One of my trusted sources told me that Sony increased the financial resources for the Alpha segment development for the years 2014-2016. Part of the new resources goes to the Hybrid A-E mount Sony camera that is due for a late 2014- early 2015 release.
I should get more info about the hybdrid model soon. Stay tuned on SAR as usual!
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
138 Responses
Great news!
I hope they spend a tiny portion of that on developing new, quiet shutters!
+ 1,000,000!!
Oooh yesss please!
Silent/almost silent shutter and some E/FE longer primes, maybe a 90/2 and a 135/2.8 if the Sony Santa is listening!
I know that 85 has been rumored to come many times before so I suspect that’s what that “large aperture prime” is going to be, listed on the FE lens road map. That’d be ok, but personally I’m seriously hoping they come out with a longer prime around 105 or 135mm. I shoot with primes mostly and use the 24 and 50, and that 85 would be just too similar a focal length to make much sense in purchasing for me.
Global electronic shutter would be perfect 😀
Agree. That will be perfect- silent, faster flash sync, vibration free. Please Sony.
And lasts much longer 😀
Too bad sony said they can’t because of how much data it has too resolve.
Can anyone describe how Hybrid A/E-Mount _without_ any adapter should work?
That will simply require the long awaited z-axis sensor shift focusing, which will enable very fast auto-focus, macro and AF for all lenses, including manual lenses. Long tele lenses will need approximate prefocusing.
If they are clever they will include IBIS, sensor shift anti-aliasing and a silent global shutter and be a big success. It will need to be mirrorless but slightly deeper than A7r. Sony cheaply rushed the A7/A7r to market by just slapping together existing products.
A7,A7r are not too cheap but they got a lot of good features to take good pictures in a very small package. With 1/8000sec shutter speed, why you need IBIS? ISO 6400 got reasonable results, why you need fast lenses?
When someone develop a new camera with all the bells and whistles, only a few people will buy it.
In short? Cause these cameras are also marketed as video capable, and video without stabilization is just jittery mess, unless you build a shoulder rig or something.
Lower ISO also provides a better color reproduction and a better dynamic range. It also allows a better handheld shooting during low shutter speeds. Ever tried to blur water? You would need a slow shutter speed, ISO 100 or 50 and preferrably ND filter, so that you don’t have to go down to F22. Yes, tripod is preferrable in these situations, but sometimes you don’t have that as an option. In short – everyone has their needs, and just because you’re OK with ISO 6400 and don’t need stabilization, doesn’t mean that everyone has to follow suit.
The video recording capability on A7/r is limited to less than 30 minutes. Because it is not a camcorder. So for some short video clip I found hand held results seems acceptable.
If you want to have studio quality, then you need to acquire some better gear that can deliver better results.
By moving the sensor along the Z axis (front and back to accommodate the different mount to sensor distance)
It’ll likely be shaped after the current SLT, so I guess Sony is making it an option for those E mount users to use their lens on a DSLR shaped body if they need to someday.
If z shift is used for focus then the most logical shape would be video camera shape or cube shape.
The additional depth would allow more movement along the z axis fkr better focusing range.
I would never buy a stills camera shaped like that. The ergonomics would be terrible.
Any shape can be made ergonomic.
The current dslr shape i is not based on ergonomics. It is based on accomading two film spools, a flat film area behind the lens, and a pentaprism.
That shape was determine bu the fintion of camera components that are no longer use.
There is nothing sacred about this shape and it only feels comortable to you because you are used to it.
Comfortable easy to use controls and grips can be desighned int any shaped camera.
The camcorder shape is much more ergonomic than the (D)SRL,compact. The SRL/compact shape is only a result of the film rolls.
Animals, I disagree in part. There is an almost infinite variety of ways to accommodate a flat film area, 2 film spools, and a pentaprism in a photographic device.
The familiar DSLR design was most definitely not the result of a purely functional design methodology.
And while I’m at it, the ergonomy of a photographic device must take into account things other than the capturing of an image–things like transport, cleaning, and storage, hence it is about much more than just “comfortable grips”.
“it only feels comortable to you because you are used to it” While this effect undoubtedly contributes to some of the appeal of the DSLR design, it is hardly the whole story. You are making the mistake of elevating your personal preferences to a position of primacy.
Everyman
This is not about my personal prefferences..in fact i dont care what shape the camera is.
My point is the camera should FIRST be shaped to effectively fullfill its funtion.
THEN this shap can be modified for ergonomics and appearence.
ANY shape can be made comfortable and attractive.
If this shake turns out to be totally different than what I suggest that will not bother me at all.
Everyman
This is not about my personal prefrences..in fact i dont care what shape the camera is.
My point is the camera should FIRST be shaped to effectively fullfill its function.
THEN this shape can be modified for ergonomics and appearence.
ANY shape can be made comfortable and attractive.
If this shape turns out to be totally different than what I suggest that will not bother me at all.
It also allows you to hold it with two hands. A camcorder/video camera doesn’t need to be put to your eye, which changes everything. It is also often held by rigs and from above the camera. If it is long and thing, it would make less sense for screen and button layout, and it would be harder to hold the camera still. Yes, it is based off holding film, that doesn’t mean it isn’t the best shape. Imagine holding a cube camera and changing settings.
Swade
A rifle is intended to be held by two hands and precisely aimed.
It is shaped more like a camcorder than a dslr.
Any shape can be made ergonomic.
A rifle also has three points of contact and not two. It’s also not designed to be put up to your eye. Your logic is flawed in this.
A rifle does go up to your eye for aiming but space is left for recoil.
If more stability ie needed additional contact points can be added thats what a tripod mount is for.
You are locked into a predetermined prejudice of wjat shape your camera should be and you will defend it at all cost…a camera can be any shape.
>>It’s also not designed to be put up to your eye
Neither a digital camera.
It has a display and for very low or high POV you cannot use the EVF anyway.
The viewfinder is a necessary element of a film camera but not of
a digital camera.
Ok, say you have a Z-Shift sensor. What does that do to your lens? You would no longer have a 35mm lens, or a 50mm, etc. as you would have an altered distance between your lens and sensor. What happens when you move the sensor outside of its projected image circle? Can you even focus by moving the sensor?
Ideally we could switch between lens focus or sensor focus.
What you say is only true for internal focus lenses..perhaps. the camera could rcognize the lens profiles embedded in the lens.
Lenses can also be prefocused an d the sensor shift might also be used only for manual lenses and for extra close focus.
Most internal focus lenses are autofocus as it is a fairly recent technology.
If you are moving the sensor to focus, you are changing basically what your lens was designed to be. When you move your sensor back and forth you change the angle of view of your lens, if I understand how a lens works correctly.
Until recently lenses focused by moving the entire lens in and out..sensor shift accomplishes the same thing.
Some new lenses focus internally by moving only some of the elements..only these lenses wioud use some correections by sensor shifting but would still focus.
With this z axis they could make FE more compact. without OSS, focus motor they could make various pancake prime
Stan
Most lenses will focus normally from sensor shift focus.
ONLY internal focus lenses..almost all of which are newer and have af built in…would. not focus the same with by sensor shift.
Even these however WOULD STILL FOCUS VIA SENSOR SHIFT
Hopefuully a sensor shift focus camera would also offer in lens focus.
As for your fear that it wont work that just is not true.
I do not understand how z shift could possibly move the image outside theprojected image circle.
It could be moved too close and it wouldn’t cover the whole sensor?
That eould make it out of focus therefore the sensor would not do that..your logic on this particular point is flawed.
My logic isn’t flawed. If the sensor is too close, it will not cover the sensor. That is correct. What I lack is an understanding on Z-Shift technology. If it is anything like a Lensbaby, moving the lens away from the sensor and vis versa takes it away from the critical focus lenses are designed to have. So if you would please explain how this actually works and be managed, I’d gladly hear it.
If the sensor is too close the image will not be in focus and it so it cant be too close…dont you get it!!!
Reread my second response to you “until recently”
It answers the question you just asked.
Barry. Sensor focusing is out of the question, because every lens that is focused by moving an entire element set, needs a different focusing distance. Making lots of lenses incompatible or accounting for those lenses in firmware is a DEV and QA mess. We are already complaining about Sony’s QA process, and you’d like to add that on top of it?
Anyways, the only option would be a camcorder shaped camera, which despite you trying to prove that its comfortable, its not. And i just started using a DSLR 3 years ago, so no, it is not a familiar shape for me. It is comfortable to hold it at any angle. A camcorder on the other hand, I cannot imagine what you would have to do if you have take a picture in a different position, rather than standing or sitting down.
Stan
See my comment above ” most lenses”
It appeared in the wrong spot.
Telling us to look at your other comments doesn’t help. Clearly you explanations are not very good. And no, you don’t put a rifle to your eye. Clearly you’ve never used one.
It does NOTHING to the lens.
I have Minolta 58/1.2, and it focuses just by moving whole, i repeat, whole lens block from front to back lens relative to lens mount and, naturally, to camera sensor.
It just the same as z-shift. No matter if sensor is fixed in camera body and whole lens moves, or lens is fixed (mounted on body, MF, and you keep your hands from focusing ring) and sensor moves – it’s just the same.
And my 58/1.2 stays as 58/1.2 through focusing process as much as any other lens (excluding maybe that premium video with no focus breathing etc – but it will be the same for any lens for still photography).
Maybe a A-mount sized house with moveable sensor in Z axis to reduce the flange distance for attaching E/FE lenses. I guess the E bayonet could be split and move in from the sides behind the A bayonet when the camera is set to E use. Add focusing of MF lenses and IBIS on that moving sensor and it sounds very tempting.
Just my guess, dont know if it is possible..
Ivar
Hmm,yeah the mount would still be an issue, perhaps Sony would just make an E mount adapter which attaches to the A mount, so when the camera detects an E mount adapter has been attached, it’ll move the sensor to the appropriate distance.
The mount could be less of an issue. As just a ring to couple the lens and the body should be far easier to make and hopefully more reliable.
If there are no legal implications, it would be prudent for Sony to design as accessories.
Hybrid the EVF, too?
EVF when E-mount, OpticalVF when A-mount ?
with Semi Translucent Mirror rising up and hiding when E Mount is set ?
Well, a masterpiece of miniaturized electromechanics, but we only want to take good pictures (and/or videos for somebody else), with a minimum of power batteries…..
A mount is already using EVF
Sorry, but I think there is 0% chance Sony introduces any product with an Optical viewfinder of any type, hybrid or no. They are heavily invested in EVF and its benefits (live view etc)
Realistically, Sony does the EVF so well, there isn’t any reason to leave it. Particularly if it gets nice little improvements along the way.
+1
After 3 years using EVF cameras, I can’t stand OVF camera. A viewfinder that is only bright in good daylight and large enough only on top-end cameras. Add a viewfinder focus peaking with focus zoom mode into that mix and EVF is a no brainer.
Heck, compare A65 EVF with 7D OVF and i’ll take A65’s large EVF any day.
OK, time to sell M lenses and save for A.
I guess u do not need to save since u sell M, and it will giv u plenty of $$ for cheaper A… No? >.<
For E-mount, the electric contacts are in the lower section of the mount.
For A-mount, the electric contacts are in the upper section of the mount.
If it had been my decision, I would have decided that E-mount should have the same mechanical size and construction as A-mount. Why? Keep future options as open as possible!
Actually, this is what I took for granted when Sony presented the first E-mount cameras. I had trouble understanding why they did not do it this way. Still struggling, actually.
So all A and E mount lenses would fit on both mounts. But the contacts would only work when mounted on a compatible camera.
In this case a hybrid camera would be much easier, just let it have contacts both at the upper and the lower sections and move the z-axis accordingly.
The only downside I can see is that the NEX cameras would have had to be a few millimeters taller.
Is that the only reason to why E-mount is smaller?
They probably didn’t thought of this when they first introduced the E mount.
I doubt it’ll happen now as the standard and lenses have been established (reff to changing the E mount size to make it the same as A mount)
Even if the e & a mount were made the same, the flange distance difference should also made into consideration. I guess that’s why they made it different in the first place.
Heh… I am waiting and waiting and waiting for a camera with good grade of high ISO and reliable AF. I am a concert photographer and it seems I will have to change a brand… Shame… Nikon D610 looks appealing – grat sensor performance, not bad AF and most important – quality for value is impressive! Please give me a reason not to change system… Spread some word about those FF Alphas… I really like my EVF in A77, steady shot works great with my older lens, but ISO sensitivity is killing me… Any news on cameras for sport / concert photography shooters…?
I guess concert photography was non existent just 10 years ago, when Nikon D2H had only 4 megapixels with max ISO 1600.
Hybrid serves no point to me.
It will need to be the basic size of a-mount, giving up the compact build of the e-mount.
So what’s the advantage??
It’s unlikely to perform as well as a dedicated a/e mount.
For someone who owns both a and e glass, they are better off simply carrying 2 cameras.
For someone who is already committed to one of the two mounts, there is no compelling need for a hybrid.
An e-mount user can already adequately use a-glass with an adapter. An a-mount user doesn’t feel a compelling need to start using e-glass. So what’s the market here?? (Unless it’s a plan to phase out dedicated a-mount which may or may not be in the long term cards)
Maybe the market is more in using manual lenses… ?
I think it would not be the first time for Sony to build something without a clear target group.
Because e-mount will get some interesting glass that will be welcome on a-mount bodies with IBIS?
So an e-mount user will switch from their nice compact body to a huge body, so that they can use a-mount glass, thus defeating the reason they went to the e-mount in the first place?
Reminds me of hybrid DVD/VCRs from 20 years ago …. Never really became a major product.
An A-mount shooter, like me, may choose AE-mount camera in order to use e-mount glass. But I’m not going to switch to FF e-mount only any soon because of very limited range of stabilized lenses at the moment and slower AF.
OK…. so for an existing A-mount user… what E-glass is so compelling? What E-mount glass is there that is superior and cheaper to a matching A-mount lens?
I’ve never seen an A-mount user say, “darn, I wish the A-mount had a version of that E-mount lens.”
In most cases, cheaper and better A-lenses are available. I can understand an e-mount user wanting A-glass (and they can already get it). It seems to me it would be pretty rare that an A-mount user would want E-glass.
I suppose you could argue, “what about people who already own both!”
But if you already own both — Then you likely are using the 2 cameras for different scenarios. You likely are using your E-mount when you want something more compact. So having 1 big body is not a viable alternative to having 2 bodies of different sizes. If the E-mount user wanted a large body, they never would have bought an E-mount in the first place.
E mount ff will never have ibis…and it is compatble with other manufacturer lenses. It is not fully compatabl with a mount
A mount can have ibis but is not.
This camera will accept any lens by any manufactirer. If it has z shift focusit will turn manual lenses into autofocus image stabilized lense.
It will mast importantly be a camera that canikon users can use without giving up thier sizeable investment in glass.
The concept is great…my. only concern is that sony put thier rumored super high resolution stacked organic sensor in this canera.
This will be the camera of the future..dont put an obsolete cmos sensor in it.
I want a camera that does everything…it does not need to fit in my pocket too.
How about making the hydrid mount compatable with ALL major lenst mounts without an adapter…IF it can be done.
It would need to do 3 things.
First the physical mount whoul need to change diameter and shape..similar to the chuck on a power drill or a universar grip socket wrench.
Second the elecrical contacts would need to change location to accomadate different systems..the easiest way is to have multiple contacts that alter thier function depending on what they need to do..the camera would detect what configuration is needed.
Lastly z shift would alter falange distance an if possible also be used to autofucus.
As of now, reports are simply hybrid A/E mount. Z-shift sensor that can accept any lens from any manufacturer, turning all lenses into stabilized AF lenses….. Sorry, that seems like more fantasy than reality. Rumors are a hybrid mount — not a universal camera. It’s quite a leap to say that a hybrid camera will be a universal mount.
Oly released a hybrid 4:3/m4:3 camera, because they are discontinuing 4:3 as a native mount. So there is no reason to automatically equate hybrid with universal.
So ok, IF Sony released a universal mount, that indeed would be a compelling product. But a mere hybrid mount? Again, I see no real market for it.
Univesal camera because there is no point in not making it universal.
Most likeley non sony lenses will require a specific adapter.
My universal mount was suggested only as a new possibility..i do not expect anyone will actually build it.
@Adam “”Sorry, that seems like more fantasy than reality. ”
Whether or not Sony do it body based AF is not a unique nor new concept . If Contax could do a “reasonable” job of designing a camera that did this in 1996 on a film based body with the limitations that involves.I am certain that Sony could achieve this in 2013 with a digital sensor.
The real question is will not could , Sony could conceivably sell a boatload of these type of cameras on the downside if people could simply bolt on their existing glass would there be enough long term profit in such bodies.From our side of the fence the possibilities are amazing one can assemble the very best lens available in every focal length you like regardless of make
I hope they invest in the development of an autofocus system with excellent tracking capabilities.
I think Sony has conceded the sports and birding market to the CaNikon crowd. Which isn’t terribly crazy to do.
+1
…..I agree
IF, Sony can be Improve Low Light AF -3EV AF , and CAF Tracking and Quick AF Lock on the level of Nikon and Canon. Then N & C would have serious trouble.
I am most interested in this camera.
First I hope the introduction will coincide with the introduction of the new stacked organic sensor.
I do not want to buy a new camera with an outdated cmos sensor.
I would like to see ibis and z shift. I would like the z shift to function for focusing therefore a deeper camera shape like a video shape or cube shape would be most practical.
Contrast detect autofocus would be better than pdaf in that it does not require dedicated pixels and the olympus contrast detect seems to be better than the sony pdaf.
5 axis ibis of course.
MOST IMPORTANT ….. put the new technogy high resolution stacked organic sensor in this camera…dont sell us a state of the art camera that will be obsolete before it is made.
CMOS IS OBSOLETE the new tech sensors are due….i want to take one giant step forward …..not two baby steps….
Actually – these camera announcements are nice and all. Fun to chat about – But the real problem isn’t camera bodies.
It’s glass and it’s ecosystem.
Ecosystem is 3rd tier, maybe. They appear to be more “body happy” than “lens happy” as a company. You can’t milk the Minolta formulae for ever.
I abandoned Canon for the A7/r because of the Leica 35, 50, 90mm lenses. Definitely not the Sony ecosystem. (Ok, the Sony 135mm is best in class a 2x the price of the slightly less desirable 135L).
After that – Almost every single focal length or lens represents a significant downgrade or major concession (equal quality and 1.5-2.5x the price.) Many focal lengths require you to go Sigma or Tamron to find the best available lens (that’s not good!)
Sony has 2 (or 3 if you count E and FE separately) ecosystems to fill out and improve – and they have to provide at least a competent flash system.
For the A-Mount… Stop making new bodies as the #1 effort, and improve this ecosystem so people will actually want the bodies. Please do this.
Haha, that’s why I am wondering if I should invest in FE lenses or just invest in M mount lenses. I’m currently looking for a UWA, sadly there are problems with most UWA M lenses, I’m curious to see what Zeiss 2014 announcement will be.
Maybe the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.8 catches your attention, seems not having an issue on A7(r) according to Steve Huff.
http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_21mm_f1_8_engl.html
Nobody
I am not counting on Sony to create a fully fleshed out lens ecosystem because they are a consumer electronics company that can sell a new model of digital body every year to those of us who demand the latest tech – while, as we all know, a really good lens should last 20-50 years. Others, however, will certainly pick up the slack for FE because there will be a broad user base. The problem (as I see it) with the Zeiss FE (and other Sony mounts) is that they are not made to the same standard as their mostly excellent MFs – but often cost more, presumably, because Sony rakes off 25% or so on their distribution agreement.
[Zeiss manual native mount FEs eagerly awaited.]
If a hybrid camera accepts any glass made GLASS IS DEFINITELY NOT A PROBLEM.
but size may be…
I want this camera to do everything…it does not need to fit in my pocket too.
If “do everything” includes interchangeable/upgradable sensor, I’m in – otherwise it is, ultimately, just another disposable.
Sensors are integrated into every funtion of a camera and most of camera developement is making these functions work with each other.
Making an interchangeable sensor does not seem practical
Cmos is obsolete so i do hope this camera introduces the latest new tech high tech sensor…NOT ANOTHER OBSOLETE CMOS.
Animals, you seem to have gone off the rails. You suggest that a multiplicity of lens contacts should be afforded such that the camera can figure out what to do with any lens mounted, but you deny that anything similar could be done with a sensor.
That makes especially little sense where the same company would be manufacturing and designing the various sensors, as could be the case with Sony.
Clearly CMOS is not obsolete if nothing has replaced it yet. Leica just switched from a CCD sensor to a CMOS sensor. You go on and on about these organic sensors that have not been put into any sort of production yet. Maybe I have missed it, but I haven’t seen anything about any sensor manufacturer that actually has an organic sensor that is able to go into production or really have one at all.
Everyman
IF sensors can be made interchangeadle then i am in favor of it.
Swade.
New stacked sensors of super high resolution are currently under development and i expect we will see them in 2015.
I do not want to invest in a new camera now rhat does not have this technology because I want the new sensor more than ANY camera improvements.
If everymany gets his way and we have interchangeable sensors i would probably be less hesitent to get a new camera now
Yhat is my reason for calling cmos obsolete.
Organic are still cmos. The organic refers to the pigemnt used in the photodiode, while cmos refers to the support circuitry.
Organic senors will be stacked and therefore will differ from bayer sensoer..
Even the circuitry will be differrent.
If it turns out that you are correct than change my statement to bayer array is obsolete .and keep the rest of my statement as is.
I cannot, but agree with most of what you are saying, but this : “almost every single focal length or lens represents a significant downgrade or major concession (equal quality and 1.5-2.5x the price.)” That really doesn’t make any sense, unless I am missing something.
I understand this is opinion, but here are some examples of significant compromises or cost disadvantages the Sony ecosystem forces. It just makes switching to Sony painful – when it should be easy:
135mm. Canon has a gorgeous 135mm f/2 for around $900. To switch to Sony, you have to pay twice that for a similar / fairly equal quality lens.
70-200mm. In Canon, you can choose a 70-200mm non-IS that is as sharp and crisp as anything in the market, or an f/2.8 Non-IS for $1,400 or the best in class for $2,199. Sony’s answer is about $1,000 more and no better.
24mm. Canon’s 24mm f/1.4 is sharper, similar contrast, better corners and a 1-stop advantage to Sony’s – it’s only about $200 more.
I won’t discuss the premium zooms – because it would be too subjective. Let’s just say that Sony backs you into a corner with the 16-35mm and the 24-70mm, while other ecosystems provide viable 1st party alternatives to spending $4k for two nice zooms.
Well, I simply disagree with the specific statement that I quoted. Looking at 16-35, 24-70, 24, 85, 70-300, 70-400, etc. they are all roughly in line with the competition, i.e. much smaller differences in price that you describe and generally also as good too.
Otherwise, I’d have to agree, Sony does indeed back you into a corner. I am wondering though, how much of a problem this is nowadays (not talking Sony only here, but in general). By nowadays, I mean where 3rd parties provide better and better solutions. As an example, looking at APS-C UWAs, I really don’t se any reason to buy from the brand. The Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16 cover a lot of ground for a great price.
Fair enough. You’re a cool fella’
A smart A-mount user can look beyond the available “new” Sony glass. With the A-mount advantage that every lens — including 25-year-old lenses — are stabilized. And many 3rd party manufacturers are making amazing affordable lenses for all mounts.
135mm? I have an exceptional Minolta 135 2.8 that I bought for about $300. And while it may be slightly slower than the Canon version, it is effectively image stabilized — Overall, perhaps giving it a 1-2 stop advantage over the Canon.
The 70-200…I agree that Sony’s “new” version is very over-priced. But Tamron provides an exceptional lens much more competitively priced. And again, it is effectively image stabilized, giving it an advantage over a non-IS Canon lens.
Canon 24/1.4? I’m not so sure it is better IQ than the Zeiss 24/2. The Zeiss 24/2 is very very well regarded. It costs less than the Canon 24/1.4…. And one can argue that the image stabilization on the Sony system more than makes up for the 1-stop difference.
I’m not denying that Canon has some glass advantages over Sony… And I agree that some Sony lenses are overpriced. And a smart Sony shopper may want to look at 3rd party lenses and used lenses. But once you do take into account all the different pros and cons, and all available lenses, the gap in lens availability really isn’t so big at all.
The Zeiss 135mm 1.8 is the demi-god of the optical underworld. In fact, it’s worth three times it’s current cost. In fact, ancient aztec midgets state it’s the only lens you can take with you to the afterworld.
I seem to remember some talk of a Canon and Nikon mount compatible Sony – probably too good to be true, but … who knows?
The Hybrid should be the main focus. This is the future of photography.
More lenses please…
This camera will accept any lens by any manufacturer…how many more lenses than that do you want?
A-mount lenses, especially Zeiss 35mm f1.4, waited for this lens for many many years.
Also hopefully Zeiss 50mm f1.2 & 85mm f1.2
There are already hundreds of normal and wide angle lenses out there.
Todays cameras are much higher iso than film.
Super fast lenses are not as important as they used to be.
If super shallow depth of field is what you desire than you should be using longer focal lengths as this is the most effective way to decrease dof
No, you can’t use tele lenses to achieve the effects produced by f1.2 lenses.
However there are f 1.2 lenses available from other manufacturers that would work fine with this camera…
+1
Is 85 f/1.8 in A-mount too much to ask for? For those of us, who are amateurs and don’t need Zeiss or G glass.
Admin
My comments are sitting in moderation..it seems when i misspell words they go to moderation an my cellphone automaticall changes words..pluss my fingers are too fat for the keys.
Can you put in an editing feature so we can submit better spelled comments.
Any hybrid e/a-mount is going to be bulky and mechanically complex with all the dynamic re-arrangement of mechanical and electrical connections that will be required and (assuming it’s done that way) the moving of the sensor along the Z-axis. There’s a 26mm difference between the A & E-mounts. As for using any Z axis movement to allow for AF, then that might be viable for short register mount lenses, but if it was extended to SLR lens registration distances, it would add a lot more. Then there’s more complexity if it’s to support “screwdriver” A-Mount lenses.
It’s also worth pointing out, that the great majority of A-Mount lenses that people have are not well suited to CAF. Adding some sort of mirror into the design would surely not be feasible on such a hybrid (which is already horribly complex), so something would have to be done about that. Yes, there are hybrid PAF on-sensor systems, but they aren’t pure PAF and compatibility with legacy lenses would surely be tricky.
I suppose such a mount would allow for a much wider range of 3rd party lenses to be adapted due to its support for a short registration distance, but it seems unlikely that Sony could then just concentrate on E-Mount lenses as that would alienate the owners of pure A-Mount cameras.
Personally I suspect it would be less bulky, and rather simpler, if Sony simply produced a “mountless” design which simply took appropriate adapters. That way, the body can be kept much smaller without introducing all that mechanical and electrical complexity. OK, that does mean you need to carry the appropriate adapters, but really, just how much more time does that take over just swapping a lens anyway?
So my guess would be, if this hybrid camera comes about, it might better be described as a modular body with the option for A & E mount (plus others) via appropriate adapters. This would allow FF IBIS with appropriate adapters (the e-mount throat is simply too small a diameter for IBIS on FF as there isn’t sufficient clearance).
As a second possibility, a modular camera where the complete sensor/mount assembly was swapped over is possible, with body, viewfinder, rear screen and image processor being common.
If a true A/E-mount hybrid appears, without these modular features, I’ll be amazed.
This camera should be mirrorless with olympus contrast detection af and new tchnologe sensor.
Shaping the camera like a video camera would allow more room for z shift focus movement
Bulky camera is fine by me..i dont mind bigger .
Yes, the 26mm A to E distance makes me wonder if it could be done, reason as you mentioned. I find making the A mount compatible with Nikon F and Canon EF more likely due to the distance difference is much smaller, and will allow Nikon and Canon users to move into Sony system without selling all their lenses.
The real profit for a company is in its lenses. I am not sure selling bodies that adapt to other companies glass would be sustainable regarding long term profits. Then there is the problem when Canon and Nikon decide to bring their respective FF mirrorless cameras into the market.So far Canon and Nikon have simply played with mirrorless .With current worldwide sales showing that 83% of interchangeable lens cameras are DSLR they have every reason to concentrate in this area.
I have an excellent selection of glass for my Nikon FF that I will simply adapt to use on the A7/A7r I am still debating with my self over which. I can’t honestly say that much of the lenses at launch are particularly attractive.As an example I have the excellent Sigma 35mm F1.4 that delivers wonderful results on my D800 it is over £100 less than the 35mm F2.8 whose only appeal is size . I appreciate the newness of the system and it will take time to develop they could have made a smarter choice for their launch range, a slow expensive for what it is 35mm, a reasonably fast but expensive for what it is standard lens 55mm, a mediocre kit zoom and we are yet to really see much of the 24-70 F4 { the one I am most interested in }
No one has to buy sony lenses for sony cameras…they can buy 3rd party lense.
People will only buy sony lenses if sony makes lenses they want..make it proprietary and sony wont sell more cameras either.
Sony does not make the most selling lenses or cameras they make the most selling sensors!!!!!!!!
Sony is the industry leader in sensors.
You got it right regarding that camera manufacturers makes money from lenses and not body but Sony has tried and it’s not enough to sway Canon or Nikon users into switching system, by making it compatible + af, they’ll be able to make it more attractive for Canon or Nikon users to switch. And in the long run, they’ll probably start buying Sony lenses and sell off their Canon or Nikon lenses, but this cost will only take into account only AFTER they own a Sony body, not before.
If I were to ask you to sell all your photographic lens and body to switch to another system, would you do it?
or
If I were to ask you to keep your lenses, just sell the body and get this other camera body from a different manufacturer while still retaining the functions of your lens, would you do it?
So which is more likely? you tell me.
Here’s my theory for what it is worth…
First some facts:
1) on sensor PDAF isn’t that great but is handy for determining which direction to go to get focus acquired
2) lenses designed for PDAF work poorly with contrast AF because the AF motor is moving large elements and the motor is not made for the tiny movements needed for accurate contrast detect AF.
Now the theory:
Z-shift will allow a-mount to go mirrorless
On sensor PDAF will get the focus routine heading in the right way until nearly in focus. Then z-shift takes over, moving the sensor slightly to obtain final focus.
The z-shift motor can be designed with the CDAF process in mind and the sensor is nice and light to allow the tiny fast movements
Hey presto, the a mount is mirrorless!
Sounds interesting
Your dual auto focus system might work very well if one method enabled in lens af and the other method enabled sensor shift af.
A governer would keep the two cooperating rather than opposing each other..
… and the sensor plane will move to become curved when WideAngle lenses are used in order to pick all correct light rays at the edges without aberration and other optical effects…
I believe that feature is way beyond current technology.
I’d be fascinated to see how you can curve a sensor made out silicon. That’s some serious technological development you are anticipating there…
Incidentally, curving a sensor for existing WA lenses is not going to work anyway, as all such lenses are corrected to focus on as flat a plane as possible. Yes, there will be a little bit of field curvature, but it’s very minor, and any attempt to use a sensor with a non-negligible curvature would just result in the image getting increasingly out of focus as you move towards the edge. Also, even a curved sensor would not resolve the issues at the edge. On a “standard” lens, the rays do not come out radially from some sort of virtual central point – they actually arrive for a wide range of angles to focus on a single point (for a single in-focus point in the subject). It’s the arrival from a wide range of angles onto points nearer the edge that is the issue, something that can be partly compensated for in microlenses.
Nb. for those that keep quoting the eye as an example of a curved sensor, please bear in mind that it’s (a) not an exchangeable lens system and (b), the actual portion of the image which is fully in focus is tiny – just the central part of the retina (all the rest is just peripheral vision). We merely have the illusion of focus across the full FoV because we swivel our eyes, which means the same small part of the retina is used all the time.
Not to say that there may not be a place for a curved sensor matched to a specific lens, but it is never going to work for a systems camera.
This looks to me like a legacy fudge. I think 2015 will see end of A mount cameras and support. Having been kicked in teeth after spending everything on an A77 setup. I will probably start to prepare to move back to canon around that time.
Do you think Sony installed a kill switch in your A77 – and it will stop working? I really wouldn’t sweat it. Even if I KNEW that Sony would stop development in 2015/2016 for the A mount, I’d still have bought the A77 and a few lenses just last month.
Native A-mount is being slowly bled to death by Sony.
i will start saving for this Hybrid camera. I don’t really care it is bulky or what, just can give me a impressive performance and features in both video and still will do.
Bad news fellow Canadian/Quebec residents. Sony postponed its online shipping day from november 24 to december 1st for all a7(r)s and kit lens deals. And preordered a7s are comming in by the very end of november
I simply want a new full frame Amount that is built for taking PICTURES
With an evf, fast AF, peaking and pano
Leave the others bells and whistles for another camera
I’ll do the rest
Keep it simple
Mack
+ 1 put the latest new tech sensor in it.
That AND this new hybrid camera
Hybrid A-E system, reminds me the sayings of Olympus about merging 2 systems in one.
I suppose it will be E-mount camera with almost good speed auto focus for A-mount lenses with an adapter.
A7 with LA-EA4…
Ooh, the hybrid mount would be awesome…
and the move to ditch native A-mount continues… 😉
It’s an upgrade path for E-mount owners i’d have thought, so you can upgrade in stages…
The whole idea of “hybrid A/E” is absurd.
* It is compex – expensive to design and manufacture
* It limits future E-lens designs as well as makes the ones that are there now incompatible with the “hybrid” unless you can somehow fit the lens inside the A-throat.
* There are basically no benefits
* The A-mount is essentially obsolete – it can not hope to compete against CaNikon
The hybrid AE-mount camera is thought to be Sony’s OMD-M1 model, I’m afraid–the last one compatible with the old lenses. If true, there should be fast E-mount glass soon, together with non-compact proper bodies.
Only with a hybrid will sony give a mount users full functionality on an e mount camera.
More importantly this format is the one most likely to appeal to canikon users and increase sony market share.
The z shift if it is used for focusing will increase the functionality of this camera.
Sony can do 3 things to really turn me off for this camera….hopefully they wont….
Don not use z shift ONLY for flange distance compensation..add the additional focus funtionality.
Do not make this camera without ibis
Do not put another old bayer sensor in it..introduce it alon with the new high resolution stacked sensor.
I hope it’s built like a tank and shoots at 30FPS. I need a buffer that can clear before I actually take the picture too. Ditch the lame black color and give us camoflauge. When the lens clicks into place it should sound like the high end thump of closing the door on a Rolls Royce- built like a tank.
I do not only own Sony camera bodies or Sony lenses but I am one person that loves what is happening to the photo industry. I remember years ago when I bought my first Sony camera, an a300. I attended a family event and took a few pictures of family members. My brother in law saw what I was doing and walked over with his Nikon D200 and said, “Now let’s a picture with a real camera!” When I looked at the pictures they were very similar and brushed the comment aside. Since then I have read and listened to so much ignorant comments on photography blogs that I am sick of it. What matters is the choice we now enjoy. Life is so good. When someone says that Sony or Olympus or Panasonic or Fuji cannot compete against Canon and Nikon that is incorrect. They already are. They are doing things that Canon and Nikon are not doing. They have my business. Each year these companies have improved their products and will continue to do so. Canon and Nikon will reach a point when they offer cameras with similar features as their competitors. So give me a camera with a great sensor, EVF, peaking, HDR, tilting LCD, and panorama and I am happy. I will add the glass from whatsoever company interests me and I am set. When I process the raw files from my CZ 85 and 135 of bridal portraits I love those lenses. The background blur is a creamy delight. Simply beautiful. So every photographer has at their disposable the gear added to their skills to allow the production of IQ that just delights people. Photography is fun it is not about being better than someone else. Shot my first stage event last night with an EM1 with a grip. The handling was very nice. Loved the light weight. AF was super. Waiting for the 75mm for it to arrive. I love small cameras. I will wait a year for the A7 lens line up to fill out more. But then tonight I will shoot with the a77 and a99. Let the good times roll.
Gotta give a +1 on this one. Good point.
YES!!! Thank you Sony. I was afraid A-mount. was dead. I just started with Sony a couple years ago and I was not looking forward to switching back to Nikon in case they dropped the A-mount. I hope they only go as far as a hybrid mount and not phase it out altogether.
The next alpha is going to smash Canikon. One camera to rule them all and in the darkroom bind them!!!
There one main reason why I think z-shift isn’t going to be used for the hybrid camera – it doesn’t resolve the fact that both mounts use different mechanisms, or electronic contacts. Using just z-shift, if I understand it correctly, would then require a lens mount that has both electrical contacts (to link with e and a lenses) and both bayonet mounts (somehow nested in one another like the Contax cameras). This would mean that at least one set of electronic contacts will be grinding against flat metal at any point in time. Which is bad. Also, I believe the e and a mounts are of a different radial size? So when an e-mount lens is mounted, there will be a slight gap in the camera body between the 2 mounts, which will require a separate curtain mechanism to cover it up. Much too complex.