Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Watch at 21:30 minutes on his latest video, he believes that a

number of systems are dead: Nikon 1, Samsung NX, Canon

EOS M and A-mount.

  

@ Tony N.

 

TYCO

 

  

Acoarst I very much agree with his vision. I just

can't see where it takes a 3/4 hr of video to say

the obvious. I guess if you have a podcast to fill

you hafta fill it ... like the 24 hr News Cycle trap.

 

 

 * "Thank you, Captain Obvious"    

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if Sony can come out and tell us whether they plan to continue with the A mount, after being a long time user of Minolta and Sony equipment and with  heavy investment over the years  it is prompting me to consider whether I switch to another brand in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all: I don´t like the posts by Tony Northrup actually.

But I agree with him that the future of the Sony system is not the A-mount.

My conclusion is to sell most of my  A-mount gear in the last months.

My passion, photography, I find it much easier now!

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's always going to be a reason for

the longer flange distances of DSLRs, .........

  

I'm having trouble imagining some reason. Other than

SLRs, cameras used whatever flange distance was

suitable to the FL of lens designs that were in general

use. Only that moving SLR mirror needed extended

flange distances for FLs that fall short of about 1.4X

the format diagonal [varies a bit for really fast lenses]. 

  

The SLR was, for a long time, the only hand held type

of camera that offered a viewing image direct from the

main lens rather than thru a separate viewing system.

This has advantages as to viewfinder parallax, closer

focusing, astro and micro photography, and the use of

long telephotos [anything really longer than "portrait

tele"]. It also allows DoF preview. 

  

All those advantages required a moving mirror, which

always brought disadvantages like design complexity,

noise, image black-out, release lag, dimmer viewing,

difficulty focusing wide angle lenses, vibration etc etc.

 

To get rid of that mirror mechanism, while keeping the

advantages of viewing thru the main lens, was long a

holy grail. And now we have that grail for our use. So

who needs a moving mirror any more ... and therefore

who needs a deep flange distance any more. 

  

The mirror was such a problem than when it was finally

banished, the new camera genre was named for that

very accomplishment, the banishing of the mirror, IOW

the "Mirrorless Camera". It's stupid name. It does not

relate to what the camera incorporates, like the names

"Rangefinder", "Twin Lens" etc did. It's named for what's

NOT incorporated ... that nasty mirror ! Properly named,

the latest genre is a "Live View" camera. There always

were many types of "mirrorless camera" before and

during the reign of the SLR [and TLR]. But there was

never a "Live View" still camera until recently.

 

The "Live View"/Mirrorless camera is the direct upgrade

of the SLR, just as the SLR was to the TLR. The SLR's

disadvantages kept the TLR in production for decades.

 

I don't believe the Live View camera's disadvantages will

will do likewise for the SLR. Technology moves so much

faster now. The last remaining disadvantages of the Live

View genre [vs the SLR] are evaporating as we watch.

The biggest one is battery life. Due to non-photographic

needs of our civilization, battery technology is among the

hottest R&D scenes around. So thaz soon a non-issue. 

  

I was there when SLRs first became suitable for general

and near universal photographic needs. And I've used

SLRs [but not exclusively SLRs] throughout their entire

reign ... to make my living. So I believe I'm in a position

of clarity to observe when the next reign begins. It has

already begun. The SLR genre is a lame duck. "The King

is dead. Long live the King". Altho, given today's pace of

technology, the "Long Live" part is questionable. Tony N.

clearly states that as well. Let's just hope the newest king

simply Lives Well ... however briefly that may be ... and

that he abdicates gracefully, without any great gnashing

of teeth, chaos, or bloodshed !  

   

OK. That was a looong post. But I think it said far more in

far less time than Captain Obvious said in that long video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone wants to create uncertainty in the market to grab cheap A-Mount lenses by scaring people from the mount.

 

I have and use both A and E-Mounts and let me tell you my E-Mount cameras are almost only to use older legacy glass since all my attempts with AF lenses ( All Sony: FE 28 F2, FE35 F2.8, FE55 F1.8 FE90 Macro, FE 24-70 F4, 24-240 , FE 28-70) make me think that this is not ready for action shots like A-Mount is.

 

For candid shots where speed is of importance to get the shot, A-Mount wins it for me because the E-Mount bodies and lenses all seem to have some lag or hesitation before taking the shot that just does not cut it.

 

Just my 2 cents

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that the design of mirrorless leads to slower focusing times, and it can probably attributed to the lowpass filter in front of it. When a DSLR/SLT deflects light to a separate focusing sensor, it's not filtered in any way, so it gets the all the extra light (ie, ultraviolet and infrared) that the sensor does not. You could, in theory, simply have a hotshoe LED video light that outputs only infrared/UV light in a good quantity then be able to focus in perfect darkness with a DSLR/SLT, while the mirrorless would only see visible light.

 

That might be the only weakness, other than the higher battery drain and lack of native lenses, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that the design of mirrorless leads to slower focusing times,

and it can probably attributed to the lowpass filter in front of it. When a

DSLR/SLT deflects light to a separate focusing sensor, it's not filtered

in any way, so it gets the all the extra light (ie, ultraviolet and infrared)

that the sensor does not. ..........

  

I think that's true of an SLT, cuz the AF system sees what is

bounced to it by the front surface, the silvered surface, of the

SLT mirror. But OTOH the overall quantity is reduced cuz 2/3

of incoming light never reaches the AF system, cuz that 2/3

is passed thru to serve the live view nature of SLT cameras.

 

With an actual SLR, the light headed for the AF system goes

thru a semi-silvered portion of the main SLR viewing mirror to

a secondary mirror that redirects it down to the AF unit. IIRC,

a semi-silvered mirror tends to act as a "cold mirror", which

reduces or eliminates reddish and IR wavelengths. Plus you

still have your light transmission loss where the semi-silvered

area of the main mirror passes some light to the secondary,

but reflects the majority of light to the focusing-viewing screen. 

  

Granted the SLR's AF system, despite those losses, might be

seeing a greater quantity of useful light than what reaches any  

live view sensor. My point is that the difference is smaller than

suggested in your post, and therefor well within reach of being

fully compensated by minor improvements in sensor-based AF

in the very near future, maybe a similar technology to Canon's  

"Dual Pixel" sensor in the 70D.

  

I'm not sure why passing more IR and UV to an AF sensor is

any benefit. Lenses are designed to bring all the wavelengths

of visible light to a common focus. UV and IR are not included,

so focusing by those wavelengths is not going to put a lens in

accurate focus. Lenses with a focusing scale have an alternate

witness mark [the red one] by which the user can compensate

for the lens's IR focus error. That error necessitates refocusing

a lens for IR imaging after it's been focused using visible light.

IOW, a loss of IR and UV to the AF system of a live view is not

especially important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone wants to create uncertainty in the market to grab cheap A-Mount lenses by scaring people from the mount.

 

I have and use both A and E-Mounts and let me tell you my E-Mount cameras are almost only to use older legacy glass since all my attempts with AF lenses ( All Sony: FE 28 F2, FE35 F2.8, FE55 F1.8 FE90 Macro, FE 24-70 F4, 24-240 , FE 28-70) make me think that this is not ready for action shots like A-Mount is.

 

For candid shots where speed is of importance to get the shot, A-Mount wins it for me because the E-Mount bodies and lenses all seem to have some lag or hesitation before taking the shot that just does not cut it.

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Wow this is a very conspiratorial statement, it's high unlikely someone is stating the obvious trying to scar off A-mount user to sell cheaply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this is a very conspiratorial statement, it's high unlikely

someone is stating the obvious trying to scar off A-mount user

to sell cheaply.

  

+1.  

  

But given "the obvious", should there be such a person

who's scooping up A-mount lenses at "panic sell" prices,

he gets what he deserves when the market value of his

"treasure" soon falls to even less than whatever he paid.

 

You don't buy investments based on how cheaply they

can be bought. You buy investments based on which

direction the price is trending: up=buy, down=ignore.

 

If a hypothetical conspirator buys stuff on the way down,

cuz he drove it down, then maybe price will rise again

when he ceases driving it down. But no conspirator is

driving down the value of A-mount lenses, so there's no

expectation for a recovery, only for a further fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this is a very conspiratorial statement, it's high unlikely someone is stating the obvious trying to scare off A-mount user to sell cheaply.

 

True.  It's highly unlikely anyone is doing that, because there is no need for anyone to do that.  It's happening all by itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm having trouble imagining some reason. Other than 

SLRs, cameras used whatever flange distance was

suitable to the FL of lens designs that were in general

use. Only that moving SLR mirror needed extended

flange distances for FLs that fall short of about 1.4X

the format diagonal [varies a bit for really fast lenses]. 

  

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

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

GOLEM,


 


I TOTALLY AGREE with you. I've been involved with photography since the early seventies, having used several cameras like Zeiss, 


Leica, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji, etc, but mostly Minolta and Sony in the last 25 years. My last DSLR was a Sony A99. 


Now I only use mirrorless ( Sony A7II, Sony A6000 ) and sold most of my "A"mount lens collection (Sigma/Tamron/Minolta/Sony) - kept


a few which I use with an LA-EA3 adapter. I also kept some MF lenses - Minolta Rokkor, Nikon, Fuji, Rokinon, Contax, Voigtlander - which I always enjoyed!


 


I NEVER LOOKED BACK!!


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm having trouble imagining some reason. Other than

SLRs, cameras used whatever flange distance was

suitable to the FL of lens designs that were in general

use. Only that moving SLR mirror needed extended

flange distances for FLs that fall short of about 1.4X

the format diagonal [varies a bit for really fast lenses]. 

  

The SLR was, for a long time, the only hand held type

of camera that offered a viewing image direct from the

main lens rather than thru a separate viewing system.

This has advantages as to viewfinder parallax, closer

focusing, astro and micro photography, and the use of

long telephotos [anything really longer than "portrait

tele"]. It also allows DoF preview. 

  

All those advantages required a moving mirror, which

always brought disadvantages like design complexity,

noise, image black-out, release lag, dimmer viewing,

difficulty focusing wide angle lenses, vibration etc etc.

 

To get rid of that mirror mechanism, while keeping the

advantages of viewing thru the main lens, was long a

holy grail. And now we have that grail for our use. So

who needs a moving mirror any more ... and therefore

who needs a deep flange distance any more. 

  

The mirror was such a problem than when it was finally

banished, the new camera genre was named for that

very accomplishment, the banishing of the mirror, IOW

the "Mirrorless Camera". It's stupid name. It does not

relate to what the camera incorporates, like the names

"Rangefinder", "Twin Lens" etc did. It's named for what's

NOT incorporated ... that nasty mirror ! Properly named,

the latest genre is a "Live View" camera. There always

were many types of "mirrorless camera" before and

during the reign of the SLR [and TLR]. But there was

never a "Live View" still camera until recently.

 

The "Live View"/Mirrorless camera is the direct upgrade

of the SLR, just as the SLR was to the TLR. The SLR's

disadvantages kept the TLR in production for decades.

 

I don't believe the Live View camera's disadvantages will

will do likewise for the SLR. Technology moves so much

faster now. The last remaining disadvantages of the Live

View genre [vs the SLR] are evaporating as we watch.

The biggest one is battery life. Due to non-photographic

needs of our civilization, battery technology is among the

hottest R&D scenes around. So thaz soon a non-issue. 

  

I was there when SLRs first became suitable for general

and near universal photographic needs. And I've used

SLRs [but not exclusively SLRs] throughout their entire

reign ... to make my living. So I believe I'm in a position

of clarity to observe when the next reign begins. It has

already begun. The SLR genre is a lame duck. "The King

is dead. Long live the King". Altho, given today's pace of

technology, the "Long Live" part is questionable. Tony N.

clearly states that as well. Let's just hope the newest king

simply Lives Well ... however briefly that may be ... and

that he abdicates gracefully, without any great gnashing

of teeth, chaos, or bloodshed !  

   

OK. That was a looong post. But I think it said far more in

far less time than Captain Obvious said in that long video.

 

Yes you made great points, and I like Capt. Obvious, he and Chelsea make me laugh . .  I find it entertaining . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

I don't know. Sony is getting tangled up again. They are releasing unfinished products at increasingly inflated prices. They absolutely have the engineering capability to dominate photography. But they are always let down by erratic management. Canon and Nikon may be less exciting but they are stable and sensible, so I think the will win out in the end.

 

There's been mirrorless compact cameras for 30-40 years, but the SLR format always came out on top. It will take a lot more than a few moderately successful cameras to change that.

 

I am an exclusive Sony shooter today, but I'll drop them at a second's notice if they lose the plot completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...........   

There's been mirrorless compact cameras for 30-40 years, but t

he SLR format always came out on top. It will take a lot more than

a few moderately successful cameras to change that.

 

..........

  

There's been mirrorless compact cameras for more than

100 years. But the reign of the SLR ran approximately the

"30-40 years" that you mention [really 50 yrs by my count].

Therefor I sorta see what you mean, that all during the era

of legitimate SLR Supremacy, all during that 30, 40, or 50

years, none of the available mirrorless compacts could

dethrone the SLR ... not even the Leica.

  

But none of those mirrorless compact was intended to do

that. A Canonett, Minox35, Leica, etc etc was never meant

to do that. They were all meant to coexist, serving the niche

market needs and for family vacation pix.

  

I agree with your words that  "It will take a lot more than a

few moderately successful cameras" to displace the SLR.

But that "more" is in the process of happening, and I see it

as inevitable. I saw my heavy duty Nikon SLRs as enduring

workhorses ... and was not mistaken. "Enduring" doesn't

hafta mean "forever". Four decades qualifies as "enduring" !

  

No way can I see any digital SLR as enduring. They aren't

intended to be, and [thankfully] are not marketed as being

such. But they are the rulers of an empire in decline, and

live view cameras are not the barbarians at the gates. The

whole situation is evolving. SLRs are finished. Live view is

a holding action. Image recording is no longer a specialty.

Persons whose identity is tangled up with being a specialist

are the final market for "imaging systems". Their function is

already diffused into the practices of other practitioners. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

I was talking about mirrorless cameras with autofocus and exposure metering, ie cameras that do the same thing as SLRs.

 

sLRs coincide with the explosion in camera sales. That tells me something about the viability of the format.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a scientific standpoint, mirrors are something primitive. I can't imagine this is the future. Live view and electronic viewfinder is a much more modern technology. That doesn't say Sony wins. Maybe there is coming a revolutionary new thing. Quantum sensors (whatever that maybe), flat time replicator or anything like that. Future has just begun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about mirrorless cameras with autofocus and

exposure metering, ie cameras that do the same thing as SLRs.

 

sLRs coincide with the explosion in camera sales. That tells me

something about the viability of the format.

  

AF and AE compacts, right, I see what you mean.

OTOH, the non-AE non-AF compacts coexisted

with the SLRs of the non-AE non-AF era. SLRs

were not always automatons. 

  

Having been right there when it happened, I was

witness to how [your own words] "sLRs coincide

with the explosion in camera sales." That is very

true and "coincide" is very accurate.

  

I could get really focused and say "sLRs coincide" 

is too broad a statement. "Canon AE-1 Coincides"

is deadly accurate. It was the first SLR marketed

on TV as a consumer commodity, and that worked.

The AE-1 did for the SLR market what AOL did for

consumer level use of the internet ... positively and

negatively.    

     

The AE-1 TV ad campaign natcherly boosted new

interest in SLRs of all brands, not just Canons. But

initially, the AE-1 was more automated and thus it's

more consumer friendly, until all the others quickly

caught on and caught up.

  

    

#####################################  

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

 

   

Historical stuff to be skipped by the easily bored :-)  

  

Back to "Coincide". Something else coincided with

the start of the AE-1 era. Zoom lenses had evolved

from miserable clunky devices to very handy lenses

with decent IQ, just prior to the launch of the AE-1. 

  

Sales of the newer zooms to pre-AE-1 SLR users

grew steadily, but not explosively. Then came the

AE-1 sales boom. Zoom sales began to explode in

a strange reversal. Pre-AE-1, the SLR users were

beginning to acquire zooms for their existing SLRs.

Comes the AE-1, non-SLR-users began acquiring

SLRs in order to use these new zoom lenses. The

zoom was driving camera sales, reversing the old

paradigm of camera sales driving [later] lens sales. 

    

   

##################################### 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  

  

It gets more than knee-deep here. If you read

more, please don't say you weren't warned ;-)

  

Typical AE-1 prospective buyer handling the demo

AE-1 in the shop looks at it like an alien device, then

peers thru the eyepiece and 50/1.8 and asks "Will it

take a zoom lens ?" This is not exageration at all.

 

There really was no SLR-driven explosion in camera

sales. That explosion does not foretell "something

about the viability of the [sLR] format." What really

happened was a Zoom-driven explosion in camera

sales, and that explosion DOES foretell "something

about the viability of " .... not the SLR but the zoom

lens. As we enter the post SLR era, the zoom lens is

not merely viable, it is the default. Primes are seen as

specialized alternatives to the defualt optic, the zoom.  

   

The viable component of the Zoom-plus-SLR camera

sales explosion is not the SLR but the zoom lens, cuz

it was the explosive fuel, not the SLR format. Users of

handy little rangefinder compacts [Himatics, Canonets,

etc] were not excited about toting a much larger and

more expensive vacations-and-birthdays camera. All

that excited them, and justified the size and expense

of an SLR, was that Zoom Lens ! At the moment of

the Big Bang ... the AE-1 intro ... the SLR was a [long

term] holding action but the zoom lens was destined

for the reeeally long haul. The SLR holding action was

long term, but it's over. The zoom endures and grows.

We use them on our live view cameras as we abandon

the SLR, however fondly we may remember it [or not].

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zooms need more time to grow. Then nobody needs anymore a prime. I'm asking myself why there is no hybrid prime zoom. A 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 85mm lens, without the steps between for optimized Quality on this focal lengths. Funny to know it is possible or not.

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
×
×
  • Create New...