Sony a 9

[arthurking83]

....In the meantime, Nikon clearly have a problem. How will they address it? My bet is that they will be conservative and not spend too much money or take too many risks, but I'm like the rest of us - I don't have a crystal ball.

(pseudo)Crystal ball gazing is fun.
I agree, and it has been commented many times across various other online sources.
Their problem is management, rather than products tho.
The product deficiencies are simple, in that the products are now quite old, whereas many products from mirrorless manufacturers are newer.
Nikon's only truly new product at the moment is the D5!!
D810 is D800 re incarnated with the addition of an electronic front curtain, sensor tweak and firmware. That's a 2012 model camera!
D750 is old, D610 is older, Df is older again .. etc, etc.

Customers simply want the new stuff, and Sony give them new stuff almost on a daily schedule! .. so their sales will inevitably be on the up. At what point do the Sony customers feel that the day they buy their current camera, the new model that comes the next month has a feature that they 'needed'!!
(and just to be sure I don't upset the Sony users applecart .. that is said tongue firmly in cheek!)

But since the original A7 in 2014, Sony have released 8 x A7 + the A9 now, ie. iterated every couple of months .. whereas Nikon have had the same model lineup in that FF market(D610, D750, D810 .. with the Df being even older).
So within this next 12 months, Nikon are due to release at least 3 new models, and if they produce a successor to the Df 4 new models.
This is the market where Nikon will be banking on making their profit(they've said so themselves). How well these models are received, only time will tell, and the only true indication of Nikon has a problem, will be in about 3years time if none of these new releases have any impact.

It should also be remembered that Nikon started out making 'mirrorless' cameras, and the DSLR came about as an answer to the limitations of that S series rangefinder. So Nikon don't have problems related to products, and could easily adapt either way.
I don't think getting rid of the Fmount is a truly viable option for them, unless they went with the old S-mount from a million years ago(unlikely)
Back then(in the 50's -60's) they did have Fmount to Smount options so that Fmount lens users could mount the lens to an S series camera. Many lenses were hybrid Smount converted to Fmount designs in the early years.
So in that sense they have experience with both a camera/lens mount paradigm shift, and the experience to do so.

And on the topic of short flange distance issues, back in the film days it made a bit more of a difference to the design of the lenses, so for sure 'mirrorless' camera lenses back in the day were smaller.
But until we get curved sensor designs(who knows when or if that will happen!!) those short flange distance lenses will have a much greater issue with corner shading due to the nature of the direction of the corner photosites on the sensor.
Sony is known to process their raw images with a vignetting routine, which has been referred too many times over the net.
You only see this if you use obscure thirdparty software, where Sony hasn't consulted with the company on how the raw file is manipulated in camera.

So yes .. mirrorless cameras can have smaller wideangle lenses for a given format size .. but in reality only back in the film days. But then again, NO!! .. they generally don't, due to the alignment issues for those corner pixels on the sensor.
Given curved sensors in the future .. this may change for future lens designs.

.....
As for the 21mm Zeiss Loxia, is it really that small? The Nikon 20mm f1.8 is lighter yet not all that much bigger but it is an f1.8 compared to an f2.8. Nikon 20mm f1.8 = 82mm x 80.5mm and 355gms - Zeiss 21mm f2.8 = 62mm x 72mm and 394gms. So far, I have not seen any real evidence that lenses are any smaller on mirrorless whether wide angle or telephoto.....

Take the old(but still current) Nikon 20/2.8 AF-D lens as an example: 69 x 42.5 mm and 270g. Nikon micro motors are known to weigh in at between 50-100g, so with a built in focus motor we'll say 370g.
Granted that this is an old lens, and almost certainly not going to be as sharp as the Zeiss, but I can't understand why the Zeiss is such a (comparatively) lengthy lens at 72mm, when the old Nikon can do with 42mm.
That's a substantial difference, and the major reason must surely be corner shading issues.
As the lens gets too close to the sensor/film plane, the light hitting the corners is reduced.

If you have a magnifying glass, you can easily see this effect by moving the magnifying glass to and fro .. the light circle gets smaller as you move the magnifying glass closet to an imaging surface. Use an overhead light globe and point the mag/glass so that the globe light makes a circle on your desk. Move the mag-glass towards the light/away from desk and the light circle gets larger. Move it closer to the desk and it gets smaller(and focuses more sharply).
You can't deny physics it properties.
For film, due to the nature of the way film captures light, and that there is no orientation of film grain, not a problem, so lenses could be teeny tiny.
But until curved sensors come to market, this will always be a major problem for digital.
Note too tho, that the major problem with curved sensors is that while it all works fine and dandy for wideangle corner shading, the opposite effects occurs as focal lengths get longer. So it's not just a simple matter to deal with.
Curve the sensors for wide angle, and you have a wide angle format camera .. it won't work well for longer focal lenths(where the light rays come in paralell) .. so the corner shading effect then hits the longer focal lengths instead!

So the problem isn't simply solved with a curved sensors .. it just moves the issue .. the answer is really a morphing sensors. One that can curve at the edges for wideangle .. and then straighten up for longer focal lensths. What's the chances of that happeing any time soon.

I think you're going to see larger UWA lenses for mirrorless than you imagined.
I doubt that any new 12mm UWA lens for mirrorless will be all that much smaller than the equivalent 12mm for a longer backfocus DSLR design(for any given aperture range).

Have a look at what the Voightlander 12mm f/5.6 lens does in terms of mad vignetting on a Sony A7!!
And it should be noted that with a maximum f/5.6 aperture that lens should in effect produce no vignetting at all!

I think the appropriate euphemism here is: Swings and Roundabouts!

[Steve Axford]

Some do, David, some don't. Generally speaking the newer lenses work ok, but older ones may not autofocus. I use several lenses with adaptors, but I think it is better to use native lenses where possible. The Canon lenses that I use frequently are the TS/E 24mm and the MP-E 65mm. Both are very specialised lenses that are not available from anyone but Canon. Both lenses are manual focus, not that that matters, and the Metabones converter doesn't add much weight or inconvenience to either lens (they are both quite big and heavy to start with). I have successfully used the Metabones with the Canon 50mm f1.2, the Canon 100mm macro and the Canon 14mm f2.8, but it doesn't work with the 135mm f2.0 or the old 300mm f2.8. One point to note is that a 42MP sensor does require very sharp lenses. A lens like the Canon 50mm f1.2L takes beautiful pictures, but is a little soft on A7R2.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe Nikon do have a management problem, Arthur, I have no idea. I can see that they have some technical problems over the next few years and management problems could certainly exacerbate those.
I hadn't really thought about the lens size thing with edge pixel illumination. Maybe size is a bit of a non-issue. Admittedly the Loxia 21mm is my only solid example, but maybe Zeiss hit on a really good design for that lens - it happens at times. I certainly can't see curved sensors appearing soon.

[arthurking83]

..... I can see that they have some technical problems over the next few years and management problems could certainly exacerbate those.
.....

Like Lance said about any possible future (serious)mirrorless cameras and the possibility of continued use of the Fmount .. the technical side isn't a problem, but a conundrum.
Fmount is now very old, I doubt that Nikon could have foreseen the future of photography and that some folks desperately needed an f/1.2 lens so as to not feel embarrassed next to their Canon shooting counterparts!

Do they 'Canon' themselves and produce a new mount that is incompatible with the legacy mount and start all over again .. it's the same thing as their current 'leakage philosophy' .. for those than need a mirrorless, let them go to other manufacturers.
If they make a new short flange mirrorless, that require current customers to change their lenses at the same time .. there will be the same issue as currently for Sony .. limited lens range.
Adapters are a possibility, but do current customers accept that stop gap as a viable future .. and issue of wholesale changes of vast and expensive lenses continues into the future.

If they were to adopt an EVF future, I'd prefer to see a hybrid OVF/EVF .. and OVF with an optional EVF overlay .. that way(for me at least) there's the option to turn the EVF off(or occasionally use it if the need arises).

mechanics evolution doesn't neccesarily need to be expensive, and mirror mechanisms have come a long way(granted that it's been a long road) .. but electromechanical options exist(which is what they basically are now anyhow).

So I think; not so much a technical problem as a technical choice(for management).
And (as already said) the fact that they still outsell all mirrorless models combined, for now, there's no reason to change, which gives them time to assess the situation.

[Steve Axford]

Arthur, why did Sony opt for the new mount? If there was no advantage, why upset some of your users by making your current lenses obsolete? Perhaps the flange distance isn't an advantage for many lenses, but you can always increase the distance - but you can't reduce it. Perhaps there are other reasons?

I can't see hybrid EVF/OVF happening. That would be the worst of both worlds, at least as far as cost goes. One of the major issues with mirrorless has been focusing. Sony already seems to have caught up in this area and we would expect them move ahead over the next few years. Mechanical evolution is expensive and it is slow, at least compared with electronics. It is quite possible to see a camera with no moving parts in the future (?lens) which would be a lot cheaper than current cameras. Control of it could be totally remote, which, if done well, would be great. Perhaps removable lenses would be a thing of the past and the chip would be built into the lens. Is this the way mobile phones work? This won't happen quickly as many photo buffs are oldies, and oldies tend to be very conservative (vote for Trump and Brexit, watch FOX news and buy expensive cameras ).

I think current sales are only an indication of future sales, not a promise. Nikon are unlikely to just collapse, but they could loose market share over the next few years. There is little indication that they will manage to hold their position, but have done very well in the last few years and a dip shouldn't be fatal. It all depends on how their management manage. You seem to have little faith in this.

[swifty]

Unless it's curve on command, curved sensors will be the domain of fixed lens cameras.
The corner deficiencies have largely been mitigated by BSI and microlens design.
But fixed lens premium cameras like the Leica Q and Sony RX series would benefit from matched lens/curved sensor designs.

[Lance B]

I say fanboy FUD partly as a stir (you seem to like emotional arguments ),

Well, FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt", which I see nothing of in that article, just size comparisons and they seem perfectly logical to me. As for "emotional arguments", I think I am more level headed and my arguments quite reasonable compared to those those Chicken Little's here (not you), Thom Hogan's linked article, the Camera Guys linked article, that are all running around yelling "The sky is falling" because Nikon hasn't introduced mirrorless yet.

and partly because the articles you quote say nothing about the physics and the first one starts with showing a Sony camera next to a skull. Clearly it has an agenda which has nothing to do with rational evaluation.

Doesn't seem that way to me at all. It seems quite a level headed article showing photo comparisons that are indisputable. Whether their is an agenda is irrelevant if the facts are correct, which the photo comparisons look factual.

I have a Sony/Zeiss 50mm F1.4. It is much heavier than the Canon F1.2. Does that prove the physics wrong? Of course not. It is also a much better lens, and it isn't wide angle.
I gave you one real world comparison comparing two Zeiss lenses, one designed for DSLR and the other for E-mount. Both being very similar in quality and function but are dramatically different in size. Perhaps Zeiss made a design breakthrough that enabled them to suddenly make small lenses or perhaps the advantages of only having a 26mm gap are real, at least for wide angle.

I also gave you a comparison of the Nikon and the Zeiss. The sizes aren't much different yet the Nikon is over a stop faster, f1.8 vs f2.8.

- - - Updated - - -

[Cage]

An interesting read, but I must say that I was somewhat disappointed to see the thread degenerate into a finger pointing, I said, You said, bun fight.

I'm sure there is a specialised niche, somewhere, for the Sony a9 in the Pro market, but as Uncle Arthur pointed out, the battery usage will deter a lot of potential users, as will the suggested RRP of $US6,999.00 or $AU9,443.05.

I can't see that niche being in the sports or wildlife genres with the FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS lens at $US3,999.00 or $AU5,395.45, and a maximum aperture of f5.6 at the long end. If, like most long lens, it's 'sweet spot' is a 'f' stop or two higher, then for capturing fast moving action in less than ideal light you are going to be pushing up the ISO and/or dropping the shutter speed, not the best of scenarios.

There has to be a good reason why most of the Pro shooters at sporting events use those big, white, 500mm f2.8 things.

Me, I'm stuck with Nikon. I didn't like the ISO performance on the D800 @ISO800 or higher, so moved it on, and am using a D7200 until the D810 goes into run-out mode, when I will pounce on one.

And lads, play nicely with one another when airing your differing opinions.

[Steve Axford]

You may have noticed that I tend not to post articles that appear to have agendas. If we drop all the FUD articles (yes I'm aware of the supposed meaning, and those articles fitted the description) we are just left with our own arguments. Lets stick to that.

I know you have compared a Nikon lens with the Zeiss, but the nikon lens is an autofocus only, superfast lens possibly designed for street photography or similar. The Zeiss is a very high quality manual lens which is probably designed more for landscape. Anyway, the Loxia is too new to have any good data and I can find nothing that mukes much sense comparing the Loxia and the Milvus, so I'm quite happy to drop it.

That probably leaves us with comparing the Sony A9 with say the Nikon D5. But isn't the thread about the A9?

Is that playing nice enough, Cage? By the way, how much does the D5 cost?
p.s. I'd check your pricing for the Sony gear. It is much to high.

[swifty]

Re: lens mount. Aren't all mounts a compromise? The F-mount certainly is. But one thing that seems clear is that the engineers are incredible in their ability to design around less than ideal circumstances.
My personal suspicion is the Sony E-mount wasn't designed for FF and the change of mount was initially intended for a smaller APS-C mirrorless system. But the Sony engineers made it work for FF, very well actually. But doesn't mean the mount isn't compromised for FF sensors and depending on the lens focal length, it still might have some advantages vs longer flange back distances.
If you look at all mirrorless systems and the initial sensor size that it was intended for, the throat diameter are all a fair bit larger than sensor diagonal, including E-mount for APS-C.
But it would seem there are some leeway for sensor size as Sony demonstrates.
A number that has been thrown around is that Nikon 1's CX mount can accommodate sensors up to 1.7X crop, so almost APS-C or APS-C if you count Sigma's old definition for their own cameras.
It can work but doesn't make it ideal. I'm sure if Nikon went this way, they would face more design challenges compared to Canon with their designed for APS-C EF-M mount but I have a lot of faith in the engineers.

[fillum]

I read that Elon Musk is looking for a way to harness the energy put into this...umm..."debate" and use it to generate electricity. Claims it could power the planet for decades....

[Steve Axford]

Nah, it will never reach the fervour and genuine hatred produced by the film vs digital debate.

[ricktas]

I read that Elon Musk is looking for a way to harness the energy put into this...umm..."debate" and use it to generate electricity. Claims it could power the planet for decades....

Electricity from bull ....! great idea

[Lance B]

Electricity from bull ....! great idea

Not as silly as it sounds:

http://bigthink.com/design-for-good/...as-into-energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/bu...24farmers.html

[Steve Axford]

I though the thread was trending back to a good discussion. It would seem that some don't want to see things go that way.

[arthurking83]

Arthur, why did Sony opt for the new mount? If there was no advantage, why upset some of your users by making your current lenses obsolete? Perhaps the flange distance isn't an advantage for many lenses, but you can always increase the distance - but you can't reduce it. Perhaps there are other reasons?....

Sony's FE mount(sticking to 135 format for a moment) wouldn't have been too difficult a question for Sony to ponder.
They bought into the Alpha mount when they acquired Minolta, who's flagging fortunes were well known.
Sony's plan was to aggressively market the Alpha mount using their brand recognition to increase market share(at a time when the market was increasing strongly year on year).
But contra to Sony's marketing plan, this situation didn't eventuate, so they had to rethink strategy . enter the E mount, and eventually the FE mount.
So for Sony to 'change' their mount system was in effect a bit of a 'no brainer' .. stuck at what appeared to be a dead end in Alpha mount terms .. and try a new (E/FE mount) track.

Hindsight shows us that this was successful for them.

Diametrically opposed situation for Nikon. They have vast numbers invested in terms of the Fmount .. now!.
Back in the 50's those numbers were obviously a lot different. If I'm not mistaken, I think I've seen that camera sales in those days number a few 10's of thousands .. as opposed to 3 million today.
Was easy for Nikon to introduce the change from Smount to Fmount, as the numbers were low, and the 'upgrade path' over a longer term for the end user.
For Nikon to 'abandon' or change their path now, is a massive gamble for them. They depend on the likes of myself (and Lance) to update every 3 or so years.
For them to change to a new (hypothetical) 'Mx-mount' .. displaces me as a sure bet upgrader.
(ps, I'm using the term Mx as a tongue in cheek possible term for any change to a new mount system if they did so for mirrorless .. Fx(135 format), Dx for APS-C, and Cx for the 1" Nikon 1 system .. Mx is just a follow on for that terminology)

A major portion of Nikon's entire income is Fmount dependent. For Sony it was a miniscule amount.

So with any change from the Fmount to a new mount system becoming a critical corporate gamble, it would seem likely, or more probable that they maintain a 'conservative' approach into the future, taking into account the stagnant nature of the camera market at the moment.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that they now have to be conservative with any new camera model.
Cost's alone will determine any possible hybrid viewfinder camera. I'm sure the tech exists to make such a beast possible for the currently embarrassed and EVF hungry Hogan's and Nikon Guy's of this world.
A hybrid system would have the benefit of being more of an incremental change to what they currently do. A full mirrorless EVF only model is a full development change. Development needs to be paid back .. unit prices therefore increase .. consumers get angry!
Nikon doesn't have the luxury of a massive parent to accept any losses for the moment.
I have a theory that Sony's initial incarnation of the A7 triplets were all a loss making process(they have prior form for this .. and with good reason to do so again).
A few years back, Sony's sensor department made large profits, and was a part of the 'devices' department within Sony.
They split it up, and now the very profitable Sony Semiconductor Services(sensor manufacturing) is it's own department. And the devices department is now on it's own and without the profitable sensor division to hide their true profitability(or otherwise).
At about the same time, the A7II generation made it's way into the world, and the prices for GenII nearly doubled by comparison to the original. coincidence? Or was the development and/or manufacture of the GenII cameras really that much higher than the originals?

it seems that for Sony to gamble isn't an issue .. but for much smaller Nikon it's sure to be.
I think there are enough Nikon faithfuls out there for them to be 'conservative' with the iterations of the models that will be updated in the next 12 months.
I don't think Nikon management have full control of their faculties tho. The D7500 seems to be the wrong camera, at the most ludicrous price point. More of a backward step from the D7200 at a higher price! Too close in price to the D500, which is an order of magnitude better in almost all respects.
To me, the only issue at Nikon is the direction management is taking the company .. from being a customer oriented company, to one that is solely there to make short term profits without though to the future.

It's not usually remembered, but Nikon's one and only real 'paradigm shift' was in the late 70s, early 80's with the change from non Ai lenses to Ai lenses.
They built their name on a system of multiple interchangeability and flexibility, so to change from the numerous and historic NAi system lenses to this new Ai system was (in modern terms) like a switch from DSLR to a new mount mirrorless system.
While the mount type was the same, the NAi lenses could not be mounted to any new Ai only cameras, and Ai cameras was what they were about to embark on as a new path.
So ...
To keep customers happy (ie. focus here is on customer satisfaction!!) they had implemented a NAi to Ai conversion process for any lens that could be adapted. I can't recall now which lenses could and couldn't be adapted 'accurately' but they offered the customers of the old days, a way to continue forward with Nikon from that point onwards.
IIRC(and this is reading about the history, not first hand experience!!) the conversion service cost about $20-ish or so. The equivalent of a tank of petrol for the average large car of the day. So in todays terms .. about $100 or so.

Since about 2012(ie. D800 days) Nikon's stance on problems caused of their own making is, by default, blamed on the customer. This has continued unabated for the past 5 years.
Nikon is losing sales due to some badly managed manufacturing AND stupidly managed customer relations.
Add to this the option to try a new format type(ie. mirrorless) and you have Nikon's sales woes. Still strong enough to make them a profit, but unless management fix the real problem(or customer relations and manufacturing dunces not doing their jobs properly!!) .. whatever camera type or model they make is less of an issue.

With all of that in mind, I can't see Nikon's current and future issues as anything other than management orientated and unrelated to hardware designs/types.

ps. swifty. the issue of corner shading on ultra wide angle lenses on short back focus camera designs isn't about sensor lighting or backlighting as such. The major issue is the oblique angle that the corner light rays are coming onto the sensor plane.
The micro lenses are optimised to look directly up(ie. at 90° to the sensor plane), but the light comes in at very oblique angles from the corner of the lens.
I don't know if BSI tech odes or doesn't help .. haven't really looked into the A7II series to see how improved that Voightlander 12mm is on a Series II A7 is.
Gives me something else to read up on now I guess

[Steve Axford]

Fascinating, Arthur. I'm tending to the view that the E-mount is probably more versatile, but it relies on other innovations to reduce the corner light dropoff issues. Maybe those innovations will happen, maybe they won't, I guess it's not critical either way as the E-mount is certainly no worse than the FE or F mount. Your history lesson was most informative as I really know very little about 20th century photography. I only got into photography in this century and only digital. I do however understand computer technology quite well and I think there are other features of mirrorless that are more important. I keep going back to the mirror assembly itself as that is mechanical and mechanical is anathema to electronics. To keep it must introduce significant other problems, like:
Focus accuracy. If you measure your focus at a separate place from the sensor, then you will get it slightly wrong - which creates the need for calibration. This gets worse as resolution gets better.
Focus speed and sophistication. As more electronics are built into the chip, there will be an inevitable improvement of focusing speed and sophistication. It will be very hard for mirror based focusing to keep up as this type of focusing will not be used for anything else (economies of scale).
Video tracking problems. If you have ever tried to track a subject on a screen rather than through a viewfinder, you will understand that it can be a show stopper. You need an EVF for this. I know that most people here do not care about video, but video must add market share to Sony and other mirrorless vendors and it is important for a lot of film makers, including me.
Mechanical is very slow to develop and improve where electronics is fast and reduces in cost rapidly once the development is done.

I suppose you could keep the mirror just for the viewfinder and not do the focusing though that produces it's own set of problems (how do you focus when looking through the OVF?), so you do need both. I can't see that as being sustainable in the medium term, let alone the long term.

But, the rate of change of the camera market isn't all that quick, so Nikon and Canon have time to decide how to address the issues. And, as has been pointed out, they do currently have a good lead in lens range, which is worth a lot. Sony's strategy seems to be to try to take the high ground and let the sales flow down.

[Lance B]

I though the thread was trending back to a good discussion. It would seem that some don't want to see things go that way.

Wow, lighten up man. Sheesh.

[swifty]

Arthur: offset microlens was how Leica dealt with oblique angle WA lens issue. And it has been speculated BSI (which moves electronics away from the surface to behind) has also improved the capture ability of oblique rays. Possibly the photodiode wall depths are reduced as a result? But both colour shift and vignetting are said to have improved. But I'm not familiar with actual output of a BSI vs non-BSI sensors. I believe A7rII uses (the first?) FF BSI design.

[arthurking83]

True to form .. Sony has come to the party!!

New 12-24/4 and 16-35/2.8 lenses announced recently.

12-24 is of interest to me for this thread, more so than the 16-35/2.8

Are you suggesting that the flange focal distance of 46.5mm on the Nikon F-mount vs 26mm on the Sony E-mount makes no difference to wide angle lens size?

Sigma's new 12-24/4 is bigger, but not that much bigger considering the historical advantage that short back flange cameras used to have compared to their SLR contemporaries.
But Sony has saved masses of weight compared to what Sigma's lens weighs in at! less than half(1000g vs 500g!)
For Sony this makes sense, as it makes less sense to have lenses that are massively heavy mounted to bodies that are so light weight .. reduces the advantage.
So my guess is that Sony engineered a bit weight saving into their 12-24/4.
Sigma on the other hand, they have to contend with other manufacturers resistance to the product, so could in effect be forced to engineer an amount of extra quality in their optics and focusing systems rather than seek weight savings measures.

And I'm going to guesstimate that the Sony(like many Olympus and Panasonic lens/camera relationships) will greatly depend on software to produce it's best too.

On a side note: Sony's 16-35/2.8 is for all intents and purposes as big,(or should that be .. as small as) Canon's 16-35/2.8.
Sony is only 6mm shorter in length(122 vs 128mm), but the same diameter. (at 89mm each).
There is a bit of an advantage in the Sony version compared to the Canon when it comes to weight(80 odd grams)

.. but again I think this is simply due to priorities of design brief. It's either going to be the best optics or the best size weight you can achieve.
The reason I say that tho is because the Canon lens is a teeny bit larger and a teeny bit heavier, that's true only for the series III version of this lens type.
The Canon series II version is both smaller and lighter than the Sony lens.
For series III, Canon obviously intended to prioritise image quality beyond saving weight, or smaller size .. for Sony(in this first version of such a lens), obviously they also engineered weight an size as part of the same priority as IQ.
(the obvious pertinent question then follows .. will any weight saving affect durability )

So the argument that the shorter backfocus distance offers an advantage is probably true, but only to a certain degree!
Reality bites, compromises need to be made, and products just seem to get bigger and heavier!

And as I suspected to see .. DPR also has a preview of the A9's ISO invariance when the electronic shutter is used .. and as expected it's not looking particularly good in terms of dynamic range!
So that 20fps is a reality, but for simple subject shooting. Add a bit of complex high dynamic lighting situations .. or miss an exposure unwittingly and well you'd have been better off just using mechanical shutter .. oops! that means 10fps.
Add to that the fact that in Continuous drive mode, the camera only shoots in 12 bit mode, down from 14 bit mode which is only available in single drive mode
You won't get that in a fully professional camera body .. if you choose 14 bit raw mode, you get the same frame rate performance .. not some restricted anomaly!

I think the famous saying appropriate to this topic is something along the lines of .... "there's no such thing as a free lunch"

A7rII also seems to have cleaner high ISO chroma noise performance compared to the A9 too!

[Steve Axford]

True to form .. Sony has come to the party!!

New 12-24/4 and 16-35/2.8 lenses announced recently.

12-24 is of interest to me for this thread, more so than the 16-35/2.8



Sigma's new 12-24/4 is bigger, but not that much bigger considering the historical advantage that short back flange cameras used to have compared to their SLR contemporaries.
But Sony has saved masses of weight compared to what Sigma's lens weighs in at! less than half(1000g vs 500g!)
For Sony this makes sense, as it makes less sense to have lenses that are massively heavy mounted to bodies that are so light weight .. reduces the advantage.
So my guess is that Sony engineered a bit weight saving into their 12-24/4.
Sigma on the other hand, they have to contend with other manufacturers resistance to the product, so could in effect be forced to engineer an amount of extra quality in their optics and focusing systems rather than seek weight savings measures.

And I'm going to guesstimate that the Sony(like many Olympus and Panasonic lens/camera relationships) will greatly depend on software to produce it's best too.

On a side note: Sony's 16-35/2.8 is for all intents and purposes as big,(or should that be .. as small as) Canon's 16-35/2.8.
Sony is only 6mm shorter in length(122 vs 128mm), but the same diameter. (at 89mm each).
There is a bit of an advantage in the Sony version compared to the Canon when it comes to weight(80 odd grams)

.. but again I think this is simply due to priorities of design brief. It's either going to be the best optics or the best size weight you can achieve.
The reason I say that tho is because the Canon lens is a teeny bit larger and a teeny bit heavier, that's true only for the series III version of this lens type.
The Canon series II version is both smaller and lighter than the Sony lens.
For series III, Canon obviously intended to prioritise image quality beyond saving weight, or smaller size .. for Sony(in this first version of such a lens), obviously they also engineered weight an size as part of the same priority as IQ.
(the obvious pertinent question then follows .. will any weight saving affect durability )

So the argument that the shorter backfocus distance offers an advantage is probably true, but only to a certain degree!
Reality bites, compromises need to be made, and products just seem to get bigger and heavier!

It sounds like a really good lens to me. I am sure that all of these lenses must balance quality vs weight, but I suspect that the target would be to make a lens with better IQ than the DSLR lenses and to be smaller and lighter. In that objective they have an advantage in flange distance and chip design. You assume the Sigma lens will be better just because it is heavier. I doubt that, but I'm sure there'll be plenty of reviews over the next weeks and months.