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

#21 Jaf-Photo

Jaf-Photo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 24 September 2016 - 09:59 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)
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


  • GARoss likes this

#22 gunther

gunther

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 24 September 2016 - 10:39 AM

No one with half a Nikon brain would take any notice of this guy.Northrope and Grangiers are just as biased against anything Sony,probably don't get the goodies off Sony.

 

Does AngryKen believe anyone will take him serious?



#23 Sator

Sator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 24 September 2016 - 01:02 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!

 

 

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. 


  • GARoss likes this

#24 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 24 September 2016 - 02:28 PM

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.



#25 OldNoob

OldNoob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts

Posted 25 September 2016 - 08:42 PM

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)



#26 Golem

Golem

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 01:29 AM

vv



#27 Golem

Golem

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 01:36 AM

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

vv



#28 Golem

Golem

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 02:55 AM

..............

 

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 ........

Big misstatement.

Big misstatement ? You are refering to the difference

between 1/2 stop and 1/3 stop as a "big misstatement".

 

It's an innaccurracy, but rather minor. Tony N. is just a

nobody. What's HIS resume anyway ? Keep calm and

carry on :-)  

  

And ignore DxO. DxO and Tony N. are just flip sides of

the same coin. Just slick BS. One version all dressed

up in geek tech and the other slathered in smiley gloss.


  • haygrrr likes this

#29 GARoss

GARoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 01:43 PM

Big misstatement ? You are refering to the difference between 1/2 stop and 1/3 stop as a "big misstatement".

It's an innaccurracy, but rather minor. Tony N. is just a nobody. What's HIS resume anyway ? Keep calm and carry on :-)  

And ignore DxO. DxO and Tony N. are just flip sides of the same coin. Just slick BS. One version all dressed up in geek tech and the other slathered in smiley gloss.

 

Thanks Golem! I'll take your word for it as I obviously lack technical camera knowledge as most of you at this forum. I am, however, interested in learning all I can. 1/3 f/stop sounds minor compared to Tony's 30%.

 

I'm very interested in the a99ii & the mirrorless a7Rii which is nearly feature identical; even in price. I favor the a99ii for mainly two reasons - larger battery & A-mount lenses. There's a wider selection of A-mounts although I read Sigma is to support E-mounts soon (other than the MC-11 adapter).

 

What's your thoughts? And, can you suggest better sites than DxO? It seems many other site quote DxO offten.

 

Thanks, George



#30 timde

timde

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 02:01 PM

 

What's your thoughts? And, can you suggest better sites than DxO? It seems many other site quote DxO offten.

 

 

 

diglloyd (subscription) is testing equipment, explaining how its performing under different conditions, and discussing technique. I find it useful ... DxO is giving you a number, so that is kind of useless if you want to learn something - you get what you pay for.


  • OldNoob likes this

#31 Golem

Golem

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 21 October 2016 - 01:14 AM

......... 1/3 f/stop sounds minor compared to Tony's 30%.

 

...........

Actually, to give Tony his due, he's just speaking in reverse. 

Sorta just a slip of the tongue. As you know, most fractions 

are not "reciprocal" in terms of casual conversation. IOW a 

50% increase is not a 50% decrease if you remove it. It's a 

50% increase when you apply it but it's a 33% decrease if 

you remove it. 

 

So, while the SLT mirror does not cost you all of 30% light 

received, if you REMOVED it, you would gain 30% :-) The 

reciprocal of 30% is 23%, so the SLT mirror transmits 77%.  



#32 wedge

wedge

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 21 October 2016 - 09:13 PM

 Tony N. is just a

nobody. What's HIS resume anyway ?

 

He won the Sexiest Geek Alive in 2000




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