Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

60mp Sony Emount coming? Buzz today is that Zeiss published an image sample from it's Batis 85mm lens that seems to come from a camera with 60+- mp.

New A9?

Just a matter of time before Sony goes a 50+ mp camera... Canon did one, now Nikon and Sony will do it eventually.

But IMHO, it is useless to 99% of shooters. Sure, you can get giddy at pixel peeping down to a speck of dust resting on an eyelash.

I've had 24mp for a while now, and it's never been insufficient. Truthfully, most of the time, I could make do with less. I do an occasional large print, but never MASSIVE. (16X20 is about as large as I have printed). Sometimes I crop to the maximum, but generally just with birding shots. 24mp does give me the "luxury" of being able to crop later, as a re-composition method. (Especially when shooting action, easier to just center your subject and worry about composition later on).

But 60mp?? It will create files that will dramatically slow down most computers. (See Tom Bricker's comments about the D810 vs the D750... he came to the realization that the D810 files were just too big). Within the camera, it will require bigger buffers and faster processors, further increasing the price of such a camera. And, those processors and buffers would be much more responsive with smaller files. (Would you rather spend $3000 on a 60mp camera that shoots 3fps, or $2000 on a 24mp camera that shoots 6 fps?).

Lots of people will get excited about a 60mp camera. But it's really only useful to medium format shooters, product shooters, fine art shooters, and some studio portrait shooters (the ones who do Calvin Klein billboards, who traditionally use medium format). Once most cameras hit the 16-24mp range, I was hoping the MP war was over. Oh well.

 

[Hockeyman]

They will be excited until they see their hard drives are full after one photography outing

 

[Hockeyman]

Sheikra, boy this coaster packs a punch. One on my top 10 rides
Shiekra by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


By far the coolest theme park themed drink cup
Coolest Cup Ever by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


Key West at Adventure Island water park
Adventure Island Waterpark by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr


One of the rare times I used mt Sigma 35mm on this trip. BGT is such a spread out wide open park there was hardly a need, the 70-300 hardly left my camera
Bacon Fury Pretzel by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

More nice pics Mike ^^^.

Yeah, Shreika is fun!

The thing about a FF 60mp Emount camera for me is I'll be able to use my APS-C lenses in crop mode and not lose any resolution vs. my NEX-7 (24mp).

 

[havoc315]

More nice pics Mike ^^^.

Yeah, Shreika is fun!

The thing about a FF 60mp Emount camera for me is I'll be able to use my APS-C lenses in crop mode and not lose any resolution vs. my NEX-7 (24mp).

I know... I get it. But you don't lose any resolution when you simply keep them on your NEX 7!

I faced this issue when I went from the A55 to the A99. Whether to keep my APS-C lenses or not, and I did keep a couple... for all of a couple of weeks. I quickly came to the realization of, "why use my big expensive high resolution camera, to get lower resolution photos?"

I suspect if you ever upgrade to full frame, you will want full frame lenses to take advantage of the full resolution, not throw 2/3rds into the garbage. (As I've said, I don't think anybody needs 60mp... but you also aren't going to want to pay $3,000 to get 60mp, but then only use the 24mp you were getting on your NEX). And I suspect if anything, you will keep your NEX-7 and continue to use it as your lower-weight option, with the lower-weight APS-C lenses.

 

[fractal]

I know... I get it. But you don't lose any resolution when you simply keep them on your NEX 7!

I faced this issue when I went from the A55 to the A99. Whether to keep my APS-C lenses or not, and I did keep a couple... for all of a couple of weeks. I quickly came to the realization of, "why use my big expensive high resolution camera, to get lower resolution photos?"

I suspect if you ever upgrade to full frame, you will want full frame lenses to take advantage of the full resolution, not throw 2/3rds into the garbage. (As I've said, I don't think anybody needs 60mp... but you also aren't going to want to pay $3,000 to get 60mp, but then only use the 24mp you were getting on your NEX). And I suspect if anything, you will keep your NEX-7 and continue to use it as your lower-weight option, with the lower-weight APS-C lenses.

True, which is why I haven't upgraded yet. She's got over 120,000 shots and counting on her so likely within a year I may purchase a new camera. Like you said, my plan is keeping NEX-7 as a light weight option but I do desire a FF body.
Whether I'm willing to pony up $3k for one is another issue. My first step might be into a used A7ii or A7s with a zoom and a prime. I can use the 200mm with it, I can also use my legacy lenses with it. The step after that may be the A9 or whatever the flagship may be at that time depending on how serious I am.

It's always cool though to speculate and dream about the current "state of the art".

 

[havoc315]

True, which is why I haven't upgraded yet. She's got over 120,000 shots and counting on her so likely within a year I may purchase a new camera. Like you said, my plan is keeping NEX-7 as a light weight option but I do desire a FF body.
Whether I'm willing to pony up $3k for one is another issue. My first step might be into a used A7ii or A7s with a zoom and a prime. I can use the 200mm with it, I can also use my legacy lenses with it. The step after that may be the A9 or whatever the flagship may be at that time depending on how serious I am.

It's always cool though to speculate and dream about the current "state of the art".

Hard to make plans around cameras that don't yet exist, lol.

Considering your mix of shooting, which includes a lot of sports, you might want to take a "wait and see" approach to the direction they actually go in. Based on knowing your shooting habits, if I were in your shoes, I'd be much more excited about the "A9" if it was 24mp but 11fps with the A6000 fast AF system, than I would be about an A9 that is 50mp, but 4fps with the A7 AF system. If and when there is ever an A99ii, I'd even keep that option open. A matter of which camera best fits your needs.
I understand the itch to go full frame. And once you go full frame, it's hard to imagine going back. It has gotten fairly affordable, at least for the body. Problem is, while mirrorless APS-C has really caught up to APS-C dSLR in a lot of ways (look at the NX1, Fuji X camera, and A6000 as examples), the full frame options haven't quite caught up YET. (The A7ii uses an older sensor, so lags behind the others in ISO performance. And nothing in the A7 series has "great AF" yet, only marginal burst rates).

I start thinking of my camera bag for Alaska today... It is going to be 11-15 lbs, total. Made me briefly think, "mmm, mirrorless would be nice...."... but then I remember that there are no longer native telephotos, and it destroyed the momentary fantasy. (I'm bringing to Alaska, a 300mm/4 + 1.4 + 2.0 teleconverters, which will be a big portion of my weight.)

 

[fractal]

DXO just reviewed the Sony FE 28mm/f2 and not only do they like it, it's under $500.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony...ny-FE-28mm-F2-Conclusion-Solid-and-affordable


Sony FE 28mm F2 Conclusion: Solid and affordable
Ranking third for all hybrid lenses, just behind two significantly more expensive Carl Zeiss options, is a great result for the Sony FE 28mm F2 lens. At a cost of just $498, and boasting a “fast” F2 aperture and solid results in most categories, it’s an affordable wide-angle solution for Sony A7 series shooters. It’s actually marginally ahead of the Zeiss wide-angle competition overall for sharpness, but isn’t quite as strong at F2.8, where the corners drop off a little. The main area of concern is Distortion, however, with quite heavy “barrelling” that landscape and architecture photographers will want to correct in post-production.

 

[havoc315]

DXO just reviewed the Sony FE 28mm/f2 and not only do they like it, it's under $500.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony...ny-FE-28mm-F2-Conclusion-Solid-and-affordable


Sony FE 28mm F2 Conclusion: Solid and affordable
Ranking third for all hybrid lenses, just behind two significantly more expensive Carl Zeiss options, is a great result for the Sony FE 28mm F2 lens. At a cost of just $498, and boasting a “fast” F2 aperture and solid results in most categories, it’s an affordable wide-angle solution for Sony A7 series shooters. It’s actually marginally ahead of the Zeiss wide-angle competition overall for sharpness, but isn’t quite as strong at F2.8, where the corners drop off a little. The main area of concern is Distortion, however, with quite heavy “barrelling” that landscape and architecture photographers will want to correct in post-production.

Looks like a great alternative to the 35/1.4 and to the new Batis 25mm. Nice to see high quality "budget" options, which Sony isn't always renown for.

 

[fractal]

@havoc315 I bet you can't wait for Alaska! Now, are you more excited for the trip itself or taking photos on the trip?

 

[havoc315]

@havoc315 I bet you can't wait for Alaska! Now, are you more excited for the trip itself or taking photos on the trip?

Both, but with almost 4 months to go, I'm already fretting about what to bring... Should I get a new camera bag, do I go with 4 lenses or 3... and of course which lenses.

 

[Hockeyman]

Both, but with almost 4 months to go, I'm already fretting about what to bring... Should I get a new camera bag, do I go with 4 lenses or 3... and of course which lenses.

What bag are you using now and what lenses are you kicking around about bringing?

 

[thmcdonald1]

DXO just reviewed the Sony FE 28mm/f2 and not only do they like it, it's under $500.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony...ny-FE-28mm-F2-Conclusion-Solid-and-affordable


Sony FE 28mm F2 Conclusion: Solid and affordable
Ranking third for all hybrid lenses, just behind two significantly more expensive Carl Zeiss options, is a great result for the Sony FE 28mm F2 lens. At a cost of just $498, and boasting a “fast” F2 aperture and solid results in most categories, it’s an affordable wide-angle solution for Sony A7 series shooters. It’s actually marginally ahead of the Zeiss wide-angle competition overall for sharpness, but isn’t quite as strong at F2.8, where the corners drop off a little. The main area of concern is Distortion, however, with quite heavy “barrelling” that landscape and architecture photographers will want to correct in post-production.

I'm still new to all of this. Since it is a Full Frame lens, the focal length would effectively double on a cropped sensor camera like an a6000, correct? I swear I read that somewhere, but I can't find that information now, so better to ask than just buy it and be disappointed!

 

[havoc315]

I'm still new to all of this. Since it is a Full Frame lens, the focal length would effectively double on a cropped sensor camera like an a6000, correct? I swear I read that somewhere, but I can't find that information now, so better to ask than just buy it and be disappointed!

When used on the A6000, the effective focal length is 42mm. (1.5 crop factor). That's the case with ALL lenses when used on the A6000. Whether designed as a full frame lens or APS-C lens, the focal length is always written in full frame numbers. So you must always apply a 1.5 crop factor to the A6000.

 

[thmcdonald1]

When used on the A6000, the effective focal length is 42mm. (1.5 crop factor). That's the case with ALL lenses when used on the A6000. Whether designed as a full frame lens or APS-C lens, the focal length is always written in full frame numbers. So you must always apply a 1.5 crop factor to the A6000.

So this lens would actually be 52.5mm?

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL35F18...8&qid=1430483021&sr=8-1&keywords=35mm+e+mount

 

[havoc315]

What bag are you using now and what lenses are you kicking around about bringing?

Crumpler 7 million home. Debating a backpack bag, plus a bag that can hold a tripod, for Alaska.

I should be taking delivery today of the Nikon 300/4. Assuming I like it and keep it, it's definitely coming to Alaska, along with teleconverters. Thus, it will become a 300/4-420/5.6-600/8. I will definitely bring by 18-35 for landscapes. Bring a flash. That already leaves things packed pretty tight.
If I'm bringing the 300, I won't bring my 70-200. I love the 70-200, but I'm not dragging 2 heavy lenses.
I won't bring my 105 macro.

That leaves: 50/1.8 (light weight, fast aperture, decent quality, really needs to be stopped down to 2.8 or 4, pretty weak at 1.8). 85/1.8 (light weight, but not nearly as light as the 50, amazing IQ, sharp even at 1.8) or 24-85 (so so quality, medium sized, but it has a couple stops of stabilization). I should just bring 1 of the 3, but I could stretch and bring 2 of the 3. I love the primes, but I think for this trip, I might be better served by the convenience of the zoom. Or just bring the 85 for some fantastic portraits.... I don't know.

 

[havoc315]

So this lens would actually be 52.5mm?

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL35F18...8&qid=1430483021&sr=8-1&keywords=35mm+e+mount

Correct. That's why you may hear on the board, for dark rides... If you are shooting APS-C, to get a 30 or 35mm prime, while a 50mm prime is okay for full frame.

Technically.... what is happening, is that APS-C cameras are "cropping" the image. So the 35mm lens is projecting a 35mm image. But the sensor is too small for that image. As a result, the sensor is only using the middle portion of the image, effectively cropping it, and making it the equivalent of a 52.5mm lens image. So the 35mm doesn't literally become a 52.5mm lens, but the final image is equivalent to a 52.5mm image.

The difference between full frame and APS-C lenses, is that lens makers basically said, we can make the lenses a little lighter and smaller and cheaper, if we don't have to worry about the outer portion of the image. After all, that outer portion is being totally cropped away by smaller sensor.

 

[thmcdonald1]

Correct. That's why you may hear on the board, for dark rides... If you are shooting APS-C, to get a 30 or 35mm prime, while a 50mm prime is okay for full frame.

Technically.... what is happening, is that APS-C cameras are "cropping" the image. So the 35mm lens is projecting a 35mm image. But the sensor is too small for that image. As a result, the sensor is only using the middle portion of the image, effectively cropping it, and making it the equivalent of a 52.5mm lens image. So the 35mm doesn't literally become a 52.5mm lens, but the final image is equivalent to a 52.5mm image.

The difference between full frame and APS-C lenses, is that lens makers basically said, we can make the lenses a little lighter and smaller and cheaper, if we don't have to worry about the outer portion of the image. After all, that outer portion is being totally cropped away by smaller sensor.

Very helpful, thank you!

So, you think a 35mm that crops to a 52.5mm will still be good for Disneyland? I think I'm going to sell my 16-50mm for a 18-55mm, get a nice low light lens (like a 35mm f1.8 or the 28mm F2 above), and keep my 55-210mm. Does that sound like a legitimate kit for a beginner?

 

[havoc315]

Very helpful, thank you!

So, you think a 35mm that crops to a 52.5mm will still be good for Disneyland? I think I'm going to sell my 16-50mm for a 18-55mm, get a nice low light lens (like a 35mm f1.8 or the 28mm F2 above), and keep my 55-210mm. Does that sound like a legitimate kit for a beginner?

Sounds good. Just note.... the 16-50 is equivalent to 24-75. The 18-55 becomes 27-82mm. The difference between 24 and 27 is more dramatic than the difference between 75 and 82. In other words, the difference between 75 and 82 is practically meaningless. But when shooting landscapes, the difference between 24 and 27 is pretty noticeable.
So not quite sure why you are want to switch from the 16-50 to the 18-55. I have never shot with either of the lenses, but I understand image quality is similar. I believe pricing is similar. So I'd much rather have a 16-50 than the 18-55, all else being equal.

 

[thmcdonald1]

Sounds good. Just note.... the 16-50 is equivalent to 24-75. The 18-55 becomes 27-82mm. The difference between 24 and 27 is more dramatic than the difference between 75 and 82. In other words, the difference between 75 and 82 is practically meaningless. But when shooting landscapes, the difference between 24 and 27 is pretty noticeable.
So not quite sure why you are want to switch from the 16-50 to the 18-55. I have never shot with either of the lenses, but I understand image quality is similar. I believe pricing is similar. So I'd much rather have a 16-50 than the 18-55, all else being equal.

The reviews I've read for the lenses seem to point out that the 18-55 is optically better than the 16-50. But, thank you for the info on the wide end. I didn't realize that 24 and 27 would be so different.