Sony Manager Mark Weir has been interviewed by Imaging Resource (full article here). There is no talk about the future products and just some minor info like:
– RX1 Demand has been very strong.
– To create a universal RAW file that all sensor manufacturers would adhere to may limit the opportunities of what we can be achieved.
– Sony has received requests to be able to set JPEG compression while shooting RAW plus JPEG and they are aware of that request.
– “The decision to use optical-shift instead of sensor-shift in NEX cameras was based on the intention to miniaturize the camera body. And if you look at the size of NEX, particularly from in the depth dimension, you can see that with 18 mm from flange to sensor and then there’s very little room from the sensor to the back of the camera, yes, there just wasn’t room.”
it was obvious NEX would never have n sensor stabilization but know you hear it officially from a Sony manager.
98 Responses
Well that’s sucks to hear that there is no IS. as that is one of the main reason why I am into alpha.
EM-5 have IS but small sensor.
APS is big, 4/3 is small… Come on, give me a break.
That “small” sensor kicks Alpha’s SLT-damaged ass.
Even E-PM2 pen lite is outperforming my NEX-F3.
APS-C size was not best choice IMO for a small system.
I would have ditched m4/3, but nice primes and now Sony sensor used by Oly are really excellent match.
Still Sony can do great things with NEX and I appreciate this gentlemans honesty.
Talk about DOF difference between these two sensors then? 😉
Not again please, just take another focal length and you’re done if you want better isolation. Not a biggie at all.
Admin, Can you change the title to Mark Weir, not Weird?
I was about to say, what a Weird surname!
I think there’s still a possibility for sensor based stabilization – technically no limitation – they will only have to increase the room behind the sensor
That. Bringing the FF nex without inbuilt IS would be quite retarded. Lense-body imbalance would become even greater. They said the FF nex body will be bigger than current NEX bodys so i’m still hoping…
They can even squeeze FF sensor in a small compact, what make it impossible to get the IS in.
Well then, make the camera a little thicker. A few millimeters thicker is not a show stopper.
They have the Alphas for that, if one doesn’t care about body size.
Sony isn’t going to make every permutation of featuresets just so people griping on the Internet won’t have an excuse not to buy (and yet still won’t buy and find something else to gripe about), while confusing the original paradigm (a big-sensor MILC in small body, optically-stabilized).
If they make the IBIS NEX, people will start complaining why lenses are built with OSS. They will demand their very own line of lenses “that won’t force us to pay for things we don’t need and to accept the optical compromise of OSS.” As will the FF NEXers. As will the IBIS FF NEXers. Etc, etc.
Business is about giving people what they want, but not necessarily what some say they want.
+1000
Sony offer a few camera lines for ppl to choose.
Dunno since when ppl like to compliant missing features or accessories which are offered on other cameras. Such as Nex users complains missing a mount camera features and a mount users complains the camera is not compact enough.
Hey, the size is not only one and probably not major advantage of mirrorless
Another important thing is that you can mount almostly any lens you like on your camera. Also you can focus quite fast manually with picking contours or magnification mode. But still would be really nice to have in camera stabilization especially would be helpful for tele-lenses
Absolutely agree. The E-mount is the basis, not the flatness of the NEX body.
Actually – it is the major advantage. And with fully-fledged bayonet you rarely if ever need to mount non-native lenses and run with manual focusing all the time, so I wouldn’t count it as such an advantage.
You either have A mount with loads of lenses that cover huge range of focal lengths while still balancing nicely with the body and offering AF, or you pick the E mount with far lower amount of lenses which needs to be filled with MF glass where in extreme cases body is an ugly lens cap.
So: no, the E-mount is not an advantage over advantage.
Well, If they count on people compensating for the lack of dedicated FF lenses by using A mount lenses on release for the FF nex, having no IBIS could be a problem. Since few people will be using current stabilized E lenses on a FF sensor, introducing IBIS for the FF nex line (and no OSS FF lenses) would also make some sense.
Then the camera would really be more of an Alpha (Alpha lenses, IBIS, Alpha body size), but with a modular SLT (LA-EA4?) that can be detached for E-mount and legacy adaptation capability.
The camera will be dSLT/R-sized when used with native Alpha lenses, and will be dSLT/R-with-pancake-sized when used with E-mount lenses (most E-mount lenses aren’t pancakes… but when you lose 26.5mm of LA-EA4 adapter, all E-mount lenses will seem damn short).
dSLT/R-w/regular-lens-sized when using FF Alpha lenses, dSLT/R-w/pancake-lens-sized (and APS-C-cropped) when using E-mount lenses (whic is fine as it is generally aceepted that there is always some IQ cost to using a pancake). Not to mention capable of adapting legacy lenses w/stabilization.
The camera might be significantly bigger than what people are imagining an IBIS NEX to be… but I like the overall concept of this convertible Alpha.
Assuming FF NEX lenses will be compatible with APS-C NEX bodies, it is essential for them to have OSS.
With regard to using current e-mount lenses on a FF NEX, that might be more popular than you think, as the ability of the EVF to upscale the cropped image to fill the entire EVF makes their use quite practical.
Could you explain the EVF thing? I’m not that much into this kind of technical stuff. I mean, I would expect the EVF to show more or less the same thing as it would on an APS sensor?
Another potential problem I see with OSS is the size. Current APS OSS E lenses arent really compact and I guess FF constructions would make them even bigger by quite a margin. A major thing that improves the ergonomics of NEX is that the lenses have a size and weight that are quite easy to hold (in my opinion) which could potentially be lost in larger constructions. If you’ve got a DSLR body that won’t really be a problem but for smaller NEX bodies it could.
However, I’ve got to admit that I’m just hoping for the IBIS in the FF NEX for totally selfish reasons. I’ve still some ancient leica r glass without a body that utilizes their full potential.
You can always adapt those lenses on the current A99 or A900 with Leitax.
I’d really like to be able to select extra-fine+RAW on my a99!!!
Sony are geniuses: tiny cameras with supersized os lenses
LOL
+1
Exactly my thoughts. He should have kept his mouth shut on that one :).
As long as they don’t send A mount out to pasture, they can do whatever they want with E mount.
And no IBIS is why I will never buy NEX.
+1
without IBISS/ IS in body, nex still larger because their big lens.. if they make F1.4 lens that will more larger i believe.. sony should look fuji lens desain, they small and have large aperture than sony, just give IBISS/IS on body nex that would be great, small lens and no really large camera.. just like olympus
+1
That put me off too.
‘ Well, I think that the decision to use …’
Many of Marks answers starts with thIs. So he doesn’t really know.
The IBIS question was colored by size, if it would have been colored by video demands instead, that would have been the answer.
Mark knows very litttle about whar goes on at Sony.
Weir seems very well informed to me. The design decisions of NEX mount specifications could have been done by a conglomerate of Japanese engineers half a decade ago, the man can’t know the decisive answers to everything.
Still no assurances over A mount?
Actually that’s exactly how I read this – a vindication of a strong multi system lineup. Rx, Nex and Alpha – all with different selling points.
Why everyone seems not sure about a mount? Sony just released the A99 and other a mount lenses. So this year will be concentration on e mount, from recent rumors on SAR, and I think that’s fair enough. Next year or the following year the focus will be back on a mount.
Mark also just said that there will be multiple line up, aphla, Nex, and RX. Got it?
+1
Completely agree. While A38 being dumped/delayed wasn’t a very good sign, the fact that they’re revising a-mount lenses, like 18-55 II, version 1 of which was already a very good kit lens, as well as 75-400G, where 70-400G was/is a great lens as well. (I’m not talking about prices yet, since lenses haven’t been released and it’s all still rumors.)
This is the kind of sign i’ve been looking for. It would be dumb for any company to waste resources in such a way, if they’re not planning to continue supporting related products.
Sony might not be making good decisions as far as lenses go. I agree with a lot of people here that they should have instead filled the gaps rather than releasing revisions, but in making revisions to already good lenses i believe that its a sign that A-Mount is there to stay.
Also remember that the next logical step for a-mount is to remove the mirror completely, so it makes sense that they’ll focus on nex this year to get on sensor pdaf up to dslt speeds. Imho that’s why we’re seeing so much nex focus in 2013 and why 2014 will be an a-mount year…
I don’t think the argument that an NEX couldn’t have IBIS due to the 18mm lens register is definitive. The sensor is mounted from the rear, and it’s the sensor mount which is moved. So there doesn’t appear to be a reason why such a mechanism couldn’t be introduced at the expense of a considerably deeper camera body.
This is not to say that IBIS on NEX is going to be a desirable route from a commercial point of view. Having put IS into E-mount lenses, that path seems set, especially when it is the preferred direction for the most compact systems cameras.
However, there is a more profound limitation, and that it the E-Mount throat diameter. There has to be an extra few millimetres of space as the sensor has to move within the image circle. Whilst there might be room for that with an APS-C sensor, it’s surely impossible for an E-mount FF as the tolerances are already very tight indeed.
I would guess flange distance is an issue, not because the mechanics doesn’t fit, but because of the sensor movements themselves. also, together with the throat problem mentioned – with shorter flange distance the sensor would need to move even more to compensate for camera shake, right?
Sensor movement is only lateral, not fore-and aft, as it’s designed to compensate for angular deflections, not fore-and-aft movements of the camera. The latter for most subject distances, with the possible exception of macro, is not an important factor.
As far as the amount of movement required, the lens register is completely irrelevant. For a given degree of angular deflection it is dependent only on focal length – a 100mm lens would require twice the compensatory movement to a 50mm lens for a given angular “wobble”. That would appear to imply the maximum deflection required would increase with focal length, but in practice compensation is only for shorter exposure times on longer focal lengths so the maximum movement is much the same for all focal lengths (albeit that the sensor has to be moved much faster for longer focal lengths).
I agree, IBIS should be possible in the NEX body. Your argument concerning IBIS in FF NEX, then I believe it is technically possible, and even if the FF sensor goes out to the edges of the mount then you could solve the issue by doing a 0.9x electronic crop for example to accomodate that. When IBIS is turned of then there is no crop.
I do not think IBIS is a must at this point. Sony is coming out with some good primes with OSS and that should make most people happy.
If another manufacturer makes an APS-C/FF with IBIS, then I’m sure Sony can follow suit in their following releases.
What Sony needs now is a sensor breakthrough to get an edge on the competition, get APS-C on par with current gen FF, and then incorporate same tech in their FF line.
It’s pretty near impossible to get another stop improvement in sensor technology in order to get APS-C to match FF as already Quantum Efficiency is high and electronic noise is well controlled. Utlimately performance gets limited by shot noise, and there’s nothing that can be done about that apart from collecting more photons with a larger sensor. About the only thing I’ve seen recently is a patent from Panasonic which makes use of prismatic colour separation rather than using filters. If it can be made to work, then that promises something like another stop as filters inevitably throw away half the light or more. In practice, Foveon-style sensors don’t do any better as light intensity is lost through the various levels.
However, whatever improvements are made to APS-C are equally applicable to full frame anyway, so the gap will always remain. It’s just whether APS-C gets good enough so that the larger FF is not required. Arguably that’s already happened with MF apart from a few niche uses.
clarifying!
I’m very sad to read that about the anti-shake; from the size argument, one instance of anti-shake in the body makes for a much smaller system than the huge size of multiple lenses. (The only small lenses Sony make don’t offer anti-shake)
Just look at how small APS-C lenses can be, with all the old Pen F/Ft lenses for instance. I know they don’t have autofocus either, which also impacts size, but the little 40mm f1.4 is a 3rd of the size of the Sony 50mm f1.8 and quicker too.
The decision also leaves Sony vulnerable in my opinion – if anyone else produces a quality large sensor mirrorless camera with anti-shake in the body then that will surpass NEX for lots of people.
No i don’t think so.
It would mean that everybody would have switch to Sony and pentax dslr.
The 50 and 35 primes are small and the 16-50 is too.
Oh yeah, it’s so sad. I’m crying already…
It was no wise decision to lose the advantages of in-body stabilization for a small advantage in compactness. Especially as it makes the adaptation of Sony’s own A-Mount lenses much less attractive, even though there is the excellent LA-EA2 adapter for full focusing speed. For many lenses and use cases, it just makes no sense if you lose stabilization.
And then there is, of course, the wealth of legacy lenses to be adapted. If Metabones should ever get out a Minolta SR/MC/MD speed booster adapter for Micro FT, letting me use those lenses at 1.4x crop and stabilized, too, I may even go for Micro FT then. (Although using those lenses without crop on the NEX would be nice, too.)
Now that they admitted the design limitation (AKA mistake), I hope they’ll rectify it for the FF mirrorless. It should not have an E-mount, should have longer flange distance and in-body IS.
It’s good to learn from mistakes, Sony.
Make it M mount and they could take over the world.
Why
It’d be good if they’d fix the color shifts in FF NEX to start with. Don’t ask them for too much cause you might get nothing. 😉
Most guys here only have the photography point of view, but E-Mount is also video and there one’s got to switch OSS off quite often anyway for tripod, dolly, crane or slider use or when flying with a stabilizer. Since even most of Sony’s affordable lenses do offer an effective and silent OSS I don’t really miss In Body Stablization, nevertheless I won’t complain getting it one day…
I can’t see Sony introducing IBIS for mirrorless. The CaNikon business model is built around IS in lenses. Why would Sony throw away that income stream? Convincing CaNikon users to come to Sony is not dependant on IBIS because most CaNikon lenses that need IS have it (with the exception of 27-70!) so if CaNikon users want an NEX they can use an adapter and use the lense IS. If they want to fully migrate, they are already trained to pay for IS. I doubt any camera maker sees adapting legacy lenses as a way to build long term market share either especially as these lenses will eventually start to die off. There is a market ther, but its not the way to big financial succes. In my view for those reasons Sony won’t bother with IS in future NEX cameras. It may cost some transfer sales of Alpha users who would otherwise migrate, but I don’t believe that is their focus. They want compact camera users to upgrade and CaNikon user to migrate.
I don’t see that IBIS is necessary for a stills camera. Sure it’s an absolute requirement for video. But for stills it’s possible to hold a 35mm at 1/30th. Any slower and motion blur – which IBIS doesn’t help becomes as much a problem as blur induced by camera shake. Fast primes and good sensor ISO solve both cases.
well said
digital ibis is the future. If sony isn’t working on an all digital ibis solution, they will be left behind. The comments leave room for that, but it doesn’t sound promising.
I would become a perfect way of making a diffrence between NEX6 and NEX7 in the future modells! IBIS in NEX7 and a NEX6 without but a bit slimmer.
+1
I don’t mind size much anyway, but weight.
+1
Exactly. Even better – continue making small 3s and 5s without IBIS and 6s and 7s with it.
If they’re serious about never supporting in-body stabilization, then they better be sure that every lens they produce has OSS. Not having stabilization with my 24mm Zeiss is quite disappointing. The 5-axis stabilization my Olympus is an incredibly useful tool. And while it’s slightly larger than my NEX-6, it is in no way a large camera. Olympus have shown with their smaller models that in-body stabilization is quite possible in a small body.
Kyle, no offense, if you have trouble getting a stabilized picture from a 24mm (with No IS), you better practice more on your skills before getting a new camera.
When you get down to hand holding shots at 1/15 or 1/6, stabilization can make a world of difference, 24mm or no. With the Olympus, I can get the shots with their 17mm that I can’t with the Sony 24mm. Simply, Olympus has an advantage that Sony doesn’t.
Completely pointless answer. IBIS is very useful for wide angles too, as you can choose lower ISO for the same shot, or shoot in darker places. NEX fanboyism isn’t doing anyone any good.
Kyle, I just found you a practice buddy. Let me introduce Froo to you.
Ibis is still valuable for 24mm Video
Good point, but I dun see why I or anyone will use a 24mm prime to shoot video. A decent zoom lens with OSS is more practical for most ppl and problem solved. Anything needed beyond that, says, if you need couple zoom lens for video…It shows that you are more a video guy then a photog, so go get yourself a VG-900.
The reason for no IBIS in NEX is that in lens stabilisation creates less problems for video. Sony can as someone else noted above add IBIS to NEX any time the want to, it would just require a bit thicker bodies bacause of the space needed behind the sensor. It’s not an engineering problem at all.
Btw, I don’t understand why Imaging Resource bother to publish interviews whith people who obviously dont want to answer the questions with any real info. Maybe to match the dpreview interviews published earlier this week.
Mark Weir looks like a real gentleman and a serious man. They should be happy at Sony having him among their people.
Also, another thing about the raws. I think his argument concerning non-standard raws is a valid point. However it misses the point. At least I would be quite content with the current state of raw files if they were really what you would expect from the term “raw file”. Its kinda frustrating to have all kinds junk like obfuscation and enigmatic encodings where they obviously don’t belong.
These kinds of things don’t protect any technology from getting stolen anyways as amateurs who are serious about it get around it. Its just annoying. I mean, if I was told that I’ve got a device capable of strong raw sensor data I’d expect to be able to see that very data just as is.
I too think not having IBIS is a disadvantage that can, and should, be fixed. Regarding the size argument, the NEX-7 is already bigger and thicker than then 3/5 series. Sure, adding IBIS to this will make it even bigger and thicker, but it will still be much much smaller than a full-sized DSLR. Also, there are many NEX-7 owners who use cases (my reason is to improve grip) and are still happy with the size.
That being said, I’m not buying the NEX-7 successor, but the FF NEX better have IBIS! ;P
“The decision to use optical-shift instead of sensor-shift in NEX cameras was based on the intention to miniaturize the camera body. And if you look at the size of NEX, particularly from in the depth dimension, you can see that with 18 mm from flange to sensor and then there’s very little room from the sensor to the back of the camera, yes, there just wasn’t room.”
Then make the body thicker!!!!!! OMG it’s not rocket science here, making the body 5mm thicker will not turn it into the size of an SLT/DSLR.
I think the title of the article has led people to wrong conclusions. When he said they couldn’t fit IBIS he spoke only in the past tense. I don’t think he said they won’t do it in the future. I suspect it will have to wait until they can integrate it with the existing Optical Stabilization for a combine benefit, and possibly until they have the processing power to do data shifting on a static sensor.
I would assume that probably the NEXFF lineup will have IBIS, as they will need to convince people about usage of A-Mount lenses for a time being (until they have some native FF E-mounts).
Regarding the Jpeg settings I would love to be able to set Raw & Xtra Fine.
Additionally I would love my A99 being clever enought to temporarely switch to jpeg only when I choose HDR. Also I would love my A99 to tell me that Quality setting is deactivated when I have choosen SD card sort function (or i.o.w.- wtf can I not shoot in jpeg only mode, when my SD is set to sort jpeg and raw, just don’t use the raw SD card….)
However, I love my A99 🙂
/FACEPALM
Customers: The A55 has too little buffer.
Sony: …
Customers: The A77 has too little buffer!!!
Sony: …
Customers: The A99 has WAY TOO LITTLE BUFFER!!!!
MW: We certainly have received plenty of feedback on how much buffer depth is enough. We recognize those concerns.
WTF!!! Seriously!
… time passes …. Sony learns from Apple …
Sony: You’re doing it wrong, stop taking picrures on “High” setting and/or stop holding the button for so long.
One of the many reasons NEX is not and never will be a professional camera…
Stop fooling yourself just because you love your Nex 3,5,7 that you bought at ‘Best Buy’…
NEX for good results when packing light, Alpha for professionals.. (If they come out with the A1X that is…)
My Em5 is only a few mm thicker than the 5n body, and its IBIS is far superior to the OSS in the Nex lenses. I think many would prefer IBIS over a saving few mm and a few grams.
Theres no way ibis is superior to properly implemented oss…
IBIS that does both translation and rotation is theoretically more capable than ILIS that does only translation. Of course, a lot depends on the algorithms that run it, so it isn’t that simple.
Unless the lens you want to use doesn’t have built in IS/OIS/OSS, then it’s useless, the best option should be a hybrid IS system, IBIS for lenses that don’t have it, OIS for lenses that benefits from it the most, then there is the possibility of them working together is ways not thought of yet.
Why are you all accepting what he says as gospel? Traditionally, these managers have known nothing. Most hardcore Sony fanboys are considerably better informed.
There is absolutely no requirement for the OSS/anti-shake mechanism to have vacant space behind the sensor, because there is nothing there. The mechanism is at the side and top/bottom. So there is no extra thickness.
If you don’t believe me, just imagegoogle the mechanisms for existing OSS/AS systems, and then disassemblies of NEX cameras. For example, compare
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/KM5D/ZASELEMENT.JPG
with
http://erkinson.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Nex_50-510×339.jpg
and you can see that there is absolutely no problem fitting OSS in the body. They just simply didn’t want to do it.
They can always offer a new body being a little bit bigger than current models and offer sensor-shift stabilization and get some new customers. And who knows, if they get better than expected sell numbers, forget about OSS and adopt sensor-shift for all models.
Putting the IS into the bodies doesn’t make any sense anymore. The whole NEX ecosystem is setup to have the IS inside the lenses. It’s too late to change that, you will rather see a new mount. Both won’t happen for NEX APS-C…
Exactly. And won’t happen for NEX FF either, it’s still the same NEX E-mount, and already implemented in NEX-VG900.
IBIS is decided when the mount is defined, and as has been said many times, E-mount is also for videography so optical stabilization is the way to go.
Quote of note in this thread:
“Business is about giving people what they want, but not necessarily what some say they want.”
This is typical arrogance of a struggling business that can’t figure out why they can’t sell to a certain segment.
Also, the argument that OSS is better than IBIS is at best moot. If you don’t use a lens with OSS — like Sony’s own 16mm or third party lenses that have capability that Sony lenses don’t have. Or don’t want to lug the A-mount adapter. Which adds over a centimeter thickness.
I do 360 spherical panoramas using a mono-pod. With IBIS I could use third party fisheyes that Sony will never have in it’s lens catalog and gain almost two stops or more in speed which is essential in outdoor shooting for many reasons.
http://pancyl.com/NearCrystalLake.html
The size argument, “…it will be too big…” is just silly given how small the camera is already. A fixed LCD display instead of that useless articulated LCD display (I have mine taped shut to keep it from breaking off) would provide all the body thickness needed without actually making the body thicker and anyway the thickness necessary is only 2-4 millimeters. And there are some who get upset at 2-4mm while suffering those huge, ridiculous Sony lenses or using the A-mount adapter. Just silly.
People are funny….
I think we all here at SAR suffer from a lack of civility and assuming that our needs are everyone’s needs. I *love* the articulated screen. It is one of my favorite aspects of the NEX cameras after shooting with them for over a year. I care much more about them keeping that than using IBIS or ILIS because at the end of the day for what I shoot, a fast prime and reasonable high-ISOs are sufficient. Now I *appreciate* that your perspective is different, that’s good to hear, and interesting to find out that what I consider so useful is wasted space to someone else. But if we were all sitting around in person would you really express yourself with such vitriol?
Joel, you’re the one that seems angry at me. I’m not angry at you.
And I stand behind every word I said. And If we were sitting in the same room you would hear the same words. I can’t apologize for something you only imagine I’ve done. You are making an issue where no issue exists.
E mount is boring IMO nothing to see much just some horrible menus and no IBIS either. If that’s the future then Canikon will take a whole heap of A mount users, and we’ll let the NEX range work for the soccer moms.
Soccer moms are HAWT!!!
Little NEX for little hands!
Remember that the Vg-900 was absolute garbage… Even for video! And you still want to talk about this Unafordable full frame Nex?
Please explain how vg-900 is garbage. Do you owe a vg-900 and use it for a reasonable amount of time in order for you to determine fully its a garbage?
I wouldn’t comment on a product, good or bad unless I have owed it and used it long enough to find out the pros and cons. On any products, any brands.
Looks like you are another Sony haters here to whine about Somy products and your post did provide any details.
**Did not provide any details
So who says full frame NEX is impossible and unaffordable now?
Gee Pentax didn’t seem have any problem with body IS in their Q.
I think Sony over-stressed miniaturizing the size. The body could have just been slightly larger and accommodate IS. Even m4/3 cameras are larger.
He was wrong. 🙂