Image credit: Lensrentals (Click here)
As I told you Sony is working on two new FF models, one with 24 and one with 36 Megapixel sensor. With the recent release Canon opted for a “low” resolution 22 Megapixel sensor while Nikon opted for the Sony 36 Megapixel sensor. Question is, how much difference will it make in the real world? Roger from Lensrentals (Click here) made a comparison by testing the same Zeiss 25mm f/2.0 and 100mm f/2.0 lenses on both cameras. There are some interesting findings:
1) The difference becomes clearly visible when using the best performing lens aperture. At full wide aperture the difference is almost zero.
2) You need super quality glass to get out the most from the D800. Interesting, the Zeiss lenses are slightly superior to the tested Nikon lenses.
Sony’s strategy to offer two different FF models is welcome but there is also a secret weapon Sony has to push. The Zeiss lenses. It seems they can give the A-mount camera the edge in terms of resolution over Nikon and Canon lenses. I hope the rumored A mount 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss SSM lens will arrive along the next FF camera!
P.S.: Nikon D800 rules the DSLR ranking (Click here) while Sony rules the mirrorless ranking (Click here). Looks liek Sony sensor and camera business is doing great!
79 Responses
Brilliant Andrea, thanks for this, I too am thinking 24 Megapixels (perfect res for everything I do!) with the same tech as the 36MP sensor could be an absolute killer. Sensor wise The new D4 is to be honest very disappointing
I’m presuming it’s the same fab and designers as the D3, if you consider it’s only 16MP and has lower ISO scores than the D3S (actually only a fraction better than 36MP D800!) It also had much lower color and dynamic Range scores than the D800. If Sony can use it’s 36MP tech on a lower res 24MP FF sensor even with the light loss of the SLT mirror I think it will beat the D800 (on dynamic range and color depth) and come so close in ISO that when you factor in 12FPS and Zeiss glass Sony will have a monster on their hands and could finally start to take a large amount of sales from Canon and Nikon!
With 36 Megapixels: Now give me that Zeiss 100mm Macro in A-mount!
Quick question for your sources Andrea, have you any information regarding the use or non use of AA filter in the A99? Thank you!
No info sorry 🙁
Do you think SLT will stay for the future? Why does Sony invest in two systems (A-Mount & NEX)? Why not focus on one? Why pushing a System where we loose light through a mirror? Why not pushing mirrorless fullframe now?
The AF performance is terrible on mirror-less that’s why. 😉
but stick m-mount leica summicron lenses on them!! ultra compact, focus peaking, autofocus what??? better quality than all the DSLRs!
Not sure if thats true…
To rawmeyn: CDAF speed sucks because it does not know which direction to go in next AF step. So it hunts forwards and backwards until it gets focus. Therefore it will be always slower then PDAF which knows which direction to go in next AF step. For some people it is difficult to swallow that mirrorless with CDAF is useless for action photography and always will be.
It is true. As soon as you can get comparable AF speed on APS-C they will remove the mirror.
at matgay : and does Sony earn money on your M mount lenses ? 😉
What they could do is to integrate the af-sensor onto the main sensor like Nikon did with their Nikon 1.
Not easy on a large sensor
obviously sony does earn money from my m-mount lenses, i and minions of others would not have bought the nex7 body if it couldnt be used with 3rd party premium lenses!! imagine how many sells the nex7 body would have if it specifically can only be used with “nex” lenses only? maybe only 10% of sales and popularity. #1 popular camera by no accident.
Because big but easier to hold and operate cameras with many buttons, PDAF and compact lightweight CDAF cameras are aimed at different markets.
And if you are one of those madly fixated on 1/2 stop light loss on mirror resulting in some noise increase, what were you doing a couple years ago, when cameras had maximum usable ISO around 400-800?
Ok I got the point. thanks!
I was just reading everywhere that the AF on the OM-D is faster then on some DSLRs. That would be fast enough for me (at least). But maybe thats because of the much smaller sensor… I’m not a tech geek 😉
faster in terms of still photography but not when moving objects are the target.
@rawmeyn
“Why does Sony invest in two systems (A-Mount & NEX)?”
Not least, because it would be a commercial disaster and betrayal of Sony’s A-Mount customer base who have huge investments in lenses. Whilst A-Mount can be made to work on NEX, the great majority of A-Mount lenses in circulation will not work with CAF (and CAF is inferior for action photography as well). Yes, you can add an adapter that puts back PAF and SLT, but that’s clumsy and hardly meets your objective.
There is also an open question over whether E-Mount is suitable for FF. If not, then yet another lens mount would be required to provide FF on a compact mirrorless.
For the moment, the SLR-type bodies will be with us for a long time, not least because they provide for much more control space for buttons and the like and, with longer and faster lenses then the benefit of a smaller body diminishes.
I get your point, thanks!
another obvious reason is ergonomics.. A mount for people prefer larger grip.E mount FOR ME suits more as secondary camera. I dont think client will be happy if they see me carry a small compact size camera…
clients should care about results 😉
1 simple reason rawmeyn:
you need a precise distence between your sensor an your lens.
look at the K-01 that this is big thing because of the k mount lenses and mirrorless is supposed to be small
nex9 fullframe with no aa option!!!
thats a looong wait i guess…
There is 20% increase in resolution at best while there is 60% difference in pixel count.
MTF is lines per mm not squares per mm², so there just 27% more pixels in one direction and that’s pretty close to your abou 20% more resolution.
Exactly, people all too often forget resolution tends to be measured in a single dimension while our pictures and pixel counts (MP) represent two dimensions.
hmmm… what would be the benefit od waiting 1yr between d800 and a99, same exact 36mp sensor? save $300 to wait 1 yr???
Well it seems that you do not really need neither.
LOL
Resolution is only one part of image quality. There is a limiting factor named diffraction, depending only on pixel pitch. With 36 MP diffraction starts at about f6.4. You can see this effect even in the MTF graph above, though it ends at f8, which in fact is the end of the usable range of such a cam. The falloff from f8 – f11 would be much more interesting – I guess 800 at f11 and below 500 at f16
but i wont get worse than the other cameras 😉
diffraction is not an argument against more resolution.
+1 Diffraction might limit the sensor to have the same resolving power to lower res ones. But it won’t make it worse than them. Everyone in their right mind would like to compare the lenses in their wide open and peak performance, not their worsts anyway.
Either way, more res is still better and 5D3 still suck on stills and especially their intentionally disabled video capabilities. 5D3 ISO performance is also not all that good and couldn’t even start to compensate their shortcomings.
Canon is only trying to cheat their own customers to buy their tiny sensor C300 for video. Remember the interview when asked if they will release a mirrorless system, they answered that C300 is mirrorless. Aren’t they just trying too hard?
While Nikon is smart enough to use amazing Sony sensors, though still make a blunder by using their own shitty sensor in D4 which is even worse than their own D3s.
You are obsessed with diffraction. In every high mp discussion you go on about it!
No, it’s only the second time I mentioned it here. Sorry – bad weather doesn’t become better by closing the eyes 😉
It’s not commonly known, but diffraction is a matter of fact. Maybe you do not use higher f-stops and will never have that problem, but I simply do not want to be limited that way!
Resolution alone means exactly NOTHING! You can have high resolution and the IQ may be very bad. You know when? When the local contrast is low!
yes, but a higher megapixel sensor will always have at least the same resolution, never less. Thats why diffraction while it has an real impact on resolution is not a reasen against more pixels.
It is not “only the second time”, you just can’t count.
It was a joke by-the-way.
So the answer to being limited by diffraction is to limit the resolution of the sensor to the limits of diffraction? That’s interesting. Taking that same line of thinking I should not use a hybrid system in my auto since I can only see the benefit when using the system in the perfect conditions. At worst I get the economy (resolution) of the petrol only version but since I can’t always run electric then I should never run electric.
Diffraction will cause diminishing extra returns at smaller apertures, not worse IQ from a higher MP camera. This has been shown time and time again.
So I’m not sure what your beef is here.
It has advantages and disadvantages. With a good lens in studio (i.e. perfect lighting conditions) more MP are a good thing. Noise however on high ISO will increase, on the otherside when downscaling the pictures it might be even the same level again.
Disadvantage is more the data amount. Even with cheap storage today, the camera is slower when processing that much information and writing it on memory cards.
DxOMark would disagree with you
Do some real tests with real images. View them at real sizes at real distances.
Lofote you really need to get out more. The 36 megapixel sensor in the d800 outperforms almost every sensor on dxo
Well, according to their prices the Zeiss lenses have got to be at least slightly superior to their usually cheaper Nikon pendants.
Anyway, seems to make sense that 36 Megapixels are reaching the limit of actual lenses at full frame similar to 24 Megapixels at APS-C as seen with the NEX-7.
Sounds like a huge market for extremely expensive quality lenses in the near future…
Any info about A77 firmware?
Still scheduled for March 29th
Cheers
in the future where MP race reach its bottleneck..what else differentiate a camera??? AF Speed, FPS, high ISO noise, Android OS compatibility, angry bird… among all the list the High ISO performance will be the decider..angry birds seconds
Quantum efficiency has already hit a tough barrier. Since a few years now, no large sensor camera has beaten 57% efficiency. The first to achieve this was the D3s, the latest ones are still around this point, regardless of MP count. Even in a perfect world (never), there would be less than a stop left to gain (100%) for a single exposure. Multi frame exposure will be where it’s at, but that will always be limited in its usability too.
There will be a new form of art that will not require a camera as we know it anymore.
not trolling here. But the new form art will be something like 3D still image, with GIF repeating movement somthing like in the Harry Potter movie where photos animate in slow repetitive movement..
Why does Sony not remove the AA filter? Would that not be something to consider with the SLT cameras?
A99 with 24 MP without antialiasing filter, combined with a 24-120mm/f4 Zeiss lens and a super wide Zeiss prime like 14mm/f3.5, and (almost) all my secret wishes are gone…;-)
Probably because AA filter would have to be implemented in SW which also costs HW resources. I know, AA filter could be switched on or off, when implemented in SW …
This race is going the same way as the MP race on the compact cameras and will pretty soon only benefit those of us blessed with lots of money to spend.
More MP will become useless as soon as lenses cannot keep up with the demands such a sensor makes and it looks like we are getting at that point sooner than we would like to see.
Isn’t Zeiss doing lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts?If so, how can Zeiss lenses be a secret weapon for Sony?
Because the only mount that Zeiss lenses have AF is in Sony. Most people do not wish to or care to mess with MF lenses or even MF with any lenses for that matter.
They make manual lenses only for Canon and Nikon!
My website URL was wrong.
You say the Sony “Zeiss lenses are slightly superior to the tested Nikon lenses” – but put an SLT mirror between those Zeiss lenses and the sensor and you probably wipe out that “slight” superiority.
You should wipe your monitor, considering how much fat is dripping on my side from your comment.
Tests were done on a55 and showed that difference with and without mirror is about 5%. So we just need lens to be a 10% better, for example.
Also, it might be a surprise for you, but there are other valuable lens characteristics beside resolution.
Oh, silly me. It’s nikon lenses. You right then, resolution is only valuable characteristic in your case.
The SLT makes no significant difference, this has been proved on both the A55 and A77 by removing it.
I bet you add filters to your lenses, yet you then go on about SLT…
+1 I can’t fathom why people can use shotty uv And skylight filters then turn around and bitch about the mirror. Go to canikon, we’re all tired of your whining
PURE FANBOYISM!!!
Zeiss makes a few interesting lenses for Alpha mount, but the best Zeiss lenses are NOT in alpha mount. 100 Makro Planar, 21mm Distagon, etc, etc. They’re all in F and EF mount. Sure, they’re all manual focus, but still the newest and best Zeiss.
If you really think Zeiss is the secret weapon, then you’ve got to admit Sony is at a huge disadvantage till Zeiss offer the best Zeiss in Alpha mount.
Look, I’ve got nothing against fanboydom. I own both Sony and Nikon. If Sony had the better Zeiss lenses, Sony DSLR would have a big enough advantage to gain some marketshare. Canikon still have the advantage in handling, AF, speed, professional support, and brand recognition.
They put a filter to protect their Sigma….
Zeiss don’t make any lenses for A mount, so what are you on about?
Zeiss does not manufacture lenses for photography anymore.
Just cinema and medics.
So the ZA are as Zeiss as they can get.
Don’t we all hate anal retentive Internet retards? Zeiss designed, monitored, etc. good enough for Zeiss. Good enough for me. Last I checked Zeiss German hands do not have magical powers. Being anal retentive on the web doesn’t make you look smart. It makes you look like a retard.
Oh dear, you’ve been busted and are upset, bless.
Don’t use words like retard you disrespectful bastard 🙂 Good point though.
and some BMW bikes are manufactured by Aprilia in italy. still they are BMW.
most of the bmw 3 series parts are manufactured and assembled in south africa. yet they are a state of the art affordable sedan.
I totally agree about the zeiss lenes for Sony. The Question still remains why Zeiss will not offer more lens type for Sony? Are they just giving sony the B quality lenes and saving the best for MF? Sony should wake up, because they could tear a hole in the competition if they really wanted to.
Zeiss don’t manufacture Sony lenses.
Damn there’s some misinformation on here!! Zeiss don’t bloody make the ZF “Zeiss” lenses either, they are made by Cosina! Sony lenses are Zeiss designed and optimized, Sony Manufactured and Zeiss quality checked and last time I checked they out perform their ZF equivalents…
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/338/(brand)/Zeiss/(camera1)/485/(lens2)/329/(brand2)/Zeiss/(camera2)/483/(lens3)/243/(brand3)/Sony/(camera3)/371
I agree with above poster though, would like to see the 100mm Makro Planar for AF Alpha mount!
One more thing. I wish Sony would just come out and say when and if they are releasing their FF camera! I can’t take it anymore….;]
You’ll have to wait for the official announcement, just like you would if it was CaNikon. 😉
After reading lots of comments here, I’m a bit confused about Sony’s Zeiss.
My understanding is that:-
(1)Sony Zeiss lens is made by Sony at Sony’s facility in compliance with Zeiss Germany standard, design, and QA process.
(2) Zeiss lens for Canon (EF mount), Nikon (F mount), Leica (M mount) are designed by Zeiss Germany. However, Zeiss outsourced the manufacturing process to Cosina factory in Japan.
Similarly for micro four third, Panasonic makes their Leica Lens by following Leica’s blueprint, measurement, and QA.
Am I correct?
Spot on…
Ok, gimme 24mp A99 and i’ll consider if it worth to have second A99 body with 36mp.