New from Sony

[Gianna'sPapa]

The marketplace will determine the future of photography, period! There will be niche products, i.e., the pro market, however the manufacturers are going to go the way they can make the most money for themselves and their stakeholders. Twenty years ago, I (and many others) would never have imagined that film would be a niche product. Today, folks are satisfied with the images from their cell phones that they can instantly upload to the internet. The professional photography market is eroding because with the quality consumer DSLR's being manufactured that produce "satisfactory" images for the internet, who needs anything more? Do you really need a 300 dpi image when 72 is good enough for the internet? I freely admit, I can't imagine what is on the drawing boards now that we will see and be "blown away" with in the next twenty years.

I think it is funny that only 4 years ago, pre-live view DSLR's, that I gave my camera to someone to take a picture and they couldn't figure out that they had to look through the viewfinder to see what they were photographing! They already were so used to non-viewfinder compact cameras that a viewfinder was foreign to them. It is an evolving market.

For myself, I would like to see a pro mirrorless camera body that has an optical viewfinder and mounts pro long telephoto glass the size of a pancake lens with all the controls/menus easily available. Do you think we will ever see it?

 

[manning]

As an old guy now. The dslr sits on the shelf. I was just At Disney and the new canon sx510 worked great for me.

Of course everything now are snapshots.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

As an old guy now. The dslr sits on the shelf. I was just At Disney and the new canon sx510 worked great for me.

Of course everything now are snapshots.

What's old? It's only a frame of mind!! I'm 66 and am out shooting some type of motorsport almost every weekend of the year with a camera hanging off each shoulder! I refuse to get old!! Especially at WDW!!!

 

[boBQuincy]

...Lens support alone is enough to put DSLR systems at a distinct advantage over mirroless...

Although this thread is mainly about Sonys if we want to consider all mirrorless then the lens lineup is not much of an issue. Micro 4/3 is in the unique position of not being limited to one OEM, Olympus and Panasonic both make compatible lenses as well as the aftermarket. With the exception of some special purpose lenses like tilt/shift and ultra-long lenses the micro 4/3 lineup rivals that of Canon and Nikon.

Both Panasonic and Olympus are moving upscale with "pro" lenses like 7-14, 12-35, 12-40, 35-100, all f/2.8 and mostly weather sealed. There are some great primes too: 75 f/1.8 and 42.5 f/1.2. F/0.95 lenses are common for micro 4/3 but not for dslrs. With Olympus announcement of a 300 f/4 the long lens lineup just got better too.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Although this thread is mainly about Sonys if we want to consider all mirrorless then the lens lineup is not much of an issue. Micro 4/3 is in the unique position of not being limited to one OEM, Olympus and Panasonic both make compatible lenses as well as the aftermarket. With the exception of some special purpose lenses like tilt/shift and ultra-long lenses the micro 4/3 lineup rivals that of Canon and Nikon.

Both Panasonic and Olympus are moving upscale with "pro" lenses like 7-14, 12-35, 12-40, 35-100, all f/2.8 and mostly weather sealed. There are some great primes too: 75 f/1.8 and 42.5 f/1.2. F/0.95 lenses are common for micro 4/3 but not for dslrs. With Olympus announcement of a 300 f/4 the long lens lineup just got better too.

These companies have also addressed many of the issues being discussed here years ago; even before m4:3 - with 4:3.

 

[boBQuincy]

These companies have also addressed many of the issues being discussed here years ago; even before m4:3 - with 4:3.

Yep, and even though Contrast Detect Auto Focus (most mirrorless) is not as good as some dslrs for tracking a moving subject it is superior for focus accuracy. When the focus points are on the image sensor instead of on a separate focus sensor (and reflected from a mirror as on a dslr) the result is consistent accuracy, no front/rear focus issues.
Good thing when we have f/0.95 lenses!

 

[photo_chick]

As an old guy now. The dslr sits on the shelf. I was just At Disney and the new canon sx510 worked great for me.

Of course everything now are snapshots.

How old is old? 40 here. If I could I'd bring my view camera into the park.

I do know a lot of people who go through a phase where they pull back from the "big camera" for whatever reason. I did for a while after my daughter was born. Of course then my big camera was a 35mm SLR.

 

[fractal]

Maybe we should go back to these. The buttons were a lot easier to push.

 

[manning]

Ah, for the days of the Brownie.

 

[Animagic!]

If Sony made a fully featured mirrorless DLSR I'd buy it. I don't mean an A-Mount version of the a3000. I'm thinking a mirrorless a77. If they made a mirrorless a77 I would buy it and stick with Sony. Right now I'm on the fence about abandoning the Sony ship and going to Pentax or Nikon.

 

[SkaGoat]

Sony *claims* that the new A6000 autofocus is superior to dSLRs. So if this claim is true, then that advantage is gone.

Superior to which dSLR? Is it the AF and tracking superior to a Canon Rebel T5i or superior to a Canon 7D? Both offer completely different performance, both are dSLRs.

Can it obtain this tracking only in the centre of the frame, with a f/stop limit, or can it do it in a majority of the frame? The other disadvantage with m4:3 is the smaller sensor can lead to depth of field issues.

 

[havoc315]

Superior to which dSLR? Is it the AF and tracking superior to a Canon Rebel T5i or superior to a Canon 7D? Both offer completely different performance, both are dSLRs.

Can it obtain this tracking only in the centre of the frame, with a f/stop limit, or can it do it in a majority of the frame? The other disadvantage with m4:3 is the smaller sensor can lead to depth of field issues.

It's not m4:3.... it's APS-C. But DOF issues increase as sensor size increases.

Sony claims that the AF is faster than most professional dSLRs. Don't know if their claims are true or not, but this is what they claim:

"Even quicker than most professional DSLRs, the phenomenal autofocus speed of the α6000 camera is powered by Sony’s advanced Hybrid AF system. The new model features a focal plane phase-detection AF sensor with an extremely wide autofocus coverage area – 179 focal points– that is teamed with high-precision contrast-detection AF. This potent combination allows the camera to accurately track and respond to a subject moving through nearly the entire frame, and to shoot at an eye-popping speed of up to 11 frames per second with continuous autofocus. It’s an unprecedented combination of speed and frame coverage in today’s market."
Four t
Sony claims that in their tests, AF lock was 0.06 seconds, which makes it faster than just about any dSLR on the market. Twice the speed of the Canon 7d. Four times the speed of the Canon t5i. I'm sure this is in ideal circumstances. Need to wait for independent testing to see if it lives up to this speed, how well is tracks, how well is does in low light.

 

[SkaGoat]

It's not m4:3.... it's APS-C. But DOF issues increase as sensor size increases.

Sony claims that in their tests, AF lock was 0.06 seconds, which makes it faster than just about any dSLR on the market. Twice the speed of the Canon 7d. Four times the speed of the Canon t5i. I'm sure this is in ideal circumstances. Need to wait for independent testing to see if it lives up to this speed, how well is tracks, how well is does in low light.

I want the super thin DOF more easily achieved with a larger sensor.

I'm sure you'd agree getting AF lock, and achieving accurate, reliable tracking are two different things. We'll see when real testers get their mitts on it.

 

[photo_chick]

Before y'all start debating depth of field on one size vs. another realize the sensor isn't what is changing the math. And don't confuse perceived depth of field with actual depth of field. Perception can be modified by presentation.


http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html

 

[fractal]

I want the super thin DOF more easily achieved with a larger sensor.

Mirrorless cameras come in all sensor sizes up to Full Frame. The sensor size in the Sony A6000 is the same as you would find in a Canon Rebel, Nikon D7100 or Sony a77. As far as I know there are no Medium or Large Format mirrorless cameras (yet).

 

[photo_chick]

Mirrorless cameras come in all sensor sizes up to Full Frame. The sensor size in the Sony A6000 is the same as you would find in a Canon Rebel, Nikon D7100 or Sony a77. As far as I know there are no Medium or Large Format mirrorless cameras (yet).

This is going to depend on what your definition of mirrorless is... you can get a digital back for a 4x5 view camera and it would technically be a mirrorless camera.

 

[SkaGoat]

Before y'all start debating depth of field on one size vs. another realize the sensor isn't what is changing the math. And don't confuse perceived depth of field with actual depth of field. Perception can be modified by presentation.


http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/full_frame_vs_crop_sensor_-.html

I was referring to a m4:3 camera, not the A6000.

His argument falls apart because if I'm using a 50mm lens, on a Full Frame camera I will have to move closer to the daisy, to get it to fill the frame, then I would with a APS-C camera.

I will have a thinner DOF, because I have to move closer to the subject. So it's true the larger sensor doesn't directly impact the math, in practical use it does effect my DOF.

 

[havoc315]

I was referring to a m4:3 camera, not the A6000.

His argument falls apart because if I'm using a 50mm lens, on a Full Frame camera I will have to move closer to the daisy, to get it to fill the frame, then I would with a APS-C camera.

I will have a thinner DOF, because I have to move closer to the subject. So it's true the larger sensor doesn't directly impact the math, in practical use it does effect my DOF.

Not sure of your point. If you want a ff mirrorless, there is the a7/7r.

Yes--- the end results, a larger sensor ends up leading to narrower DOF. At times desirable, at times not.

But sticking to apples vs apples-- APS-C to APS-C, if the claims are true, then dslrs have lost their focus advantages over mirrorless. Again -- if true.

Canon has really already achieved something similar as well, with fast accurate AF in live view on the 70d-- effectively mirrorless. But I believe the 70d can't do continuous tracking and shooting. Sony claims the a6000 can continuously focus and shoot at 11fps, which would surpass all conventional consumer dslrs. (A few professional models could still beat it).

All this with the caveat -- if the claims are true.

 

[SkaGoat]

But I believe the 70d can't do continuous tracking and shooting.

a 70D most certainly can do continuous tracking, Canon's AI SERVO is probably the best in the business. It's why a lot of sports shooters use EOS 1DX.

I hope the a6000 is all Sony says it is.... competition is good for consumers! I still prefer the form factor of my EOS 7D (although it can get heavy), over the mirrorless options.

 

[photo_chick]

I was referring to a m4:3 camera, not the A6000.

His argument falls apart because if I'm using a 50mm lens, on a Full Frame camera I will have to move closer to the daisy, to get it to fill the frame, then I would with a APS-C camera.

I will have a thinner DOF, because I have to move closer to the subject. So it's true the larger sensor doesn't directly impact the math, in practical use it does effect my DOF.

By moving closer to the subject you also changing the perspective, and that makes it a different photograph. Use the full frame and crop, which is exactly what a crop sensor does, to make an equal comparison. People seem to want to make the smaller area captured by a crop camera more than it is.

I've used many different formats and it holds up when you keep all factors that affect the math equal. The problem is people try to make it more difficult with smaller sensors when they figure the crop factor, or 35mm equivalents with m4:3 and point and shoots.... but the math doesn't change.

Do smaller format cameras seem to have more depth of field? Yes. That's because the lenses you're using are shorter focal lengths than their 35mm format counterparts. This also affects the physical aperture size as well.