Our reader Jesse Lim raised an important aspect of the future A-mount strategy. And his “dream” could really become true in the near future:
I Have a Dream – Mirorless A Mount with on Sensor PDAF?
I know this might sound ridiculous or not economical realistic, or technically impractical, but as a long time FF A mount user who haven’t made the move to FE just yet, I always had this thought in my mind.
I was wondering will Sony ever consider making the next FF A mount body mirrorless with on sensor PDAF? If so, it will be great beause I don’t like the idea of adding a LA-EA4 between my lenses and the FE body since I have bad experience with the A77 and its SLT mirror.
Do educate me if I’m wrong because for the last few years, CDAF on mirrorless seems to be fast enough to compete with traditional phase detection AF (Well, at least for a portrait photographer’s pont of view). My OM-D EM-5 focus as fast or faster than my [shoplink 3028 ebay]A850[/shoplink] / [shoplink 36766 ebay]A300[/shoplink] and it is using only CDAF, of course m43 have a deeper DOF thus much more easy to focus. And the A6000’s4D Focus seems fast enough to fulfill many photographic challenges.
So, if FF E mount can achieve adequate AF performance with I don’t know CDAF? Why can’t A mount just be made the same way while be able to maintain legacy lenses mount without adapters and the beefy ergonomics I like because in my experience I tend to grip more harder on smaller bodies, which is not comfortable.
A Mount = Mirrors, Traditional Ergonomic, Bigger Battery,
E Mount = Mirroless, Compact Form Factor ?
The Mirror, it is still necessary? Flange Distance, Achilles Heel? T
he Paradox always kept me thinking… or maybe I’m just plain silly…
For 2 mount system with identical sensor size (Different in flange distance of course), what is the best strategy for Sony to differentiate both product rage while both series are getting more and more convergence in terms of IQ, feature and characteristic for each iteration of product release. Of course if the key factor is the flange distance which ultimately decides the ease, size and quality of the lens designed for both cases (I don’t know, longer flange distance is better or the shorter one for the long run? do let me know)
Imagine fitting the entire A7mk2 architecture inside a A99 body size, with less volume/size constrain to worry with, Sony can really go creative with A mount system with ample amount of card slots, ports, dials & knobs real estate, and maybe fitting in a bigger EVF, Display, bigger buffer memory, on-board storage and file manager, bigger heat sink for sensor thus 4K with 5-axis IBIS… I don’t know, creativity is the limit.
Anyways, just sharing my thoughts~ no biggy~ and cheers~
–
First posted on SonyAlphaForum.
[poll id=”228″]
278 Responses
Jesse, try the la-ae3 adapter and get back to us with your dream. Then you can get a sense how “fast” AF would be with existing lenses. A- mount with slow AF has no reason to exist.
Of course that’s true. The question is, shouldn’t fast ospdaf be possible with technological advancement?
I’ve used Nikon lenses on Nikon 1 cameras with a mirrorless adapter, and the AF remains fast. Very different system, small sensor, but it suggests it should be technologically possible.
The a6000 has proven that pretty fast on-sensor AF is possible with lenses made to work with it. It’s not as fast as the a77-2 AF, but it has potential. The current a-mount lenses use different AF drive mechanisms not suited to OSPDAF and if you are going to replace all of your lenses with theoretical Sony a-mount lenses optimized for mirrorless – well what would be the point when they already have a growing library of mirrorless lenses?
The only reason for a-mount bodies to exist in the mid to near-term future will be if they can deliver far higher performance in AF, processing, buffering, thermally, etc. Otherwise large-bodied e-mount cameras can be made with the same ergonomic fit and finish.
I agree with all that. The question is whether fast ospdaf can be made to work with legacy lenses, which Nikon has done with their 1 system. (All their AF-s g lenses can focus fast on Nikon 1).
You will never know what Sony will come up next~ Just keep our finger crossed~
Thee current A-Mount lenses use AF drive mechanisms not suited to Sony’s current state of OSPDAF, which is not made for operating lenses designed for PDAF, only to accelerate lenses designed for CDAF. The Olympus E-M1 with its (until now) unique Panasonic sensor design proves that an on-sensor PDAF is possible that does improve on every aspect of DSLR AF.
If they can achieve it on small sensor, I think why not on a FF sensor, unless it is a marketing strategy for Sony to sell both system
I know I will need a new body later on, with all the A mount lenses, I don’t wish to re-invest them all,espeially the Zeiss, not to mention I already have second system (OM-D) to take care of.
So there are only 2 choices, get a A99 or a A7 series with LAEA adapters. Maybe I have a bad experience with the SLT on the A77 before so LA-EA4 is a no go, Thus I was thinking of a LA-EA3 + A7 body solution. But from what I know without the SLT, AF sucks even with SSM driven lens.
This of course makes me wonder why can’t Sony makes an A mount while keeping the good ergonimics & battery life, dual cards with FE mirrorless architure~
IF A-mount cameras get rid of the semitransparent mirror,
it will focus as slow as using the LA-EA3 on A6000.
Sony has explain many time that, A-mount lens are not design for CDAF.
Although A6000 has many OSPDAF point, it still need CDAF for focus.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/20131122_623858.html
A77-2 has shown that fast AF is possible on A-mount, even if not as performant as A6000 AF, but still much faster and performant than any other DSLR on the market. Nikon and Canon are real old stuff compared to it.
AF faster and more performance than _any_ DSLR, by still not as performant as A6000? What are you talking about?
Is there any difference with SSM lenses?
Yes, Sony would need to make their on-sensor PDAF capable to drive A-Mount lenses without having to resort to CDAF – like the E-M1 Micro Four Thirds camera does with Four Thirds lenses.
Btw, A99 is only 50g heavier than an A7II with LA-EA4 adapter. It offers:
-Better articulated rear LCD
-An actual Remote control port
-Sync port
-Larger battery
-AF Range Limited
-Larger buffer (I actually have to check this)
-Faster AF
-More AF points
-Two card slots
-Much better balance with add-on flashes
-Much better hand grip
Meanwhile A7 series offer:
-Becoming smaller (only) if you use a few of the native lenses
-Adaptable to more 3rd party lenses than A99
That’s why we are waiting for A9 ).
I have nothing against A mount. But mirror is rudiment. Especially Sony’s semitransparent mirror. In terms of photos it is evil.
While I agree with most of the sentiment… Don’t forget a7/a7r/a7s also has superior ISO performance.
A sensor upgrade would make make them mostly equal.
And an FE body upgrade would make everything else equal.
The A7m2 is a new body with the best tech for E-mount and you’re already asking for an upgrade if the A99 had the same tech it would kick the E-mount butt!
I’m not asking for a new body. I’m just saying they could come up with a bigger FE body to fulfill the pro demands.
You already have a bigger body it’s called A-Mount!
So far FE body design philosophy have been sticking things to a RX1 body without actually thinking about the handling.
Not fully…. as the SLT mirror will always drain away some of the ISO performance. A sensor upgrade would narrow the gap,not erase it.
Especially in low light or bad lighting scenario, the SLT mirror seems to cause more IQ drop
Actually, IMHO, the only thing that Sony does URGENTLY need in order to avoid “escapes” from A-mount users to another brand is a fully NEW A-mount FF camera with some of the features from the A7 mkII, especially the low light performance.
Couldn’t agree more~ We need the new 5 Axis IBIS, the Super Steady Shots are very dated compared to my tiny OMD. That is one I would like to see~ And of course better ISO performance~=D
Mirrorles Alpha make no sense whatsoever. On sensor PDAF does not work well with lenses designed for standard phase detection system. You still need to keep A-mount flange distance; FE lenses are completely out for you. So you keep the bulkiness, lose AF advantage and cannot utilize FE lenses. That is a hell of a dream.
When done right, on-sensor PDAF does work perfectly well with lenses designed for phase detection AF; the Olympus E-M1 proves it. Other on-sensor PDAF implementations simply don’t have focusing those lenses in mind, they’re only there to accelerate contrast-detection AF with lenses designed for contrast-detection AF.
Bulkiness can be a handling advantage (my Olympus E-30 used to be significantly better to handle than even the grip-fitted E-M1 I’m using nowadays), and the A-Mount can always be provided through a built-in, removable adapter that turns the camera to E-Mount when removed.
No plausible counter-argument has yet been brought forth against mirrorless A-Mount.
I got lost at the part when you are suggesting a removable A-mount adapter to get E-mount beneath. Either I’m missing anything obvious or you are basically suggesting EF mount camera with optional A-mount adapter. That’s funny.
Bulkiness could be handy from time to time, but most often I would gladly get rid of this parameter on my a900. And you can be right about different implementations of PDAF – still we are only in Sony territory here and it is not comparable to date.
You’re right, basically it would be an E(F) mount camera with an (included, pre-mounted) A-Mount adapter. For sturdiness, though, I perhaps wouldn’t altogether rule out the option of a real A-Mount body with the same technology. As soon as Sony’s on-sensor PDAF technology was up to the task, there wouldn’t be any disadvantages left compared to SLT. Even if Sony’s technology might not be there, the Panasonic chip inside the E-M1 at least shows that it can be done, and that Sony should be able to do it, too, if they only want to, as the most important camera sensor manufacturer there is today.
What about the G2 lenses, for example SAL70300G2, SAL70400G2…). Those
make use of the higher interface speed of the A77mk2 and A99. It was
rumored the G2’s may be prepared for future mirrorless use. I know it’s just a rumor but I wouldnt’ just write it off.
If people have to change all their current A-mount lens to the new G2 SSM lens to get fast AF, do you think current A-mount users will still stay in Sony?
good point, my 300mm f2.8 is worth more than my two a99 bodies combined…
You’re right, it was a quickshot. Although I’d really like to know wether the rumor is true. 🙂
Since the day the first Nex camera came out I have been saying this, and I am still severly critisized every time I do.
In order to make this work an alternative to the current ospdaf system used by Sony woild need to be found.
Current system reguires too many small adjustments to be compatable with the slower motors used in slr and slt lenses. That is why current mirrorless lenses are desighned differrently and have stepper motors.
I do believe this can be done if Sony really wants to, and competitors are busily developing mirrorless alternatives that can work with the slower motors….Canon dual pixel for example.
Basically therfore you would be talking about an E mount camera with an A mount on it.
If this is achieved an laea5 and laea6 adapter can be made…laea5 would not have a mirror…and E mount would also be fully af compatable…via adapters ..with Canikon glass.
This would be great as any af lens will af on the Sony E mount.
Now of course the question Sony will need to decide is do they want to make an entire differrent camera system just to perpetuate the A mount, when the same can be achieved with a simple adapter.
No matter how I look at it it looks like as we aproach the time when all cameras will be mirrorless we will almost certainly also see the end of the A mount camera.
as long as the AF is as fast as in the a6000 (and as accurate as one would expect from a DSLT), I really don’t care about having a mirror or not… we are now all used (or forced?) to work with an EVF, so no difference there.
I would love to keep my A mount lenses and not being forced to use a LA-EA4 adapter. I do enjoy the ergonomics of DSLT bodies. I love the capabilities of my A7s but I hate the small body and the tiny buttons…
Same feeling here~ wouldn’t want to re-invest in FE lenses~
yep sony could do alot with a mount with a small bit of effort… a few of fe mount advantages would go away if sony made some effort with a mount
Kipon can make an adapter for micro 4/3 which supports VERY fast AF with on sensor points and Canon lenses. Sony couldn’t achieve this speed with any of their adapters and their own lenses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIFwXztcOzA
yeah thats right, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIFwXztcOzA
What if FE mount with modular grip? What if you can attach a99 grip on to FE camera?
I’ve shot manu so-called “lightning fast” on-sensor PDAF cameras, but they are not there yet. a99 destroys them for breakfast. Hope, that they will get the sensor tech running good…. Until this, I suffer 1/3 stops and have fast and reliable AF at fully opened aperture.
“a99 destroys them for breakfast”
It really doesn’t. There is nothing special about the A99 AF whatsoever – it’s essentially an average performing APS-C module from the A77. You would probably find the A6000 *eats* it for breakfast.
My experience is that most of the Sony A-mount cameras after Sony got rid of central double cross f/2.8 AF sensors were far from reliable. They were extremely susceptible to focus shift with wide aperture primes, usually resulting in back focus issues.
The A99 is a great camera, but let’s not pretend it is some kind of AF monster.
I agree, that its an average PDAF array in a99, but this dedicated array still operates much better than for example a7 on-sensor PDAF, combined with its AF method. I shoot abt 60000 photos in low light, f2.8-3.2, using mostly 300mm G f2.8 prime tele and 70-200 f2.8 GII. I really get very few AF errors. I believe, that un-interrupted PDAF with dedicated PD array has it’s advantages, even if it’s leaving behind d1x or f4 arrays.
I agreed 100%! I’ve said it before myself, multiple times, the A99’s hybrid AF-D system is amazingly fast & accurate but the array is too small! If Sony can expand the on-sensor PDAF coverage to 90% or higher as they did with A6000 and then widen the traditional coverage to at least that of A77II or wider, but with more cross-type sensors, it would be unbeatable!
300 G huh….I bet that thing is pretty awesome. One day…one day.
You can keep the 300G, all I want is a *small*, *cheap* and *crappy* SAL70200G 🙂 I’m even ok with using the first version.
I don’t care what AF technology is used. This image is a great photographer talking.
Keep the mirror until you can get as fast or faster focusing on sensor. That’s really the only reason to have a mirror now.
The Olympus E-M1 has on-sensor PDAF that’s both faster and works better in low light than all their DSLRs did – although they had to resort to Panasonic as sensor manufacturer instead of Sony, which provided the E-M5 and E-M10 sensor.
Is also a small sensor…. 4 times smaller than FF?
So what? An FF sensor has four times the area to incorporate PDAF elements, which would make it even easier to do, to even improve on what the E-M1 does.
Much bigger DOF?
Not to mention larger pixel photosite, am i right?
Getting fast on sensor PDAF on APS-C and full frame is not a trivial task. The A6000 is pretty fast, but the A77II smokes it. Two more generations, I reckon.
The A6000’s on-sensor PDAF is no “real” PDAF, it was not made for focusing A-Mount lenses, it’s just an accelerator for CDAF that only works with mirrorless lenses designed for CDAF. The E-M1’s on-sensor PDAF is the only on-sensor PDAF that is capable of focusing DSLR lenses, and it does so really well, even though the most advanced DSLRs today (I’m mostly talking Nikon there) are still somewhat faster.
There’s no such thing as real or not real PDAF. The built in sensors work for phase detect AF but only for the Sony E mount lenses (and even then, not all of them). Still, it is probably only a matter of time before Sony gets in sensor PDAF working well enough to be finally be free of mirrors. Until then, the SLT technology works quite well, especially in the A77II.
Now, I don’t know how the screw focus Minolta/Sony lenses will fare in a mirrorless world.
That’s about what I wanted to say 😉
When I say “real PDAF” I mean fully-capable PDAF which is able to drive DSLR lenses without needing to resort to CDAF, like the A6000.
I also have a dream.
Bring back the mirror and give us the perfect dual finder.
Optical with the mirror down.
EVF with the mirror up.
Yes it should be technically possible to make.
Giggity….!
This is what I’ve been wanting for several years now!
Reminds me a few years ago in SAR where “OVF is Dead” slogan is everywhere~ XD
Ah, reminds me the good old A300 and its first ever Live View on DSLR~ those are the days…
NIkon has patented this technology in 2013, see this
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/12/nikons-patent-for-a-hybrid-viewfinder-ovf-evf.aspx/
I remembered Nikon had some patents combining optical and electronic viewfinders, that’s why I wrote it should be possible!
But thanks for finding the links!
There are propably some technical hurdles to solve, and will be more expensive than one finder of either type.
That’s why I wonder if Nikon will put such a technology in the coming D5?
I already hinted in some of my comments before something like this would be needed to make the single digit flagship model desireable again, like D3 and and the pro cameras before it, not a tired iteration like D4 that is only attractive for a small group of photographers, now that even the budget FX cameras have 24MP.
You could do it, but to what end? The mirror doesn’t have to move, so there would be very little difference other than the 1/3 stop. He says they could get creative with what to put in it, but what else could the A99 even have in it? It seems like he has a misunderstanding of the benefits that would offer.
If they could stuff a refrigerator in there I’d be happy. Need a cold one when I’m birding.
Hahaha, good one~ Maybe they can also stuff in a holographic projector than can project hyper-realsitic holograms of the the opposite sex of the bird you’re shooting just to lure the real one in~
Maybe it is just me, because the shots I made in the A77 looks like it was shot from a surface of a reflected mirror and things got worse in low light… Anyways, I was thinking if mirroless FF con be implemented so nicely in A7 series, why not A mount~? That is just my personal thought~
And maybe they can stuff in ND filters in the body? Videographers would love it, or even wide aperture shooters would love it without the need of getting or changing the ND filters…
Right on. I can see the idea of built in ND filters having some use, for sure. But otherwise, I have never found any lack on image quality from the A99. I feel like at best what you would get is an A7 with a clunky big faux mirror box. Basically a Sony Df.
That’s what my friend who’re using the A99 told me that the IQ is getting fine from the A77, maybe the first iteration of SLT inherent those issue I said earlier.
Btw, I just realize that all traditional DSLR are temporary “Mirrorless” when they’re taking shots~ XD
Something like that should be possible with the important proviso that AF performance could be poor with many existing lenses (especially screw-drive ones) as they are not optimised for hybrid AF. Just because PAF is available on-sensor, it cannot be assumed that means it works as well as the “traditional” separate AF sensor which can be designed to be optimal in that role.
On-array PAF works in conjunction with CAF and, for the finest of control has to be able to control focussing with minimal backlash and the lens/camera electronic interface must be optimised.
So maybe this can be done, but there would most likely be compromises. If such a technology is possible, then it would also be possible to produce an A7 series body with a new LEA adapter that didn’t have the SLT mirror (but still had the AF drive mechanism for screw-drive lenses).
Well, you will never know what Sony will come out next, like the first time they annouce the A77, the RX1 , the A7, the QX1 and many other amazing stuff~
The future is A mount. A company like Sony won’t waste that massive a-mount lens lineup, they will create a new tech body to get even more out of the lenses. We won’t see new a-mount cameras till they have developed
a major competitive advantage with a-mount over other brands AND FE mount so they can charge 20-30% more than FE mount bodies for it and carve out a new pro space. The good news is that Sony are the guys to do it, and I bet money they are sitting on the new tech waiting to launch an A mount campaign. If they aren’t, they have missed a massive opportunity by focusing so much on FE. Sony are technically brilliant and can make anything in time, but they are apparent victims of poor strategy and worse marketing. No wonder so many of us are nervous. Looking for Apple marketing logic in Sony behaviour is enough to drive one mad!
The future of A-mount is definitely dropping the mirror, when on-sensor PDAF gets close enough in performance.
But for now they can add a button/lever to just lift the mirror out of the way when you can get with the slower AF and put it back down when needed.
I think there should have been such option in the poll actually.
“Implement A6000-style on-sensor PDAF and add an option to lift the mirror out of the way so that we are not losing 30% of light when AF speed is not that critical”
I did not participate in the the pole for that reason. It needed more options, perhaps “none of the above.”
But… Isn’t the AF-D in the A99 on sensor PDAF plus SLT PDAF ? :/
So the tech is here already no?
That’s correct A99 have sensor with PdAf.
I think something BIG for A-mount is being cooked in the Sony’s ovens. Otherwise, what sense does the Zeiss 16-35 and 24-70 update if our FF bodies are so antediluvians?
I think you’re right. I was beginning to think the opposite, and that A-mount really was dead, but updating these makes very little sense if that was the case. I doubt very much they will sell more than a handful of the new lenses unless they also update the A-mount body lineup, and Sony will know this, so it seems likely that something is in the works. I just hope it comes out soon, as I’m looking to upgrade to full frame, and I’d really like to buy it! Hopefully there’ll be a version that’s in the 24~36Mpix range.
I’m thinking the same too. Why bother update the 2 Zeiss if they where to abandon A mount. But seriously,it is about time for them to update the Zeiss 135 with SSM motors.
I think right now, getting rid of the mirror altogether would be pointless. The main difference between A-Mount and E-Mount bodies, weight and size apart, is actually the autofocus. As good as the A6000 AF is, it’s still not on-par with DSLRs, I would rather see a mirror lock up mode, which could be useful where you can sacrifice AF-speed to get some more light.
PS: Obviously, the moment they can REALLY get top, dslr-like performance from on sensor PDAF, the disappearance of the mirror would be only natural.
I’m sure if they got rid of the mirror altogether but kept the body the same size they could implement so much more with a mirrorless system, including a better auto focus system
A mirror lock-up mode would be brilliant. Fast auto focus when you need it, and no light loss when slower on-sensor focus is good enough.
This is nonsense, on-sensor PDAF doesn’t have the geometry to be accurate enough, and A-mount lenses have the wrong type of motors for CDAF, so the mirror has to stay, I’m afraid.
You’re wrong, the Olympus E-M1 proves that on-sensor AF can be an improvement in speed, precisesness *and* low light function compared to DSLR PDAF. PDAF accuracy problems mostly come from the fact that the mirror-box geometry has to be made perfectly identical to the image sensor geometry, which is hard to achieve. On-sensor PDAF can achieve that much easier.
I was talking about phase-detect only (on sensor).
The Olympus E-M1 has a hybrid phase-detect / contrast-detect system, and M43 lenses have focus motors optimised for this setup. A-mount lenses with SSM motors or screw drive are not going to perform well with such a hybrid system, which is why it makes no sense.
The E-M1 has a unique on-sensor PDAF that was primarily designed to drive the AF of the Four Thirds DSLR lenses, most of which implement AF drives which were designed purely for their DSLR’s PDAF, just like any other DSLR system, some of them use ultrasonic drive, too, and that’s what the E-M1 improves compared to any DSLR they ever made.
While the E-M1, by the way, still offers sophisticated AF microadjustment for Four Thirds lenses, just like Olympus’ last DSLRs did, I didn’t have to use it once until now, while I had to make adjustments for quite some of the same lenses while I was still using the E-30 DSLR.
When dpreview reviewed the E-M1 they said whilst the system worked much better than DSLRs in liveview, the four thirds SLR lenses were “prone to slowing down and juddering into focus”, which suggests at least some contrast detection is happening, and doesn’t exactly sound like the system is a completely replacement for a dedicated PDAF sensor if you want ultrasonic lenses to snap into focus nearly instantaneously.
Olympus’ PDAF implementations always used to behave slightly different than others, but dpreview was reviewing the first firmware revision of the first implementation of on-sensor PDAF there ever was, and it was already about as fast as Olympus’ latest DSLR back then. Since then, it has improved in precision, speed and low-light performance through quite a few firmware updates. While it may still not be quite up to par with today’s best professional DSLRs, “ultrasonic lenses to snap into focus nearly instantaneously” is what I usually experience when shooting with the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD.
I wouldn’t rule out, though, that Sony was able to even improve on that, if they really wanted to implement on-sensor PDAF for DSLR lenses.
Just curious, does Canon’s Dual Pixel thingy works exactly like the conventional On Sensor PDAF? Maybe Sony can cook up some hybrid OSPDAF sensor in the near future
Yes, it does, but it still sucks. Go to the store, grab a 70D or a 7DII, turn on Live View and try to AF. It’s better(faster and more precise) than the way Canon cameras used to perform in Live View, but it’s nowhere near a proper mirrorless or a A-Mount hybrid(SLT)
LOL, no wonder not much peopke in Dpreview talks about that anymore…
http://olympus-imaging.jp/product/dslr/em1/feature5.html
Dual Fast AF = 81 CDAF + 37 OSPDAF
With traditional lens, it use OSPDAF only, but it is slower & less accurate.
Yeah, I know, I’ve got one. I don’t really get what you want to say, though? The AF of Four Thirds lenses is only driven by those 37 OSPDAF points, and what I’m talking about refers to those exclusively.
I mean if the A77MK3 / A99MK2 will get rid of the semitransparent mirror and use OSPDAF for a-mount lens.
But it focus slower & less accuracy than current A6000, do you think it is worth to remove the SLT mirror?
Yes, if it does focus at least as fast and at least as accurate with A-Mount lenses as existing A-Mount cameras do. The A6000 cannot focus A-Mount lenses at all without an adapter which is either slow or has an SLT mirror, too, so that’s not really what could be compared.
Maybe becasue of the flange distance of the A mount lens needed for AF and the lack of a AF screw drive on the E mount for non SSM A mount lenses?
It’s yours nonsense, Nikon did it 3 years ago with their non-serious Nikon 1.
Nikon 1 lenses have a different type of autofocus motor that’s designed to work with hybrid cd/pdaf systems.
They work with SLR lenses as well.
There’s no “physics” which prohibits Sony to do the same.
They may “work” but not as fast as they do on a DSLR with a dedicated PDAF sensor, that’s the point. Lenses for mirrorless cameras all have different motors and focusing arrangements designed to quickly move back and forth. On sensor PDAF needs support from contrast detection for finetuning.
PDAF is not for the speed, it’s advantage compare to CDAF is low light or low contrast condition.
BUT, the good thing for translucent mirror with PDAF is continues focus，for traditional SLR your focus information will have a blank when mirror goes up, for on sensor focus points, you get the same blank moment when shutter close. but on translucent mirror system, focus points can continues receive datas with no blank in the middle.
So, believe or not, Sony is giving the best option E mount for the size, adding PDAF for better focus. A mount for best AF-C performance.
Yes, Also, there will be always EVF blackout & slide show effect on mirrorless camera.
Because, when the shutter close, it block the main sensor and no liveview.
But for SLT design, it is possible to completely eliminate the blackout & slide show effect during fast burst.
Sony has a patent of this design. It is just not sure when or will they make a product of it.
Why are they able to implement a patent that eliminates blackout/slideshow on SLT, but not on mirrorless?
Apart from the dedicated PDAF module and associated translucent mirror, SLT cameras ARE mirrorless for all intents and purposes.
In the patent, Sony said they add another tiny image sensor next to the dedicated PDAF module.
When the shutter close during burst, it will automatically switch to use the extra sensor to provide real time live view. Therefore that design can only be done on SLT camera.
Here is the patent in Japanese 😛
http://www.ipcc.or.jp/recruit/technique/h26pdf/a20/JPA_2013050630.pdf
Someone’s been doing their research:)
Interesting. Kind of reminds me of the A300’s live view implementation.
Every AF technology is for speed. PDAF usually is for speed with lenses designed for PDAF, like A-Mount lenses. Sony’s on-sensor PDAF, though, is only for accelerating CDAF speed with E-Mount lenses.
And the SLT advantage over traditional SLRs (continuous readout) doesn’t exist over on-sensor PDAF.
Can mirrorless camera keep tracking the subject when the shutter close ?
Not while the shutter is closed, unless we have no fully-electronic shutter that might allow something like that.
I just want DFD like technology, that would be great enough to me.
There will never be mirrorless A-Mount.
There’s simply no reason to make it.
If Sony decides to go full mirrorless, they’ll just drop A-Mount and release FE versions of all A-Mount glass (FE 24-70 f/2.8 and such), probably with A99-sized FE bodies.
Legacy lens support? Sony couldn’t care less, legacy lenses don’t bring in profits. They are life-supported through adapters and that’s it.
A-Mount only has a future if Sony decides to further develop the SLT line.
Of course mirrorless A-Mount would be, in the long run, nothing but a transitional solution until E-Mount has all the lenses A-Mount already has.
But introducing sensors with on-sensor PDAF could be more than just legacy-lens support. It would make new designs easier for E-Mount which relied on PDAF instead of CDAF. The bigger and heavier a lens is and the lens group that needs to be moved for AF, the slower CDAF works with that lens.
And, where are those E-Mount lenses which could replace all the A-Mount lenses there are? It will be decades until they are replaced at the speed Sony introduces new E-Mount lenses.
A-Mount users will more and more jump ship if they don’t get a better perspective for continuing to use their existing gear. It’s not just a question of supporting legacy lenses for Sony, in more and more cases it will be a question of permanently and completely losing customers.
Reading through these comments- I think most agree FE ergonomics suck. If you push A mount users enough on the issue (who’ve bought into FE) they usually acknowledge they enjoy the DSLR experience over the current FE bodies. There is very much a market for A mount gear still. Sony- stop choking the life out of it.
Most of the FE advantages could be done away with if Sony would just pump out a few A mount goodies. No more adapters, small buttons, so so focusing, crappy battery life, limited articulating screen, lack of dual card slots….just to shave off some weight! Geez. Either drop the A mount bomb or give us a DSLR styled FE body. Get er done!
I also have a dream. A Sony mirrorless with 14 bit color, a better EVF, more accurate WB, a sensor glass cover that doesn’t defeat the worlds best lenses and last but not least, support and remedy for the product after the sale.
Not really, but larger NEX / A### style weather sealed FE body with manual controls, and high rez / low latency EVF in the corner. I just can’t pull the trigger on the A7 style bodies, wrong EVF location for me.
Sony would never make a camera which is so slow at focusing it is only good for portrait users…..would they?
Yes, I would love for Sony to get rid of the mirror on A mount cameras…but only when they have fast enough focusing for sport/bird/wildlife etc. otherwise it’s a no goer. You can’t have a top of the range camera which can only shoot still life!
One that allowed for 3 batteries, like the a99 grip…
keep the mirror and keep on developing Amount for the fastest focus aviable. Without the mirror Amount is nothing but a to big mirrorless with an outdated mount. For those who want bigger camera body, I’m shure sony can add som bulk
For those wishing for some bulk an optional vertical grip for mirrorless EF bodies made from tungsten carbide or even DU will add enough bulk to kill a tiger and leave a bag full on Nikons in the dust.
What’s the problem? If I’m not wrong, I read about a patent by Sony, to move the mirror. So I think, the only reasonable solution, will be: Translucent mirror for faster AF, and continuos AF during video recording. Lift UP the mirror, and use on-sensor AF modules, when you are looking for the best image deatils, or in low light situations to prevent the light lose, caused by the mirror. In this way You’ll have the best of both worlds. On the other side, a new LEA, with the lift up capability. In this way you’ll be able to choose a A-mount, ’cause you primary need is the sport/glamour photograpy, or e-mount if the primary is the weight, street, etc….
Sony already stated their reservations regarding LEA with A77II like performance- it’ll be BIG. The option to lift the mirror just adds more bulk not to mention additional cost to the consumer. The really need to keep the two camps separated and leave it at that IMO.
The 1/3rd stop light loss can be negated through more efficient sensors (much better hi-ISO performance) so just keep the mirror and bring on the next generation of sensors with 90%+ PDAF coverage. Maybe they have also been working on the mirror to make it more efficient, as in less light loss.
Logical fallacy. The mirrorless or SLR cameras would get the more efficient sensors too, so the SLT would still be behind.
Theoretically you could give A mount exclusive access to better sensors but they don’t have anywhere near a fraction of the sales volume that would require. Sony won’t even sell sensors to outside customers with sales volume as low as the A mount system (even Leica).
And you know Sony sales figures ? Any reliable sales info ?
Many wish lists for Sony cameras. Will have to continue to wait month after month or even years for Sony to address them
And it shall be called the A88 and the people shall rejoice in an innovative new camera for their existing A-mount lenses.
One reader who not work at sony,jp has any influence to the next sony a mount models. I’ dont know why you post a single opinion on the mainpage from SAR, instead you make a poll in example: SAR readers what want you in the future on A Mount. 1…. 2….. 3….
This result comes near what you’re readers want and not what one reader want.
The worst thing is that this reader is just sprouting wishful thinking without any facts to back up his statements and the admin is encouraging this.
If Sony could save money and get rid of the SLT mirror for A mount lenses I am sure they would have done it long time back. The fact that the mirror is still there means Sony hasn’t come up with any sort of solution to get reliable AF with A mount lenses without using a mirror to help AF.
On sensor vs SLT.
A) Still from all I have read, On sensor still lags in low light AF performance.
B) With On Sensor. when shutter is closed, sensors lose visuals for tracking. SLT that NEVER EVER HAPPENS.
I think it will happen, but there is a reason why upto now SLT is there.
When on-sensor PD is as good and we have electronic shutter.. that will be a heck of a camera.
A) may be true for the PDAF implementation of current Sony sensors, but their PDAF does not even work with A-Mount lenses yet. The single existing example for on-sensor PDAF that works with DSLR lenses is the Panasonic sensor built into the Olympus E-M1, which performs quite decently, at least better than any of Olympus’ DSLRs, even in low light.
B) true, but fully-electronic shutters are coming.
Incorrect.
The best on-sensor PDAF for DC/sonic motors is found in Nikon 1 cameras. Allegedly, some F-mount lenses are faster on Nikon V3 than on entry level DSLRs. There is some hunting, but it gets better and better with every generation (we’ll see how J5 performs).
The reason for that is fairly simple. Nikon 1’s AF was built to work well with SWM lenses (everyone can have a theory why they did it).
Sony’s on-sensor AF (both PD and CD) is not optimized to work well with SSM motors, so it doesn’t.
Keep in mind that the possible reason behind the surprising AF in N1 is more efficient phase sensors – i.e. they gather more light. This of course means that less light goes to the actual image recorded, so the image quality suffers (which might be one of the reasons why it is so far behind Sony’s 1″ chips).
As for Olympus E-M1 – this AF is also optimized for sonic motors, but it’s hard to say why. Maybe it was designed as a first MILC camera for FT users, who didn’t want to switch to earlier MFT cameras (inferior handling). Some E-M1 users report that older 35-100/2 is significantly snappier than the new 40-150/2.8. 🙂
Nikon 1 focuses faster than entry level DSLRs due to it’s humongous DOF, not due to the on sensor AF being so advanced. Mount a dslr lens on it, and no matter what you do, almost everything is in focus, unless you’re doing macro work.
It’s the same reason why A6000 focuses faster than A7 and A7II.
1″ sensor area is 7.5 times smaller than a FF and about 3.5 times smaller than APSC. So shooting APSC lens on a 1″ sensor at F3.5 is about the same as shooting on APSC sensor at F6.3. No wonder it focuses fast…
Nope. Nikon 1 focuses precisely, that is – the distance is on the object (at least camera tries to acquire it). This is exactly why the camera hunts with DSLR lenses – it moves around the proper focus distance, because it can’t quickly do the precise movement needed (like it would do with stepper motor).
The method you are talking about (judging that the focus is “good enough”) is more common in contrast detection and is one of the reasons why mirrorless cameras focus so quickly and seldom hunt. Essentially it looks like this:
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/16h3UOEYxR784jA4EdHN84M77rWd-4ovQyK2iWsZfwUI/edit?usp=sharing
a6000 focuses faster than A7 simply because it has PDAF, while A7 is CDAF-only. It has little to do with sensor size.
Of course you can check this yourself. Use the same E-mount (crop) lens on the cameras. A7 will switch to crop mode and will still be much slower.
Of course I know why you think sensor size is the reason: Olympus has very fast CDAF on a small MFT sensor.
But the simple answer is: Olympus’ CDAF is fast, because they can make it fast.
Sony can’t. They made more than 10 APS-C E-mount bodies. a5100 and a6000 share the same PDAF and they both focus rather well (much like latest PDAF-based SLT cameras). Everything else is rubbish.
Maybe it’s a good idea to check the facts next time. And go back to Nikon boards as well. A7 is the only camera out of the A7 series, which consists of A7s, A7 and A7r, to have OSPDAF.
And Nikon 1 focuses precisely because of large DOF. It doesn’t have to be as precise as a FF or APSC camera specifically because even if it is a little off, it is still going to be in focus. Has nothing to do with PDAF. It’s simple physics.
The smaller the sensor, the higher the chance of nailing the focus. Again, due to DOF.
Wait a second there.. Are you saying that with the same lens, if we close the aperture to obtain same dof, a7 focuses and tracks as good as a6000?
Sigh…. No, what i’m saying is that for a given f stop, a smaller sensor has a larger DOF, making it easier to AF.
Only that it hasn’t and doesn’t. See my earlier comment here.
That simply doesnt make sense. I can close the aperture on a7 lens to f22, get huge dof, and still it will not track nowhere near a6000 at f4. There is more to af-c precision than dof only.
1) I never said anything about AF-C. But since you brought it up, algorithm employed also plays a huge role in AFC
2) Stopping down robs the light from PDAF, which requires as much light as possible. PDAF not a photo-sensitive pixel, that accumulates light, and regular pixel size and sensor size to light ratio comparisons are irrelevant.
3) I’m talking from design standpoint, if multiple sensors of various sizes have the same PDAF construction.
The point that i’m trying to make is that in distance encoding, if a smaller sensor camera missfocuses by 1m, that might not mean anything, sonce we’re still in-focus. A larger sensor camera at that point has a much higher chance of being out of focus.
True, A7 has some PDAF. I forgot about it simply because it doesn’t work. A7 can’t track and the AF doesn’t have the operation characteristics PDAF have (even on the a6000). For me it’s purely CDAF with FE lenses. Maybe some improvement could be found if used with LEA3 and A-mount lenses.
But you are right, PDAF is there according to specs. 🙂
Still, I strongly suggest comparing a6000 and A7 using the same lens, if you can arrange it. The difference is quite obvious. You can of course use A7II, if you think a6000’s advantage comes from being released later.
Precise focusing has little to do with DOF. By precise focusing I mean acquiring the correct focusing distance. It is well defined.
DOF is a subjective measure of sharpness. So we don’t know how deep it is, but we know how big part of it should be in front of the focusing distance.
What PDAF does is it always tries to nail the focusing distance (by design). Of course sometimes it misses and large DOF can cover the mistake, but that improves the success rate, not speed. I have no knowledge of N1 cameras being programmed to accept the focus early. Camera I’ve used (J4) certainly didn’t do it. I might buy the J5 and test it properly, but that won’t happen quickly (sadly, not every enthusiasts get free cameras – you have to create a blog and collect pokemons… I mean followers).
CDAF (again: by design) can’t search for the precise result, because it can only analyze the recorded image. Still, it is very accurate in typical situations.
I know how PDAF and CDAF works. And everyone and their mother knows that A6000 has a better AF than anything in the entire E-Mount range, so no need to compare that as you’ve got 2 things going for A6000 – larger DOF and better AF.
But if you take A7 and compare it to A7s and A7r, the speed difference is quite obvious. So no, A7 doesn’t have “Some PDAF”, which is a quite laughable statement in itself. What it has is the sensor size working against it.
Having said all that, you don’t know whether Nikon 1 acquires the correct distance reading, or just close enough. You are not the one who designed the AF algorithm for it. But what I do know is that DOF, as subjective as it may be, is directly dependent on primarily the sensor size.
Also as subjective as it may be, photographers and especially videographers regularly rely upon it.
Calculation is simple:
A FF camera, using a 90mm f2.8 lens, at 9m, would have a DOF of approximately 1.69m. Which requires a very precise focus.
APSC camera, using a 60mm(90mm FF equiv) f2.8 lens, at 9m, would have a DOF of approximately 2.58m. Which requires a less precise focus.
m43 camera, using a 45mm(90mm FF equiv) f2.8 lens, at 9m, would have a DOF of approximately 3.5m. Which requires an even less precise focus.
1″ sensor camera, such as Nikon 1, using a 33mm(90mm FF equiv) f2.8 lens, at 9m, would have a
DOF of approximately 5m. Which requires an even less precise focus. So a chance of a focusing error on such a sensor is about 3x less than on a FF camera. It can also be much faster as there is much less need for such precision.
And that’s portrait focal length. I’m not even talking about wide angle, where Nikon 1 will be in focus almost at all times.
Of course I can check whether Nikon1 acquires correct distance. I can measure it. 🙂
I don’t have any N1 body at the moment. But you have my word that if I get the J5, I’ll test it and post results somewhere. 😀
Furthermore, your example of DOF in different cameras is irrelevant, because the DoF is too large. 1.7m of DOF at 9m distance requires precise focus? Seriously?
Replace the focal length of 90mm with 600mm and go for similar DOF.
f/4 on 1″ will result in 14cm of DOF and that can be called demanding.
You should know that N1 is very popular among birding enthusiasts. N1 bodies have no problem focusing a 300/4 (equiv. 810mm) via FT1 quickly and accurately. I don’t think any other MILC system can do something similar today.
E-M1 + 300/2.8 might be close, but I’ve never even seen this lens.
I tried E-M5 + 75-300. It’s not even close and the huge gap can’t be explained just by the aperture disadvantage (f/6.7).
From what I know a6000 paired with the SAL-70400 is really rubbish without a PDAF adapter. I’ve heard it being compared to ultrazoom compacts. :]
You are wrong. Utterly and completely. A, let’s say, Nikon 85mm f/1.8 lens at f/1.8 has and pertains the same look of image and the same DOF, regardless of whatever sensor it is mounted on, be it FX, DX or 1″, only the cutout of the image circle varies. Actually, quite on the contrary, if the smaller sensor comes with a smaller pixel pitch and we apply accordingly smaller discs of confusion, we get effectively less DOF on the smaller sensor. So, in reality, if anything, it is harder for smaller-sensor cameras to offer as fast and precise an AF as larger-sensor cameras, using the same lens. And it becomes only harder through the fact that smaller-sensor cameras’ AF points, no matter whether implemented as CDAF or PDAF, get less light to work with than on larger-sensor cameras, if they’re similarly fine.
I completely had forgotten about the Nikon 1, thanks for making the point!
In the part on the E-M1, you can leave out the “maybe”. The E-M1 was and is the first and only Micro Four Thirds camera to properly work with Four Thirds lenses, and it actually was introduced not only as a new flagship mirrorless camera, but to replace their last DSLR, the E-5, too.
It isn’t just supersonic drive CDAF has problems with, though. Conventional AF drives made for PDAF do not work well, either.
I agree on the E-M1 being a replacement for the E-5. I know few people who used Olympus DSLRs for a very long time (some still do), because they hate the E-M5/10 handling and don’t want to replace FT lenses.
Sadly, E-M1 is very expensive where I live (Poland) and I don’t think Olympus is going to make a cheaper alternative. E-400 and E-600 series were, on the other hand, hugely popular. I almost got the E-410, but went for the Nikon D40 instead. 🙂
Of course Olympus’ CDAF won’t work well with lenses made for DSLRs regardless of the motor technology.
I think this is a common mistake popularized on the Internet (I don’t mean you’re one of the victims, but I think 95% of people are :(). It is true that PDAF is the optimal solution for sonic motors, but it doesn’t mean other combinations can’t perform well. 🙂
People started to think that CDAF is good for mirrorless-specific lenses and PDAF is for DSLR ones. This is, obviously, a nonsense, because hybrid AF (e.g. a6000, NX1) wouldn’t offer any improvement.
Of course camera AF and lenses are designed to work together and how they communicate. Stepper/sonic and CD/PDAF – it can all be tuned to cooperate.
Sony decided to change their AF system when they moved to E-mount.
As a result the PDAF in a6000 hugely improves the AF speed (and tracking) with E-mount lenses, but you’ll still be better off with the LEA4 when using A-mount optics. 🙂
Nikon decided not to change the AF system. Nikon 1 cameras focus very quickly with F-mount lenses via the FT1 which is, essentially, a dumb extender.
Furthermore, the 32/1.2 CX is using an SWM motor, not a stepper one like other CX lenses do. 🙂
Yes, it’s indeed an interesting approach what Nikon did with their Nikon 1 system AF. It not only helps with F-Mount lenses, but probably leaves a wider range of design options for native lenses, too… Too bad their decision was to use such a small sensor; for my tastes, Four Thirds is the smallest I would want to go to preserve at least some depth-of-field bandwidth… And I’m really glad I have that Speed Booster for my Olympus that decreases the 2x crop factor to 1.4x for a couple of legacy lenses I own, which I now find to be quite fun to use.
I completely follow your sentiment regarding Olympus’ lower and midrange product policy. When the E-3 was followed by the E-5, they completely stopped making entry-level and semi-pro models, while many (including myself) would have liked to see and buy an E-30 or E-620 successor. I didn’t buy the E-5 because of size, weight and price, and because it didn’t offer enough compared to my E-30, although I would have loved the option to shoot video with my Four Thirds lenses. And I only stayed with Olympus because they finally offered the E-M1 and I finally (but only just) was able to buy one when Olympus offered significant rebates a year after its introduction. I don’t understand why they don’t offer more cameras that support Four Thirds lenses either. It seems they don’t really want to sell them anymore, even if all of them are still listed as being in production. Or perhaps they fear people would rather buy them on the second-hand market…
Not true. Sony already implemented on-sensor PDAF with A99.
They keep SLT so that AF works full time even when the shutter is fired.
Sony nearly perfected their AF system with A77II and it will be even better on their next SLT A-mount full frame bodies.
Interesting. Are there any sources on the net which would confirm that, and that it really was more than additional AF support under good lighting conditions, as with Sony’s mirrorless PDAF implementations?
Sources? Are you kidding? This ancient news upon the launch of Sony A99 — there are 19 AF points on the traditional PDAF sensor above the SLT pellicle mirror and 102 on-sensor PDAF sensors that work together in AF-D mode.
Thanks for elaborating! After further research, I cannot find evidence, though, that the on-sensor part of the A99’s AF system would be able to function as the sole AF system for A-Mount lenses. From what I read at dpreview, those on-sensor AF points are just “assist points”, they’re only used to “predict subject movement between exposures”, if AF-D mode is activated; even more, they only work “with a selection of available Sony lenses”, and it is even explicitly stated that the “102 AF-D assist points cannot be used to acquire focus” at all. Each time the A99 really acquires focus, it is done with the dedicated SLT-specific PDAF module, and without AF-D being activated, like in AF-S mode, they’re not even used at all. So, sorry, but no, Sony has no on-sensor PDAF technology yet which would be able to drive the AF of A-Mount lenses, and the A99 is no exception there.
Even on E-mount, many cameras have the on-sensor PDAF tied to the lens (NEX-6, etc.) and switch to contrast detection when 3rd party lenses are used. It’s probably a mistake to assess future technology based on a camera which is approaching the end of its life cycle. I only stated that Sony already implemented on-sensor PDAF with A99 which is true (and by the way, I own a boatload of Sony A-mount glass and only two of my lenses do not support AF-D). The on-sensor PDAF on A99 absolutely can and does achieve focus lock, but it would have been a mistake for Sony to set that up as the sole AF system because like everyone knows on-sensor PDAF still lags behind traditional PDAF sensors for continuous tracking, and it was even worse at the time of A99’s release. Like all technology, it will develop and improve over time! It’s already gotten a lot better.
Yes, of course it will – but, as I said, and that’s really all I said and wanted to say, as of now, none of them is able to focus A-Mount lenses with on-sensor PDAF, and, contrary to what you claim, nothing of what I read suggests the A99 on-sensor PDAF was.
Can you read?
Again, compatible A-mount lenses absolutely do auto focus, track and lock using the 102 on-sensor PDAF points in AF-D mode.
“I have tried to get the 102 points to lock on before the standard 19 (so to allow AF on subjects outside the standard 19’s coverage). However, I can’t get any of the 102 to activate until one of the conventional 19 has first locked on […] it seems that using the 102 is dependent on getting a lock with at least one of the standard 19 first. Also, I’m not 100% convinced in the accuracy of the 102. They definitely seem to help the AF algorithms keep a lock on the subject” – but they aren’t able to lock focus by themselves, and there’s not even been talking about low light. As I said: No proof whatsoever that Sony has, as of now, on-sensor PDAF that would be able to drive A-Mount lenses’ AF by itself, in a broad range of lighting conditions, in either continuous or single-shot AF mode, and the A99 is no exception.
Take a A6000 and attach a LAEA1 adapter (without any mirror) and use ANY A mount lens.
I tried it with my Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8. It would lock focus maybe 5 out of 10 times if I was lucky and it would give up most of the time.
PDAF is useless for A mount lenses. If Sony had found an implementation for making A mount cameras without any mirror but with AF that at least rivals the A6000 they would have done it already.
I am willing to bet the technology just isn’t there yet.
I suspect your knowledge of physics comes from SAR comments?
хорошо! товарищ~
Mine does.
You know a lot of BS then
I’m an expert if I do say so myself.
Impossible is a bold statement. I’m not sure which bits of simple physics you think are total roadblocks, but you’re almost certainly wrong. Generally technology moves on with time, things that are performance related improve, and things that seem impossible are achieved. They could make this today (did you see the A6000 – it’s not a million miles off), perhaps not with good enough auto focus speed for some, but it wouldn’t be terrible. I’d buy it if they did.
In for example Sony A Line mirror less cams image is projected directly from lens on sensor. In addition in moment of exposure lens will kick in aperture which was preset by photographer. Tell me please how you will “re-route” the shutter and aperture in mirror less camera. I believe, that Canon Nikon and Sony enlarged their ears like elephant to hear your idea.
Care to explain why you’d need to move the shutter and arpeture?
In my understanding, the only thing that is not up to par in mirrorless, in comparison to DSLR is AF and egronomics.
SLT is unique from both of those examples above because the light continues to hit the AF sensor even the when the shutter is fired for two reasons: no flipping mirror and it’s not sensor-based so the shutter curtain coverage doesn’t impact the AF. If anyone on this forum actually learns to use A77II properly, they will be begging Sony to keep SLT around a lot longer!
What you’ve written here isn’t easy to follow. However, your main points seem to be…
1 – Image comes straight from lens to sensor in A-mount.
There is a mirror in the way (per all SLR/T), but if we ignore that for a second, given the entire conversation is about removing it, how is this different to any other digital camera?!
2 – during exposure, the aperture closes
Err, again, like all cameras
I think you’re trying to say that during exposure the AF performance is harder. The aperture comment is irrelevant. There is only one lens, so whatever you do, the auto focus sensor will have to deal with less good light here. As for the shutter… that depends on implementation. If a fully electronic shutter can be used, there is no problem. If not, yes, performance will be harder to achieve, but the camera can re-acquire when it opens the shutter. Perhaps this will slow things down a little, but it’s not a matter of breaking the laws of physics.
Hmmm very hard to follow what you are trading to say. If you have camera ( with auto focus or manual focus ) I wonder where this camera of your got placed shutter.
1) in battery compartment ?
2) in shoulder strap ?
Btw How aperture on your lens will interact in time of exposure … Is it added to image exposure after photograph is taken like a chillipepers on your pizza when served on plate?
I have to give up …
You’re not making any sense.
The shutter and arpeture in A-Mount has nothing to do with the mirror. The only thing mirror controls is AF.
Remove mirror and you lose AF. It’s that simple.
Arpeture is in the lens, just like it was before, and still controlled by the camera.
Shutter is right above the sensor, and again, has nothing to do with the mirror. And again, still controlled by the camera.
My reply is likely only hard for you to follow because your English is poor. I’m not trying to be rude (which you clearly are – not a good trait by the way).
Clearly the shutter is in front of the sensor, so if it is a physical shutter and it is is closed, the on-sensor AF would have to pause. This stops being true if the shutter is electronic (ie not physical).
The aperture affects light going to the image sensor and AF sensor in all SLR/T cameras. Clearly you don’t understand the concept of a “single lens” camera. This is only one lens, and only one aperture, and when it closes down, the AF sensor also has a reduced signal.
How about you stop being rude and obnoxious and go and read about how cameras work. Start with this… Now, where do you think the aperture is?!
http://www.panasonic.com/content/panasonic/uk/en/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-g-compact-system-cameras-learn/article/how-mirrorless-camera-dslm-works/_jcr_content/learncontent/learncontentsection/parsys/textimage_0/image.img.jpg/1405421499146.jpg
My poor english is relevant to this issue like fish and bicycle … what exactly we are talking here about … are you sure, that we are on same page? … these two illustrations clearly support what I am saying from beginning, that is that there is DSLR and then a Mirrorless System. If these two can be merged in one SONY will do it no need of advice from SAR posters.
btw … I love how many posters here are smart actually smarter then SONY engineers and SONY research and marketing department … Seriously, this is hilarious.
… in addition I speak another four languages so let me know we can connect our thoughts.
Clearly SLR and mirrorless cannot be combined in the literal sense, given that the “R” in SLR stands for the “R”eflex action of the mirror, and mirrorless has no mirror by definition. However, this has nothing to do with either shutter or the aperture, which is what you were talking about before. Before that, you were saying that A-mount and on-sensor PDAF were fundamentally incompatible (by the laws of physics). This has nothing to do with the mirror, aperture or shutter, and is simply incorrect. The fact that it can be done with E-mount and APS-C (See the A6000) shows that. There may be implementation difficulties to be overcome with larger lenses/sensors, but that is an engineering challenge/marketing priority, not a fundamental impossibility. Perhaps you should explain exactly what you’re now trying to say now, as it seems you’re trying to move the conversation…
PS Language is relevant if you can’t communicate well enough to either convey your point, or understand what is being said. Speaking other languages on the other hand, while interesting/impressive, is pretty irrelevant.
I need all the auto-focus speed I can get, because I photograph hummingbirds in flight with a stop action short duration. I don’t mind losing a fraction of an f-stop due to the mirror. That said, I never understood why a mirror must be placed in the path to achieve fast PD auto focus.
It needs to reflect light into af sensor, how would it reflect the light, if it was not in the path of light?
Yes, I understand that, but now Sony is doing PD directly on the sensor. I know it’s not as fast as the cameras with mirrors. I don’t know why Sensor PD is slower than PD done with light reflected of a mirror?
I think it has more to do with the way e-mount cameras are optimized for video and stop down automatically, limiting the light available.
I don’t care about video photography. I’d like to see a FF A-mount w/ PD done on the sensor with the lens wide open.
Like the OP said, “There may be other factors that make this impossible.”
OSPDAF is so small, and it is behind the infra red filter & CFA of the sensor. It can’t be large because it will affect the image.
The unit of OSPDAF is um.
While traditional PDAF is measure by mm.
http://m2.i.pbase.com/o4/94/6094/1/63397992.hnNzBs37.AFSensorLensMirrorModule1602.jpg
Hummm. That explains a lot. I never thought about that. Thanks.
Yet Sony is hinting that they are going to do away with mirrors?
Who knows what the next trick is that will Sony will pull out of their hat.
I’m sure it also has to do with different SSM types in A-mount and E-Mount.
If I remember correctly(don’t recall where i’ve read it), A-Mount users ring motors, this allows more leverage to move heavy glass fast. E-Mount uses linear motors, which are good for light glass but are nearly useless for heavy glass due to scaling power requirements.
I’d guess that the current issue is not just a PDAF module in A-Mount being much more capable, but also a different focusing algorithm being required for different motor types.
Edit: What i’ve read seemed to be backed up in the store, when I tested A7 about a year ago. It would hunt extremely fast back and forth before it would find focus. A77 on the other hand uses AF in a much more complex manner in low light, where it has a combination of slow and fast movements, but still, even the fastest movement from close focus to infinity is not as fast as in an E-Mount camera.
Wow, what a great thread! 🙂 I learned a lot. Thank you to all who participated above. This has changed my thinking about what cameras I will or will not buy. I think the “Dream” of the OP has been addressed.
If the dream of combining the best of both the A-Mount and E-Mount cameras can not be realized, perhaps the best path for those of us with extensive A-Mount lens collections is a FF E-Mount with an Adapter and strong motor to drive the lens. I never thought I would say that!
I thought both A & E mount SSM lenses are the same, using peizo super sonic friction thingy to move the lens elements?
The friction thingy is the linear motor. Other than that I can’t say for sure. I just recall reading that the SSM drive in A-Mount has a ring motor. That’s about it.
Never bothered to take a $1000 lens apart, just to see what kind of motor it has. But it makes sense, since A-Mount lenses have mechanical MF coupling, as well as the spinning distance scale is mechanical as well. Can’t have a spinning mechanical distance scale with a linear motor.
If they were indeed the same, then E-Mount would have no problem driving the Zeiss 16-80 through LA-EA3 adapter at full speed. That lens is f3.5-f4.5, meaning glass is farily light.
Ah I see~ Thanks for the info~
somehow, m43 bodies using Kipon AF adapter drive Canon lenses with adequate speed. It’s all down the camera body.
Cant comment on “adequate speed”, since that is a subjective measurement. I’d expect for A6000 to be close, but m43 to be faster with non-native glass, due to larger dof.
To some A7r with A-Mount glass through LAEA3 is adequate.
IR filter is irrelevant, since separate AF module should have it too
Hummm… I wonder if it’s possible to make a cluster of photo sensor cells perform double duty. i.e. act together as one big light sensitive spot while performing focus tracking, and the reverting back to normal discreet sensors cells when the photo is taken. Just a happy thought, I don’t know if could be done. The camera is working in u Seconds. It seems there is a lot of time to do things like this.
Sales of product to videographers and “soccer mom/dad” crowd) has infused Sony with profits and made lines successful rather than flash in the pan, thus allowing further development into firmware and hardware for photography. See Fuji flounder and fall behind companies like Sony that embrace both photography and videography, simply because the don’t have the resources to keep current, even though their design aesthetic is superior and are “more expert” at making photography tools.
On sensor PDAF is catching up very quickly in terms of speed, look at the A6000. It’s lower light where it can struggle, but even that has been improved with recent firmware updates that have finally got the AF assist light interacting with the focus points properly, rather than simply giving you the dreaded green box of doom.
The stopping down thing is rarely an issue, and the E-mount cameras do open up the aperture to let in more light when required.
You loose AF lock every time you fire the shutter on E-mount which is why tracking completely fails compared to A99 and A77II. Sony already implemented on-sensor PDAF with A99, but they kept SLT to allow full time continuous AF and that’s a good thing!
No chance (soon) without management change at Sony, A-mount lenses don’t make them money anymore, you have already bought them.
If A mount were still SLRs with OVFs, that’d be one thing, but the SLT’s have EVF’s just like E mount. Therefore the only reasons to stick to A mount are AF and ergonomics. Given that (and A mount’s microscopic sales), the solution seems very simple to me.
1.) Stop making A mount cameras and lenses.
2.) Redirect your A mount R&D (and then some) into getting really serious about E mount on-sensor PDAF (and related factors like blackout time / sensor read speed for tracking), to get those sticking with A mount (and even more importantly, the far larger crowd sticking with A mount’s competitors) for AF performance.
3.) Release larger DSLR-body-style E and FE cameras to get those sticking with A mount (and even more importantly, the far larger crowd sticking with A mount’s competitors) for ergonomics.
4.) Put real effort into a really kickass AF system for a really kickass LAEA4 successor as a love letter / apology to legacy A mount owners.
Not the “only reasons” Lee.
There are many reasons why PRO grade photographers REQUIRE larger cameras without unreliable adapters and flimsy lens mounts never designed for heavy lenses.
See my other comment for more details. But don’t assume that just because all the math and widget gadget adapters allow E-Mount to pretend to be something it’s not, that doesn’t mean that pros want to suffer the messy business that reviewers don’t know to tell you about. Pros want robust gear that answers problems. E-Mount simply creates problems on many levels.
I’m a newspaper photojournalist who broke his A7 in under 3000 clicks and went right back to Nikon, you don’t have to tell me. I was including these issues in “ergonomics” and my third point about a DSLR type body.
I appreciate that Lee, and will respect that. I’ll also ask, that since you’ve already left back for Nikon, that you leave the other professional Sony togs to argue in favor of keeping A-Mount. Since it shouldn’t matter to you any more, just know that it really matters to me that Sony NOT stop making A-Mount, as you advised them to do. You certainly wouldn’t want me to suggest that Nikon stop making F-Mount. That would hurt you. Just as it would hurt me if A-Mount stopped. Surely you can respect that.
Best argument I’ve read here. Unfortunately for me, it means parting with my A-mount gear eventually, which is substantial.
(1) would be a about being honest but they will keep selling them as long as they can still make money off them. Whether they would make more money by converting part of their current A-mount users to E-mount by cancelling the A-mount right away is a valid question but not all will convert, either because they want to keep using ‘DSLRs’ or because once being forced to switch they might as well switch to another brand.
I think (2) is essentially already happening, they just keep some token amount of R&D in the A-mount to keep up appearances. (3) is also rumoured to happen with a camera above the A7 series and they do have one DSLR-style APS-C E-mount camera.
Well the A3000 is DSLR-shaped, and there are some DSLR-shaped m4/3 cameras, but I don’t think that’s all DSLR users are looking for. I think it’s gotta be bigger and more robustly built and have more physical controls, in other words actually be a DSLR replacement rather than a DSLR look-alike
The A3000 is the low end version they need to make the A7000/A8000/A9000.
Who are the clowns voting to remove the SLT mirror from A-Mount? With all the well reasoned comments below as to WHY it should remain, I can’t understand where all the idiots are coming from. Leave my A-Mount alone. Your little E-Mount mentality has already done enough damage to what real cameras provide their loyal users who depend upon them to make a living.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO… NO A-Mount without the mirror. Keep it for the only capable AF advantage that we have over E-Mount… even the a6000, which only has a very small number of slow lenses to brag about.
Listen… Listen closely… If you want A-Mount to benefit from the legacy lens advantage that short flange E-Mount enjoys, then encourage Sony to produce an A-Mount with moveable sensor. Not only would that allow fabulous macro, but could be repurposed to shift flange distance for any lens line you wanted to use with any cheapo Chinese adapter.
Then we get the main benefit of E-Mount, AND ALSO get to keep our refined ergonomics and ultra sturdy super thick six screw lens mount that can hold a 300/2.8 without any problems at all… the mount was designed from the beginning for extra large lenses. If you haven’t held an a900/99/77/700 or any other PRO Maxxum with a 300/2.8 lens, then you have no idea what I’m talking about. The combo is super stable overkill. It is robust and refined. The same lens adapted to any E-Mount is super flimsy and unreliable with extra mount point in the chain. E-Mount with large lens flexes and bends. No issues with A-Mount at all.
A-Mount uses six screws. More than Canon or Nikon. Two more mounting screws than E-Mount, which was never designed for big lenses, and will never be as stable or worthy for such a need.
___________
A-Mount users DON’T WANT FLY-BY-WIRE toy lenses that accelerate manual focus and/or don’t respond at all to super slow manual focus fine tuning. Fine for you point and shoot togs. But keep your amateur paws off my A-Mount system. Don’t ruin it more than it’s already been compromised.
A-Mounters… keep complaining about the things we’ve been asking for… UNHEARD by Sony no matter how we plead and beg.
We want SSM updates to ZA 85 and 135.
We want option to lift mirror for extra ISO capacity.
We want an entire flash system worthy of pro use, like our competitors.
We want the best sensor inside the best pro camera for our native A-Mount.
We want PRO services on the level of CaNikon competition.
We HATE adapters.
We HATE weak little batteries and being forced to carry a complete different set of chargers.
Sony… WHY WHY WHY do you force A-Mounters to use what we hate…
Yet NEVER answer to what we want and have pleaded years for? WHY SONY?
Maybe if they can fit in the NP-FM500H battery in the A7 series body, things will be a lot different~=)
Medium format cameras like PhaseOne, Hasselblad, Leaf, Pentax 645?
^^ Yes and they sell a truckload of them every second.
It is just like Ferraris, Maserati, Aston Martin, Rolls Royce, etc They don’t need to sell a truck load every second. Only Cokes need to sell in megaton every second~XD
If you can produce a sensor good enough to do AF and imaging, why would you put it in a giant camera like the Alpha series instead of the Emount? Alpha users can use an adapter and use the AF. It’s a total win. If the Emount cameras had A77 level focusing (or even close), I’d already own one.
Because of ergonomics and more controls and dials. I’ve used the a7 series of cameras, and none of them feel as comfortable as my a99. Also, more room = more performance. It also helps with balancing longer focal lengths. And the a77II AF, while fast, is unreliable as can be seen with DPR’s review.
Not to mention the batteries~!!!
Careful, it’s a can of nasty worms.
There are plenty of people here that would try to prove to you that they can take 1000+ pictures with their E-Mount cameras. And don’t ask them if they’re machine-gunning, cause they are, just to get that number. lol
I filled a 16gig memory card with my nex-6 on one battery once. Was mostly legacy MF lens’s and a lot of machine gunning like you say, but damn that’s a lot more than 350 shots 😉
350 stated by Sony is under normal conditions. Such as composing before every shot and reviewing briefly afterwards. And it’s a standardized test.
What you’ve done is exactly what i’m saying. Under machine-gun mode, any camera can do up to 1000 images, and DSLRs with their larger batteries can do 1500+. But no matter how you spin it, it’s not a valid test.
I will just tell them CIPA Does Not Approve~
A77II AF works amazingly well. Don’t reference a review by a camera critic who clearly didn’t know how to use the new AF system, to pass judgement on a camera. I use A77II as my low cost sports body for major professional sporting events with regular 80%+ hit rates, but you have learn how to use it!
I held cinder blocks that were more ergonomic than those E-mount cameras.
I don’t want to come off as trollish or plain impolite, but you can shove that adapter where the sun doesn’t shine.
Give me a proper body with native lenses. Adapters are for toys. And E-Mount in it’s current state is a bunch of toys.
Sure, A6000 is good and pocketable, and I can keep it with me most of the time with a 16-50 powerzoom mounted, but in order to use my 16-50/2.8, I need a proper DSLR body with good egronomics, and not the tiny and uncomfortable rangefinder.
Most mirrorless systems are moving away from rangefinder style cameras, the G & GH series, the OM-D series, the X-Ti, the A7 series. You don’t need a large flange distance to make a camera that is comfortable to hold.
And why are adapters for toys? Because they look like toys? I feel the look is what most people dislike about adapters, they look like an improvised bolt-on solution. While I have the same sentiment, I at least admit that is a purely emotional point that makes me dislike them.
When you mount a 70-200/2.8 on an adapter, and then a small camera, I don’t even want to think of the amount of flexing that will be going on in the camera body. It’s like adding an extra lever to the lens, just to twist the mount even more.
I don’t like adapters, because an imprecise bolt on solution. But i’ve tried to find a way around that, and every time I find a roadblock, such as the one mentioned above, that makes the use of a camera with adapter, downright scary.
That is my take on adapters. When Sony releases a proper mirrorless A77/A99 sized body, and a set of 2.8 zoom lenses, then i’ll seriously consider leaving A-Mount behind.
Not more flexing than putting a large DSLR onto a big tele lens.
I’d have to disagree. More like “Not more flexing than attaching a big lens with an extension tube to a DSLR.”
But
1) nobody uses extension tubes with telephoto lenses
2) to date, DSLRs have been more rugged than mirrorless cameras. Example: Magnesium body of A77
Nobody uses TCs with telephoto lenses?
And there is nothing stopping mirrorless cameras to be built as rugged as DSLRs.
TCs, sure.
Yes, nothing is stopping, yet Sony hasn’t made one yet.
When Sony makes a proper mirrorless body, with a proper adapter, made out of magnesium or titanium, then the idea of using an adapter, will not have any faults that i’ve mentioned so far.
I have to disagree with it.
The adapter is fine for small & light lens but not for large aperture zoom lens. A99 are made of a block of metal from the grip to the mount.
While the adapter is made of plastic.
You’re talking nonsense mister.
If you follow good practice and hold a lens+camera via its heavier component, the amount of flexing moment at the connecting part, ie, the lens mount, is given by the weight of the lighter element times the (horizontal) distance of the latter’s centre of gravity to the lens mount.
To my knowledge, full-size DSLRs weight still a good deal more than any mirrorless camera and have longer flange distances and thus their centre of gravity tends to be further away from the lens mount. The flexing moment is therefore larger with large DSLRs than with mirrorless cameras.
I have hence no idea what part of my post supposedly is nonsense.
Don’t try to impress me with your mechanics bar lesson. Connecting two bayonets (lens onto adapter onto body) always will be weaker and leave the system more prone to “flexing” – AKA shear stress – than connecting just one bayonet (lens onto body), no matter the size or weight of the body. I don’t know about you but some very unorthodox photographers use both hands to use a camera: one holding the lens and the other holding and operating the body, specially with long lenses. And by the way, would you carry a E-mount camera with a SAL500F4 attached through the LA-EA4 holding this setup by the camera itself? I (and many others here) wouldn’t, but we would definitely carry it if the lens was directly attached to a A-mount camera.
Who was talking about adapters?
Hummm… Let me see.
joefresco…
Stan…
Oh and El Aura.
Ah sorry, I had lost context. And I had forgotten three critical words in the post you took offence with:
“Not more flexing than putting a large DSLR onto a big tele lens WITH A TELECONVERTER.”
Oh that’s new to me, so you can fit A-lens on E-mount using a TC? Because you were talking about that fitting USING A FÜČKÏŃG ADAPTER. Anyway mister one-hand photo shooter, next time find some better arguments to defend your toy system. Teleconverter, yeah right…
No, but if using any large A-mount lens on an E-mount camera via an adapter is a no-no (where for the sake of simplicity we define ‘large’ as being heavier than the camera), than using any large lens via a TC on a DSLR is a no-no too. And because DSLRs are heavier and deeper than mirrorless cameras, an even bigger no-no.
On the other hand, since TCs are used routinely with large lenses on DSLRs, they cannot really be a no-no and thus using lenses via an adaptor on mirrorless can’t really be a no-no either, can’t they?
Using a TC is a so-so IMO, because any good photography system must have lens lengths suitable for any user’s needs. TC’s are nothing but a feeble solution for lenses that just aren’t long enough. And anyone who knows Sony’s photo systems knows that E-mount doesn’t have long SONY lenses (when I say long i mean >300mm lenses) and this, to me, is just another proof that this arty färtÿ mount is full of čr@p. If you think that E-mount it’s a good system and like it, that’s your problem. I hate it, and I hate it so bad because Sony took all the focus (R&D, $ and advertising) of A-mount and shove all that onto E-mount. I spent serious money on my A-mount equipment, and i did it some months before the NEX-3 camera was released. At that time, no one would figure that A-mount would be neglected the way it is today because of E-mount. At the moment no one knows if there will be EVER a new flagship body (or at least a real future) for the mount i invested and this is awful. I don’t give a füćk if E-mount has “incredible bodies with amazing features”, a photography system is based on the mount and it’s lenses not the bodies. You change bodies, but YOU KEEP THE SAME BAYONET of your lenses: otherwise you’re changing systems. I am a A-mount user and I don’t want to use any damn adapter on any damn E-mount camera. I want to keep my system and it’s my right to do so. LA-EAx adapters are a lame solution created by a lame company who has a lame policy about their consumer base and needs. I (and many others who visit this damn website) feel like a sucker, a fool who was cheated by a mediocre, dishonest company who can’t tell an aś$hôlë from a mouth when it comes to create and maintain a professional photography system (i mean, they can’t even create and maintain a decent flash shoe without cräppïñg in their pants, imagine a whole system…) So if you’re saying that i’m resentful of Sony and E-mount you’re 100% right. But don’t you say to me that my reasons for my “vitriol spitting” are NONSENSE if you don’t know those reasons mister. Be condemned to use a crippled adapter so you won’t loose all the money you invested in photo equipment from a company who seems to be clueless about their business practices and customer base – this is indeed – nonsense.
You can’t fix your E-Mount by continuing to break my A-Mount further than it already has been.
Sony made a huge mistake with E-Mount. The temptation they created will come to a horrific end when CaNikon answer the mirrorless EVF craze with more robust serious tools, designed from the beginning to play with the big boys. E-Mount can only pretend.
Sony would have been (and still could be) MUCH better off keeping super small a33 size A-Mount with FULL FRAME and moveable sensor to accommodate legacy lens adapters. This would satisfy all those who insist upon the ultra compact format. Smaller forms available in RX100 or NEX5 format.
And loyal A-Mount users wouldn’t have to suffer losing pro cams for the sake of E-Mount myth. But the way it stands now, Sony has betrayed the customer base that made it profitable for them to purchase Minolta and enter the serious camera market. They disenfranchise us by giving their best sensor to our competition for years, in three versions. They killed our flash system and offer plastic adapters that don’t lock… telling us to be happy about the loose fit, or update to a flash that overheats just by looking at it.
What’s the song… “Funny how falling feels like flying… for a little while”.
My how far we’ve fallen. Not going to feel like flying any more soon after CaNikon enter the game with serious EVF kit without compromises. Poor Sony… Enjoy it while you can.
____________
Why am I so passionate about this topic?…
Because the decisions Sony makes, and the direction they are leading us, HURTS me and my investment and allows competition to stay ahead of me in my profession. That’s NOT a good partnership for success. My camera partner is a business partner. I cannot allow a partner to hurt my business.
And the Prophecy of the Prophet Previals~=D
What is DFD?
Depth to Defocus, is an improoved CDAF tech from panasonic, incredible low light performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWXRd2vaKoM
To be fair even when Sony had great cameras like the A900/A850 their sales were still next to nothing compared to Canon and or Nikon. Now with their mirrorless range they are making some decent sales and keeping their imaging division in the red.
Canon/Nikon may never really make successful mirrorless cameras as they will never want to mess with their DSLR range.
I hear ya, and I don’t want to end the E-Mount original vision. Smart for what it was designed for. But it was never designed to be pro. Some fundamental problems at the design concept level that will prevent it from ever reaching true pro functionality.
Don’t disregard the niche market. That’s what allows Pentax to announce new Full Frame old school camera (similar to a900 style)… and new lenses to go along with. They don’t make that decision without regard to a small cut of the pie… which if played right, honoring loyalists, could lead to bigger cuts later.
Leica plays niche market on many levels, and pros use that S2 like mad. Niche market not so bad. Expensive for those who need it (medium format). But it makes enough cash to carry many companies into profit.
I don’t mind Sony pursuing any lineup that brings profit. But jeezo… there’s a great niche market for them to pursue ultra high end… and a loyal A-Mount customer base to get it started and support it beyond the already existing notoriety.
BrendonF- Not to be picky, but I think there is some confusion of terms here. Don’t you mean “in the black”, which means making money? “In the red” means losing money, but the way I read your post it sounds like you are implying that it means the opposite.
Absolutely wrong. If they could get rid of the mirror they would have done it already. DSLR lenses need a mirror to focus. There doesn’t exist any technology right now get fast accurate AF for DSLR lenses without a mirror.
Even Canon’s dual pixel technology which is very impressive for single AF is useless for tracking AF.
Not sure if getting stuffed by a bunch of large birds is your idea “birding”, but it surely isn’t mine 🙂
I’d rather have a cold one and not take any pictures whatsoever 🙂
LOL~
I share the same sentimental feeling as you thus makes me wanna write this post on the SA forum when I was moving in all the lenses and bodies to my new dry cabinet. When I was cleaning the A850 and was thinking, what should I do after you’re out of service and can ‘tserve me any more? And how about those great A mount lenses? do they deserve a second life on a LA-EA4?
that really bothers me…
It is sad that we’re all dealing with Sony. Sony is a very special company that likes to try out new things and idea while at the same time, forgeting and even abandoning the one they just made. A pure guinea pig mentality coporate culture. After all, they started as a R&D comapny and marketing & after sales service are not their strongest point.
Remember the old MiniDisc? the PSP UMD? BetaMax, Aibo robot, etc Those are the sign of a tech company that are so playful and adventuruous with technology that they sometimes forget about the responsibility and feeling of their loyal customers… Yup, Sony is still and always will be your playful BFF Friend Zone GF…
Becasue I realize when Sony are interested in certain new tech they’re currently developing, the will start to ignore the previous tech they’re using, even abandoning them eventually. Same case like last time with the OVF & EVF transition era, when all A mount user are afraid one day OVF will be lost, and it indeed happend.
So my point is, in order to keep A mount alive and kicking, why not play along with Sony’s point of interest? let them do what they really interested in – Mirrorless, On Sensor PDAF, Global Shuuter at the mean time. Hopefully they will evolve current A mount to mirrorless with comparable SLT level of AF and tracking capabilities just like last time from SLR to SLT.
I don’t know about the fate of A mount or E mount… but if only Sony can implement their current interest in A mount, A mount will always have the chance to stay and evolve to the next level!
Cheers bro and sorry if I get you all hyped…
What Sony needs to do is incorporate Z-shift, a switch to switch between A&E-mount, and to automatically remove the mirror. So for example, if I wanted to use an E-mount lens I could just switch the mount to E-mount similar on how the Nikon df works with pre-AI glass, the mirror would move out of the way, sensor moves up, and voila E-mount camera. This is the future and how Sony can keep both A&E mount imo.
That would be sick. That would attract a ton more people to A mount in my opinion. Oh…what’s that? I can use E mount lenses AND A mount lenses- no adapters…hellll yeah! I’m on board- where do I sign up?
If you’re a pro and you want pro servicing, why aren’t you shooting Canon or Nikon anyway?
Shhh he’s a pro. You know how they are. 😉
I have shot Nikon and Canon. Throughout my career I’ve shot Leica R8, Contax RTS III, Olympus OM, Hasselblad and Fuji GX680. I always come back to Minolta for their ergonomics, lens IQ, and tech advantage, having used every 9 and 7 series since the original Max 9000. I have a copy of every Minolta lens from 16 to 600, along with all the new ZA’s and G’s from Sony. I use six Mino/Sony flashes on a regular basis, with Phottix Odin and Godox battery kit to match.
I’m entrenched, and would suffer great loss of economy and functionality if I switched systems. Never needed pro service with Minolta kit, and the Sony kit is very robust as well. But I know that many pros require such security of their camera partner. That’s why I spoke for the majority of professionals with the term “We”, rather than “I”. Not so important to me. I’m already thick with redundancy in my kit with two a99’s, five a900’s, two a77’s, two a700’s, nex7, a7II, and a7R.
I personally don’t “need” anything except for a commitment from Sony to satisfy the few professionals they have. I’m not leaving them. They are leaving me.
From a business standpoint, it doesn’t make sense. The goal is to convert SLR users, mainly Canikon users.
E-mount cameras are the best BUSINESS bet since they can be used with virtually any lens. A-mount cameras do not have that luxury.
The ideal solution is an e-mount camera with z-shift focusing, using a hybrid mount that can accommodate A-mount lenses without a clunky mechanical adapter – purely electronic interface. If 3rd party lenses are used, then a simple adapter should be available.
By offering THE ONE camera body that can use any lens, Sony will attract more converts. I think this is the reason why A-mount lenses continue to be updated, yet A-mount cameras are lagging behind FE cameras in the upgrade cycle.
The niche market it is in, is what allows Pentax to have been in the red for almost all of the last eight years.
The niche market they’re in may be red.
But it’s the niche market they’re about to enter with a new full frame camera that hopes to get them in the black.
The team you backed financially and emotionally is loosing badly (A-mount marketshare + new lens and bodies). That sucks but it happens and at some point it might be better to move on instead of just griping about it. Heck, I have a Hasselblad 203FE which I got just before digital was emerging, that’s an expensive sunk investment.
Loosing badly is not equal to lost entirely.
Griping is not equal to voicing professional frustration and concern. And it is our only form of action to prevent loosing further ground.
My investment in A-Mount should account for some degree of loyalty. But instead my investment is being used to support another program that actually hurts my business model.
A-Mount market share would be far better off if Sony put A-Mount investor money towards A-Mount evolution and marketing. By now, with existing tech advantages, A-Mount would have gained ground against competition, building on momentum that was hard won, yet virtually abandoned.
Make an a99II SLT with 36MPx and PDAF but let the option to use what the client wants flipping up the mirror.
PDAF as on the Samsung NX1 is amazing but I still think SLT system has advantages in low light situations.
Still have all my Sony/Minolta lenses waiting for mirrorless A-mount. I think flange distance does matter, and unlike FE, doesnt require much (if any) lens correction in camera. Dont need a degree in physics to know its easier to design a lens that doesnt have to bend light as much as you do for FE and that this ultimately equates to better IQ and less post processing.
I believe mirrorless is the way of the future long term, but Nikon has been getting my money since SLT (~2009) and will continue to do so till I can try a mirrorless A-mount camera. Till then if I want to use my Sony/Mino glass it will be via my two A900’s.
I want it… I need it to be an A99II. I need it to be bigger and stronger (heavy and sturdy). I need and want it to focus on anyone or anything I desire it to focus on… be it the eye or a mouth or a wing or the whole thing. I do not care if it costs close to four or five thousand dollars… as long as it advances to mirrorless and has on sensor phase detection autofocus as much as it might have contrast detection auto focus. I also want it and need it to be 36 megapixel, or more. Eff the “sports” photographer… be better and let them hate that they are fanboys of Canon.
Yes, I always prefer a big grippy body that looks rugged and inspire confidence plus the awesome handling~ (Look at all the Medium Format bodies, so awesome…)
On Sensor PDAF will get better and much more sophisticated, just look at the OMD-EM1 designed to work with legacy Zuiko lenses and some mentioned the Nikon 1 series, no doubt with the feasabilities.
50MP will be reasonable to have in these time of day, if Nokia can cramp 40MP in their tiny phone sensor, what else can a FF sensor offer~?
Well, some extreme “Sport” photographer really gives many photographers a bad rep, espeically the Canon Fanboys. I always tell them “You don’t own Canon and they won’t even give you a single share even you idolize them like god and besides, Medium Format are way more cooler and awesome. You may continue be an overated soccer mom while I go shot some pretty models~” Usually they went berzerk or just stay silent…=P
no need A mount PDAF mirrorless, once, if sony FF on sensor PDAF is mature, no reason to make it A mount, just made an e mount A9 with OSPDAF, with an optional strong built A mount adaptor (with no Mirror in it), it will became an native a mount mirrorless camera
Why sony made version 2 for 2.8 lens… but not have respect with A mount users…
Maybe it is a hint they got something big for A mount soon. But I don’t know, if they update the 135mm with SSM and the 85mm, that might hint on something~
I would like do buy some 24mm 1.4 and 135 2.0… Zeiss… i have 16-35 an 85 1.4 in A99. I will buy if sony do the A99II (iso Like a A7s and 4k with internal record)
I’m also planning to get the Zeiss 135 but the lack of SSM kinda makes me wanna wait for possible upgrades~ Maybe both the 24-70 Zeiss and the 70-200G’s SSM spoiled me already~XD
I think the next A99mk2 will be what most A mount users yearn for, A7s IQ and capabilities~
You made your choices. If you’re not happy with the situation you find yourself in, you take some of the responsibility. It’s not great if Sony leave A-mount out in the cold, but if there is no decent margin in it for them, they are responsible to their shareholders more. That’s capitalism for you, but that’s a different conversation.
Sensor tech have been advancing since the first digital SLR. First was the advancement in pixel count till the recent leap frog in ISO & dynamic range seen in the A7s. The On Sensor PDAF is still in its growing stage, and wait till it became matured, who knows what will happen in the next 2~3 years time.
Let’s hope the fellas at Sony R&D will do some magic with their next iteration of sensor.
Lets hope so, would love to use my CZ135 & 85 again on a body with AF, low light and Dynamic range of my Nikon D750. Not to mention my Minolta 300 and 600mm, which are not getting much use at the moment.
Nikon was profitable all along the time it did not have FF cameras. The problem is simply the volume that Pentax, Olympus and Panasonic never had. The ‘niche market’ Pentax is in is being fourth place in DSLRs.
Do you really think that voicing frustration will change Sony’s action plan by a single iota?
You Sir are every man’s dream~XD
Very informative there~ Thanks!
I had a dream. Sony stopped doing apraty and buy Nikons. This may be true, they did apratu a year or longer.
Why all of the redundancy ? Only reason I can think of is experience with broken eqpt. So much variety too… but never the leaders – Canon or Nikon. Just a bunch of also rans that pros avoid.
Huh?
Do you just avoid my words and decide your own personal truth for me?
Sorry you can’t think of any other reason for the redundancy.
Why not ask instead of assuming? I’m happy to have a reasonable discussion and answer questions. But I won’t defend myself against those who make unqualified accusations.
What brands did I list above that you think “pros avoid”? Please explain yourself.
See how easy it is to ask questions Katsu. It’s polite too.
Just get an LA-EA3 and let A-Mount Cameras die gratefully.
I fully agree with the article. And I don’t think that it is a dream. A mount is still the better mount concenring fast aperture and tele lenses. It’s just a bit bigger (depending on the lens). But for me a a77 II body is just the right size. a7 II is simply to small in handling. Especially with a larger lens on it.
And if you listen to Sony statements they always say: A mount will keep alive. They never said that it will need SLT forever. But that doesn’t really matter. The mount is the important thing…
E-mount is made with exclusively Canikons in mind.
A-mount Base deserves and will get an A99 II with top specs .
Sony declared: Sony is developing and supporting the A-Mount.
> therefore there is no adapter needed for a forced migration to E-Mount.
Sony will deliver as promised !
Sorry you are correct ! Switched around the two terms. Must have had something to drink ! 😛
I agree, the tech in the camera isn’t the important thing. The important thing is do my lenses work on it and how does it preform.
Actually all kinds of PDAF system cannot solve the back/forward focus problem when using lens with aperture larger then 2.8.
To me, the perfect solution is a professional E mount body with a laea6 adapter whose focus ability can at least match the one in a77mk2. And this adapter, which is strong enough to carry a heavy longer lens, can also fit with the body in shape.
I wouldnt put a 300mm F2.8 or 600mmF4 lens on that! I have no problem doing it with the A900, but not on FE with adapter.
What you wrote doesn’t make sense. Why have all of these also ran brands instead of getting one professional setup that has a track record of reliability, high IQ and commercial/professional acceptance ?