It seems to me that A7 enthusiasts, so excited about the new GM lenses, may be discounting one of the most important advantages and advances of the A7 system, this being its compact size and weight. These new GM lenses, and even, to a certain extent, the batis line, are big heavy lenses that cancel much of the advantage of the A7 system.

I am hoping for more lenses like the wonderful loxias, that are great performers, as well as being compact.

For many the lack of auto focus eliminates the loxias as viable alternatives, but I find focusing with them easier and more accurate than with my batis 85mm autofocus.

I hope that Zeiss and Sony continue to develop these wonderful compact lenses and do not turn the small and powerful A7 series into a large unbalanced dslr like behemoth.

And as far as bokeh goes, unless one is shooting wide open it makes little difference. Frankly I believe that the present fascination with bokeh is a bit overblown!

 

What do you think?

I think that this doesn't matter. weigh and size have no impact on me, but image quality does. I think that the fascination with the weigh, size of a camera is boiling it's qualities down to a common denominator of how much space it takes up. I could care less, because my camera is more than how big it's foot print is. I have had no problems with autofocus on my lenses. but if you are into fine art photography, or any type that lends itself to giving you time to frame your shot with patience, all the more power to you. sounds to me like Sony and Zeiss have already made lenses for you.

 

but anything that requires you to be quick and nimble such as shooting families with children or animals which are too quick to focus on them manually, I'll take autofocus please. yes having small size makes things like street photography easier. you can shoot and never been noticed. but pick the tool for the type of photography you do. I don't want to assume it's best for all photographers that it should be small and compact. I rather like the feel and weight of a bigger camera and lens.

I agree with you that one should use whatever tools work best, however, in your case, it sounds like you would be better served with the Canon or Nikon dslr. The greatest advantage of the Sony mirrorless system is the smaller size. If size does not matter to you, perhaps you should take advantage of the larger dslr cameras.

If, however, you have switched to mirrorless because of the size and weight of the Sony mirrorless system, please do not lose sight of its main advantage.

To add another view: for me the main advantage is face detection and eye tracking. The digital processing of image content is far superior compared to what dslrs offer.

And maybe seeing what the image will look like in the EVF already. Though with practice you won't really miss it on a dslr.

I agree with you that one should use whatever tools work best, however, in your case, it sounds like you would be better served with the Canon or Nikon dslr. The greatest advantage of the Sony mirrorless system is the smaller size. If size does not matter to you, perhaps you should take advantage of the larger dslr cameras.

If, however, you have switched to mirrorless because of the size and weight of the Sony mirrorless system, please do not lose sight of its main advantage.

it sounds as if in your eyes size is the singular advantage of sony's equipment. this isn't true. they also have some of the sharpest lenses available. on DXOMark, Canon is way way way down in the ranks. you have to scroll a long way before you find anything by canon. Nikon's and Sony's are at the top. and when you buy Nikon, it's almost always a Sony sensor, so you're really buying a Sony.

there's the video functionality, which is much better on Sony than on Nikon or Canon. hands down. I worked at a documentary film studio for 4 years and have owned, rented or used almost all of the major brands and their best units they offer. Sony also offer some of the highest resolutions, the best low-light (depending on the model you choose) while still retaining useful features like a headphone jack or focus peaking or exposure zebras.

 

I don't boil it down to just 1 thing like you do. put simply I don't buy Canon because their cameras are garbage. and I don't buy Nikon because their cameras are basically a Sony sensor in a housing with awful handling and quirky issues that get in the way of how I shoot.

I've been a commercial photographer for some time now and have used extensively Nikon, canon, leaf, and hasselblad. Trust me Nikon and canon make great professional dslr cameras with much to recommend them.

I prefer the Sony a7rii, and yes, size does matter. When I'm in the studio, not so much, but on location, the smaller lighter kit we carry using Sony is a big help.

I am hoping Sony and Sony users want to keep it small.

The greatest advantage of the A7 series is flexibility depending which type / brand of lens you select.  If you want small and discreet you have this option with Sony.  If you want the best possible IQ with bokeh and autofocus, and you don't mind bigger size, you also have this option with Sony.  If you want auto eye focus you have this option with Sony.  If you want better video with 4K you also have this choice with Sony.  The only advantage I see to Canikon is professional sports shooting, as there is still a bit of an autofocus and FPS advantage there. 

It seems to me that A7 enthusiasts, so excited about the new GM lenses, may be discounting one of the most important advantages and advances of the A7 system, this being its compact size and weight. These new GM lenses, and even, to a certain extent, the batis line, are big heavy lenses that cancel much of the advantage of the A7 system.

I am hoping for more lenses like the wonderful loxias, that are great performers, as well as being compact.

For many the lack of auto focus eliminates the loxias as viable alternatives, but I find focusing with them easier and more accurate than with my batis 85mm autofocus.

I hope that Zeiss and Sony continue to develop these wonderful compact lenses and do not turn the small and powerful A7 series into a large unbalanced dslr like behemoth.

And as far as bokeh goes, unless one is shooting wide open it makes little difference. Frankly I believe that the present fascination with bokeh is a bit overblown!

 

What do you think?

 

No, you are the one "discounting one of the most important advantages and advances of the A7 system" and that is modularity. 

What other FF system can let me build down to compact & light than build up bigger & firm?

I can go from grip-less A7 with 35mm 2.8 and now gripped with 70-200 2.8

 

Other A7 features that aren't crippled or on DSLRs: EVF (with no ISO penalty), EFCS (not only in mirror lock-up mode), same viewfinder/liveview AF speed, and eye AF tracking.

 

Edit: JimmyD beat me to it.

I'm starting to wonder if there is anyone out there, other than me, that believes that the small size of the Sony a7 cameras is an important part of its design.

Obviously it was initially very important to Sony or they would not have gotten rid of the mirror.

I'm starting to wonder if there is anyone out there, other than me, that believes that the small size of the Sony a7 cameras is an important part of its design.

Obviously it was initially very important to Sony or they would not have gotten rid of the mirror.

 

I don't understand you.

It's already small for FF so it shows that was an important part. Any smaller is diminishing returns with negative effects like taking out the IBIS, smaller battery compartment, etc.

Sure, getting rid of the mirror can make it easier to reduce body size but it's not a magic pill that bends lens physics out of this world as you can see with the 1.4 primes/2.8 zooms.

The real benefit to no mirror is the ability to do the other features I've already mentioned. Add in on sensor AF (fine tune not needed).

There are also wonderful rangefinderlenses with Leica M mount that work very good with A7

They are amazing small and with outstanding IQ and ergonomics.

Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1.5 Asperical, Ultron 35mm 1.7, Summilux/Summicron 35mm + 50mm + 90mm,  and other rangefinderlenses.

These cameras are many different things to many different people.

 

The A7 series camera bodies are just the same size and weight as they were before the new lenses were announced!

 

For those who have the camera for size reasons and want to stay with more compact lenses then there are good options such as the 35mm f2.8, 55mm f1.8, f4 zooms, Loxia lenses and some adapted lenses.

 

For those who have the camera for other reasons (for instance the great A7Rii sensor, or A7S low light performance or IBIS) and don't mind about size then these larger lenses might be just right.

 

I think that many people have needs which vary from day to day, sometimes they will want to travel light, sometimes carry a lot of lenses with them, sometimes a particular lens for a particular purpose.

 

In order to appeal to all different people Sony needs to bring a variety of lenses for a variety of purposes as they build up the E mount system. I see each lens launch as a very positive sign for the camera system I have invested in, even if the particular lens is not one that I want.

I'm starting to wonder if there is anyone out there, other than me, that believes that the small size of the Sony a7 cameras is an important part of its design.

Obviously it was initially very important to Sony or they would not have gotten rid of the mirror.

 

 

IMHO, size has nothing to do with it, Sony saw a convergence between stills and video, everything else follows from that.

 

The A7 is the size it is, great for Loxia, ok for Batis too, starts to be too small for bigger lenses. Pentax K-1, using same sensor family, has a nice larger design ... at least Sony can copy that with an A9 and forget about the endless miniaturization for a short while.    

It is fascinating how the subject of size keeps coming up and how the arguments whirl around, often completely missing the target!

 

First, size (and equally weight) are personal preferences and no arguing, one way or another, can make an individual's choice wrong.

I love the A7 for being smaller and lighter, but I loved the A99 too; I just don't want the heft now. That's my choice for my reasons and it is, by definition, 100% correct.

Yes, the performance varies from area to area, but I accept the losses and gains. There is no need for me to try to 'convert' anyone, but I'll happily explain, if asked.

 

However, this brings me to the one curious aspect of the whole 'debate', which I just don't get.

 

Time and again we see the A7 criticised for being 'too small and fiddly', with poor ergonomics. Yet we look back not so long ago and what do we find? The widely praised and venerated Olympus OM1, the Pentax ME, the Canon A1, and Nikon F3! All of these very similar in dimensions to the A7, but I don't recall any howls of protest back in the days when they ruled as the cameras to own.

 

Clearly, though, there is now a perception of what a camera should be which is coloured by the modern icons of photography, namely the Canon 1D series, and the Nikon D series. Big, purposeful, and superb machines.

That doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, though!

I consider the Sony A7 cameras part of an open photographic system that can be anything, as small and compact as no other FF camera and on the other hand capable to cover a wide range of photographic requirements. It all depends on what lenses you use and what your preferences are.

Until 2013 I travelled with a Nikon system consisting of a D800E, five Zeiss ZF primes and two Nikkor zooms. The weight of my big backpack was nearly 9kg not counting the accessories in the luggage. What a hassle that was with all the weight restrictions when flying, with security, customs, space in the cabin, etc.

Today, my traveling kit consists of a Voigtländer 15mm V3, a Loxia 2.8/21, a Loxia 2/35, a FE Sonnar 1.8/55, the FE 4/70-200 and the A7RM2. And then there is the tiny collapsible Voigtländer Heliar 2.8/40 with the C/V close focus adapter. With a total weight of 4.5 kg in a smaller backpack I carry now half the weight I used to do three years ago.

Hopefully, Sony and Zeiss and Cosina/Voigtländer will continue to build premium lenses with a small form factor (unlike the Batis lenses) with a native mount. The G Master lenses are certainly excellent lenses, but they are not for me.

 

 

Time and again we see the A7 criticised for being 'too small and fiddly', with poor ergonomics. Yet we look back not so long ago and what do we find? The widely praised and venerated Olympus OM1, the Pentax ME, the Canon A1, and Nikon F3! All of these very similar in dimensions to the A7, but I don't recall any howls of protest back in the days when they ruled as the cameras to own.

 

 

 

A7 is a FF camera which uses FF lenses and has a FF price, thus it is judged accordingly, and comes up short in areas it should not. That is my take FWIW.

 

For Sony this is consumer electronics, its very important that all their tech is visible, via a menu, so that sales staff can demonstrate that functionalty. Its the same with every product from Sony, and Japan in general. With this mentality its unlikely that Sony will _ever_ do something intelligent with their cameras; case in point, IBIS can sense movement and stabilize an image with remarkable precision, so much precision that the Camera _must_ know when it is mounted on a tripod, but you still have to turn IBIS Off via a menu before using a tripod.

 

Would be nice if Zeiss/Contax designed a camera based on the A7 Platform, a rebadge of the electronics, and a re-engineer of the ergonomics. Or soon enough there will be an A9 to take care of things ... or a K-1 with e-mount    

These cameras are many different things to many different people.

 

The A7 series camera bodies are just the same size and weight as they were before the new lenses were announced!

 

For those who have the camera for size reasons and want to stay with more compact lenses then there are good options such as the 35mm f2.8, 55mm f1.8, f4 zooms, Loxia lenses and some adapted lenses.

 

For those who have the camera for other reasons (for instance the great A7Rii sensor, or A7S low light performance or IBIS) and don't mind about size then these larger lenses might be just right.

 

I think that many people have needs which vary from day to day, sometimes they will want to travel light, sometimes carry a lot of lenses with them, sometimes a particular lens for a particular purpose.

 

In order to appeal to all different people Sony needs to bring a variety of lenses for a variety of purposes as they build up the E mount system. I see each lens launch as a very positive sign for the camera system I have invested in, even if the particular lens is not one that I want.

 

 

The A7 system works on so many levels for me.  I decided to get rid of my Canon 70D with battery grip and 24-70 f2.8 L lens after carrying it around for two weeks in Italy last year.  For travel, you just can't beat the A7 ii with just two lenses: Sony 35 f2.8 and Sony 55 f1.8.  If I go back to Yosemite, Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon, I'll certainly take the Zeiss Batis 25 and 85.  But the smaller lighter kit lens will be great in Ireland this summer. It is great to have the fast autofocus and bokeh of the Batis 85 when trying to capture the fast grand baby.

A7 is a FF camera which uses FF lenses and has a FF price, thus it is judged accordingly, and comes up short in areas it should not.

 

You are, according to this, assessing the camera for its performance relative to its price, when the point I made referred to ergonomics. I think this is where the argument moves off at a tangent and isn't anything to do with size at all.

 

Even within your own criteria, I'm not sure that I'd agree, though. As far as I'm concerned, the primary 'area' for such a camera is the quality of the output and the A7 matches, or supersedes, almost all of the contemporaries.

As to specifics that it can be argued are related to the size, they are very subjective, even if they do 'fall short'. Battery life is often quoted and I have never had the remotest trouble on that score, so any difference is completely meaningless.

 

If you were to find that battery life is the single most important specification, however, I would understand you not finding the A7 suitable, but that does not make it any more a valid argument relating to the size with regard to other users.

For me, coming from Olympus (film) OM and Leica M cameras, the small size of the A7 is important - also, but importantly, with respect to how the camera size affects my subjects when I shoot portraits. I think they feel more at ease when confronted with a small camera, than would be the case if I used a large SLR.

 

https://500px.com/nix-pix/galleries/portraits

I've been a commercial photographer for some time now and have used extensively Nikon, canon, leaf, and hasselblad. Trust me Nikon and canon make great professional dslr cameras with much to recommend them.

I prefer the Sony a7rii, and yes, size does matter. When I'm in the studio, not so much, but on location, the smaller lighter kit we carry using Sony is a big help.

I am hoping Sony and Sony users want to keep it small.

 

I think their are two problems:

1. Sony's lens designers are good but they aren't the BEST especially with zooms. At this point it seems like Sigma has the best designers right now. Not only are their lenses stellar but they are carefully engineered to be easy to manufacturer and have decent QC (check out Roger at LensRentals blog)
2. Sony's first FE zooms had compactness as a priority (especially the 24-70mm) and they've been absolutely vilified for giving up any optical quality.

Perhaps if Sony had had the best designers with all the resources they could have come up with slightly better f4.0 zooms but I think with the GMs Sony knew they were never going to be small by any stretch and so they said, "screw it. You users want fast zooms? You care the most about corner sharpness? Fine. Size is our last priority for this set!"

 

Ergo, giant optically excellent zoom lenses.