flip-mode wrote:That pic of the mouse pad is awesome! It's visually uncomfortable, mildly, to look at but it's a wonderful illustration of camera optics.
Airmantharp wrote:If they took the mirror out of the DSLR/Ts, what would they build other than the NEX/EOS-M?
+ no light loss due to mirror
+ shorter register possible (no mirror box needed), leads to slimmer body and allows to adapt non-native lenses
+ less expensive to manufacture
- with current technology inferior AF especially in low light and for tracking moving objects. IMO the greatest challenge to overcome
- AF may only work reasonably well with select optimized lenses, questionable legacy support (we shall see)
+ full-time PDAF with tracking ability
+ fast AF with Minolta and most 3rd party legacy lenses
- 1/3 stop light loss due to mirror
- more expensive to manufacture (adds mirror, PDAF module)
TheEmrys wrote:If this is true, his niggles with the Nex 5R are primarily the ergonomics and how it isn't quite suitable for professionals (lack of an EVF or built in flash).
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/17-70 ... o-os-hsm-cTheEmrys wrote: Could we see a Canon 24-105/4 on a Sony body? Talk about a selling point for me. I have lens lust bad for that particular range and aperture.
JustAnEngineer wrote:http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/17-70 ... o-os-hsm-cTheEmrys wrote: Could we see a Canon 24-105/4 on a Sony body? Talk about a selling point for me. I have lens lust bad for that particular range and aperture.
17-70 mm on an APS-C 1.5 crop factor = 25-105 mm equivalent on a full-frame body.
Airmantharp wrote:A move to mirrorless- actually it begs the question of why?
How about the Minolta or Sony 24-105 f/3.5-4.5, then?TheEmrys wrote: 24-105/4 ? I have lens lust bad for that particular range and aperture.
flip-mode wrote:I think I remember him saying that he found the ergonomics of either the a57 or the a65 to be annoying and that the D5100 was much better to handle. He is therefore disqualified as any kind of authority concerning ergonomics.
Voldenuit wrote:Actually, I'd say the bigger question is why stick with the mirror if you don't have to?
Airmantharp wrote:Also, that's the a55, Sony's SLT round one, not the improved a57 or a65; I'd bet he'd be less critical if he looked at newer Sony kit.
TheEmrys wrote:With the rx1 is a pretty amazing FF mirrorless, even if it is a non-interchangeable 35mm/2 CZ lens. But wow, some gorgeous shots from it. But at such an amazing price, as well. Only $2800-ish. But if nothing else, like the old EE Pentiums, its for a niche that also shows a pretty cool proof of concept.
TheEmrys wrote:Also, I'm now convinced I need a macro lens now. Something that could double as a walkaround. hmm.. maybe the Minolta 50mm/2.8 macro.
The depth of field can be incredibly thin, but the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is still a nice lens.Airmantharp wrote:TheEmrys wrote: I couldn't imagine trying to shoot macro hand-held with available light at 100mm and no IS.
TheEmrys wrote:The splitting of lenses into FF and APS-C to me is just silly. Why cripple your line of lenses?
TheEmrys wrote:I hate that there are aps-c only lenses. Shoot, Sony has a great little 16-50/2.8 SSM and weather-sealed. Came out a couple of years ago and they made it an aps-c. Why? Why not simply make it FF? Every FF lens can work on an aps-c body, but aps-c lenses have to have weird chicanery to work on FF bodies.
Voldenuit wrote:It's senseless to be preoccupied with the idea of 'FF' as a purportedly ideal standard when there are even larger sensors (medium and large format) and corresponding glass that is used for even higher end work.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests