that I can think of.

Well, size is still there. Perhaps not weight, but the hands' wrap around is much more compact. Real exposure in the EVF is another. Another is focus peaking and magnification, which gives the nexus advantage of using legendary vintage lenses. Manual focus was once considered slow, but with focus peaking, it's just as fast, if not pretty close to AF. I was a dslr whore, but when I touched my first MILC, I knew the advantages right off bat once I learned how to use the camera.

 

[table1349]

 

[cherylynne1]

There's also the advantage of having the option of small size. If you have a DSLR and something comes up where you need a smaller camera, you have to purchase a different camera and compromise on image quality. But with mirrorless you can throw on a small prime and just lose the advantage of flexibility on focal length.

 

[pixmedic]

So whats the advantage of mirrorless if not the size? Frankly thus far there are none that I can think of.

Well, size is still there. Perhaps not weight, but the hands' wrap around is much more compact. Real exposure in the EVF is another. Another is focus peaking and magnification, which gives the nexus advantage of using legendary vintage lenses. Manual focus was once considered slow, but with focus peaking, it's just as fast, if not pretty close to AF. I was a dslr whore, but when I touched my first MILC, I knew the advantages right off bat once I learned how to use the camera.

totally agree. I remember the first time I touched one too. the advantages were pretty obvious. how my hands wrapped around it. the exposure. the peaking...

you did mean that to be an "F" there and not a "C", right? the way you wrote it i just assumed a typo. =)