The game is about tho change

[david_smith110]

<p>Dieter, of course Nikon would have adapters available for their old F lenses with full functionality. If they were smart they would make those available for both the AF lenses and the older manual focus lenses. Why not have your new camera have backwards compatibility with the entire catalog of your old lenses? It only makes sense.</p>

<p>But only if you do it via adapters, and not by actually crippling your shiny new mirrorless camera with a permanently attached F mount. Now is the perfect time for Nikon (and Canon) to give serious thought to what type of system is going to take them thru the next half century of camera and lens design. The timing now could not be more perfect to update their product line with new technology which opens up new areas of technical possibilities.</p>

<p>Because I'm sorry, the F mount and the EOS system are due for an update. Sure, they work perfectly well right now and have the strength of being the status quo solidly behind them. But in 10 years? 20? 50? Do we honestly think the photographers of 50 years from now are going to be lugging around the new Canon L 24-70/2.8 MK VIII in the same old tired EOS mount?</p>

<p>This is going to be the single hardest thing for Canon and Nikon to overcome in their approach to serious mirrorless models. They have to understand that the mount that made their SLR's and DSLR's great will not be the same mount that makes their mirrorless cameras great. I mean, the plain fact is written right there in the name...SLR...Single Lens Reflex. Mirrorless cameras don't have that single lens reflex mirror, thus the name mirrorless. To design such a camera with more concern toward how it can serve your aging DSLR's instead of how it can better them and surpass them is simply folly.</p>

<p>I am sooooo looking forward to what Canon and Nikon finally bring to the table. They have so much opportunity to succeed and bring out something new and fresh and exciting. But I have this horrible little feeling in my gut that I'm going to be disappointed. I hope I'm wrong.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>If they were smart they would make those available for both the AF lenses and the older manual focus lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am sure they will for the manual focus ones. The screwdriver AF lenses will be more problematic - they will require an adapter with a built-in motor.</p>

<p>I am not so familiar with Canon - and hence have no idea why their EF-mount would need updating. Nikon's F-mount has its fair share of compatibility issues nowadays - but with AF-S E lenses, all communication is finally electronic. Naturally, if there is no mirror, there doesn't need to be clearance for one and the flange-to-sensor distance can be shrunk. Not too much though - or one encounters that issues Leica has with making their M-mount lenses work with digital sensors.</p>

<p>I don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of mirrorless vs DSLRs - for me, mirrorless isn't there yet - and has some major hurdles to overcome to make it.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<blockquote>

<p>Zeiss? The Sony-Zeiss lenses certainly don't measure up to Zeiss lenses. Nikon can produce competitive lenses without Zeiss.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes they do and Nikon hasn't. I have several of each, and Sony G, Sony/Zeiss and Zeiss are all first rate. The only Nikon lens that comes close in sharpness is the 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor, but the bokeh is not all that good. Nikon does okay in the 400 - 600 primes, but their shorter lenses and zooms are relics of another age."</p>

<p>Edward, Edward, that flies in the face of Ming Thein's experience with these lenses. Here's an excerpt from his remarks:</p>

<p><strong>Sony Zeiss FE ZA cobranded (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/sony_zeiss/Ntt/sony%2Bzeiss/N/0/kw/search/BI/19242/KBID/11109/DFF/d10-v1-t12" target="_blank">B&H</a> <a href="http://amzn.to/1kihypu" target="_blank">Amazon</a>)</strong><br /><em>2.8/35, 1.4/35, 1.8/55, 4/16-35, 4/24-70, many others for DX and A mount via adaptors. Pick of the bunch: 1.8/55</em><br />These are native mount, offer full functionality and the best value for money. They are made by Sony and not QC’d by Zeiss as per the other lenses; this means there is some significant sample variation possible. The 1.8/55 <em>can </em> be very impressive if you get a good copy; I’ve had to test six to find one though. Other lenses have significant field curvature/focus shift (the 2.8/35 for example) or are average (4/16-35). The 4/24-70 is a real mediocre disappointment and it’s a wonder that Zeiss ever agreed to have their name on this thing at all. I am not considering the SLR A mount lenses here because they are very expensive, clunky in operation via the various adaptors, and will really only work on Sony cameras – IMHO, not worth the investment given the recent confusion (by their own local principals, no less) over whether Sony was discontinuing the Alpha mount. Needless to say, it does not really inspire much confidence. But that might mean some used market bargains to be had…"<br>

<br>

He had to try 6 samples to get a good one? Clearly that is NOT up to Zeiss standards. If you want to see the entire article try this link.<br>

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/11/15/zeiss-lenses-for-sony-fe/</p>

<p>I think you're are being blinded by your Sony loyalty. </p>

[andylynn]

Ming doesn't like those lenses much, but the great majority of people who have written about them do. Particularly the two

35mm and the 55, and also the non-Zeiss 28. Sony, M43 and Fuji are already out ahead with their lens lineups -

Panasonic and Olympus have had several winners lately and Fuji doesn't waste time on bad lenses - so Nikon has some

catch up to do if their plan is to make it big in mirrorless.

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>I think you're are being blinded by your Sony loyalty.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ming Thein is one reviewer among many, with his own preferences and extraordinary sense of self-importance. In terms of objectivity, I see little to differentiate Ming Thein from Ken Rockwell. It's my money, and I think I've made the right choices.</p>

<p>If you choose to kneel at the altar of one reviewer, okay. Otherwise do your homework, or better yet, see for yourself.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>"If you choose to kneel at the altar of one reviewer, okay. Otherwise do your homework..."<br>

<br>

How 'bout Thom Hogan then? </p>

<p>"</p>

<ul>

<li>Worst Lenses. As time passed, I had to change my answer here: pretty much everyone is making good to excellent lenses, though Sony still probably has more weaker ones than the rest of the players. The real issue here is <em>quantity</em> of lenses. m4/3 wins hands down, while everyone else is still playing catch up. "</li>

</ul>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> 'm4/3 wins hands down, while everyone else is still playing catch up'</p>

<p>They make some nice lenses as do all manufactures in todays world. But that little sensor. Hmm.Fuji are the kings of lenses...easily. Thom Hogan is a Leica man and the quality of Fuji lenses are a challenge to Leica as are their cams. Personally I think Leica is still out in front(so they should with their prices) but Fuji is slowly but surely closing the gap. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The customer for the Olympus/Panasonic µ43 and the customer for the Sony mirrorless are totally different customers.<br /><br />I'd never consider the Sony. I don't blow up stuff huge, don't want anything big to carry around (or I would have kept my Nikon) and I don't want to use every conceivable brand of lens on my camera (although, obviously, I could and do use one Nikkor).<br /><br />But Thom is not the only one who is saying that Sony has a lot of weaker lenses either.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A thread about the possibility of a major Nikon entry into the mirrorless ILC field proved to be an irresistible platform for bashing Sony. Oh well, it's a slow football weekend.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan's article, quoted above, was written on 5/4/2015. To date, he has not reviewed the A7ii, much less the A7Rii and A7Sii, which are far advanced from the first versions. Furthermore, Sony or Zeiss have introduced at least four new lenses since that review, the 90/2.8 Macro, Zeiss Batis 25/2 and 85/8 and Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8. There may be others, but these lenses are as good as anything else on the market. At the time of Hogan's review, the Loxia 35/2 and 50/2 had been available since December, 2014. These, along with the Sony 55/1.8, 35/2.8, 28/2, 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 are also highly regarded (except to those who think f/2.8 is a minimum requirement for zoom lenses). Only the 24-70/4 seems to be held in low regard, except that it outperforms my Nikon 28-70/2.8 by a considerable margin, especially in the corners. There are also several consumer level Sony lenses hardly worth mention, a situation shared by Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>While Thom Hogan is well regarded and, from what I've seen, objective, he is definitely a day late and a dollar short on keeping up with developments at Sony. In all fairness, keeping up with Sony would be a challenge for anyone.</p>

<p>I'm curious about the trouble Ming Thein cites regarding the quality of Sony's 55/1.8. I suspect that trial samples sent to verious photographers in rotation get battered a bit, and may represent early production or prototypes. He is the only one that I've seen to kiss six frogs before finding a prince. The 55/1.8 stands near the top of the DXOMark list, regardless of any manufacturer.</p>

<p>Returning to the actual topic of this thread, I think Nikon has a lot to offer in the MILC world. They have a well developed service organization, an excellent reputation for bulletproof professional cameras, and an enormous range of lenses which have a more uniform appearance than Sony's mixed lineup (that must be important).</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>One should worry less about what others say about lenses, and more about what is coming out of one's own lenses.</p>

<p>In other words, reviewers are just people...like me an you. Plenty of them prefer one system to another and will downplay rivals if they can. I mean, they are just people right.</p>

<p>What comes out of your OWN camera is much more important then what comes out of somebody else's mouth, or keyboard.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"What comes out of your OWN camera is much more important then what comes out of somebody else's mouth, or keyboard".</p>

<p>Indeed. David , where are those very fine photographs which you added to your posts. Feel a loss and I strongly suspect as do others.</p>

[Carl Stone]

Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it

did not fare well in that endeavor. Nobody is looking no bash Sony, in spite of your claim, but, a dose of reality is definitely

called for.

[david_smith110]

<blockquote>

<p>Indeed. David , where are those very fine photographs which you added to your posts. Feel a loss and I strongly suspect as do others.-</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You know Allen, I simply got away from adding them to each post. I fully intended to keep doing it since I have over 2000 photos up on flickr so there are plenty to choose from. I can easily add them again if you like. As long as I don't forget that is. :)</p>

<p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5772/22929738266_c479042d81_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[david_smith110]

<blockquote>

<p>Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it did not fare well in that endeavor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really, Carl...does it matter? Its been beat to death that the A7RII isn't the best at sports. Even though there <em>are</em> pro shooters using the camera for all kinds of photography, sports included. Yes, that's right, people are making money, memories and art with the A7RII and all the other Sonys. Myself included. And we are having a darn fun time doing it I can assure you. Whatever it is that Thom Hogan Rockwell Thien Kai Huff says about gear has no bearing on what <em>I can create with it. </em>I guaran-freaking-tee you that if you give me Thoms 'bad' lens I can go shoot some awesome shots with it.</p>

<p>How about this Carl. What are YOU shooting? And with what gear? What gear makes YOU get up at the butt crack of dawn to go get some keepers? What is it that inspires YOUR photographic passion? And while we are at it, please post up some examples of how all these subpar Sony lenses have let you down. I would love to see how Sony's crappy quality control and lack of lenses have prevented your creativity from flowing.</p>

<p><em><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3735/9088953589_8c986986d1_c.jpg" alt="" /></em></p>

[Carl Stone]

It was Edward who said that Hogan had no experience with recent Sony models, now wasn't it. We all know that Edward

knew better.

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it did not fare well in that endeavor. Nobody is looking no bash Sony, in spite of your claim, but, a dose of reality is definitely called for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The sidebar on Hogan's home page says that a review of the A7ii and A7Rii is forthcoming. No mention was made of the DPReview article, which appears to be a one-off experience regarding an highly specialized application.</p>

<p>The gist of the Hogan article you cited was that there were not as many lenses for the Sony as for Fuji. Several more lenses have been introduced since that article, dated 5/4/15. I'm not sure the count is as important as the quality. Not all lenses are the same. This is not to say that Fuji lenses are not as good. In fact I make no inferences in that regard whatsoever. However the Fuji is based on the APS-C sensor, which many people consider inferior to a full-sized sensor.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>I think you're are being blinded by your Sony loyalty.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You keep saying this. It would be more accurate to say "enlightened by my Sony experience." There is a lot of information available on the internet, but nothing is a substitute for first-hand knowledge. Add Hasselblad, Leica and Nikon to that list. My photos may not be the best, but at least I post a few. Join the party, Carl.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>If the Samsung-designed Nikon mock-up is any indication of what's likely to come, I'd say one thing to Nikon. Stick a viewfinder in it before you even think of bringing it to market. EVF, optical, I don't care. But with the sort of photography I do, which includes working in bright sun, a display is next to useless, especially if it doesn't articulate. And an EVF isn't a lot better because they tend to get dim in bright sun.</p>

[david_smith110]

<blockquote>

<p>It was Edward who said that Hogan had no experience with recent Sony models, now wasn't it. We all know that Edward knew better.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You can prevaricate all you want, but you still haven't answered my questions. I've been waiting.</p>

[Carl Stone]

Junior, you can wait 'till the cows come home, I don't answer to you. Get over yourself.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Caught Carl napping under a bridge ;)</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18138620-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

[Carl Stone]

Hmmm, personal attacks. One might think that you're desperate. Hogan used the A7Rii to shoot sports, then he reported

his findings for that use. This is known as a review, Edward, although it was limited in scope. He did this in early October

if this year, so it was recent. I only mention this because it was you that posted erroneous info about what he had said

and done.

 

 

You could do as David, and stomp your little foot, if that makes you feel better.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Carl,<br>

In eleven years, you've never posted a photo nor admitted to owning a piece of gear you've commented on. Who's acting childish now?</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Carl, I asked you serious questions about your photography in an effort to understand you better. Frankly your whole attitude toward this mirrorless thing is puzzling and I was seeking to clarify your meanings and intentions in a more productive way then just writing you off as a fanboy. I simply don't get your need to seemingly poop all over the idea that mirrorless cameras (Sonys especially) are a valid photographic tool and I was trying to discover some reasoning behind this.</p>

<p>I don't understand your angry retort about not owing me anything, or me stomping my foot. I thought this was an adult conversation we were having here, an exchange of ideas. This is a public forum where people come to discuss different points of view, in this case on photography. If you aren't comfortable discussing deeper elements of photography, yours mine or anyone's, then one might question your motives for being here if only to talk down one type of gear and talk up another.</p>

<p>But obviously you are extremely uncomfortable discussing <em>your</em> photography. My apologies for pushing you out of your comfort zone.</p>

<p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/607/21231360746_ffb213af4b_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[Carl Stone]

You are in error, yet again, Edward. Not that anything that I would post has any bearing on my comments in this thread.

Anyway, this has become boring, so you, David, and your hype can have it. Bye.