Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News and Rumors' started by Boid, Sep 12, 2013.
Corrected version on SAR:
And the most important part from the FF reviewer:
For me 55mm & 85mm work if f/1.8 is correct. Good combo with RX1...
Clearly SOMETHING is coming SOMETIME. Whether its a full frame Nex or an ILC version of the RX1 - we have no real idea of the details. I greatly prefer the controls and interface of the RX1 to the Nex, but either should be a fine image maker. Lenses, size, etc will be key. If they do a 24 or 28mm equivalent I may get interested, but with this set of rumors, I'll stick with the RX1. Hard to imagine it matching the size of the RX1 with interchangeable lenses...
imo, to have wideranging appeal at an rx1 pricepoint, it must have an integrated vf. certainly opinions can differ, and ive seen great results from the rx1, but i simply do not understand producing a 'pro' tool at 'pro' prices with 'pro' lenses and purposely omitting an essential part of the 'pro' shooting experience.
f1.4 would be nice, but a more compact f1.8 design on a FF sensor paired to 55mm and 85mm focal lengths will offer plenty of super shallow DOF type opportunities.
All bets are off if the these rumoured f1.8 primes are even remotely as good wide open as the RX1's 35mm CZ is at f2.
I do wonder though, why 55mm ? I seem to recall seeing some really old 55mm Rokkors and Takumars, but they were as rare as hens teeth.
Whatever it is..... I am in.....
Well, I can't say for sure how well it will do, but it IS helping cement the idea of mirrorless technology.
Think it's on this board somebody wondered if anyone was thinking of going back to a DSLR. For me, absolutely not. I don't need that flapping mirror as I've learned to cope with and even highly value an EVF from shooting mirrorless micro four thirds cams.
But what I think Sony will help do, as they did with the RX1, is to show that very, very serious cameras can be made (by somebody other than Leica, lol) that are mirrorless. They will charge a lot for them, and I'm sure it will sell well enough. A full frame, total IQ machine that is mirrorless but NOT a true rangefinder like a Leica will begin to draw in the nay-sayers that until now have been swayed by the old chestnut: "To do serious photography you need a full frame DSLR."
Whether it's a total business success or not, it's good for mirrorless perceptions.
I love this observation in the SAR column in the 2nd post.....
"5) He didn’t like the lenses. The zooms are to big and the primes not fast enough. The NEX-FF camera will appeal pro photographer but Sony didn’t make the right lenses yet (so he says). He hopes they do it in future."
I think people only need to look at DSLR zooms for APS-C cameras and realize that they will be EVEN BIGGER for a full frame camera. Taking out the mirror and making the camera body smaller doesn't change how big the lenses need to be. I predict the cameras will be amazing imaging machines. And I predict that most people will not like how big they are.
Don't count out Fuji full frame!
I don't think the RX1 is really a "pro" tool in any conventional sense. You wouldn't shoot a sporting event or a wedding with it as a primary tool. If you do stock photography you might. It's not a really versatile tool. But it IS a superb image maker for a somewhat more limited set of circumstances. Some pro's might have it as a second camera or a travel camera, but not as a primary shooter for most pro jobs...
And without getting into the WHOLE question of VF vs no VF vs removable VF, lets just suffice it to say that different people have different preferences, no approach is empirically "better", and there appears to be a decent market for cameras with each of the three configurations, even high end cameras... I'd personally love an RX1 with a Fuji like VF, but I'm more than OK with it as it is. I usually shoot with the VF, sometimes without, and its just down to what I'm feeling like that day - I get equally good images out of it either way...
Absolutely. I've had this argument with folks and they don't seem to get it, lol.
To a great extent, people don't even know how big APS-C lenses need to be because both Canon and Nikon have tended to make their best glass only for full frame, with APS-C shooters adopting that huge glass. Thom Hogan has posted extensively over the years lamenting the lack of "support" for APS-C. With the advent of compact APS-C system cameras we'll be seeing how big those lenses are comparatively and in many cases for the first time for some of us.
Some have lamented the size of the Fujinon 55-200mm zoom for the X cameras -- but those lenses are actually pretty much right sized for their build quality and specs. Certainly, you can see the difference even between APS-C and Micro Four Thirds zooms, lol. If you want small, you don't want full frame or maybe even APS-C.
I think you're right that whoever reviewed that cam really doesn't get how big full frame zooms need to be.
Luke, I think you're right and I for one will certainly not even consider zooms for this kind of camera. Primes only and only if they are not ridonkulously huge either..I don't see why they should be, after all, some of those old legacy f1.8 and even some of the f1.4 lenses were quite nicely sized. I would dearly love an RX1 50mm but I have my doubts that will ever happen...so I'm looking at the new FF Sony cams as essentially only for the 50mm lens.
Just one of many reasons I like having a range of sensor sizes available. For long lenses I'll stick with m43. The Fuji 55-200 probably is the "right size", but its bigger than I want to haul around. The Olympus 75-300 with twice the reach is slightly smaller and nearly as good, and a lens with a similar 300mm equivalent reach is gonna be waaaay smaller (the rumored Oly 40-150 - the new f2.8, not the cheap existing one - sounds like it'll be huge, but that's the price you pay for a fast constant aperture). For street work, a 24-28 with APS or m43 seems to be the sweet spot for balancing image quality, low light capability, and enough DOF for zone focus. For a normal-ish 24-60mm set of lenses, full frame shouldn't be too big and I'd sort of consider it a sweet spot for full frame. For ultra wide, though, I'd go back to APS or m43 because those lenses can get pretty big also. The Olympus 9-18 is a miniature gem, as is the somewhat larger and notably wider Pany 7-14. I'm looking forward to seeing the Fuji 10-24, but I'm not expecting it to be particularly small - even the 14mm f2.8 is a pretty beefy lens...
I am in the same boat with Ray. It is hard to replace Oly 75-300mm and also I like the size of Pana 35-100mm. I like 24-XX lenses and my FF Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 is not longer then the current mirrorless standard/fast zooms. So it can be done, but the wider range is more challenging with the bigger mirrorless sensors. The new Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 for nex is very good sized and the range is perfect for travel photography. So there is a compromise eg size vs f stops. Zeiss 55mm and 85mm will make 82.5mm and 127.5mm on crop nex cameras to fulfill the nex lens gap so that makes sense... On the tele side there are lots of manual lens options also.
Luke, I agree that comment made me laugh. Once you have thoroughly bored everyone with your moody oof shots at f2 you realise that f2.8 is plenty fast enough for 35mm full frame lens. I can't see turning my nose up at Zeiss glass if it is only f1.8 for 50mm or 85mm either!
I would love a RX1 interchangeable lens camera but only if they can create decent truly wide angle lenses of at 24mm and preferably 21mm. And I don't really care if they are even f4.
I think again that much of the appeal for the Sony FF (at least for me ) will be the ability to use adapted 35mm lenses in their "native" aspect ratio without a $400-$600 speed boost. Similiar to the amount of folks who use NEX as their main tool for adapted lenses compared to other mirrorless systems.
I know this is just my stupid ignorance, but I hope someone with better technical knowledge may explain it simply. The nowadays so-called "full-frame" corresponds to the traditional 35 mm film format, which was considered small (definitely small, when compared to medium- and large-format film and cameras). In those days, 35 mm SLRs could be as small as a Nikon FM or an Olympus OM1, and 35 mm compacts were so small they could easily fit any pocket, with AF, fixed-focal or zoom lens and viewfinder included (e.g., Minox 35 GT, the Olympus Miu series). The DX format of film cameras is comparable to the very unsuccessful APS format of the film days. APS SLR cameras and APS lenses (e.g., Nikon Pronea, Minolta..) were much smaller than the digital DX cameras and lenses.
Why do digital SLRs and compacts have to be so big? Why is the size of the lenses growing so much?