Jump to content

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


OldNoob
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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.com/watch?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/news/pellicle-penalty-a-dark-side-to-sony-camera-design/). Big misstatement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-77-II-versus-Sony-A6000___953_942

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-77-II-versus-Sony-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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

​It'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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

​It'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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

The modern Sony cameras is more power hungry because of things like EVF, stronger processors, wireless functions etc. The first Sonys had OVF and no live view, so they consumed a lot less power.

 

If you take other brand cameras with OVF and put them in live view mode, they'll eat through the batteries just as fast or even faster.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

 

The more you understand optics, the more you realise that adapters are a deeply flawed solution. BTW you can adapt Nikon lenses to a Canon EOS mount, though you'd get funny looks doing it, but why it is so important to adapt Canon lenses to a Sony is beyond me. 

 

The whole point of shooting mirrorless is so that you get optics in which the space taken up by the mirror box is eliminated, and the exit pupil distance brought closer to the sensor. Why ruin all of that by shooting DSLR lenses on a mirrorless? It makes no sense. There is every reason to think the lens performance is degraded when you do this. DSLR lenses simply aren't designed for optical dimensions of a mirrorless, and cannot take full advantage of the short flange distance. Nor are some issues introduced by the short flange distance adequately compensated. People say "nobody will ever notice". If you don't notice any improvement in optics from shooting native mirrorless optical designs, why not just shoot DSLRs in the first place?

 

As for the light loss to the semi-translucent mirror, it is more that you are sacrificing it to get something back. The question is what you get back in return. When shooting in low light, the hybrid PDAF, which functions on that 1/3 stop of light it is fed, will be more likely to get the shot in focus compared to an a7RII or even an a9. So what if it is a little under-exposed...I'd much rather that than have the shot be out of focus or to just have the camera hunt going nowhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more you understand optics, the more you realise that adapters are a deeply flawed solution. BTW you can adapt Nikon lenses to a Canon EOS mount, though you'd get funny looks doing it, but why it is so important to adapt Canon lenses to a Sony is beyond me. 

 

The whole point of shooting mirrorless is so that you get optics in which the space taken up by the mirror box is eliminated, and the exit pupil distance brought closer to the sensor. Why ruin all of that by shooting DSLR lenses on a mirrorless? It makes no sense. There is every reason to think the lens performance is degraded when you do this. DSLR lenses simply aren't designed for optical dimensions of a mirrorless, and cannot take full advantage of the short flange distance. Nor are some issues introduced by the short flange distance adequately compensated. People say "nobody will ever notice". If you don't notice any improvement in optics from shooting native mirrorless optical designs, why not just shoot DSLRs in the first place?

 

As for the light loss to the semi-translucent mirror, it is more that you are sacrificing it to get something back. The question is what you get back in return. When shooting in low light, the hybrid PDAF, which functions on that 1/3 stop of light it is fed, will be more likely to get the shot in focus compared to an a7RII or even an a9. So what if it is a little under-exposed...I'd much rather that than have the shot be out of focus or to just have the camera hunt going nowhere. 

 

As attractive as the A7Rii was when announced about a year ago I hesitated to purchase one because of the relativity small selection of E-mount lenses. The lenses that are available seemed overly expensive as well. Support from companies like Sigma & Tamron, who make some amazingly high quality glass at reasonable prices these days, are no-shows so far other than Sigma's MC-11 adapter. And, I am reluctant to purchase into a system that is dependent on adapters to expand lens selection as well. Later, news of overheating & compressed RAW photo also was discouraging. However, Sony came through with updates that apparently fixed these issues. That's a step in the right direction but still short on E lens selection.

 

Now comes the A99ii. More DSLR-like, larger battery, S-log3 + basically the same features as the A7Rii's. Seems right to me. I can't wait to see reviews & comparisons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The modern Sony cameras is more power hungry because of things like EVF, stronger processors, wireless functions etc. The first Sonys had OVF and no live view, so they consumed a lot less power.

 

If you take other brand cameras with OVF and put them in live view mode, they'll eat through the batteries just as fast or even faster.

 

Very good points!

However i do wish my a6300 did not lose so much battery charge overnight while off.

I pretty much have to keep the camera plugged in like my phone every night. Guess thats the nature of the beast i guess. ;o)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...