Yesterday I told you that the new A-mount roadmap will lead to new FF and APS-C cameras announcements in early 2014. And I am almost sure these cameras will be the first “mirrorless” A-mount cameras. This means they neither will have an optical viewfinder and mirror nor the famous translucent mirror. The key of the new A-mount camera sis the new advanced on sensor phase detection autofocus system. And guess what, I just found a brand new patent (United States Patent Application 20130113982) that describes exactly that kind of cameras!
The image you see on top shows you the A-mount camera design with no mirror. And the image below shows you the arrangement of the phase detection pixels on the RGB sensor.
.
Yep, that’s it guys. say by by to SLT and to that 1/3 stop light loss 🙂
People asked me why the heck A-mount and E-mount should coexist and what the difference will be. There are at least three reason that came to my mind:
1) The A-mount mirrorless cameras will have a classic DSLR body. E-mount will focus on compact size.
2) A-mount has on sensor stabilization while E-mount cameras has not.
3) A-mount mirrorless cameras have a large range of A-mount lenses at disposal. E-mount is still very limited in their lens offering.
283 Responses
Another reason they can coexist is the fact that most people wont want to attach a giant lens to a small body like the nex.
But you’d simply use a E-mount dSLR styled body instead then. There is no reason for NEX to be small. You can put IBIS and an E-mount on a dSLR style body for those that want it. Best of both Worlds.
Which would further expose the e-mounts LACK of I.B.I.S
E-mount is 18mm flange back so NO I.B.I.S. no matter how big you make the camera
I don’t believe this is true.
Why do you need space in FRONT of the sensor to shift it?
What you need is the space BEHIND the sensor and you would have that in a bigger body.
M43 has also very short flange distance but they have best IBIS in the worls
I wouldn’t have thought flange distance was an issue. Others manage to have it.
Sony being Sony though, they might do electronic stabilisation.
The so called electronic stabilisation advertised on compacts just uses higher ISO and faster shutter speed.
Electronic video IS on the A77 doesn’t. How about a slightly bigger sensor with the extra bit used for IS so no crop.
No, electronic IBIS will never work for pictures, that is a totally different story to filming: In filming, electronic IBIS reduced the shift BETWEEN several images, and that works with a little cropping. Within ONE picture for photos it cannot work for simple logic, because you will ALWAYS have motion blur all over the image even if you crop away the frame of the picture.
Electronic stabilisation does in fact already work in the NEX cameras, but on a sequence of images rather than one. The Anti-Motion-Blur mode, or the Hand-held Twilight mode, both work by taking several shots at a higher shutter speed and then merging the result. Presumably the individual shots are underexposed.
HHT does work very well.
@DirkW, yes it does.
Not to mention the pointless task of redesigning every a-mount lens with a new mount and os.
It’s not pointless for Sony though. One lens mount must save them a fortune.
Why? Both lens mounts follow a completely different design philosophy to begin with. E mount lenses are designed to be small, lightweight and work with CDAF and PDAF. A mount lenses are more targeted at AF speed and optical qualities than size and weight.
Even if they would drop one mount, they’d still have to design at least 2 different lines of lenses following both those philosophies, to cover intended markets.
The only thing that remains is the different mounting plates.
Manufacturing costs of course.
Manufacturing costs for 2 different lens plates are rather insignificant. The different design philosphies still require different designs and thus the extra cost, even when using one mount.
True but what about all that A-mount glass? They could use a adapter but the one I have stops the af lamp from working plus not everyone wants to use a adapter to begin with. The E-mount does not have enough glass to abandon A-mount and what would be the point of gigantic e-mount glass that can fit both a small and big nex but will only balance well on a big nex.
TransLUCENT mirror I think is what you meant. 😉
I actually wrote transparent for purpose. Because it is transparent. But I now changed anyway to avoid confusion 🙂
I’ve always wondered why Sony called it “translucent”…because its not translucent. Translucent means “allowing light but not detailed images, to pass through” It’s more accurately a ‘semi-transparent’, or ‘pellicle’ mirror.
Perhaps ‘translucent’ just sounds cool.
We call them partial beamsplitters.
Translucent is a metaphoric word for 1 stop light loss, hehehe…
Well, I would think this is maybe a good thing if implemented properly. They could essentially streamline tech research and apply it to both systems.
Some people prefer larger DSLR body, others like smaller mirrorless body… So don’t see why both system can’t co-exist : )
Size hasn’t got anything to do with the mount type. NEX doesn’t mean “small”.
A-mount means backward compatibility without adapter.
Huh? Were you replying to me?
Personally, I prefer SLT. Putting AF sensor on image sensor itself could cause some resolution loss. SLT also suffers IQ lost, but at least in more uniform way.
+1
And there will be a small “light loss” too because small percentage of sensor area will be used for AF. Though it might be less then 1/3 of f-stop.
I wonder if this will cause them to have to abandon the IBIS? I can’t help but wonder whether all the twitching of the sensor will impact the phase detection.
I don’t see why. The IBIS would mean the sensor seeing a stable image – which should make focusing easier.
with IBIS on, lens exit pupil moves relative to image, and that is no good for on-sensor PDAF
The exit pupil moves relative to the sensor, yes, but the image wouldn’t (which is the point of stabilisation), so would that not help PDAF?
IBIS doesn’t move the sensor until the shot is taken. That’s the reason you don’t see a stabilized view in the SLT EVF. While focusing, the camera will not be moving the sensor. I don’t see why it wouldn’t still work. I’m more worried about lens compatibility, since I shoot almost exclusively with older Minolta lenses on the A99 and they are incompatible with those on-sensor focus points already. What happens when the only focusing system is on the sensor? Do those lenses only work in MF once the legacy focusing system is removed?
reflected focus points have no physical advantage over focus points on the sensor. so there is no real reason they can’t work with all the lenses that work now. It is unclear why the current system (such as on A99) has that limitation.
The reason why some lenses do not work with the A99 AF-is the Distance information. You can tell the A99 to focus for example just between two and 10 meters. For this you need the distance information from the lens.
Phase Detection just needs information about how much to move the lens, not about the resulting fous distance. This will work with any compatible lens that autofocus on the Alphas of today.
The A99 has both already. Dropping the mirror from that equation surely will leave more light to form an image and I haven’t seen any traces of those PDAF pixels in images.
Well, they masked it. As a matter of fact, there’s a good percentage of a dead pixels in our sensor that were masked out during picture taking process.
Those 3 differences seem pretty trivial as the E mount is expanding. What Sony need to do with a A-mount mirrorless is to have more professional features. Now that the mirror box area is removed Sony should incorporate features that the NEX line couldn’t have, like putting ND filters in the mirrorbox area, Improved 5 axis stabilization that work even during video, etc.
agree, they should now use the “free space” of the mirror to implement other things, other option is that future A-mount lenses can go deeper inside the mount due to the lack of mirror, resulting in smaller lenses when they are mounted on the camera
A-mount deeper in? That’s called E-Mount. (Though E has smaller diameter.) Would you like an AE-mount? Hummmm…
E-mount cameras like VG10 have already integrated ND filters…
umm no they don’t. Have you even used a VG10, only the FS700 have ND filters
yes mistake. FS700 ! E-mount camera, isn’t it?
The model was wrong, but the point was right.
Maybe the free space will be used for a dust guard to protect the sensor when changing lenses. That was mentioned in a rumour the other day.
also… 3 CMOS camera (or 2 CMOS at least)
This.
Why 3cmos when sony is sitting on a stacked organic/solicon hybrid patent?
Sorry I don’t unterstand why Sony would keep mirroless A-mount.
With a E-mount, you can design the body DSLR-like and put them all lenses with adaptors including big A-mount Lenses… Remember the big body Sony unveiled on NAB2013.
sorry for my english 😉
No I.B.I.S.
You are missing the point, it could have IBIS.
Could it, though? At least for a FF sensor, the diameter of the E-mount doesn’t seem large enough for you to move the sensor side to side without part of it being obscured. Seems like you need the larger mount to make IBIS practical with FF. I think that’s the real issue, not the distance from the flange to the sensor.
I think E-mount could have APS-C IBIS. But it may be impossible for it to have FF IBIS. Also, I think the light path is a bit shallower on A-mount and therefor better IQ with the very best (and most expensive lenses) on A-mount… unless something about the physics of micro lenses on the sensor allows them to approach the limits of optical perfection.
I’ll leave it to Sony engineers to consider if it is possible or not. People here long thought that NEX full frame wasn’t possible too…
The only reason for no ibis is size.
E mount could easily be made a little larger to fit it.
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/08/19/should-nex-go-full-frame/
No lenses. Simple.
And: no, adapters aren’t an option for serious, reliable photography.
Not to mention native support for screw driven af (which is a hefty chunk of a-mount glass).
LA-EA2 is already doing it !
So people can choose NEX + adapter or a native A-mount cam. More options doesn’t hurt.
E-mount has no lenses??? how then my camera takes pictures?
LOL. Was wondering the same myself.
Pinhole ^^
ROTFL.
This.
E-mount camera with DSLR size could have IBIS.
I think this site had or posted a link to a discussion of whether the nex mount is wide enough to support full frame ibis.
People said that E-mount couldn’t be FF, they were wrong about that too. 😉
And why would anyone prefer NEX with IBIS over Alpha(which is also has IBIS)? People buying NEX for its size, even Canikoners buy it as (casual) backup. Plus most NEX lenses are stabilized.
When will people get it into their head that NEX does not have to be small. NEX is more than just the stills camera range, there is a FULL FRAME NEX and it isn’t the size of a NEX-5…
The NEX range has NOTHING to do with physical size.
IBIS does not depend on the mount.
Indeed. I can understand Sony not wanting to double up for cost reasons, but it certainly can be done. Conceptually it’s no different from Mamiya making both lenses with leaf shutters and bodies with focal plane shutters.
in-body motor
LA-EA2 has it…
you’re missing the point. 🙂
why? please explain.
WE’LL SEE
PDAF speed and accuracy is critical for us.
Sony’s Innovation never has All the Kinks Worked out
It takes Sony Minimun of one year to 18 months to correct firmware issues
In the meantime, our Shutter has burnt out
The camera body is dying and needs repairs again
and we Lost Clients and work supporting Sony Innovation.
Why Lord Why did we fund and support Minolta glass investment??
If you are a hobbyist or only going to take a few pix,
a decorative hobbyist or bird photographer
You’ll never see the 100k Shutter Life Body Death
Sony – Bells and Whistles could get your attention.
So, you’re a working professional photographer, but you don’t have back-up bodies?
Very professional.
So, you’re a pro? Every sony camera you own broke at the same time so you couldn’t work? Is that what you’re saying here?
Pros have back up camera bodies.
well because not everyone wants to use an adapter to use their lenses. when i say in-body, i mean natively. 🙂
and yes, NEX can have IBIS but it will be redundant to existing NEX lenses, which will in turn create confusion to existing NEX users. having a short flange has its benefits but it also has its cons, just look at the high quality NEX lenses, they are long and big, defeating the “small but DSLR quality” philosophy behind the NEX. A and E mount will coexist, two form factors addressing 2 different markets.
You actuate your shutter over 200,000 times in one year? Impressive. I would say you must get your money out of your bodies in that case and upgrade frequently. Or you are running a rental house.
AFAIK Sony’s current CDAF speed (including on-sensor PDAF) isn’t near as fast as Panasonic/Olympus offerings. Why should we believe that within a year they’d be able to close (or, preferably) surpass that gap that exists right now?
Would Sony be crazy enough to release advanced/pro-grade cameras for A-mount with “ok” AF speed?
Other than that, everybody saw that move coming, anyway.
But don’t forget Sony own piece of Olympus. And yes AF speed is the key. If it is as fast as A77 then it is OK.
Sony recently made a sharing patent agreement with Aptina, which make Nikon A1 sensors.
So they may have access to some technology that allow fast AF.
Let us hope they combine the best bits of Olympus’ CDAF and Aptina’s PDAF in one place.
Even then I’m struggling to see how it’ll match the best Canon and Nikon have to offer.
Well, it wont. And the less light you’ll have available the gap will be more visible. Sadly that’s the major issue with on-sensor PDAF: It’s crap when it comes to low-light situations or lenses with slow aperture.
where did you get your physics degree, Skywalker?
time ago you said 16-50E will be worser than 18-55E due to um…. you… somewhat.
In reality 16-50E turned to be a bit better than 18-55 save for distortion (for which nobody cares actually)
On the other hand, the NEX 6 offers better AF tracking (with limitations still, especially compared to SLT’s and DSLR’s) than any µ4/3 camera to date tested.
That tells you that they were on the right track. Sensor read out speed and possibly CPU speed can change a lot too.
We have no reason to believe in it. No reason to deny either.
Seems like a good idea. I’m mostly a sports shoot. What would one think the fps would be for this type of technology, reason being is I bought the a77 for its speed range and imagine quality in the lower iso ranges. (i’m happy as most of my clients are too). I would love for it to have better low light, but it is what it is. I love also, you can shoot up to 12 fps in RAW mode! I guess we’ll have to wait and see…
I don’t think this system will be more popular than SLT
+1
Taking into account SONY approach to release software with significant bugs I think it will take some time {years) till this new chip technology transforms into better user experience. I’m optimistic this new tech can improve *accuracy* of AF. But it will strongly depend on quality of SW. For example, it could finaly always focus right on model’s eyes.
I don’t believe that Sony can offer the AF to match SLT in 12 months. I would love to be proved wrong, but this is Sony we are talking about. They tend to ditch working technology far too quickly.
I’ll be keeping my SLT for a few years anyway, I prefer AF speed over tiny light loss, so maybe the technology will be ready by then. 🙂
I believe that magic is to combine on sensor PDAF and CDAF systems.
They could have been working on this for years already, who knows.
Stop… eating… my replies. UGH.
Last try:
SLT mirror material US patent filed 3 months before announcement of SLT’s, only released 6 months ago.
Do you really think Sony just started working on this last week
Let’s just face facts, without an optical viewfinder, Sony will remain on the bottom of the DSLR pile. The sales numbers provide undisputed proof.
Let’s also face facts, if they keep the OVF, they will also stay at the bottom.
Indeed, sales of OVF cameras weren’t exactly astounding compared to CaNikon. The reasons for the failure of Sony dSLR/SLT in comparison to CaNikon sales are more complicated than one difference in technology.
goodluck with your 20-yr-old tech mirror camera then
Lets face it if CaNikon offered such a camera they would sell by the boat load.
😉
bottom is half-dead 4/3. Than there’s Pentax.
Sony is in Top 3 😉
I wonder how a breakup of Sony would affect these plans. It seems that Daniel Loeb (Mr. Pink to some), a hedge fund investor, is trying to break them up.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/hedge-fund-manager-daniel-loeb-targets-sony-for-a-breakup/
He basically wants Sony to divest the profitable parts of the business (financial services and entertainment), and has offered his company up to be the poor tortured souls who will take them off Sony’s hands for a mere hefty discount.
I suspect there’s laughter going on behind the scenes in Tokyo.
And Sony will sell these sensor(technique) to Nikon also? And in a huge quantity to make a profit??
I would have thought that Sony’s sensor division is more interested in keeping Nikon happy than selling Sony branded APS-C and FF cameras. They might be a bit concerned about Nikon’s shift away from them though.
Admin, can legacy glass be adapted to this new A mount?
I have no answer on that yet.
There is no “NEW” A-mount. It is the A-mount only withhout a (translucent)mirror. So lenses that worked (adapted) on the A-mount of a SLT camera, will work on the A-mount without mirror on the same way.
Only if Sony put a hybrid E- A-Mount on the camera it will be possible to mount all the legacy lenses that work on the E-mount…
Considering all of the new lenses work the same way as the legacy glass (minus the focus system), I’m pretty sure basic function will always be supported. The only thing that may not will be the screw driven AF system. But, I think we’re still a few generations away from this not being supported anymore. Some of their current lenses are still using this system. They’ll need to convert more to SAMII or SSM to put some more time separation in there.
Oh gosh, I hope so! That would too good to be true. 🙂
None of this should be shocking to any SAR reader. SLT was always a short-lived “temporary” technology. For the past two years, we have made thousands of posts discussing this fact. So, unless you are new to this site, SLT’s death is already old news to us. right?
For future A mount,…who cares if the mirror box is now empty? What harm does that do?
For E mount,…why cant Sony make comfortable and light full size bodies that take E and A mount using a new adapter? (a FF E mount body that runs all Sony lenses…as well as everybody else’s lenses?)
Hell,…if Sony can get the electronics right, an A mount lens could “theoretically” operate just like their E mount lenses. (even with screw drive) This would give a long life to existing and future A mount lenses but make A mount- only bodies unnecessary.
The fact that many have CLAIMED that the SLT technology will soon be dead, is not the same as a fact that it WILL be.
I’ll quote what Mark Twain said when he showed up after having been away for some time: “The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated”.
Take a look at the rumor “facts”: There are NO rumors saying that the SLT would be dropped. There is a rumor that SLT will be dropped for APS-C cameras only, which is something else entirely.
I have looked at the patent description, and I can not from this see if the “light loss” with these on-sensor AF photo diodes will be less than the “light loss” (actually redirected part) with the SLT beam splitter. There will be no “ghosting” though, but after that Sony changed the SLT beam splitter coating on their later models, this is considerably reduced anyway (with A77, I have never experienced any ghosting from the lenses I am using).
Of course new technology will be different from the existent technology – it will have some advantages, but also some disadvantages compared to the old technology. This is certainly true with the OLED/EVF/SLT technology, and it will be true with most any new technology, whether from Sony or from elsewhere. However, for ME the advantages with the SLT system are so essential, that I will CERTAINLY by an A77 (being an APS-C camera) with 16-50/2.8 SSM (a top lens now available almost for free when buying an A77) while A77s are still available (the one I have used is borrowed from a friend), because I don’t know if the different advantages / disadvantages with the new APS-C sensors with on-board AF-sensors will suit me, with my kind of photographing, as good as the SLT-system does! 🙂
.
A while ago sony filed a patent that used a IR filter as a mirror. Basically you had all visible light going to the sensor and IR light would be used to feed into the PDAF. Pitty they never continued this path…
IR focusing will only works with lens that was designed with IR correction in mind during its development process. This would increase price, because basically the lens has to be superachromat.
Not if the IR AF sensor has a focus adjustment that changes per the lens/zoom you are using. Though it would still have to “happen” to have good imaging in the IR band.
Let’s wait and see.
so 1-2 years later, on sensor PDAF sensor can drive the coming 400/4 well, even in low light?
maybe i can ‘jump ship’ to E-mount next year when things are certain. haha
no mirror ?!?! So it’s gonna be as slow as a 650D in live view 🙁 No continuous AF during burst mode as even the shutter is down the AF sensor can still look at the subject if there was a mirror………why ?! why ?! Why ?! All the benefits of the translucent mirror ! It’s gonna be like an O -D with an APS-C sensor !
Lets not go overstating our case, now. Nothing has CDAF as slow as a Canon.
Hahahahaha.. this is the best reply to this thread.
The A-mount has the advantage that the tele-lenses can be build smaller then for the E-mount! Depending on lens-design this advantage gets into account up from a focal distance about 75mm.
Why? because the rear lens of tele-lenses is far away from the sensor. To get this distance the lenstube for E-mount must be longer then for A-mount.
I don’t see the advantages of small flange distances of the new mirrorless systems. Yes you get small cameras but you get bigger lenses (tele). I have more lenses then cameras in my bag!
Yes, and likewise, NEX allows simpler wide angle lens design because they don’t have to retrofocus it.
That’s not true for a mirrorless A-Mount the same wide angle construction can be used! The space of the mirror is empty. Just the mechanical construction of the lens-tube must consider the greater flange distance the lens rear element can be put deep into the A-Mount housing (same as for E-mount).
There is nothing can full fill everyone needs forever! This is the truth!
Before i see a lot of comment complaining about SLT degrade the quality of image and a lot of different bad comment.
NOW, when sony say is the time to remove it! Then i see a lot comment why remove the mirror! it might gives slow auto focus and a lot different saying again.
So? What is the correct way sony should go? Answer: there is no answer, you can’t full fill everyone needs, you can’t make everyone happy.
What we want is for Sony to wait until the new technology is better than the old one before replacing it.
Carl, I understand your remark, But who knows how good the new camera of Sony will work better then the SLT cameras or the SLR cameras? And do not forget this is just is a patent, nobody knows if this will be used in the next range of A-mount cameras.
People here are coming with conclusions based on very, very little information..
then don’t buy until the new technology is better.
Remember guys…if a technology or system is mature, that means its old. Perhaps even obsolete. Systems should work, and not be a step backward without new benefits, but, being a little new and buggy is a good thing for development. Otherwise you have Nikon and Canon, which are not exciting. I dont shoot Sony, so why am I here? Because Sony is starting to excite me. I want fresh ideas and technology, but in the mean time, I’m going to keep shooting Nikon because it works, and its the best fit at the moment for me. I dont want to keep buying 60 year old DSLR tech, however.
Keep the translucent mirror in semi-pro/pro models (for video and high fps) but give it the ability to lock up for mirrorless operation (make the flip up/down real slow so it doesn’t damage anything).
Gives clear differentiation between alpha and NEX, and you don’t end up with an empty alpha mirror box which is there for marketing reasons only.
This is absolutely NOT a game changer.
I certainly hope sony has something more impressive.
What about all those stacked sensor patents Sony is sitting on?
Not everyone wants or has an unhealty obsession with ultra-high megapixel sensors.
Give. It. A. Rest.
I believe what scares many of you and generates such a heated response is the fear that higher res will become the new norm and you will be forced to make changes you are not comfortable with.
The point of a stacked or multilayer sensor is to get better resolution with the same number of Megapixels, as each pixel now records all three primary colours.
It is true that the raw files do contain more data and are larger, which means that the chips in the camera need to be faster and the buffer memory larger.
Already used and completely useless for the sensors discussed here. Unless you want a 500 MP FF sensor now, in which case you’d better set some money worth a car asside and be willing to work with 0.2 FPS or so.
What are you going to shoot with 500 mpix camera, and with which lens?
If you need gigapixel photos, panorama head + tele + stitching already there.
I never asked sony for more than 54 or 56 mp but i would take more if i could get it.
Please quote me a little more accurately.
500 mp will exceed the res of most lenses.
And clearly the formatting didnt work out and its a ridiculous long post. Andrea, can…you delete this please?
deleted 🙂
Thanks! I hate it when formatting collapses and makes a post unreadable!
I do not worship your sacred 24mp limit.
If that makes me a heretic I gladly accept the title.
Heres a revelation sure to make you cringe in terror
THERE’S A LOT MORE OUT THERE THAN YOUR CURRENT CAMERA CAN CAPTURE.
Yes I’m sure there is. But the facts are most people don’t need and can’t even use huge mp cameras so it isn’t financially productive to build them. Mst people’s lenses won’t resolve a 50+ mp sensor anyway and then you have the storage requirements for all those huge files.
It will happen in the main stream Barry, just not now.
The good news is you have options if its that important. The d800, various med format backs are available as well.
False
At 300 line pairs per mm which many primes will do
C can handle 200mp.
ff can handle 350mp.
Square ff can handle 450mp.
The sensor tecnology and processing are the current limits.
This is the conclusion from an exhaustive report from 2008 (hint: sensors were surpassing lenses back then). This is from luminous landscape:
“So, do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use, the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases they are lens-limited in terms of resolution. It is easier to correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot noise.
Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.
You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems looking at a print because the variables that determine the subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum circle of confusion.”
And while 300 pairs per mm is theoretically possible. Most lenses in real life are around 50-60. With ideal technique you may reach 100. So you’re dreaming and or reading and interpreting the available data wrong.
The pixel density of small 18mp sensors interpolated to ff would be 200 for bayer array.
In stacked array you and can multiply that by 4.
Couple that with a superzoom do everything lens and we do indeed exceed the limit.
For larger format and high guality primes we are not even close.
Your numbers are too low for high quality prime lense.
The are only true of lesser quality and zoom lenses.
Also bear in mind that if we go to stacked arrays the resolution possible increases 4x.
Even if we don’t come up with the same numbers we can certainly outresolve the best the new sensor grneration can produce with our current best lenses
When we can’t do then it’s time to make better lenses
We can do that too.
Bottom Line.
Yes there are some difficulties involved in producing higher res images.
these can, are and will be overcome.
They are NOT reasons it cannot be done.
What might be more productive than all the reasons we can’t do better is to talk about how we can do better.
What is good enough for you?
Is a picture of a forrest good enoughy or do you want to see trees?
Are trees good enough or do you want to see leaves?
Are leaves enough or do you want to see the viens and the butterfly on the top branch?
Is the butterfly good enough or do you want to see the scales on the wings and the facets on the eyes?
I don’t have all the answers but I want to see more than I can see now.
Gigapan = higher IQ than any sensor with resolution counted in megapixels without exceeding the resolution of the lens
Help to understand the market Sony is going for.. don’t most professionals like having a viewfinder? Is Sony gearing for more a general public audience than pros? Will Sony lose more professional market share to Nikon and canon with this change??
EVFs will eventually surpass even FF pentaprism OVFs in ALL areas, and it might happen sooner than you think. Pros will NEED to use them.
Sony’s EVFs already destroy the pentamirror OVFs of entry-level models and in many ways they are better than APS-C pentaprisms. My A700’s OVF seems small and dim compared to the NEX-6’s EVF.
Yeah, they have to look at something in order to frame a picture, right? EVF or back LCD is enough for that. The reason for the SLR design to exist was the problem with parallax in range finder style camera. Viewfinder is just a framing tool. At least that what it was intended to be.
Well, so future A-Mount cameras will be NEX camera mainboards inside an old fashioned case with the one and only advantage of In-Body Stabilisation, because there’s so much empty space left between the sensor to that distance where some E-Mount lenses already screw in their lens hood, whow!
Great, now Sony will give us so many more choices: DSLR-like E-mount with IBIS, compact E-mount with IBIS, compact A-mount without IBIS, not so compact hybrid A/E-mount but without IBIS…
wao… the last note point was my concern… large amount lens disposal… o great… Sony planning to get new customer rather than keep old customer…. in fact.. i will keep SLT for few year.. like other said.. i wan better AF speed rather than 1/3 light stop…
It’s amazing how negative most replies to any of these rumor posts are, and how many Sony “fans” are so critical of technology that hasn’t even been released yet. I’ve loved all of the alpha mount cameras I’ve owned (including my new a58). If other brands make superior products in your opinions, why not just go buy those and stop trolling these boards?
I my case because I’m not a pro and SONY cams seem to have good value for money. If I have more money in my pocket to spend for my hobby I would most probably go FF with the big two.
Looks like some people just don’t want development of A-mount because they have bought e-mount. For A-mount owners this makes sense. Stop crying. People think e-mount is point and shoot camera. Having DSLR style body does matter, fits in hand and look better.
I use a mount bodies, but I don’t give a rats ass if I was using a nex and someone thinks it a point and shoot.
Why would you care what someone else thinks of the camera you use?
And as to your last sentence, no. That’s not why sony would continue making a mount bodies. “Because they look better” isn’t the reason.
Read some posts above and you can learn some things, flange distance and differences with regard to wide angle vs tele lens on a mount vs nex for instance.
Wrong – in an ideal world I certainly want development of boths mounts, wherever that may lead.
Different cameras, different situations, as far as I’m concerned.
Oh, and if you’re seriously saying you want DSLR style bodies because “they look better”, then you’re into to photography for the wrong reasons.
I agree that every cam system has it’s purpose and use area.
But everyone are allowed to be into this for whatever reason they have… I guess Leica or HB Lunar owners like to walk around bragging with a camera?
For me everything matters. I love my a57. It is one of the best APS-C DSLR style camera out there. The best in its category. It fits into my hand. I have tried Nex-7. It doesn’t satisfy me. I would rather have a body that is well balanced with big lenses. Yes looks matters but that does not mean quality does not matter :D. You are taking things out of context.
Most professional photographers don’t care what they’re shooting with as long as it gets them the result they want. Only amateurs care what cameras they use.
“Most professional photographers don’t care what they’re shooting with as long as it gets them the result they want.” – That’s BS and you know it. Most of pro photographers are commercial photographers and they do care what they’re shooting with. It’s part of their job.
Actually…..kind of. Most paid photographers are just brand snobs. But, if you prove to them that switching is going to be beneficial, they will. Ultimately it IS about getting the gear that provides you with the best photos for what you do. I make the vast majority of my income on my photography. I own Nikon, its been mostly great over the past 9 years, but I’m here because I am ready for a change. And I like what I see with the direction Sony is going.
Well, it’s not only about brand we’ll talking here but also a type of equipment. If you’ll go shooting serious even with a good lens and a lens cap (NEX) attached to the rear – everyone will laugh at you and throw you out demanding their money back.
There is certainly some truth to that. There are many client expectations. You need to ‘look’ the part in most circumstances. If you do silly things like have the camera beeps turned on, or like you say, leave lens caps attached in that classic screw up, sure, you’re going to not make good impressions. But if I walked into my studio tomorrow with an A99 or A900 and some Zeiss or G glass, aside from my partner screaming into his hands (a Nikon ‘snob’ – sorry Ed!), the clients would be just as happy and confident with my ‘professional appearance’ and the photos themselves.
If you look more closely at the whole patent, you see that there is still a mechanical focus drive. So this is definitly an A-Mount.
I also think SOny will not loose money on having 2 mounts, but actually making more profit because of it. They have 2 mounts to serve different markets: E-Mount for sytemcamera’s and A-mount for DSLR-like camera’s. For some users these markets will overlap, but for most it will not. This way they assure that they can sell lenses to either marksegment, and double that for the overlapping customers.
>For some users these markets will overlap, but for most it will not.
They will try to force ppl into having both E and A system 😀
Sure they will. Canon does the same, Nikon does the same, Pentax does the same, Sony would be totally dumb not to try doing the same.
Now what’s the technical difference compared to the on-sensor PDAF patent filed in 2009?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2330449A1.html
amount mirrorless is interesting and i like the thought of a drop in speedbooster (i dont want FF right now as i shoot mostly wildlife ) it woudl be handy for things liek the kids concerts tho when i want all the light i can get into the camera.
i used the old A330 and tamron 70-200 the other day and think i did k but wished for a bit more speed. i also know that i woudl have much better iso noise with anew body but i have no need for new sept for it woudl be nice to have video option now and then
Looking at the pixel array diagram, I count nearly 1/3 of the pixels shown as being dedicated to autofocus, and therefore lost to image production. That means there’s no real difference in light loss in comparison to slt.
What would really have helped would have been an slt cam with a low-light feature that would have enabled the mirror to flp up. Losing the viewfiner image for a fraction of a second would have been a small compromise to shooting in low light – but would have allowed all the light to hit the sensor. Now, that potential feature is lost, as light consumption will be hardwired into the pixel array. Not a real step forward at all!
No.
You would not lose the viewfinder image if you flipped the slt mirror. That mirror is for pdaf only. Nothing else.
The viewfinder is driven off the main camera sensor. Take the mirror out of your slt and it will function just like it does now with the exception of auto focus.
The flip up mirror is the better compromise IMO than mirrorless. Not sure the af will be where it needs to be. But who knows.
Seems like it would be pretty simple to make a “mirror up” mode based in current cameras though as a stop gap to on sensor pdaf
It is a step forward. AF area will probably cover whole image. So no more focus and recompose. I guess they had this in mind when putting small PDAF module into A99. They knew already it will be obsolete soon.
+1
1/3 of the pixels is af? That must mean we are getting 8 million points of af. Excellent!
And 8 million of approximated image pixels. If it’s true – that’s even worse than what SLT does. Cause SLT only influences low-light shooting while PDAF array like that would affect your photos in every and each situation.
1/3 of the *focus point array* in the example shown. Which is just…. an example and the pixel array might not be covering the whole sensor, see A99 and NEX 6/5R.
I agree. The pixels not illustrated are probably normal pixelss.
Also the missing normal pixels are probably interpolated from the existing ones so slightly less detail but the same low light capability.
Honestly, I don’t know what to make of this move. Sure, mirrorless is the wave of the future, but is that the close or distant future? Do I want to plug down $3K or more on a camera that may not be much better than a prototype while Sony tries to perfect the technology? I know pricing has not been announced and it may be cheaper than $3K, but this is Sony and you better believe that its not going to be cheap. And what if this thing doesn’t catch on fire? In three years will I be hearing rumors that Sony has once again decided to change strategy and come out with some new technology that will finally catapult them to the top? I love my Sony camera but the one thing that I admire about CaNikon is that they have a straightforward progression in their systems.
In the end the most important thing to me is image quality as well as focusing accuracy. If AF doesn’t work or if the IQ is poor, Sony is toast. This next camera has to be “IT” or they are done in the market. No one is going to trust them anymore if this flops or fails to deliver the best pictures ever.
Don’t approximate your personal opinions and superstitions onto a whole market. Besides you and few whiners noone will be as dramatic as in your post.
I admire your patience Andrea. All this whining would have killed me ages ago.
This is awesome news! I’m actually really excited about this!
My D4 and I are not talking at the moment. 😉
Please move the prism hump rearwards to allow for full function with T/S lenses… and provide more eye relief. This still looks to be a nose smasher. EVF should accommodate extra long eye relief. No reason to make it look like DSLR.
The nex-5r, which is having the PDAF on sensor seems to demonstrate less sensitivity compare to the similar nex-5n. Also A99, having on-matrix PDAF demonstrate remarkably serious sensitivity degradation by more then a stop compare Means that quite likely the PDAF on matrix sacrifies sensitivity either.
So what’s the point then? Looks like the cost cut only. Not the image quality.
..until you look at the NEX 6 using the very same sensor as the 5R, including the PDAF array and it scores well within margin of measuring error when compared to the 5N.
And I’m not sure where you’re pulling that “more than a stop of degradation” from when looking at the A99.
+1
Means that quite likely the PDAF on matrix sacrifies sensitivity either.
I compare IQ of my Nex-5R Vs my Nex-5N at high Iso….i sell my 5R to buy another 5N…..!!!!
Do some testing before buying NEW technology!
Newer is not really better!
Hmmm….
those AF array are able to provide RGB info too!
So there should not really be any image quality lost due to them.
but if 1/3 is 8MP, the sensor is only 24MP?
Yes they can. But Sony doesn’t reveal them in RAW files!
These 3 differences between the A-mount and E-mount still seem like a certain death for the A-mount. Not immediate, but in the not-too-distant future.
1 — the A-mount has a bigger body! That’s appealing to some of us, but for most consumers, smaller is better. You don’t exactly see other camera makers intentionally up-sizing their bodies to any significant degree. You don’t see cell phone companies trying to make their phones thicker. (bigger screens, yes, but thinner bodies). While there will be some people who prefer the larger body in their hands, I don’t know if enough people to maintain demand. Reminds me of all the people, when the iPhone came out, stuck to their Blackberries insisting they preferred to have a physical keyboard. Yet physical keyboards are now basically dead on smart phones.
2- Inbody stabilization. Sounds great, if you are shooting with legacy lenses. But Canon/Nikon have never had any problem selling dSLRs without in-body stabilization. If you are a new camera buyer, starting to buy lenses from scratch, it really makes no difference whether the lenses are stabilized, or whether the camera is stabilized. The goal of any manufacturer is to sell new products. I don’t think a concern about the compatibility of 20-year-old Minolta lenses will be a *major* sticking point for Sony marketing. Yes, it would upset some OLD customers, but it would allow them to sell more brand new lenses to NEW customers.
3. Lens selection/availability. Purely temporary. The number of E-mount lenses will continue to grow.
Now…. If this on-sensor phase detection is truly game changing, then it will eventually be incorporated into compact ILC systems as well. If it really is as good as a dSLR, then it will also threaten Canon/Nikon/Pentax dSLRs. But at least they will still have one advantage of Sony dSLM (digital single lens mirrorless?) cameras— They will still have an optical viewfinder.
At which point, the question will become whether an optical viewfinder (along with bigger body and bigger lens selections) is enough of a reason to keep dSLRs around.
A couple of flaws.
1. Actually, all makers have been doing exactly that and are doing it as we speak. Upsizing their cameras targeted at the advanced users, higher end classes and more ergonomically demanding tasks. A 7D doesn’t have to be larger than a 700D. The GH3 is a considerably larger camera than its predecessor, top tier CaNikon cameras are the largest FF cameras mostly because of ergonomical reasons. They can be made smaller in theory, but apparently the target market weighs other parameters more heavily.
2. The majority of primes from every manufacturer are *not* stabilized and likely won’t be for the foreseeable future. That’s where IBIS has clear benefits, no matter how we cut or slice it. Even for starters looking at new glass. In lens stabilization has its own benefits too, but this just shows there is a market for both.
3. Even if the E mount lens selection grows, they are still designed to be compact, lightweight and likely to work well with CDAF and PDAF, when targeting the current E mount market. Different from prioritizing AF speed and IQ above all, as done with the A mount. If they want to cover that with E mount glass too, they’d have to add a whole new line of lenses with a different design philosophy, at which point continuing the A mount suddenly makes a lot more sense, since most of that glass is already there.
It’s like saying that pro gear is dead, because majority of market 1. wants smaller, 2. doesn’t need it, 3. is happy with kit lens.
lol
truly brilliant argumentation.
Pro gear is a niche market. Sold at higher prices, with lower production.
The market mostly does want smaller. That’s why Canon came out with the SL1. That’s why the E-mount has been gaining market share, while the A-mount loses market share. (The numbers I have seen suggest that Sony lost “dSLR” market share over the 3-years of dSLT production, while they have promoted their increase in overall interchangeable-lens-camera marketshare, attributable to the E-mount).
Now, it’s not just size that matters. But most consumers don’t buy dSLRs because they want bigger. They buy dSLRs for higher image quality, for faster auto-focus, for optical viewfinders. Most people I speak with, buy dSLRs despite the increased size, they don’t buy the cameras because of the increased size.
Everything is relative. System cameras are a niche market as a whole too. Most consumers don’t want an ILC, their phone does the job. That in itself doesn’t mean there’s no market for ILC’s. Or in this case, a line for more compact ILC’s and a line targeted at ergonimics and speed.
+1
Well for those people thinking that having a DSLR sized e-mount solves issues…
We could soon know answers by looking at Canon SL1 and see if it sells…
If Canon cant do it, Sony would never be able to do it…
Likewise, camera makers NEEDS consumer to spend money to buy their lens.
IF consumers kept buying cheap e-mount lens or legacy lens and avoid their bigger lens >100mm, every single camera maker company would close down, canikon included.
Problem here is, e-mount is only good for wide angle lens.
Proconsumer needs tele-lens, where e-mount itself is unable to deliever.
So banking their hopes on proconsumer DSLR using e-mount is suicidal as a company.
There is a 210mm zoom for the NEX. And that’s as far as most dSLR owners use as well. Not exactly hard to imagine that they can go out as far as building 300mm for the NEX. Which really would cover the needs of 99% of current dSLR owners. (I don’t think I’ve ever personally seen someone using anything larger than 300mm on a crop-body dSLR).
Clearly the plan is to try to keep A-mount and E-mount side by side. I just wonder if the market eventually picks just one.
Sony only has, SEL18200, SEL18200LE, SEL55210, SELP18200
All which gave medicore image quality, slower AF
but yes u gain slightly more compact, lighter, less fiddly setup
Truth is, i have seen many people who use bigger lens for birding, wildlife, macro…
We are talking here about 300mm, 400mm, etc
Canon just released a 200-400 F4, sad that sony does not.
I have yet tried seen anyone tried them on NEX.
And i am skeptical if the e-mount adapter would actually BREAK if one is mounted on them.
The Canon 200-400 f4 is a $12,000 lens. Again, for 99% of consumers, the Nex offers adequate choices of native telephoto lenses. And let’s remember, larger lenses do work with adapters on the Nex. May not be pretty, but they work.
I have the NEX-7 and the SEL18200 and it’s surprisingly good actually. I took some shots with my SEL35F18 and with my SEL18200 @ 35mm and compared them side by side and it was hard to tell them apart they both looked super good! I was very impressed.
I use it@ 200mm 70% of the time and I am still very happy with the results at that focal length mainly with the centre performance.
“Problem here is, e-mount is only good for wide angle lens.”
Why do people keep peddling this lie? You’re as bad as Walt Knapp.
Actually, this is not entirely a lie. “Only good” is perhaps too strong, “more suitable” is more suitable. More suitable for wide angle(short FL) because of retrofocus thing.
I can’t understand why this is a good thing. Show me one mirrorless camera with AF as good as a DSLR/DSLT. I’ve yet to see one, so the suggestion is that Sony cameras will no longer be suitable for sports, wildlife and other forms of action photography.
Rx100, Nikon. 1, etc…
These sensors are way smaller. Doesn’t compare to trying to attain focus on a larger sensor. My iPhone 5 focuses fast too but the whole sensor is almost in focus all times anyway.
The nex 5r and 6 are the ones to compare to
How many pro sports togs use such cameras?
Here’s a clue, its less than 1.
Why judge technology yet to be released (of the future) by today’s standards to begin with? By that logic, we’d still be shooting with Mavicas if we wanted to use digital.
2 sensor solutions.
The old film cameras metered light reflecting off the film.
The space vacated by the mirror could house a system to autofucus the image reflected by the sensor.
Alternatively an advanced firmware and processor can focus the actual sensor image.
Both solutions eliminate the miror and allow the sensor to just produce the best possible image and so nothing else.
If they could reflect the image off the aa filter to focus I would think that they would have done this rather than design the slt system.
And what good was it to meter your light after you’d already exposed the film to the light? Not arguing but I honestly don’t understand hw that would work
“The old film cameras metered light reflecting off the film.”
Which old film cameras did this?
Call me ignorant, but I always thought the film was exposed to light only after metering and at the point of shutter release.
I’m starting to think Barry doesn’t actually know a whole lot about cameras or how they work.
It was the early ttl flash metering on the minolta cameras.
I stand corrected that statement was innacurate.
Also the autofoucus off the sensor could only work with no filters an no mirror.
Some sort of lens system would have to be housed where the mirror system used to be.
These systems would allow the sensor to just make good pictures and nothing else.
it would also make stacked sensors more practical since they wont need pdaf pixels.
The reflected system could only work for a mount not e mount.
The Olympus OM-2 metered the light off the film on long exposures. Normally it metered off the shutter front curtain.
If the sensor reflects enough light for the AF module works, then it wasted a lot of light.
I think Sony has a reason to add features to its lineup to get users over from canikon in what currently is the dslr segment more than it has reason to milk cash out of its users like canon does. Lots of amateurs are going with small mirorless systems and the nex seems to be doing very well by having the apsc sensor. However, I’m not so sure about its slt lineup, it seems to be tailored for sports but I don’t see them putting a dent in Canon.
That said, if Sony is moving away from slt to mirorless, I think they should go e-mount. I think they could fit the stabilisation even in the small flange distance. They could offer a body with slr style control like the Panasonic gh series. Next they could offer it with a discounted A mount adapter. A killer feature would be a speedbooster adapter for A mount with top notch electronic control/adapter. I think having a merged lens lineup would probably increase lens sales and make both platforms seem more complete even if that means having a compact lens series and a performance series. Compact nex users might want a couple of lenses from the performance lineup like a telephoto or a tilt shift. And the performance users could also benefit from the compact lens. Sports guys might keep a compact normal prime and shoot lifestyle and sideline action. They could also pop on the compact lenses for a much smaller package for everyday shooting. Keeping the lines together improves them both and it doesn’t mean tha Sony has to stop A mount slt production tomorrow either.
“A” mount is dead, dead, dead. “E” mount makes “A” mount redundent, as everything an “A” mount can do, an “E” mount can do, and do it better. As for Alpha lines attached to a mount, there would be absolutely no difference in the make-up of the cameras, should IBIS be added to the Alpha NEX line, which can easily be done.
As for the old folks that sadly think that Sony cares to support old lenses and cameras, sorry but no. Think, the recent 16-50mm compact zoom, even after firmware support updates only covers certain NEX cameras and the Nex 5 was not afforded a firmware update. No, they do not care about the old generations. No new “A” mounts, it is dead.
“A” mount is dead, dead, dead. “E” mount makes “A” mount redundent, as everything an “A” mount can do, an “E” mount can do, and do it better. As for Alpha lines attached to a mount, there would be absolutely no difference in the make-up of the cameras, should IBIS be added to the Alpha NEX line, which can easily be done. As for the old folks that sadly think that Sony cares to support old lenses and cameras, sorry but no. Think, the recent 16-50mm compact zoom, even after firmware support updates only covers certain NEX cameras and the Nex 5 was not afforded a firmware update. No, they do not care about the old generations. No new “A” mounts, it is dead.
Wrong.
E mount can not do tele lenses as well as much less better than a mount. You’re talking out of the wrong hole here.
Is your computer infected with a virus that reposts your delusional thoughts over and over again, or is there really a silly human being behind these things? 😉
Really, Dan? Are you a professional clown, and just trying to make us laugh?
Cause I get a good chuckle out of reading this stuff.
Crap. This was for Dan, below. I’m having all kinds of trouble today!
If that was true, there would be no need for E-mount either. Canon mount is enough!
Let’s drop Nikons mount as well. And Pentax, and 4/3, oh Samsung also …
/E
Wow,
160 comments and even mention of 1/3th of a stop loss of light due to semi-transparant mirror and no one mentions it is half a stop of light that is lost?
Strange!
I thought this was a sony site?!
It is 30% light loss which equals half a stop.
Also I can’t believe it doesn’t degrade the IQ on some level.
So It is actually a big deal!
If I can still focus decently fast with a F2 or barely with an F2.8 zoom because of the light levels and I then only use 30% of the light to focus…
So I say if this focusses as fast as the lenses support and gives absolutely no degredation in IQ, then I think this is big news
Why are you discussing light loss?
Who cares how much light is lost to the semi-transparent mirror…the news here is its irrelevant now. The Admin said goodbye to light loss because the SLT concept has been retired.
‘160 comments’ ignored the light loss because its not a factor in this rumor.
The light ‘lost’ to the AF on sensor pixels is not even a factor. I’m sure that diagram only shows a dense region – 98% of the sensor is probably going to be be just photo receptors.
People just get tired of pointing out that 30 percent light loss is 1/2 stop. I still do it occasionally but it is mostly pointless as nobody cares.
A mount is dead, dead, dead. E mount makes A mount redundent, as everything an A mount can do, an E mount can do, and do it better. As for Alpha lines attached to a mount, there would be absolutely no difference in the make-up of the cameras, should IBIS be added to the Alpha NEX line, which can easily be done. Think Sony cares to support old lenses and cameras, sorry but no. Think, the recent 16-50 compact zoom, even after firmware support updates only covers certain cameras and Nex 5 was not. No, they care not about past generations. No new A mounts, it is dead.
keep on fooling yourself.
Comments are not appearing?
In your case, that would be a blessing to us all.
Hmm…I wonder why.
Andrea, one thing you forgot to mention when distinguishing between E-mount and A-mount was the ultra short flange distance on the E-mount allowing adaptation of almost any lens on the market. Leica fans don’t care about A-mount, but E-mount FF could suddenly be an interesting alternative.
I wanted to list the points why the A-mount mirrorless makes sense 🙂
Fair enough 😉
Everything seems great. The only issue I see with on-sensor PDAF is how will it perform when taking several pictures in a burst. With the SLT concept, it doesn’t matter if the shutter is closing or opening, it always have information on the subject available while the mirrorless concept with on-sensor PDAF, it can only receive information when the shutter is open…but really would like to see a mirrorless A-mount camera. Heck, I would like both mounts to coexist in the future. While the modular concept of having E-mount and then A-mount via adapter sounds efficient, having a weathersealed body with modularity seems difficult and expensive. Better have a proper A-mount body with weathersealing and another E-mount body and offer the A-mount adapter separately.
If Sony can implements electronic global shutter, this will not be a problem anymore. But I don’t see it coming yet.
Honestly, anyone excited for mirrorless A-mount is the exact audience Sony is looking for. Gadgeteers less interested in photography and more interested in gimmicks. You all cry, “go back to your 20 year old technology,” but that technology is rock solid and DSLRs made by canikon are nearly as perfect as they’re going to get. Mirrorless is probably the future, but anyone jumping on a mirrorless A-mount is doing valuable beta testing for Sony, Canon, and Nikon. Sony never focuses on the big issues like lens, accessories, and service. They only spend their time investigating gimmicks and producing beta cameras for gadgeteers to test out. I’m glad E-mount is focused on photography and less on gimmicks. True mirrorless market doesn’t need gimmicks to compete with canikon because they are pretty much no-shows.
The success or failure of mirrorless A-mount will prove valuable as Canikon watches while designing new lenses. They know whatever Sony tries to do, Sony can never gain share because they’re extending their advantage in lens, 3rd party support, and services. All they have to do is watch Sony to find out where all the bugs and issues are. When they are ready in the future, they can make their own, with all the fixes. Sony and their gadgeteer fans have become valuable assets for Canikon’s R&D. They appreciate the perserverance you beta testers are showing.
Canon learned so much from all the NEX bugs and failures, that 2 years after its launch, Canon brought out the much improved and fixed Canon M system. *insert loud laughter here*.
– insanely slow AF (comparable to my 12 year old compact)
– no EVF options
– no tilting screen
– less native lenses than any other competing system
– should I still mention a lack of DR and a plethora of banding at low ISO?
Hence the reason why photographers are interested in the Sony NEX, while gadgeteers are interested in A-mount. Now, you see the distinctions. E-mount focused on making lenses now. A-mount focused on yet another gimmick. Pretty loud and clear.
Loud and clear to those covering their ears and eyes and imagining things. Stabilized 135mm ZA, 85mm ZA, soon 50mm ZA, 500mm F4, 300mm F2.8 GII,70-400mm GII, A99, etc. The photographers and pros using those and their work, speak louder and more clear than you can imagine things.
Short memory too since you wrote:
“I’m pretty sure all the Sony SLT are very good or excellent. I had the a55 for a short time and was impressed.”
By your own logic, that makes you the gimmick type of guy you described, rather than a photographer.
lol, zohee. I did get the a55 and was impressed. Then I realized the missing pieces (lens, 3rd party, etc) were overwhelming and I chucked that gadget on ebay and never looked back.
So you agree you’re impressed easily by gadgets. The gimmick type of guy afterall.
Me thinks photographers are out shooting while you’re playing WoW and LoL.
Perfect CDAF slowness and jerkyness, nonsensical LV implementations and lots of workarounds to eliminate mirror vibrations. Perfect in not being able to manual focus precisely until you change focus screens (bothersome and cameras like the 5DMKIII can no longer change them to begin with). Perfect when you’re not exploring their limitations and won’t run into them like a brick wall. 6 years ago, the same was said, near perfect. Yet most would still feel current cameras are much better.
And above all, your perfect isn’t mine and vice versa.
Perfect for us photographers busy taking photos. The market has spoken. Photographers around the world are interested in taking quality photos with quality lenses and not gimmick. All they hear from gadgeteers focused on small issues is “blah, vibration, blah, Live View, blah, blah, blah”, while they are busy taking photos and lusting after all those wonderful new lenses. Don’t worry, Canikon’s R&D department (Sony’s A-mount and gadgeteer beta testers) are hard at work.
Correction: the marketing speaks.
By your logic, McDonalds offers perfect food too (the market has spoken) and most photographers who bought their cameras 6 years ago, didn’t upgrade because they already found perfect.
But I’m sure the R&D departments are working overtime, to see if they can still make something out of failures, such as the M system. 😉
Yes, marketing through awesome new cameras and lenses. DXO’s lens testing was great markting. I love that Nikon has the 28/1.8, 85/1.4, 70-200/4, Sigma 35/1.4, Zeiss 25/2, all performing at 22mp on the D800 while Sony still stuck with poor quality old lenses. The 5 sharpest lens, available for Nikon. That’s pretty good marketing. How about accessories like camranger that allows wireless live view and remote control on my iPad? Man, that is good marketing. Radio popper and pocket wizard providing wireless TTL flash sync. The marketing sure is deafening. Every lens I can want, support from 3rd party everywhere I look. Sure makes photography easy. Don’t you worry, go back to your obsession over vibration.
btw, if I ever decide to switch away from Lightroom, every raw processor supports my Nikon files, even the software from Hasselblad (Phocus) and Phase One supports it. It’s like 360 degree of support in this awesome ecosystem that Canikon has nurtured. Sure, they don’t have vibration control like A-mount, but I think it’s a pretty good trade-off, don’t you think?
Why are you reading DXO reviews when you’re the gimmick type of guy? See above. 😀
You’re using market shares and sales in an attempt to prove a point and then come up with things that 90% of the photographers using CaNikon bodies isn’t ware of, for not bothering past their kitlenses and in camera jpegs. Try again.
Zohee, it’s like this, anyone who buys a Canikon knows it’s well supported. Let me give you an example. If I want any Zeiss lens available for 35mm, I can rest assured it’s available for my Nikon. If I had that beta camera from A-mount, I would miss out on all those Zeiss like the 100mm Makro Planar or legendary 21mm Distagon. A-mount is a toy, an incomplete beta toy, developed in collaboration with Hasbro.
Again you’re speaking for every Canon user, when 90% of them never looks beyond the lens that came with the camera, let alone they are interested in or aware of for example Zeiss (MF) support.
The only thing you’re conveying here is the fact you’re here to troll. You’re not a photographer by your own definition, or you would be out shooting and not be impressed with the A55 and other SLT’s, which you already said you were.
No, instead of shooting, you’re just throwing around hyberbole while contradicting yourself. Oh and practically all Sony camereras are supported by the RAW processors you mentioned. The A99 for example tethers with Phase One software.
That’s ok, just don’t expect to be taken seriously next time. 😉
You just don’t get it, do you? 90% os canikon users will never need more than their kit lens, but they are fearful by nature. They know buy into Canikon is safe and well supported. They know they won’t be caught by gatchas like ghosting from SLT.
All I want is for Sony to wake up and throw all their resources on their one promising mount, E-mount. It could be so much more awesome if R&D money wasn’t wasted on A-mount’s gimmicks. If that makes me a troll in the minds of A-mount gadgeteers, so be it.
No, you’re confused yourself (which your camera history tells us already).
90% has no knowledge of SLT’s whatsoever, let alone ghosting, which was fixed 2 years ago (welcome to 2013). You’re talking marketing.
And you keep saying you were disappointed with the lack of A mount lenses (there are about 400 AF lenses to choose from). Yet you were the person that wrote:
“Some people criticize the NEX lens lineup, but I feel it fits my needs. ”
See why I’m sitting here laughing? 😀
You should be laughing at yourself. NEX fits my needs for what I use my NEX for. It’s my go everywhere camera. For serious photos, I will whip out the big guns. I don’t need to cary a big camera when I’m walking to the nearest cafe. I don’t need a 400mm lens for it because I won’t be shooting sports or birds with it. Your criticism of the highly successful M system shows your lack of understanding of street photography. You don’t see many lenses beyond 75mm for Leica right now because only a douchebag goes street walking with a 70-200/2.8 or 400mm lens.
The comedy is getting better. What does my criticism of the M system have to do with street photography? If you’re implying that it’s suitable for that, you’re even more clueless than I thought. AF as slow as a 12 year old compact is anything but suitable for street photography. The lack of a tilting screen or viewfinder just adds insult to injury here.
And the fact you were happy with the NEX lineup as it was well over a year ago, just highlights your contradictory statements regarding A mount lens lineup. Not to mention the fact that you keep repeating you owned the A55, but your history shows you owned the A33 instead with 2 kitlenses.
But the absolute killer is the fact that you stated you sold your 24-70 because of **shaky hands* combined with the lack of IS. While now ridiculing anyone bringing up lack of vibrations and the benefits of built in IS. 😀 😀
You’re talking in circles, and it’s quite hilarious to see you run around and around like a kitten trying trying to catch the laser pointer. It’s cute. Little pet, not everyone needs AF, tilting screen, low vibration, etc. to take great street photos. All one really needs is discreteness. Currently, I own only two lenses (24 and 50) for my NEX-7 because it’s all I need for street photos. An 85 and 10-18 would give me more opportunities but not necessary.
I’m not sure you’re a kitten chasing a laser pointer or one big troll googling back years of posts. I guess that’s all that can be expected from a gadgeteer. You probably have macros set up to quickly search old posts and keywords. I’m happy that you will get your next gimmick from A-mount. I will exit this infinite loop of your comedic insanity now. Feel free to keep talking and imagine I’m responding back. When you have nothing solid to say about the topic, google back many years and push the conversation sideways. Gadgeteer tactic 101.
“All one really needs…” You mean you, not everyone. Similarly, others want larger bodies, ergonomics with good and fast LV, while keeping the benefits of low vibration and A mount compatibility. That’s apparently too hard to admit. A case of cognitive dissonance combined with an already admitted agenda.
The circles you talk about, are just your attempt to project your flaws onto others. You’re stuck in the middle of one and what comes out left, doesn’t agree with what comes out right. The good thing is that you’ve made it your trademark, so 2 minutes of googling left me with enough ammunation to slap you silly with your own contradictions for the rest of the day. 😉
@Zohee
Ghosting cannot be fixed, it’s physics: different angle of refraction for different wavelengths. I have seen clear evidence of this simple fact in A77s night shot.
Nonsense. *No one* has yet been able to show a visible ghost from the A77 that can be linked to refractive indexes from the mirror (between 10 and 15 pixels from the original light source). That should tell us something already. And you have failed time and time again to provide an example. Hollow claims.
And Zohee35 wins the debate! Congratulations!
I’m a gadget-er myself, but saying I’m ONLY interested in gimmicks is not totally correct. I do have an interest in photography. If not, I would have buy another type of gadget. Gadgeters are probably more open to a new technology than traditional photographers. I like cool things too. If the gimmick is cool, what not to like? Hehehehe…
Hmm! A mirror less SLR isn’t that just a glorified bridge camera, Sony it’s a gadget too far, time to change brand.
I won’t miss the current focus system, it is my least liked aspect of the a99.
I think it’s an interesting development and for videophiles especially it could become a serious and desirable alternative to the Panasonic gh series (which after all shares a dslr-like body, no optical viewfinder, and video features more advanced than most dslrs).
It would be nice to see Sony begin to offer more fancy video features than other makes. I’m not saying that that the immediate successor to the a77 and a99 should have raw video (although apparently there’s a hack in the works from magic lantern for 5ds for raw video), timecode, and xlr inputs (let alone 4k which just seems unnecessary for most people now) but it would be nice to have at least manual exposure controls during af video recording on the next cameras (and an auxiliary mic with xlr inputs even for the aps-c one).
The other thought I have is that if this sensor has good native phase detect af will that be adopted (licensed?) to Nikon and Pentax too? The new d7100 seems to have sensor-based phase detect af for video (although apparently not as good as the a77).
If Sony could start from scratch they might develop a lens mount with the registration distance of the E mount but have a larger flange diameter like the A-mount. They did have a demo camera that could take either E or A mount adaptors, but every added adaptor introduces problems. The E mount can use a FF sensor but I am sure it is far from ideal, When Minolta went from the old MD mount to the A-mount they made the flange diameter larger to improve the optical performance. I you look at the lens on the RX1, particularly how large the real element is, no way to do that on E-mount.
At least for the short term it looks like Sony has decided on a dual mount approach. I expect this will reduce the possibilities of E Mount in FF except for video cameras.
It seems that Sony wants to merge the E and APS-C A-mount lines. Perhaps there will be an interim mirrorless A-mount only body, but after that, A-mount lenses will be used on a larger NEX body with A-mount adapter. That adapter will hopefully be more integrated with the camera’s design than the current “translucent” mirror adapters. With both A and E-mount lenses being focused via on-sensor phase detection pixels, there will no longer be a need for 2 separate lines of camera bodies. A simple adapter will suffice in bridging the gap between the two mount systems.
A little fun…
In 2014 I will upgrade my A77 to the A999 with the new translucent octo-core BIONZ processor that fills the space of the mirror box with enough processing power to output my gigapixel curved round sensor to my storage array via telepathic tethering. I’ll also have the direct connect to my Sony optic eye implant for when I want to go full manual. It will shame those clunky turn of the century competitors. My belly laugh will echo through their glassy OVF housings.
I’ll feed my nostalgic side by buying the A-mount glass that Sony is NEWLY engineering to put on my Maxxum 7, A77, and A999~. Get it while it is hot! I mean it’s a “dead” mount right? Why on earth would Sony let 10 year veteran Motoyuki Ohtake work on A-mount lenses? He used to work at Nikon and has his name associated with 109 patents. (Didn’t he get the memo about the A-mount?)
So, I am holding my breath for the new A-mount bodies just like everyone else, and hoping the new tech will take better pictures. Any bad picture that comes out of my camera are clearly caused by low tech. It certainly couldn’t be me. I’m awesome.
Actually, I’m just glad to see the Sony CEO knocking some heads together and holding off. The tech is changing rapidly and I didn’t want to see every E-mount R&D body iteration on the store shelf either. It rather confused and cheapened the offering. I’m looking forward to more real change. My SLT is pretty phenomenal. I plan to eventually get both A and E mount bodies for different reasons.
This array would be just as fast as the array without pdaf.
The missing pixels are probably interpolated from the existing ones so slightly less detail but the same speed.
It also seems unlikely that a third of the pixels are pdaf, more likely the white areas of the drawing represent additional normal pixels.
Sony is under some pressure from Wall Street “types” to split-up the company. Apparently, some parts of the business are doing quite well, with others not doing as well and are bringing down the overall numbers of Sony Corporation.
Just the fact that investors are even thinking of Sony breaking off its most profitable movie and media businesses is enough to sake management decisions in different ways.
Put a retractable speedbooster (so you can use lenses in FF focal length or APS-C if you need the tele reach!) inside the empty space and ND filters for video!
That would be really cool to do, I would love a camera like that
ae hybrid mount (or E-Mount with LA-EA3)
full-frame sensor
image stabilizer on sensor
focus speed will not be slower than current A77
no sensor overheat issue
36mega pixels
4K/24fps capability
long battery life
well, that would be a great game changer… but all still are in imagination 🙁
I have a feeling that Sony is changing too fast for their Alpha system, making it difficult for the users to adapt to. It’s just been few years when it changes from traditional DSLR to SLT. Now they change again. I also have a fear that the new on sensor phase detection autofocus system will not be that efficient as the traditional one. But my biggest worry is that, finally Sony will get rid of the a-mount and this is just a transitional period.
please ,sony i need size as same Lumix G 😉
The question is: Will on-sensor PD AF approach be as fast as a dedicated AF sensor?
In general, the performance of the on-sensor PDAF is not as good as a dedicated AF sensor under dark environment (eg.indoor). Because the size of the on-sensor PDAF is so small, when there is not enough light the noise increase significantly, and cause slow focusing, hunting, and misfocusing.
But if there is enough light, on-sensor PDAF can be as good as a dedicated AF sensor.
Hope Sony can prove me wrong, they may have some new technology to solve the problems.
Bye bye crappy DSLT!