Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

Yea... a bit of cat's eye bokeh, but that's not exactly uncommon. It transitions to OOF very nicely... Much smaller and cheaper than the 85/1.4. And lately, I've been living wider than 2.8 for portraits, so not sure I'd go with the 90. Of course, I'd probably just adapt my Nikon 85/1.8 for a while.

 

[havoc315]

I was dead set on the Batis, but I've seen too many samples showing abnormal bokeh balls. The cat eye variety. From the sample pic from that video above, the new Sony 85 looks like it will be a winner. Cost is the only problem, at $1800. It seems every lens on my list now is $1800 or more.

I think this 90 could be great for head shots or even half body portraits. Also environmental/landscape where lots of detail is a premium. I like the flexibility with it's macro ability as well. I'd also be interested in seeing results from an a6000.

My next step is to figure out if the Tamron 2.8 zooms work well enough with the LA-E3 adapter.

Let me know if it does!!

 

[havoc315]

To New York by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

 

[zackiedawg]

A few recent A6000 long exposures from Disney last week:

Daytime:

 

[mls02]

What lens you taking these with? Thanks

 

[fractal]

What lens you taking these with? Thanks

Sony Zeiss ZA 24mm 1.8

 

[fractal]

 

[fractal]

@havoc315 Did you see Tom Bricker switched to the A7rii? I find this interesting because he said he moved from the D810 to D750 for the smaller file sizes.

 

[fractal]

here's his article on his switch. Fair and honest.

http://www.disneytouristblog.com/going-mirrorless-tom-bricker-1/

 

[havoc315]

here's his article on his switch. Fair and honest.

http://www.disneytouristblog.com/going-mirrorless-tom-bricker-1/

Interesting read. Like Tom, he and I are both attorneys in our day jobs... and we have both now bounced between Sony and Nikon.
I've had similar thinking to his thinking -- which is what has led me to pre-order the A6300. It *should* work nicely with the Commlite adapter, giving me cross-compatibility. Keeping the A6300 small for wide angle uses (with the native 10-18 or Zeiss 24), and letting me adapt Nikon glass for longer shooting (Once I get the commlite adapter, I'm really looking forward to trying the Nikon 300/4 on the A6300).

But some notes -- Tom switched for size-savings, but seems to have realized that it really isn't saving much size (at least if shooting full frame with high quality lenses). You read his whole post, and you get the sense of a purely lateral move. IQ and AF are just as good as his Nikon set-up. His kit is smaller... but because he has opted for smaller slower lenses. The body is smaller, but more cramped.

I think we are now hitting a stride of equilibrium. Where there are some little differences and pros and cons, but dSLRs and Sony mirrorless cameras are essentially just lateral products. 4 years ago, when it was just APS-C NEX cameras, they were smaller, but with clearly inferior AF and inferior performance. First generation A7 cameras were clearly still rough around the edges. The Sony lens lineup was seriously lacking. The A6000 was a great leap forward for APS-C shooters, but the "slideshow" effect continued as a major drawback of EVF action shooting.

Between the A7rii and now the A6300... And with the growth of the Sony lens lineup.... Sure, there are still holes in the Sony lens lineup, and it is more expensive than a traditional dSLR. But in terms of photographic results, the holes are no longer gaping for most shooters (wildlife and pro shooters would still have big problems with the Sony lens lineup). Supposedly, with the A6300 EVF shooting 8fps without any blackout -- that's certainly better than any dSLR under $1000. For more money, the 7dii and the D500 can shoot slightly higher frame rate.
It's very hard to find objective comparisons of AF, with some people swearing that Sony AF is still inferior, while other pros claiming it is now superior.

I think we have hit the magic point where quite simply, dSLR and mirrorless are pretty close to being equals. Longer battery life on a dSLR... Focus peaking on a mirrorless. Not exactly life-changing differences.

So the question is whether mirrorless, and Sony mirrorless in particular, whether they have hit a plateau (to be either held back by technology, or held back by the lack of market demand in a shrinking camera market), or whether in the next few years, we see mirrorless fly past dSLR.

If mirrorless is to fly past dSLR, then this is the formula:

1-- Ability to drive legacy lenses with top AF quality.
2-- With no mirror blackout, the potential for SUPERIOR AF to be realized.
3-- We have some limited fully electronic shutters now. And at a minimum, we get electronic first shutters. With higher and higher resolution cameras, mirrorless cameras have the potential to make shutter-shock far less of an issue than in a mirrored dSLR.
4-- EVFs must continue to improve -- 11 frames per second with no blackout!
5-- Overall kit price -- camera and lenses -- must come down in price to match dSLR.

The A7rii and A6300 already have many of these advantages to some degree... but they are $2500 FF and $1000 APS-C cameras. Sure, you can say they are reasonably priced compared to D810/5Ds/D500/7Dii, but they aren't reasonably priced compared to D750, 6D, D5500, etc.. And the native lenses just don't have the same affordable options.

So some of those great A6300/A7rii strengths need to filter down to cheaper bodies, plus they need to cross over -- The next A7 cameras need to be able to shoot bursts without blackouts. A $1500-$1800 A7iii needs the super-advanced AF system of the A6300 and A7rii, while perhaps staying lower resolution.

Right now, money aside, I don't think I'd have any regrets if I followed Tom and switched to the A7 series. But on the other hand, especially when you factor in price, there is not yet anything compelling enough to make me switch, or to make me regret staying for now.

 

[havoc315]

@havoc315 Did you see Tom Bricker switched to the A7rii? I find this interesting because he said he moved from the D810 to D750 for the smaller file sizes.

And the Sony uncompressed files are even bigger than Nikon files, since Nikon still uses a lossless compression. Though he may be using the compressed Sony files, he might be ok with the slight compression loss.

 

[fractal]

Interesting read. Like Tom, he and I are both attorneys in our day jobs... and we have both now bounced between Sony and Nikon.
I've had similar thinking to his thinking -- which is what has led me to pre-order the A6300. It *should* work nicely with the Commlite adapter, giving me cross-compatibility. Keeping the A6300 small for wide angle uses (with the native 10-18 or Zeiss 24), and letting me adapt Nikon glass for longer shooting (Once I get the commlite adapter, I'm really looking forward to trying the Nikon 300/4 on the A6300).

But some notes -- Tom switched for size-savings, but seems to have realized that it really isn't saving much size (at least if shooting full frame with high quality lenses). You read his whole post, and you get the sense of a purely lateral move. IQ and AF are just as good as his Nikon set-up. His kit is smaller... but because he has opted for smaller slower lenses. The body is smaller, but more cramped.

I think we are now hitting a stride of equilibrium. Where there are some little differences and pros and cons, but dSLRs and Sony mirrorless cameras are essentially just lateral products. 4 years ago, when it was just APS-C NEX cameras, they were smaller, but with clearly inferior AF and inferior performance. First generation A7 cameras were clearly still rough around the edges. The Sony lens lineup was seriously lacking. The A6000 was a great leap forward for APS-C shooters, but the "slideshow" effect continued as a major drawback of EVF action shooting.

Between the A7rii and now the A6300... And with the growth of the Sony lens lineup.... Sure, there are still holes in the Sony lens lineup, and it is more expensive than a traditional dSLR. But in terms of photographic results, the holes are no longer gaping for most shooters (wildlife and pro shooters would still have big problems with the Sony lens lineup). Supposedly, with the A6300 EVF shooting 8fps without any blackout -- that's certainly better than any dSLR under $1000. For more money, the 7dii and the D500 can shoot slightly higher frame rate.
It's very hard to find objective comparisons of AF, with some people swearing that Sony AF is still inferior, while other pros claiming it is now superior.

I think we have hit the magic point where quite simply, dSLR and mirrorless are pretty close to being equals. Longer battery life on a dSLR... Focus peaking on a mirrorless. Not exactly life-changing differences.

So the question is whether mirrorless, and Sony mirrorless in particular, whether they have hit a plateau (to be either held back by technology, or held back by the lack of market demand in a shrinking camera market), or whether in the next few years, we see mirrorless fly past dSLR.

If mirrorless is to fly past dSLR, then this is the formula:

1-- Ability to drive legacy lenses with top AF quality.
2-- With no mirror blackout, the potential for SUPERIOR AF to be realized.
3-- We have some limited fully electronic shutters now. And at a minimum, we get electronic first shutters. With higher and higher resolution cameras, mirrorless cameras have the potential to make shutter-shock far less of an issue than in a mirrored dSLR.
4-- EVFs must continue to improve -- 11 frames per second with no blackout!
5-- Overall kit price -- camera and lenses -- must come down in price to match dSLR.

The A7rii and A6300 already have many of these advantages to some degree... but they are $2500 FF and $1000 APS-C cameras. Sure, you can say they are reasonably priced compared to D810/5Ds/D500/7Dii, but they aren't reasonably priced compared to D750, 6D, D5500, etc.. And the native lenses just don't have the same affordable options.

So some of those great A6300/A7rii strengths need to filter down to cheaper bodies, plus they need to cross over -- The next A7 cameras need to be able to shoot bursts without blackouts. A $1500-$1800 A7iii needs the super-advanced AF system of the A6300 and A7rii, while perhaps staying lower resolution.

Right now, money aside, I don't think I'd have any regrets if I followed Tom and switched to the A7 series. But on the other hand, especially when you factor in price, there is not yet anything compelling enough to make me switch, or to make me regret staying for now.

Good overview. Early adopters to new tech will almost always pay more.

Hopefully you are correct about prices coming down - especially the lenses.

 

[havoc315]

Good overview. Early adopters to new tech will almost always pay more.

Hopefully you are correct about prices coming down - especially the lenses.

They might not come down. Sony may not want to cut into the profits of premium lenses by offering sub-premium.

For example, Nikon and Canon shooters can get affordable 85/1.8 lenses, that nearly match the IQ of the expensive 85/1.4 and 85/1.2. Sony might want to steer everyone to their expensive 85/1.4, and might choose not to offer a cheaper alternative. For all the years of the A-mount, they never offered a cheap under $250 nifty-fifty. They had an overpriced and old and mediocre 50/1.4 lens, but never offered a full frame 50/1.8. With the A7, they have their $1000 55/1.8... If they offered a $200 50/1.8 with very very good IQ, then they might lose sales on their 55mm.
Fortunately, improved adapters, may let Sony camera buyers use the affordable lenses from other makers. I am disappointed that the A6300 didn't get IBIS, as it would have been nice to shoot my Nikon 85/1.8 with IBIS. It's a spectacular lens, and about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price of the native Sony 85-90mm lenses.

 

[fractal]

They might not come down. Sony may not want to cut into the profits of premium lenses by offering sub-premium.

For example, Nikon and Canon shooters can get affordable 85/1.8 lenses, that nearly match the IQ of the expensive 85/1.4 and 85/1.2. Sony might want to steer everyone to their expensive 85/1.4, and might choose not to offer a cheaper alternative. For all the years of the A-mount, they never offered a cheap under $250 nifty-fifty. They had an overpriced and old and mediocre 50/1.4 lens, but never offered a full frame 50/1.8. With the A7, they have their $1000 55/1.8... If they offered a $200 50/1.8 with very very good IQ, then they might lose sales on their 55mm.
Fortunately, improved adapters, may let Sony camera buyers use the affordable lenses from other makers. I am disappointed that the A6300 didn't get IBIS, as it would have been nice to shoot my Nikon 85/1.8 with IBIS. It's a spectacular lens, and about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price of the native Sony 85-90mm lenses.

The Russian portrait photographer uses the Nikon 85 1.8 to great effect.

 

[WDWFigment]

Interesting read. Like Tom, he and I are both attorneys in our day jobs... and we have both now bounced between Sony and Nikon.
I've had similar thinking to his thinking -- which is what has led me to pre-order the A6300. It *should* work nicely with the Commlite adapter, giving me cross-compatibility. Keeping the A6300 small for wide angle uses (with the native 10-18 or Zeiss 24), and letting me adapt Nikon glass for longer shooting (Once I get the commlite adapter, I'm really looking forward to trying the Nikon 300/4 on the A6300).

But some notes -- Tom switched for size-savings, but seems to have realized that it really isn't saving much size (at least if shooting full frame with high quality lenses). You read his whole post, and you get the sense of a purely lateral move. IQ and AF are just as good as his Nikon set-up. His kit is smaller... but because he has opted for smaller slower lenses. The body is smaller, but more cramped.

I think we are now hitting a stride of equilibrium. Where there are some little differences and pros and cons, but dSLRs and Sony mirrorless cameras are essentially just lateral products. 4 years ago, when it was just APS-C NEX cameras, they were smaller, but with clearly inferior AF and inferior performance. First generation A7 cameras were clearly still rough around the edges. The Sony lens lineup was seriously lacking. The A6000 was a great leap forward for APS-C shooters, but the "slideshow" effect continued as a major drawback of EVF action shooting.

Between the A7rii and now the A6300... And with the growth of the Sony lens lineup.... Sure, there are still holes in the Sony lens lineup, and it is more expensive than a traditional dSLR. But in terms of photographic results, the holes are no longer gaping for most shooters (wildlife and pro shooters would still have big problems with the Sony lens lineup). Supposedly, with the A6300 EVF shooting 8fps without any blackout -- that's certainly better than any dSLR under $1000. For more money, the 7dii and the D500 can shoot slightly higher frame rate.
It's very hard to find objective comparisons of AF, with some people swearing that Sony AF is still inferior, while other pros claiming it is now superior.

I think we have hit the magic point where quite simply, dSLR and mirrorless are pretty close to being equals. Longer battery life on a dSLR... Focus peaking on a mirrorless. Not exactly life-changing differences.

So the question is whether mirrorless, and Sony mirrorless in particular, whether they have hit a plateau (to be either held back by technology, or held back by the lack of market demand in a shrinking camera market), or whether in the next few years, we see mirrorless fly past dSLR.

If mirrorless is to fly past dSLR, then this is the formula:

1-- Ability to drive legacy lenses with top AF quality.
2-- With no mirror blackout, the potential for SUPERIOR AF to be realized.
3-- We have some limited fully electronic shutters now. And at a minimum, we get electronic first shutters. With higher and higher resolution cameras, mirrorless cameras have the potential to make shutter-shock far less of an issue than in a mirrored dSLR.
4-- EVFs must continue to improve -- 11 frames per second with no blackout!
5-- Overall kit price -- camera and lenses -- must come down in price to match dSLR.

The A7rii and A6300 already have many of these advantages to some degree... but they are $2500 FF and $1000 APS-C cameras. Sure, you can say they are reasonably priced compared to D810/5Ds/D500/7Dii, but they aren't reasonably priced compared to D750, 6D, D5500, etc.. And the native lenses just don't have the same affordable options.

So some of those great A6300/A7rii strengths need to filter down to cheaper bodies, plus they need to cross over -- The next A7 cameras need to be able to shoot bursts without blackouts. A $1500-$1800 A7iii needs the super-advanced AF system of the A6300 and A7rii, while perhaps staying lower resolution.

Right now, money aside, I don't think I'd have any regrets if I followed Tom and switched to the A7 series. But on the other hand, especially when you factor in price, there is not yet anything compelling enough to make me switch, or to make me regret staying for now.

I had a similar comment on my blog (albeit not with the same exact points, but the sentiment is more or less the same), so rather than respond to all of these points, I'll copy and paste my reply to that comment... (because I'm lazy like that )

I've seen a couple of comments on Twitter along these same lines, so I should probably clarify, because for me, this most definitely is *not* a lateral move. I do think it would be one for many photographers, so I hedged some of what are otherwise unequivocal advantages for me.

For starters, right now I'm shooting with both the Nikon D810 and Nikon D750 because each offer distinct advantages. The Nikon D810 is better for landscapes and night shooting, albeit frustrating when I get low to the ground (which I do a ton due to the tilt screen). The D750 is better for dark rides and other lower-light handheld situations, as well as anything moving in low light thanks to the autofocus (thanks to the autofocus).

My preliminary take is that this offers the best of both worlds, eliminating the need to have two cameras. (I'll still travel with a backup, but it will be relegated to my suitcase rather than my camera bag.) At least, that's what I'm hoping for once I have spent more time with the AF and tried it in more demanding situations.

I probably downplayed the significance of the in-body stabilization. For me, shooting handheld at 1/4 or even 1/2 second (with a lower keeper rate) is HUGE. My best low-keeper handheld shutter speeds are 1/30th with the D810 and 1/15th with the D750. I love to run and gun around sunset so I can capture fleeting light without being slowed by a tripod and I'm shooting in places that don't allow tripods quite a bit (Tokyo Disneyland, churches, museums, maybe Shanghai Disneyland(?), etc.) For me, this *alone* would be enough to justify the switch.

Then there's size. If that Voigtlander lens is small (and based on other Voigtlanders, I have every reason to believe it will be), my camera bag gets considerably smaller. Since this lens isn't available for Nikon, that size decrease is not something I personally could have accomplished with my Nikon system. My comments on the system's smaller size being illusory were made broadly--when applied specifically to what I'll be assembling, they do hold true.

It was tough to convey all of this in the article as I was trying to balance speaking to my personal experience with generalities about most uses of the system. I'm cognizant of the fact that a lot of people make gear purchases based on my recommendations, and I don't want to come across as being a cheerleader for Sony when the reality is that many people aren't going to see many of the potential gains.

Hope that makes sense...

(TL;DR - I think it will be a lateral move for many people, but do not expect that to be the case for me given my unique circumstances.)

 

[WDWFigment]

And the Sony uncompressed files are even bigger than Nikon files, since Nikon still uses a lossless compression. Though he may be using the compressed Sony files, he might be ok with the slight compression loss.

This is actually something I didn't even touch on in my first post (gotta hold back some material for Volume 2! ), but that's only because this has been a non-issue in my (highly unscientific) experiments thus far. I haven't seen any differences with the lossy compression (certainly not on par with something like using sRAW on Nikon, for example), so I'm not bothered with it.

I do plan on further testing, as the few examples I've seen show the "best" examples of the data loss happening in high contrast night photos. Maybe I'll take the camera down and spend some time photographing street lights around our neighborhood tonight and see if I can notice any differences in direct comparisons.

On a semi-related note, I wish manufacturers would allow for lower MP, lossless raw files. 42 MP is nice to have for landscapes, but I certainly don't need that for a photo of a cupcake I'm shooting for the blog...

 

[fractal]

I had a similar comment on my blog (albeit not with the same exact points, but the sentiment is more or less the same), so rather than respond to all of these points, I'll copy and paste my reply to that comment... (because I'm lazy like that )

I've seen a couple of comments on Twitter along these same lines, so I should probably clarify, because for me, this most definitely is *not* a lateral move. I do think it would be one for many photographers, so I hedged some of what are otherwise unequivocal advantages for me.

For starters, right now I'm shooting with both the Nikon D810 and Nikon D750 because each offer distinct advantages. The Nikon D810 is better for landscapes and night shooting, albeit frustrating when I get low to the ground (which I do a ton due to the tilt screen). The D750 is better for dark rides and other lower-light handheld situations, as well as anything moving in low light thanks to the autofocus (thanks to the autofocus).

My preliminary take is that this offers the best of both worlds, eliminating the need to have two cameras. (I'll still travel with a backup, but it will be relegated to my suitcase rather than my camera bag.) At least, that's what I'm hoping for once I have spent more time with the AF and tried it in more demanding situations.

I probably downplayed the significance of the in-body stabilization. For me, shooting handheld at 1/4 or even 1/2 second (with a lower keeper rate) is HUGE. My best low-keeper handheld shutter speeds are 1/30th with the D810 and 1/15th with the D750. I love to run and gun around sunset so I can capture fleeting light without being slowed by a tripod and I'm shooting in places that don't allow tripods quite a bit (Tokyo Disneyland, churches, museums, maybe Shanghai Disneyland(?), etc.) For me, this *alone* would be enough to justify the switch.

Then there's size. If that Voigtlander lens is small (and based on other Voigtlanders, I have every reason to believe it will be), my camera bag gets considerably smaller. Since this lens isn't available for Nikon, that size decrease is not something I personally could have accomplished with my Nikon system. My comments on the system's smaller size being illusory were made broadly--when applied specifically to what I'll be assembling, they do hold true.

It was tough to convey all of this in the article as I was trying to balance speaking to my personal experience with generalities about most uses of the system. I'm cognizant of the fact that a lot of people make gear purchases based on my recommendations, and I don't want to come across as being a cheerleader for Sony when the reality is that many people aren't going to see many of the potential gains.

Hope that makes sense...

(TL;DR - I think it will be a lateral move for many people, but do not expect that to be the case for me given my unique circumstances.)

Tom,

Do you have the Rokinon 12mm 2.8 fisheye for the Sony? I've gotten great results with the 8mm APS-C version on my NEX-7.
I'll be looking forward to your take on the Voigtlanders.

 

[dmaxphil]

Tom,

Do you have the Rokinon 12mm 2.8 fisheye for the Sony? I've gotten great results with the 8mm APS-C version on my NEX-7.
I'll be looking forward to your take on the Voigtlanders.

I've heard lots of good about this lens and am strongly considering. A first hand review would be appreciated.

 

[havoc315]

I had a similar comment on my blog (albeit not with the same exact points, but the sentiment is more or less the same), so rather than respond to all of these points, I'll copy and paste my reply to that comment... (because I'm lazy like that )

I've seen a couple of comments on Twitter along these same lines, so I should probably clarify, because for me, this most definitely is *not* a lateral move. I do think it would be one for many photographers, so I hedged some of what are otherwise unequivocal advantages for me.

For starters, right now I'm shooting with both the Nikon D810 and Nikon D750 because each offer distinct advantages. The Nikon D810 is better for landscapes and night shooting, albeit frustrating when I get low to the ground (which I do a ton due to the tilt screen). The D750 is better for dark rides and other lower-light handheld situations, as well as anything moving in low light thanks to the autofocus (thanks to the autofocus).

My preliminary take is that this offers the best of both worlds, eliminating the need to have two cameras. (I'll still travel with a backup, but it will be relegated to my suitcase rather than my camera bag.) At least, that's what I'm hoping for once I have spent more time with the AF and tried it in more demanding situations.

I probably downplayed the significance of the in-body stabilization. For me, shooting handheld at 1/4 or even 1/2 second (with a lower keeper rate) is HUGE. My best low-keeper handheld shutter speeds are 1/30th with the D810 and 1/15th with the D750. I love to run and gun around sunset so I can capture fleeting light without being slowed by a tripod and I'm shooting in places that don't allow tripods quite a bit (Tokyo Disneyland, churches, museums, maybe Shanghai Disneyland(?), etc.) For me, this *alone* would be enough to justify the switch.

Then there's size. If that Voigtlander lens is small (and based on other Voigtlanders, I have every reason to believe it will be), my camera bag gets considerably smaller. Since this lens isn't available for Nikon, that size decrease is not something I personally could have accomplished with my Nikon system. My comments on the system's smaller size being illusory were made broadly--when applied specifically to what I'll be assembling, they do hold true.

It was tough to convey all of this in the article as I was trying to balance speaking to my personal experience with generalities about most uses of the system. I'm cognizant of the fact that a lot of people make gear purchases based on my recommendations, and I don't want to come across as being a cheerleader for Sony when the reality is that many people aren't going to see many of the potential gains.

Hope that makes sense...

(TL;DR - I think it will be a lateral move for many people, but do not expect that to be the case for me given my unique circumstances.)

Thanks Tom... You had a similar comment on your blog, because it was from me!

Though I understand your explanation of why this isn't a lateral move, in my thinking it's still kinda lateral. It's that the A7rii hits a sweet spot for you, between the high resolution of D810, and the flexibility of the D750. But for your dark-ride photos, it's not like the A7rii is necessarily better than the D750, and for your landscapes, the A7rii isn't necessarily better than D810.
The one true upgrade point you give is the IBIS -- And this can indeed be a huge plus, it certainly is for you. But again, it really depends on what lenses you've been using. If you had been using the Tamron 15-30, which has VC, instead of the non-stabilized Nikon 14-24, then the IBIS wouldn't really represent a gain for you. That's why I still look at IBIS as being somewhat lateral -- because you can generally shoot with stabilized lenses on a dSLR, if you choose to.
Of course, the A7rii does give you the upgrade of having IBIS on every lens, without the need to buy VC lenses.


Anyway, I loved your blog post, always love your work, and I'm looking forward to seeing more. I suspect I'll be following you eventually, when we hit A7iii or A7iv territory. Just as the A7rii hits your sweet spot, my sweet spot would be a lower resolution A7rii with slightly faster frame rate, and faster EVF.