Jump to content


Photo

Tony Northrup shows his lack of knowledge about the A-mount lens history


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 OldNoob

OldNoob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 05:34 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Tony Northrup shows his lack of knowledge about the A-mount lens system.

Says only 19 lenses available for the a99 and that canon and nikon are better options because "used lenses are available"

https://www.youtube....h?v=CmzFe_3wwGQ



#2 Ben

Ben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 07:29 AM

That's nothing compared to the ignorance of AngryKen...



#3 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 04:03 PM

Does AngryKen believe anyone will take him serious?


  • gunther likes this

#4 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 04:48 PM

 

Tony Northrup shows his lack of knowledge about the A-mount lens system.

Says only 19 lenses available for the a99 and that canon and nikon are better options because "used lenses are available"

https://www.youtube....h?v=CmzFe_3wwGQ

At the 1:15 point he wrongly says the A99ii's translucent mirror reduces light by 30%! DxO says it's 1/3 F-stop (https://www.cnet.com...-camera-design/). Big misstatement.



#5 Jaf-Photo

Jaf-Photo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 07:40 PM

The ignorance about SLT is horrifying. How can people even speak about things they know nothing about?


  • gunther likes this

#6 Colorado

Colorado

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 07:58 PM

OK for the sake of argument... Tony is not totally wrong in his statement.With all settings staying the same, if you remove the mirror from a translucent mirror camera (A99II) how much light is now reaching the sensor then before the mirror was removed??? 1/3 more light. So in this scenario Tony is 100% right.

 It is simple math. Add one stop of light and double the light reaching the sensor. Add 1/3 stop of light and 33% more reaches the sensor. Something to think about. Inversely, if you take away one stop you halved the intensity of light so this would be around 17% less light reaching the sensor if the mirror was added. So the long and short of it 1/3 stop is the accurate description. Tony is only half right but I would not call it a big misstatement...



#7 Jaf-Photo

Jaf-Photo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:07 PM

You've never used one either.

 

OK for the sake of argument... Tony is not totally wrong in his statement.With all settings staying the same, if you remove the mirror from a translucent mirror camera (A99II) how much light is now reaching the sensor then before the mirror was removed??? 1/3 more light. So in this scenario Tony is 100% right.

 It is simple math. Add one stop of light and double the light reaching the sensor. Add 1/3 stop of light and 33% more reaches the sensor. Something to think about. Inversely, if you take away one stop you halved the intensity of light so this would be around 17% less light reaching the sensor if the mirror was added. So the long and short of it 1/3 stop is the accurate description. Tony is only half right but I would not call it a big misstatement...



#8 Colorado

Colorado

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:26 PM

 I own two. And have the A99II on preorder. As you can see I'm a big fan. Not sure what your point is?


  • crfowler and danmleephoto like this

#9 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 09:37 PM

OK for the sake of argument... Tony is not totally wrong in his statement.With all settings staying the same, if you remove the mirror from a translucent mirror camera (A99II) how much light is now reaching the sensor then before the mirror was removed??? 1/3 more light. So in this scenario Tony is 100% right.

 It is simple math. Add one stop of light and double the light reaching the sensor. Add 1/3 stop of light and 33% more reaches the sensor. Something to think about. Inversely, if you take away one stop you halved the intensity of light so this would be around 17% less light reaching the sensor if the mirror was added. So the long and short of it 1/3 stop is the accurate description. Tony is only half right but I would not call it a big misstatement...

 

I don't believe I called it a big mistake. After hearing Tony's 30% less light remark I thought it might be a deal killer for me. After reading the comparison in DxO, which I believe are solid, they said in an example of f/200 to f/160 adjustment to compensate the same amount of light to the sensor. The math may work as you suggest but that difference in light seems minor. Apparently Sony agreed.

 

And no, I've never used any Sony SLT but the a99ii is very high on my list! I've always used Canon APS-C type & want to move into FF. Don't like the Canon Mk4 for video reasons which is why I am looking at Sony's.

 

I'd like to see some reviews of the a99ii first before ordering but doubt there will be anything to discourage me. Best of luck!



#10 Enochdhu

Enochdhu

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 09:54 AM

I don't wish to be too pedantic but .... in the interests of accuracy, one third of a stop does not equate to 33% more light.  One third of a stop is 2^(1/3) = 26%.  Similarly half a stop represents a change of 41.4%, and two thirds of a stop is 58.7%. 



#11 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 04:31 PM

The ignorance about SLT is horrifying. How can people even speak about things they know nothing about?

 

 

OK for the sake of argument... Tony is not totally wrong in his statement.With all settings staying the same, if you remove the mirror from a translucent mirror camera (A99II) how much light is now reaching the sensor then before the mirror was removed??? 1/3 more light. So in this scenario Tony is 100% right.

 It is simple math. Add one stop of light and double the light reaching the sensor. Add 1/3 stop of light and 33% more reaches the sensor. Something to think about. Inversely, if you take away one stop you halved the intensity of light so this would be around 17% less light reaching the sensor if the mirror was added. So the long and short of it 1/3 stop is the accurate description. Tony is only half right but I would not call it a big misstatement...

 

 

I don't wish to be too pedantic but .... in the interests of accuracy, one third of a stop does not equate to 33% more light.  One third of a stop is 2^(1/3) = 26%.  Similarly half a stop represents a change of 41.4%, and two thirds of a stop is 58.7%. 

 

Jaf-Photo, Colorado & Enochdhu: Please answer this. Whether it's 30%, 33% or 1/3 f/stop less light reaching the sensor, is this a deal killer? In other words, is the reduction of light significantly lower & noticeable enough to not purchase the a99ii & go with comparable priced Canon or Nikon cameras?

 

There's always a balancing act going on when trying to decided on which product to get. I like the features of the a99ii over the Canon 5dmk4, Nikon D810A & even the Sony a7Rii. But 95% of all I do is photo so image quality is very important. Canon 5dmk4, Nikon D810A cannot touch the a99ii for video & if light can be compensated by 1/3 f/stop to match Canon & Nikon quality my decision for an a99ii is a no brainier.


 


  • alasdairmac likes this

#12 Colorado

Colorado

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 05:27 PM

It is an ISO consideration. I would look at it this way. If you used the A7rII and liked the image quality and never used higher ISO settings. (For me I would say over 3200) then the advantages of the A99II are most likely significant. But if you find your self in situations where you are needing "cleaner" high ISO shots then maybe the A99 is not for you. Look at the DXO scores for the A77II and the A6000 these use the same sensor but of course the A77II has the mirror in front of it, and their testing shows pretty much a 1/3  stop (~30%) advantage for the A6000. I would say you will see the same difference between the A7RII and the A99II when the A99II is tested.That said, it's not a big concern to me and how I use my cameras.

 

https://www.dxomark....A6000___953_942



#13 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 06:02 PM

It is an ISO consideration. I would look at it this way. If you used the A7rII and liked the image quality and never used higher ISO settings. (For me I would say over 3200) then the advantages of the A99II are most likely significant. But if you find your self in situations where you are needing "cleaner" high ISO shots then maybe the A99 is not for you. Look at the DXO scores for the A77II and the A6000 these use the same sensor but of course the A77II has the mirror in front of it, and their testing shows pretty much a 1/3  stop (~30%) advantage for the A6000. I would say you will see the same difference between the A7RII and the A99II when the A99II is tested.That said, it's not a big concern to me and how I use my cameras.

 

https://www.dxomark....A6000___953_942

 

Thanks for that advice. I currently have a Canon 70d & rarely go over 800 ISO but you never know when you need it. One vacation photo shoot of brown bears on a rainy day at Brook Falls, Alaska I used Auto ISO mainly because I was shooting aperture priority. Many of the photos were taken as high as 3200 ISO but none over that.

I like the a7rii but there's fewer E lenses available & a much smaller battery. I'm aware there are adapters for A to E mounts but that adds $300.



#14 Markoe

Markoe

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area, California USA

Posted 23 September 2016 - 06:44 PM

Thanks for that advice. I currently have a Canon 70d & rarely go over 800 ISO but you never know when you need it. One vacation photo shoot of brown bears on a rainy day at Brook Falls, Alaska I used Auto ISO mainly because I was shooting aperture priority. Many of the photos were taken as high as 3200 ISO but none over that.

I like the a7rii but there's fewer E lenses available & a much smaller battery. I'm aware there are adapters for A to E mounts but that adds $300.

 

Just wanted to remind you that your Canon EF glass will mount via adapter to any Sony E mount such at A7 series and A6 series bodies.  Their AF performance may not be as quick as the Canon bodies but they are catching up if you use the Sigma MC-11 adapter with Canon EF glass. Metabones adapters work almost as good as the Sigma in my experience.

 

I don't think there is an 'A' mount adapter to use EF lenses on Sony A99 but please correct me if there is.

 

I've been a Canon shooter since going digital in 1996 and have been adding Sony to the stable in the past two years since they released the A7R.  Both are great lines and each has its own use.

 

Best of Luck!



#15 Markoe

Markoe

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area, California USA

Posted 23 September 2016 - 06:49 PM

Thanks for that advice. I currently have a Canon 70d & rarely go over 800 ISO but you never know when you need it. One vacation photo shoot of brown bears on a rainy day at Brook Falls, Alaska I used Auto ISO mainly because I was shooting aperture priority. Many of the photos were taken as high as 3200 ISO but none over that.

I like the a7rii but there's fewer E lenses available & a much smaller battery. I'm aware there are adapters for A to E mounts but that adds $300.

 

Oh...as we all know, 'smaller battery' is an understatement. Sony batteries just plain suck eggs.  I can shoot a whole day at a sports event with a 1DX and/or 7D2 on one or two batteries (7D2 with a grip w/2 batteries).  My Sony A7R2 & A6300 come out of the bag with ....14% battery left.  I've added a grip to the A6300 but it adds very little to the longevity of the moment.

 

That is truly the most discouraging feature for Sony in my opinion and for what I shoot.



#16 Jaf-Photo

Jaf-Photo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:32 PM

‚ÄčIt's not a deal killer. It's not even noticeable. I pixel-peep all my images and I've never had an issue with any files from the A77II. It has an astonishing amount of detail. I often use a light meter and, technically, it should be calibrated up by 1/3 stop but it works just fine with base line exposure.

 

Jaf-Photo, Colorado & Enochdhu: Please answer this. Whether it's 30%, 33% or 1/3 f/stop less light reaching the sensor, is this a deal killer? In other words, is the reduction of light significantly lower & noticeable enough to not purchase the a99ii & go with comparable priced Canon or Nikon cameras?

 

There's always a balancing act going on when trying to decided on which product to get. I like the features of the a99ii over the Canon 5dmk4, Nikon D810A & even the Sony a7Rii. But 95% of all I do is photo so image quality is very important. Canon 5dmk4, Nikon D810A cannot touch the a99ii for video & if light can be compensated by 1/3 f/stop to match Canon & Nikon quality my decision for an a99ii is a no brainier.

 



#17 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:48 PM

Just wanted to remind you that your Canon EF glass will mount via adapter to any Sony E mount such at A7 series and A6 series bodies.  Their AF performance may not be as quick as the Canon bodies but they are catching up if you use the Sigma MC-11 adapter with Canon EF glass. Metabones adapters work almost as good as the Sigma in my experience.

 

I don't think there is an 'A' mount adapter to use EF lenses on Sony A99 but please correct me if there is.

 

I've been a Canon shooter since going digital in 1996 and have been adding Sony to the stable in the past two years since they released the A7R.  Both are great lines and each has its own use.

 

Best of Luck!

 

 

Oh...as we all know, 'smaller battery' is an understatement. Sony batteries just plain suck eggs.  I can shoot a whole day at a sports event with a 1DX and/or 7D2 on one or two batteries (7D2 with a grip w/2 batteries).  My Sony A7R2 & A6300 come out of the bag with ....14% battery left.  I've added a grip to the A6300 but it adds very little to the longevity of the moment.

 

That is truly the most discouraging feature for Sony in my opinion and for what I shoot.

 

Thanks Markoe. My goal is to go FF as I'm shooting APS-C now. I had high hopes when I heard there was a new Canon Mk coming. I assumed Canon would be more competitive with 4k video or video in general but they failed to do so with the Mk4. That MJpeg Motion format make no sense at all. 4K files 5x larger than H.264 4K files? 250Gb for an hour of MJpeg video + you need an $$$ CF card to add to the cost. Canon seems to think extracting jpegs off video is a big deal but I don't. Maybe it's more like foiling Magic Lantern tampering with or "improving" there cameras firmware depending on how you'd like to view it.

 

In any case the A99ii looks good. I don't believe there is a "A" to "E" adapter either. I own one EF lens that's FF. The other 3 are APS-C & would cause aberration. That's too bad because one lens is the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 art.

 

I read the A99ii uses a 1600mAh vs the A7Rii uses 1050mAh. The Canon Mk4 uses 1865mAh. As far as lens go, I see where several 3rd party companies like Sigma & Tamron support Sony A lens. These companies are really making quality lenses these days. Too bad Sigma only supports E mounts with an MC-11 adapter.

 

So, are you adding an A99ii? Is the decrease in light issue as issue?



#18 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:53 PM

‚ÄčIt's not a deal killer. It's not even noticeable. I pixel-peep all my images and I've never had an issue with any files from the A77II. It has an astonishing amount of detail. I often use a light meter and, technically, it should be calibrated up by 1/3 stop but it works just fine with base line exposure.

 

Thanks for your input. All this light reduction, however much, had me concerned. All other features on the A99ii makes it an easy choice.



#19 OldNoob

OldNoob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts

Posted 24 September 2016 - 01:16 AM

Oh...as we all know, 'smaller battery' is an understatement. Sony batteries just plain suck eggs.  I can shoot a whole day at a sports event with a 1DX and/or 7D2 on one or two batteries (7D2 with a grip w/2 batteries).  My Sony A7R2 & A6300 come out of the bag with ....14% battery left.  I've added a grip to the A6300 but it adds very little to the longevity of the moment.

 

That is truly the most discouraging feature for Sony in my opinion and for what I shoot.

Yes i have to admit the battery usage is very perplexing with current Sony cameras. Years ago my a100 seemed to last forever with the mp-fm500 and np-fm55 batteries. and it got especially long life with the diacan battery grip.

2955725488_4d317fd007.jpg


  • GARoss likes this

#20 Markoe

Markoe

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area, California USA

Posted 24 September 2016 - 02:21 AM

Thanks Markoe. My goal is to go FF as I'm shooting APS-C now. I had high hopes when I heard there was a new Canon Mk coming. I assumed Canon would be more competitive with 4k video or video in general but they failed to do so with the Mk4. That MJpeg Motion format make no sense at all. 4K files 5x larger than H.264 4K files? 250Gb for an hour of MJpeg video + you need an $$$ CF card to add to the cost. Canon seems to think extracting jpegs off video is a big deal but I don't. Maybe it's more like foiling Magic Lantern tampering with or "improving" there cameras firmware depending on how you'd like to view it.

 

In any case the A99ii looks good. I don't believe there is a "A" to "E" adapter either. I own one EF lens that's FF. The other 3 are APS-C & would cause aberration. That's too bad because one lens is the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 art.

 

I read the A99ii uses a 1600mAh vs the A7Rii uses 1050mAh. The Canon Mk4 uses 1865mAh. As far as lens go, I see where several 3rd party companies like Sigma & Tamron support Sony A lens. These companies are really making quality lenses these days. Too bad Sigma only supports E mounts with an MC-11 adapter.

 

So, are you adding an A99ii? Is the decrease in light issue as issue?

At the moment I don't see a 'logical' reason to add one to the inventory.  First off, I only have one A lens: 70400G-2 which I love but that is the only lens in that mount I've got.  I've looked through the A mount lenses and the thought of getting invested (again) in another mount with more proprietary lenses is grounds for divorce, Ha!  

I'll wait and see how the A99-ii fares.  If its as good as it pencils out, then I may need to out some more Canon gear.

Good luck with your decision. I hope it all works out for you

Best Regards


  • GARoss likes this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
x

New Members Welcome!

Not yet registered? Really?

Registration is free and takes only a few minutes.

After the free registration you can discuss with members from all over the world, put questions and present your images.

We are looking forward to you!

Admin Andreas und Sony Alpha Forum Team

Register now! X