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...
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I bought a NEX-7 in April 2012, still no quality lenses.
Better focus on lens announcements (not promises) before buying a body.
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.
So, all this CMYG/CMYW, exactly what do the letters stand for?
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well it's been leaked. No idea what the specs will be though. It looks not that pretty looking though.
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!]
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.
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.
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.