Sony A7r and its Impact on Future Nikon Bodies

kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,281Member
edited October 2013 in General Discussions
As the October 16th release date nears for the Sony Full frame changeable lens system without an IR filter, I am wondering if there are any Nikon shooters on this forum who will bite and either purchase one or visit a local shop for a test drive. A 24mp body with IR filter and a 36mp version without an IR filter will be released the same day. Couple that with the 24-70 E mount Zeiss zoom and it gets even more enticing. I am not asking if you'd ditch Nikon, or switch systems, but perhaps as a carry around or as a second system? I think Nikon will lose some of their D800 business, but again not saying the A7r will outperform it. The Sony bodies will also be super affordable apparently as well. I am interested in the reviews of it to see how it performs in low light and it's dynamic range. If it is anything like the RX1R I might pick one up as a second body...
«13

Comments

  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    I've only heard the A7r wont have an AA filter (not IR filter) and as an entry level full-frame it will be priced aggressively.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Short term it won't mean anything - long term, I doubt it will mean anything. :) Nikon seems to be more concerned about releasing cheaper systems for the short term, and growing the FX base with existing customers.

    It appears that the body only (there are zero lenses that are designed for it without an adapter) will be $1,600-$2,000 and with a 24-70 near $3,000. That is still quite steep. That will put pressure on many companies with their pricing on systems though. Consider that the Olympus OM-D E-M1 was $1,500 when released - Fullframe for just a bit more? The lenses (and I do mean plural - there needs to be many released quickly) released will determine how successful it is. High End system needs high end - fast (f1.4-2.0) glass otherwise the difference from DX is very little.

    I use a Fuji X100 as a second body while shooting (in a documentary style along side a D800) and love that it is smaller and is easy to carry. I also will use my D300 as a second body but I prefer the Fuji due to it's size and being able to keep it out of my way. I have been looking to upgrade it to the X100s or X-pro upgrade, go to a Sony RX1, or go for the next sony nex-7 upgrade as a second body/walk around system. I'm a 35, 50, 85 shooter so these systems really appeal to me but the prices do not. I'll take a look at it for sure, but the cost and availability of lenses would be what I am looking at. If I can get a Xpro (upgrade) with 3-4 lenses for the same price - my rational Ego will overrule my Id's g.a.s. *Gear acquisition syndrome.

    This is fun to hear/see though!
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    edited October 2013
    Typical Sony, throw crap at the wall and hope it sticks. Sony is trying to do everything, and none of it well. If they focused on fewer types of cameras, I think they would be a great camera maker.

    I'm curious, did you mean without an AA filter, not IR? Not having an IR filter could be a real problem for a digital camera, unless all you want to shoot is IR photos.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,281Member
    Yes that's no AA filter.

    You are right PB_PM they do seem to throw a lot of crap at the wall with a variety of ideas and different systems. I have a feeling this is one idea that might be a hit on a current market that is full of niche cameras.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    As an aside on the IR filter thing... I've wondered if someday manufacturers can "simply" modify the red color cells in the Bayer Array to reject IR. Then they can dispense with a separate IR filter. After all, the red cells in the Bayer Array are actually red filters. If they can be further optimized to accept red but reject IR, then we don't need a separate IR filter.

    Wait, maybe I should patent this. :) J/k. My guess is it's simply cheaper to use a separate IR filter and cheap == more profit. Still, it would be neat to have a "filterless" sensor, apart from the Bayer Array microlens construction.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    As an aside on the IR filter thing... I've wondered if someday manufacturers can "simply" modify the red color cells in the Bayer Array to reject IR.
    A long time back (6-10yrs ago) someone (college/non-camera company) was playing with a CYMK array and different variations of colors to try to do that and for other custom scientific purposes. At the time one of the issues was processing power and it had to be tethered to a computer just to output a raw file. Never saw anything on that again. Probably one of those projects that got scrapped when the economy tanked.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    I think you mean a CMYG (or CMYW) array? My brain can't imagine a CYMK array because light is additive instead of subtractive like a printer (granted it's 4am and no coffee in sight).

    Yes a CMYG/CMYW array takes more computing power, but in a sense they were trying to solve the opposite problem. Instead of making the red cells more restrictive (to reject IR), the basic idea of CMYG is to make each cell filter less restrictive, to allow more light to hit the sensor for better noise performance. They needed more CPU power because at the end of the day, the CMYG data still has to be converted to RGB, and there's a lot of math to do so well.

    Despite needing more processing power, CMYG sensors were actually in wide commercial use. Even Nikon had numerous Coolpix cameras based on CMYG, including the very popular 990/995 (my sister had one of those).

    Unfortunately the CMYG/CMYW sensors could not produce accurate colors, precisely because the filters are less restrictive. And to add insult to injury, the RGB conversion step introduced noise, more or less negating any supposed advantage of CMYG over RGB CFA. So, CMYG was dropped from commercial use.
  • TonTon Posts: 509Member
    The only thing I see from Sony is a mountain of bodies, but no lenses.
    I bought a NEX-7 in April 2012, still no quality lenses.
    Better focus on lens announcements (not promises) before buying a body.
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • kanuckkanuck Posts: 1,281Member
    I think the Zeiss 24-70 should deliver some pretty nice images on this new body. Jury will be out on the quality of the body itself though especially up until Christmas I bet....

    Getting back to the IR issue, I am just curious, has anyone shot with the old 2005 Leica M8? The black and white images straight out of the body are really amazing I found. The censors increased sensitivity to light made for incredible B&W images. I really liked using it especially with the Leica glass as well. I found that the only problems with the infra-red sensitivity was under fluorescent indoor lighting. Only under these conditions did I use a IR UV filter.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,365Moderator
    Question, for clarification...light is red, green, and blue primary and filters which block these are cyan, magenta, yellow as I understand it. Pigments are actually the same as the filter colors with yellow + cyan making green, cyan + magenta makes blue and magenta + yellow makes red. In pigments, the names are not always clear however.

    So, all this CMYG/CMYW, exactly what do the letters stand for?
    Msmoto, mod
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited October 2013
    Yeah the terminology on filters can be confusing, because at times we want filters to block certain wavelengths of light, while at other times we want filters to pass certain wavelengths of light (while blocking everything else).

    E.g., infrared filters used for sensors (and Leica M8s) block IR (letting visible light pass). But filters used for IR photography pass IR (it blocks visible light instead.)

    In the usual RGB Bayer Array, we use filters to pass Red, Green, and Blue light to the individual cells. We typically double up the Green because our eyes are quite sensitive to Green light, so a common Bayer pattern will have Red-Green-Blue-Green (RGBG).

    These filters let a relatively "narrow" band of light through. If we shine a pure white light (equal amounts of R, G, B) into the Bayer array, the filter for the red cell passes Red, but blocks Green and Blue. So simplistically, 2/3rds of the light has been blocked at this cell (and at every other cell), which is a lot of light loss!

    However, we can also construct a Bayer array using complementary filters which as @MSmoto mentioned block the primary colors:

    - A Cyan filter blocks Red. The other primary colors (Blue and Green) pass through.
    - A Magenta filter blocks Green, passing Red and Blue.
    - A Yellow filter blocks Blue, passing Red and Green.

    Now instead of making a Red array cell which blocks 2/3rds of a white light, we can make a Cyan cell which passes 2/3rds of the light through. We can similarly make Magenta and Yellow cells.

    So that's the basic premise behind the CMY Bayer Array, using complementary color filters to let more light in. As before, because our eyes are sensitive to Green light, the typical arrangement adds a Green cell as well, giving us CMYG. (Other times a "white" transparent filter is used giving us CMYW).

    The downside to the CMY array is that at the end of the day, we have to convert the color values back to RGB, our primary colors for light. The basic formulas are:

    R = Y + M - C
    G = Y + C - M
    B = C + M - Y

    So there's some additional processing the camera must perform. Also, since we're mixing and subtracting different color channels together, it becomes difficult to handle noise properly, almost negating any advantage of letting more light in.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I think you mean a CMYG (or CMYW) array?
    Nope - I did mean to say CYMK (CMYK if you can't stand that I switched the M&Y) - although I forgot about the CMYG filters that Sony dropped.

    I'm not sure how the CYMK 4 colors was suppose to come together or how help filter out the IR (and UV) frequencies but someone figured the math out on it and thought it was worth trying. I remember it was something about isolating the frequencies better and having better color rendition. I know it was not based on the RGB array model though. Organic or something? Maybe someone can find it.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Back on the original topic - Sony Alpha Rumors is reporting it will be announced the 16th.
    The only thing I see from Sony is a mountain of bodies, but no lenses.
    I bought a NEX-7 in April 2012, still no quality lenses.
    Better focus on lens announcements (not promises) before buying a body.
    This is what concerns me on this line. The RX1 has an amazing lens, the Zeiss Touit lenses are good, but most reviews put the Fuji 50equiv being as good if not better. (Fuji glass has always been a top performers.)

    Really many want a smaller than Leica sized body with Leica sized auto focus lenses in FX for DOF and high-iso, low light performance of DSLRs. I'm not sure how well it can be done, or if it really could. One thing is for sure, I would not want a leica sized body with a Nikkor 35mm 1.4 sized lens on it.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Well, a "CMYK" sensor if it exists would be functionally no different than a CMYW sensor, since K is simply 1-W.

    Put it another way, since light is measured by counting photons, any measurement of K has to be done by effectively measuring W and then performing an extra subtraction. There would be no advantage in doing so, which is why CMYK sensors don't really exist.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    Getting away from the technical side of things, if Sony ends up being successful with their mirrorless fullframe, it would be stupid for Nikon not to develop something along those lines. So I'm optimistic that Nikon may come up with a digital S1. Maybe even make the same mount!
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    edited October 2013
    @NSXTypeR I wouldn't get my hopes up, with it using the old rangefinder mount. The way Nikon is treating mirrorless, I wouldn't hope for much of anything in that regard. The problem with Nikon's mirrorless cameras is that they are a reaction to the market, not an action to take the lead.

    As for Sony, as other have said, unless they make some decent lenses that don't have a Zeiss price tag, don't count on them doing well. For a full frame mirrorless Sony camera to really gain traction outside of a small niche of pro shooters, and rich hobbyists, they need to make good mid-grad consumer zooms. That means a line of F4 lenses, like Nikon has, not just a variable aperture 28-200 or 28-300.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited October 2013
    That means a line of F4 lenses, like Nikon has, ...
    I'm just recalling that a just a couple of years ago we were screaming why Nikon didn't have F/4 zooms. Just food for thought.

    Sony badly needs a FX DSLR upgrade as the older one is a bit long in the tooth. Out of all the camera companies, I think Olympus and Sony are doing the most to meet the advanced amatuere market with their systems. Canon and Nikon seem to just want to stay #1 & #2 in the market. Sony is coming up fast and building sales with shooters with large systems with their pocket systems with quality IQ.

    Don't kid yourself though, FX mirrorless will be $6,000 by the time you get a zoom, a couple of primes and accessories.
    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    What I mean, is if Sony wants to create a system that people would be willing to drop their DSLR system for, not just supplement a DSLR system with. Sony has abandon the DSLR line, and IIRC the last DSLR they released was two or three years ago (not counting hopeless SLT cameras).
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Sony is actually releasing new DSLR bodies this year/next 12 months. They actually share most of their roadmap. They have always been a 3-4 year upgrade cycle company with DSLRs. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to think or expect a mass of people to dump full blown pro DSLRs for mirrorless designs. There are just somethings DSLRs do better and current AF/Metering tech needs the extra space.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • TonTon Posts: 509Member
    edited October 2013
    I bought the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 for my NEX-7 (1000.- euro). First impression after 200 test shots.
    It does not beat the 5 year old D300 (12mp) with the 24-70mm f/2.8 combination. I expected much more from this 24mp APS-C sensor, The noise from the NEX-7 is terrible, up to ISO 800 I can correct the color noise, higher ISO's are unusable. The noise looks the same as on the D200, blobs.

    The cheap Sigma 30mm f/2.8 (169.- euro) is still the best lens on the NEX-7 and I compared the 16-70mm with 30mm f/8, 1/125 shots, which should do the job. Well I have a light, but expensive holiday camera now and will not spend anything more on Sony.

    There FF camera's, which will be announced shortly, should do a lot better, don't trust what everybody is writing, check it first for yourself.
    Post edited by Ton on
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    http://petapixel.com/2013/10/14/first-photo-100-accurate-sketch-sony-a7-full-frame-surface-online/

    Well it's been leaked. No idea what the specs will be though. It looks not that pretty looking though.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    edited October 2013
    Latest scuttlebutt is that Sony will be releasing several lenses with the cameras and many more over the next 12-24 mo.

    In short, they'd better be good. What @PB_PM said so well, with my own expansion: Zeiss already has a full suite of lenses, albeit MF, for Nikon and C*non. What separates Nikon (and I concede C*anon) is the sheer number of very good OEM lenses, viz with Nikon:
    [Insert your own favourite here, so you can't say I snubbed it!]
    24 1.4
    28 1.8
    35 1.4 (if you prefer the Sigma, fine; if you prefer a 50, fine)
    85 (various versions)
    105 and 200 Macros
    105/135 DC (135 DC my personal favourite)
    14-24 is only zoom I handhold often, but every day I come on this forum and read informed voices praising 24-70, 24-120, and the options at 70-200)
    Great suite of teles... slow options missing like a 100-400 5.6, which I'd likely sell my 200-400 f/4 for if the IQ at f/8 was great to finance something else, but maybe at this point I'm asking too much?

    At any rate, Sony needs to start cranking out good lenses, or no matter what they do with their bodies, it will always underwhelm me.
    Post edited by shawnino on
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,982Member
    Well, the first impressions seem to be really good.

    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,876Member
    Leaves me with the same impression as most Sony products, meh. The shutter sounds louder than the D800.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    The shutter sounds ....
    Sony and their shutters-lol. They have always been weird.

    I have to look at this a bit closer, but I like what I see. I think the 24mp with phase AF would be the way to go. AF really is frustrating when it doesn't work as fast or not well - X100 challenges my patience at times when I don't need it too and it is really frustrating. It would be a nice 2nd camera but 2 things always make me pause; 1) Mirrorless sensors are always exposed when changing lenses, and 2) Investing in a 2nd system that needs lenses and accessories.

    Wow - lots of new systems and many good choices from all companies.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • TonTon Posts: 509Member
    edited October 2013
    Lot of noise from ISO 1600 and higher, FF should do a lot better.

    Again no lenses and the prices from the announced lenses are ridiculous. 55mm f/1.8 - $1198.- !!! Nikon 50mm f/1.8mm $170.-, the best lens there is at the moment (look at the DxO score on the D600 and D800). 35mm f/2.8 $798.- ??? (Sigma has no E-mount version). 24-70mm f/4 - $1198.-, see the rating first before buying.

    The lens road 2014-2015 for the NEX is still empty. Where are the Macro, tele and wide lenses. I am waiting for my NEX-7 since April 2012 and I'am afraid they don't come, so Sony added 2 bodies on top of there pile of bodies.

    Yes with a convertor on the NEX you can use all your lenses of any brand, but then you are back in the dark ages, because everything is manual then, price $2298.- excl. convertor, I don't need Sony for that. I hoped Sigma would announce quality lenses for the NEX.

    The 70-200mm f/2.8 is $ 2998.- where the Nikon is $ 1798.-, what kind of lens should that be and it is an A-mount, not for E-mount.

    Sync speed 1/160, everybody thought that 1/200 for the D600 was too low.

    Hasselblad took the NEX-7, putted another grip on it and sell it now for $ 6000.-. You pay a fortune for the blue Zeiss sticker and the red Leica sticker and you can buy a Hasselblad made in Japan, all out performed by other brands. Stuff for the bo-bo's.
    Post edited by Ton on
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
Sign In or Register to comment.