Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[Hockeyman]

I try to aim between $150 and $200. And I try to talk the couple into bringing a friend... to help hold hairbrushes, hold any props from the couple... and hold the reflector!

My engagement photos:

http://www.picklepiephoto.com/p401038773

Really nice photos @havoc315 Ive got tons of questions for you lol. Like how do you determine how many photos you will give the client, depends on how much time? Also how do you give them the finished photos?

 

[havoc315]

Today's test...
Side by side, the Nikon D750 with Nikon 70-200/4 and the Sony A6300 with Sony 70-200/4.
According to DXOMark:
The D750 combo should be a fair bit sharper than the Sony.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...0mm-F4-G-OSS-on-Sony-A6000__1071_975_1246_942
(the scores are much closer if you test the Sony lens on a Sony full frame body... I don't fully understand why a lens would be sharper on a FF body than an APS-C body, but it seems true of all lenses. Maybe someone can explain it to me)

Anyway, my testing confirmed the DXO maps. I did a little boring testing at F5.6. I shot the Sony at about 100 and 140, and the Nikon at 150 and 200, to get similar field of view.


So here is some pixel peeping:

Center Sony:

DSC00141-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Looks really good at 5.6

Center Nikon:
DSC_6412-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

The Sony in the center, may actually be just a tiny bit sharper than the Nikon.

Now at 140/200:

Sony looks very good:

DSC00144-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

DSC_6413-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So center, I give the edge to the Sony. Of course, I'm using shorter focal lengths on the Sony, and shorter focal lengths are sharper on those lenses as well.

But looking at the corners/edges, you see a clear advantage to the Nikon, even though it is full frame:

Sony:
DSC00141.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nikon:
DSC_6412.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nikon:
DSC_6413.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:
DSC00144.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So at least for low ISO jpegs... you get similar center performance, with the Nikon having the edge at the edge.

But in real world use, the Sony combination will often be sharper. Partially because of the greater DOF on the APS-C camera. But also due to the greater accuracy of on-sensor focus.

Nikon:
DSC_6417.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:
DSC00151.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Pixel peeped, Sony:
DSC00151.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Peeping at the Nikon:
DSC_6417.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Might be the more accurate focus on the Sony, may be slightly better center performance on the Sony, and greater DOF on the Sony, but the Sony image is definitely sharper here.

1 more photo for now, just to show some of the rendering of the lens on the A6300:

DSC00146.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Some birding to come next...

 

[havoc315]

Really nice photos @havoc315 Ive got tons of questions for you lol. Like how do you determine how many photos you will give the client, depends on how much time? Also how do you give them the finished photos?

I give them too many, I'm bad at choosing my own best. In a 90 minute shoot, I easily take 100-200 shots. I try to pick the best of each pose. I tell the client to expect 25-40, but then I deliver more. I probably should only deliver the 10-15 best.

My website is linked through zenfolio where I have a paid account. I can set various shopping options. If I've been pre-paid, I can simply set it to let them download their images. Or I can let them buy individual images or prints. (I choose how much to mark up the prints over base pricing).

And I get client leads through thumbtack.com, but still undecided whether I get enough clients to make using it worthwhile.

 

[dmaxphil]

Seems to me the Sony holds it's own in ideal lighting. Low light/high iso noise is another story.

 

[havoc315]

Seems to me the Sony holds it's own in ideal lighting. Low light/high iso noise is another story.

Every camera can hold its own in ideal lighting...

Based on my Sony experience, I largely blame Sony's jpeg processing. I suspect RAW will be much better. For jpegs, I'm getting hesitant to go over ISO 1600, certainly not over ISO 3200, to preserve high quality. But if we are talking about facebook type images, I'm happy to blast the ISO on the A6300.

I strongly suspect when I'm processing my own raw files in a month or two, I'll get more use out of the ISO 1600-6400 range.

 

[havoc315]

Let's take the A6300 to do some birding.

On paper, the A6300 is a fantastic birding camera. APS-C camera, with fantastic AF, 8 fps with live stream.

But any serious attempt at birding brings out one of the big remaining deficiencies in the Sony system -- Their longest decent lens is 200mm. (or the superzoom 24-240, but that is slowly and inferior). If you are going to do birding with a Sony A77ii, Canon 7dii, Nikon D500: You can choose between a 70-300, an approximate 100-400, some Tamron/Sigma lenses that go to 500/600mm, 300-500mm primes (though Sony A-mount is also a bit deficient here). With the crop factor, in other words, you can pretty easily reach 450mm to 900mm in rival systems. If you want to stick with native lenses to maximize the A6300 AF system, you are limited to an effective reach of 300mm. EVENTUALLY, Sony will release their 70-200/2.8gm with 2x teleconverter, which will get you to 600mm, but it will weigh a ton, and it will likely cost $3500-$4000 or more (for the converter and lens). Plus, stick a 2x teleconverter on a 2.8 zoom lens, you usually get pretty marginal IQ.
I don't have long zooms in my Nikon system, but I do have the 300mm/4. PF prime. It is smaller and lighter than the Sony 70-200/4. But would give APS-C reach of 450mm. It can be paired nicely with 1.4 teleconverter (primes play nice with teleconverters than zooms do), and get 630mm of reach.
So in other words, the A6300 may be a great camera body for wildlife and birding, but in practice it's only good for very close birds and wildlife, until they really expand the telephoto lineup. And there remains a question of how well their AF systems work with long lenses. They need 3-4 additional telephoto options to be serious for wildlife and birding: Relatively lightweight 300mm and 400mm primes would be nice. A native version of their 70-400. And maybe something like Nikon's new 200-500/5.6.

Now on to my experiences with some backyard birding. I put the 70-200/4 on my Nikon D750 and on my Sony a6300. Set both cameras around F8 and 1/800, to get enough shutter speed and DOF for the unpredictable movement of birds. Shot in the early morning, so there was good sunlight but also a lot of open shade. Easiest way to capture birds was my neighbor's birdfeeder, but it was in the shade. That drove up ISO. And I'm sad to say, I continue to be disappointed in the medium to high ISO JPEGS out of the Sony A6300.

I managed to capture this same bird with both cameras. Remember, the Nikon version had to be cropped 50% more, to get the same field of view.
So here is the Nikon, at ISO 7200:

DSC_6418.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Here is the Sony, with less cropping, at ISO 6400:

DSC00221.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Yes, the Nikon is full frame. But looking at SOOC JPEGS of each, with the Nikon cropped 50% more than the Sony was cropped, the Nikon ISO 7200 is far superior to the Sony ISO 6400. Here are some 100% crops of the same images, to make the point even more obvious:

Nikon:
DSC_6418.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:
DSC00221.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nikon:
DSC_6429.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:
DSC00180.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Now enough of the bad news, time for the good news:

The AF system is indeed fast and accurate. Including when shooting continuously at F8.
And when I was in the sun as opposed to the shade, keeping ISO at 3200 and lower, I did indeed get some very very nice results from the Sony:

(unfortunately, I had to pull some of the shadows on these, and there isn't a huge amount of room on jpegs to do it):

DSC00263.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Realizing the poor quality I was getting at high ISO, I opened up the aperture to 5.6, and got this at ISO 3200 in the shade, much better than the shots above:

DSC00260.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

ISO 800 in the sunlight:

DSC00234.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

ISO 1000 in sunlight, but had to pull shadows in jpeg:
DSC00160.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

I certainly would have been able to pull shadows more effectively in RAW files. The AF system was indeed magnificent, and the 8fps live stream works very very well. There does still seem to be a tiny bit of lag compared to OVF, but very very tiny. The buffer clearance is pretty poor. If I shot a burst of 10 images... it felt like the camera was locked up for an eternity afterwards, and I couldn't even review my images while it cleared.
I was reminded of one pretty big negative of the A6000/A6300 as I took these shots -- the viewfinder eyecup is nearly impossible to use with glasses. Need to take off my glasses to shoot.

So how do I rate the A6300 for birding/wildlife?
- Camera body/performance/AF etc: A-. Loses a few points for the hard viewfinder eyecup, the buffer clearance time, and poor battery life. But overall, great.
-System suitability: C-. The 70-200/4 is a nice lens, a decent size, high IQ. But that only gives you a reach of 300mm. Right now, there are really no other decent native options. And there are really no great practical options on the immediate horizon.
-Image quality for birding: JPEGS: B-. You need to crop heavily when birding, even with a long lens. And you often need high ISO, as you may want to stop down and you need a good shutter speed for birds. Keep the ISO under 1600, and you're doing pretty well. But anything over 1600/3200 range gets progressively ugly. IQ in RAW files remains: TBD. I'm hoping I can raise my overall assessment of IQ once I truly process some raw files.

 

[fractal]

@havoc315 Maybe I should send you your old Minolta 200 for some additional bird testing.

Had it out yesterday for another Lacrosse game...

 

[havoc315]

@havoc315 Maybe I should send you your old Minolta 200 for some additional bird testing.

Had it out yesterday for another Lacrosse game...

Nice shots. Not unless they come out with a mirrorless screw drive AF adapter.

I'm going to test the Nikon 300 with commlite adapter.

 

[havoc315]

Don't have time for a long post right now...
But with the 70-200, ISO 2500 looking pretty good:

untitled-100.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Pixel peeping, not perfect.. but certainly acceptable for ISO 2500 jpeg:
untitled-100-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

The more I look... seems if you nail focus and exposure, things are pretty solid up toe ISO 3200, but you need to be cautious going any higher than that.

 

[havoc315]

As I continue my running impressions of the A6300, let me discuss a true strength:

Family candids. The AF system is mostly remarkable. As long as the camera is on and active, it is super fast and responsive. The amazing live view, and the automatic switching between the LCD and the EVF, makes is super easy to frame and snap yoru subject at any time. No awkward kneeling to capture your subject, no reverting to a slow dSLR live-view just to use face detect or to be able to hold the camera away from your eye.
And when capturing candids, you almost don't even need to worry about what focus mode you're using. AF-C with face detect, and just watch to make sure the face you want is green. If you really want to nail focus, hold down the eye-AF, and the camera does a pretty good job of following the nearest eye. Add in the pretty good wifi sharing, and it makes sharing family candids darn easy.

If there are negatives about using the camera for candids: It is slow to turn on the camera or wake the camera. Thus, if the camera has fallen asleep, or been turned off, you can't instantly capture the candid. Second negative, if you do need to move focus points, there is no touch screen or joystick/thumb stick. Using the back dial to move the AF point can be slow and a bit annoying. I often find myself often clicking it incorrectly as I'm moving the dial, accidentally changing the aperture or whatever... So fast movement of the AF point isn't great. But if you primarily are relying on the face detect, it's not a big worry.

I wouldn't say that the camera performed miracles -- Focus is not nailed in every shot. But I got a very high percentage of keepers.

So some candids from yesterday, with the 50/1.8 and the 70-200/4:

untitled-72.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-58.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-41.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-2-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr


As I continue.... is there anything anybody wants to see tested?

 

[Hockeyman]

I give them too many, I'm bad at choosing my own best. In a 90 minute shoot, I easily take 100-200 shots. I try to pick the best of each pose. I tell the client to expect 25-40, but then I deliver more. I probably should only deliver the 10-15 best.

My website is linked through zenfolio where I have a paid account. I can set various shopping options. If I've been pre-paid, I can simply set it to let them download their images. Or I can let them buy individual images or prints. (I choose how much to mark up the prints over base pricing).

And I get client leads through thumbtack.com, but still undecided whether I get enough clients to make using it worthwhile.

I don't know if want to get all involved in the prints aspect of it or just leave it up to the couple. I haven't put much thought into this whole thing to be honest with you, just kind of happened into this one shoot really, but it does have me intrigued with the possibility of making some extra money doing something I love. I did start my own site 2 months ago where I wanted to highlight some of my better shots.

http://www.mikesperdutophotography.com/

 

[havoc315]

I don't know if want to get all involved in the prints aspect of it or just leave it up to the couple. I haven't put much thought into this whole thing to be honest with you, just kind of happened into this one shoot really, but it does have me intrigued with the possibility of making some extra money doing something I love. I did start my own site 2 months ago where I wanted to highlight some of my better shots.

http://www.mikesperdutophotography.com/

Very nice. With zenfolio, there is no work for you in selling prints. They order directly from MPIX, at the prices you set up. MPIX delivers directly to them. (or whatever other lab they choose products from). You just collect the profit from the sale.

 

[fractal]

@havoc315

Here's the $1,000 (or $2,500) question.

If you were spending a full day in the Parks with family, which camera system would you rather have with you; The A6300 or the D750?

You objective is to capture family moment with high quality results and also potentially sneak away here and there for more "serious" photography of the sights, including dark ride, landscape, maybe even fireworks,etc.

Not which camera is technically "best" for that, but which one would you want to carry with you.

 

[havoc315]

@havoc315

Here's the $1,000 (or $2,500) question.

If you were spending a full day in the Parks with family, which camera system would you rather have with you; The A6300 or the D750?

You objective is to capture family moment with high quality results and also potentially sneak away here and there for more "serious" photography of the sights, including dark ride, landscape, maybe even fireworks,etc.

Not which camera is technically "best" for that, but which one would you want to carry with you.

And I've been reflecting on that very question. I don't know the answer yet. I have a 7 day cruise followed by 4 days at Disney in August. I still don't know what I'm bringing.

I am an IQ snob, which makes me want to bring the D750, for many of the landscapes, for posed portraits, etc. I also really want to bring the D750 for superior dark ride performance. You asked which I would want to carry -- but there are times I want to carry the technically best camera. I don't mind extra weight for an extra good photo.

For casually strolling around the parks, the smaller size and weight of the A6300 is very very tempting.

Though it mostly defeats the low weight, I suspect I might bring both. I may keep the D750 + prime lens in a camera bag, only pulling it out for dark rides. And keep the A6300 on my shoulder at all times. I may also bring 1-2 other Nikon lenses -- either a landscape lens, for some sunsets on the cruise ship and around Disney. And/or a portrait lens, for portraits on the ship and in low light. When I think about it, the D750 is better for family photos around the cruise ship. The A6300 is certainly easier to carry around Disney World.

So the complicated pros cons:

-Long Disney days, the A6300 with 10-18, 24/1.8 and 50/1.8 would be a much more compact, easier to carry package. And bring the 70-200/4 to Animal Kingdom. And even if I carry the 70-200, its still not a massive camera bag.
-Fireworks, the cameras are pretty similar. The A6300 might be easier --- I have a gorilla tripod for it. Simpler than a big tripod for a big camera.
-Family candids -- Both cameras perform very well. The A6300 may be a bit easier, but for low light candids, the D750 will perform better.
-True portraits -- The D750 has the big advantage, better IQ when combined with the lenses I own, better background blur.
-Landscapes -- The D750 has an advantage with lens combination sharpness, and with more dynamic range. Haven't tested A6300 raw files yet, hard to say how big the difference will be. But I am confident the D750 will have the advantage.
-Dark rides-- I've never shot dark rides with a modern full frame camera. The D750 should have a good sized advantage here. If I'm serious about good dark ride shots, I have to bring the D750.

So just like using different lenses for different purposes... it's different cameras for different purposes. The big question is when do I want to make some sacrifice in IQ to gain the smaller size.
My flexible plan for now, subject to change:

--A6300 with gorilla tripod, 10-18, 24/1.8 and 70-200/4 (no 50/1.8)
--D750 with speedlight, 45/1.8 and maybe 18-35 and/or 85/1.8 and/or 24-70/1.8 (18-35 for pure landscapes, and its a smallish lens. 24-70 as possible walk around, and might be adaptable to the A6300. But its big. The 85/1.8 for portraits on the cruise ship, and should be adaptable to the A6300).

So really, 2 camera bodies, and between 4 and 6 lenses. Won't bring everything to every park, every day. The 24-70 is really my workhorse, but I'm tempted to leave it behind on this trip and focus on primes and smaller lenses. For example, I could go to Magic Kingdom with the D750 + 45/1.8 (good walk around, good dark rides), and the 10-18 on the A6300 (landscapes). 2 bodies, 2 lenses, good for Magic Kingdom during the day. But if I'm shooting portraits at the Beach Club, pull out my 85/1.8 and the D750. Going to Animal Kingdom, just the A6300 with its 3 lenses. Walking around Epcot at night..... tough call. Maybe just the A6300 + 10-18 + 24/1.8.

 

[Hockeyman]

@havoc315

Here's the $1,000 (or $2,500) question.

If you were spending a full day in the Parks with family, which camera system would you rather have with you; The A6300 or the D750?

You objective is to capture family moment with high quality results and also potentially sneak away here and there for more "serious" photography of the sights, including dark ride, landscape, maybe even fireworks,etc.

Not which camera is technically "best" for that, but which one would you want to carry with you.

If it was me that would be an easy answer, the D750 for sure based on IQ alone. Like @havoc315 I would rather carry around the extra weight for the better performing camera

 

[havoc315]

If it was me that would be an easy answer, the D750 for sure based on IQ alone. Like @havoc315 I would rather carry around the extra weight for the better performing camera

Thing is.... Even when looking at just performance and IQ, it's not always clear cut.
Take the animal kingdom safari, (I actually booked the Africa Trek tour), the longer reach and great focusing of the a6300 may make it the better performing camera.
And yes, I typically prefer the d750 for portraits, partially due to full frame subject isolation. But Disney calls for environmental portraits--- stopped down with less background blur. Somewhat equalizing the cameras. And for candids, the a6300 may be superior.

I tested out a packed camera bag with the gear I want... Ugh, over 15 pounds. Now wouldn't carry everything every day -- to animal kingdom, maybe leave behind the d750. To the other parks, leave behind the 70-200. Still often over 10 lbs.

Now thinking...
D750 + 45/1.8 (dark rides and Disney walk around) + 24-70 (for when I want just 1 camera and 1 lens, to cover landscapes to portraits. Especially helpful on the cruise ship)
A6300 + 70-200 (just for Animal Kingdom and maybe Fantasmic) + 10-18 (dedicated landscape camera). I may throw the 24/1.8 in the bag just because it's tiny and can also be used for dark rides if I'm not carrying the d750.

 

[dmaxphil]

And I've been reflecting on that very question. I don't know the answer yet. I have a 7 day cruise followed by 4 days at Disney in August. I still don't know what I'm bringing.

I am an IQ snob, which makes me want to bring the D750, for many of the landscapes, for posed portraits, etc. I also really want to bring the D750 for superior dark ride performance. You asked which I would want to carry -- but there are times I want to carry the technically best camera. I don't mind extra weight for an extra good photo.

I wouldn't call myself a snob, but my last gear changeover to all Nikon stuff (from Sony full frame, and Fuji) has really opened my eyes to all the compromises I was making by carrying mirrorless. Don't get me wrong, you can make beautiful images with the latest mirrorless options - Fractal is proof, and he's been shooting with a Nex-7 I think. But my mindset now is to take the very best I have available. When I shoot with the Df, it just works. Off camera flash - it just works. Focusing in non-existent light - just works. And when reviewing the files the IQ differences really stand out. This Df has produced some of the most gorgeous files I've ever seen and here's a newsflash - I'm the same mediocre photographer - so I know it's absolutely the equipment.

Sure the gear is a bit larger/heavier, but it's certainly not a burden. If you want a fast 70-200 equivalent for mirrorless, it's big. I had the 50-140 Fuji f/2.8 and the size was only slightly smaller than my current Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. My overall bag size has actually lightened because I'm carrying fewer lenses.

 

[havoc315]

I wouldn't call myself a snob, but my last gear changeover to all Nikon stuff (from Sony full frame, and Fuji) has really opened my eyes to all the compromises I was making by carrying mirrorless. Don't get me wrong, you can make beautiful images with the latest mirrorless options - Fractal is proof, and he's been shooting with a Nex-7 I think. But my mindset now is to take the very best I have available. When I shoot with the Df, it just works. Off camera flash - it just works. Focusing in non-existent light - just works. And when reviewing the files the IQ differences really stand out. This Df has produced some of the most gorgeous files I've ever seen and here's a newsflash - I'm the same mediocre photographer - so I know it's absolutely the equipment.

Sure the gear is a bit larger/heavier, but it's certainly not a burden. If you want a fast 70-200 equivalent for mirrorless, it's big. I had the 50-140 Fuji f/2.8 and the size was only slightly smaller than my current Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. My overall bag size has actually lightened because I'm carrying fewer lenses.

Thing is, we are making several different comparisons:
Mirrorless vs dslr
Full frame vs aps-c (though you also had full frame mirrorless)
Sony vs Nikon

Plus... The impact of different lenses, different models within the brand, etc.

Off camera flash? Absolutely, Nikonis better than Sony. A system difference.
Size? I have said repeatedly, the size differences between mirrorless and dslr are greatly exaggerated. But in my case, the size difference is significant... Because I'm comparing aps-c mirrorless to full frame dslr. Yes, the difference may not be huge with a 70-200 lens. But with primes and wide lenses, the difference is big. But it's more about the smaller sensor, than being mirrorless.

Low light AF? A Nikon full frame dslr kicks butt. But you also weren't using the best mirrorless in that regard -- the a7rii and a7sii have much better los light AF than the a7ii.
The a7ii also uses an older sensor, and doesn't give the best IQ you can get from mirrorless.

Point is.... I think the differences are smaller than most people argue. It's difficult to draw direct comparisons when you are also using different lenses, different resolution sensors, etc.

Glad you're happy with your switch. Nikon cameras and lenses are certainly great -- I get great results as well. But putting aside price, I suspect if I was shooting a natural light portrait with an a7rii + 85 GM or Batis, the results would be equal or better than my Nikon.

To me, the clear advantages of Nikon: better flash system, better JPEG rendering, better AWB, more complete lens lineup, more affordable lens options.
Clear advantages of Sony -- far superior live view and LCD use, eye-AF and AF accuracy, superior video, some better in camera features (in camera panorama and HDR), EVF including full level.

 

[fractal]

I have printed 3 shots over 8 1/2 X 11 from a Disney trip ( and came out great ). The vast, vast majority of shots I take are viewed on a computer screen. Now, I do feel you can tell the difference in IQ on a computer screen, especially going from a camera phone to a 1" sensor camera. Not as much from a 1" to M4/3 or APS-C. The jump from APS-C to FF on a computer screen is almost negligible IMO unless pixel peeping. Yes you can get greater DOF and marginally better dark ride shots, but we are talking 1 stoppish (my word) of difference. I also shoot RAW which closes the gap between manufacturers. I'm basically getting the same IQ as someone carrying a D7100 kit.

When I'm with my family on a Disney vacation, enjoying myself with them is my primary objective 1. 1a is photography and I find carrying a smaller kit makes 1 much more enjoyable while sacrificing very little in terms of photography pleasure. I actually feel bad for people lugging around their DSLR kit and lenses in a hot crowded park while trying to keep up with their family.

Now if I went into the parks solely on a photography mission (maybe someday) and my choice was between my NEX-7 or a A7rii (or even the D750, a Df or A99) I'd go with the FF option or possibly both.

 

[fractal]

@havoc315 I immediately thought of you when I read this article. Apparently, the Sony 36mp sensor requires DSLR type lenses (telecentric), much more so than the 24mp FF sensor. The new 42mp sensor does not require a telecentric design and can easily work with rangefinder type lenses. The A7r sent Sony down a path of needing larger FF lenses for mirrorless that they may never be able to change.


Sony’s Master plan – new 85, 24-70, 70-200 and more

"It’s all down to the A7R 36 megapixel sensor. This sensor, more so than the 24 megapixel full frame, requires a very telecentric lens design. That is, more like a DSLR lens, despite the slim A7 series body. In order to perform acceptably with this sensor, the FE lens range could not be designed to be as small as a rangefinder system equivalent, or to take full advantage of the 18mm mount to sensor distance.Brian Smith, whose images are great (not cheesy portraits) but whose technical info clearly comes via Sony PR, says this: “Mirrorless camera design has allowed Sony’s lens designers to place larger than normal lens element close to the body”. Actually, they don’t, as the design of the extenders will tell you. They’ve used a stronger degree of telephoto construction in the long zoom, allowing a smaller than normal rear element and they have taken measures to move it further away from the body – and this is a general trend. If you want to see what a properly small 85mm f/1.4 looks like try a Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 ZE in Canon mount – 72mm filters not 82mm, 570g versus 850g and really solid all-metal manual focus. The mirrorless bodies do provide a zone from around 16mm to 42mm from the sensor surface which can accommodate the rear of the lens, and can’t ever be used on a DSLR. But Sony does not make full use of that and can not do so because of the microlens, filter layer and structural characteristics of the A7R sensor."

"All Sony FE lenses and all CZ independent FE lenses have been designed to work well with the A7R. The 28-70mm kit lens was not, but most owners find it acceptable. They could have made some of the lenses a fair amount smaller and lighter if the A7R had never existed. The A7RII is so tolerant towards short back focus, oblique ray angle imaging, that a whole different range of lenses could be designed for it… but never will be."