[Nicolas06]

It seems like that sensor shift will be of limited value. Only usable on a tripod in completely static situations. I don't have a doubt that Pentax will release some such feature down the road, but I just don't know that it would be a reason to buy a camera or not.

Say for still landscape & studio shooter always on a tripod. Yes. I mean you'd get 40 or 50MP worth of detail for the price of lenses and body that manage only 16-24MP.

Stupid question maybe is how many still landscape & studio shooter we have ? Not many I'd guess.

[Rondec]

Say for still landscape & studio shooter always on a tripod. Yes. I mean you'd get 40 or 50MP worth of detail for the price of lenses and body that manage only 16-24MP.

Stupid question maybe is how many still landscape & studio shooter we have ? Not many I'd guess.

The problem I have is that few scenes I shoot are that static. I shoot a lot of landscape, but if there is wind or anything like that, suddenly your special feature is useless.

I wish some camera company would release some kind of in-camera photo stacker that would allow combining shots to maximize depth of field. Now, that would be a useful feature for a landscape shooter...

[Mikesul]

Mirrorless nothing short of a revolution, a wonder of the 21st century. Make no mistake they are sleeker, they have faster, more accurate AF, fewer moving parts and most importantly they smaller than ancient DSLRs...



..oh, nevermind.

Funny, but also the sad, disappointing truth. The lenses often keep these otherwise sleek, small, lightweight cameras almost as heavy and cumbersome as the equivalent DSLR. For 30-50mm they can be what we dreamed of when we bought them. So they become truly niche cameras. By the way I loved my A6000 but I really needed to keep my K3.

[LensBeginner]

Funny, but also the sad, disappointing truth. The lenses often keep these otherwise sleek, small, lightweight cameras almost as heavy and cumbersome as the equivalent DSLR. For 30-50mm they can be what we dreamed of when we bought them. So they become truly niche cameras. By the way I loved my A6000 but I really needed to keep my K3.

Just use a mirrorless with Limited or SMC-M lenses then.
I can't find a much smaller 100mm anywhere else...
It's nice to have all those options! myself I'm inclined to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 but for those times when portability is an overriding necessity then I know what to do...

[kadajawi]

Yes Nicholas, but the mirror takes space and weight. i.e. you can fit in more batteries in the space of a DSLR when going mirrorless.

There are some very small mirrorless lenses, especially for mFT.

I hope Pentax drops the K mount... to a certain degree. The camera shouldn't have it, but you should be able to use K mount with an adapter without tradeoffs. That way new, more compact wide angle lenses are possible, and we can also use lenses for other mounts.

[BrianR]

The problem I have is that few scenes I shoot are that static. I shoot a lot of landscape, but if there is wind or anything like that, suddenly your special feature is useless.

I wish some camera company would release some kind of in-camera photo stacker that would allow combining shots to maximize depth of field. Now, that would be a useful feature for a landscape shooter...

I'd be happy with programmable one-touch focus 'bracketing' for AF lenses, combine later on the computer where you have oodles of processing power. Like a sensor shift resolution stacker it wouldn't always be useful, but some people are sure to find it very handy.

[osv]

1/2eV is about 30% loss, 1/3eV is about 21% loss!

You yourself said the loss is between 1/3 and 1/2, so don't backpedal now ... and this was the range found at the time by DigitalRev.

your video is nearly 4 years old, and it's for an a77 camera, not an lea4??

lets see, first you didn't know that the lea4 had pdaf, then you posted up a 4-year old camera up as proof of how much light loss the lea4 has, now this

you are drowning in shallow water, but that's nothing new

i've seen sony users claim that the lea4 is an improvement over your first-gen efforts, not the same thing, but the 1/3-1/2ev numbers are only their guesses.

no doubt that there is some light loss? but the lea4 in front of an a7r or a7 will still perform much better than a k-3... i posted examples of the pq.

more importantly, tho, you have an evf! no more horrible ovf, which means that you can now use manual focus, accurately... well worth any light loss.

The effect is that if you spend more than $3000 on a Sony Alpha f2.8 II G lens, congratulations, you put this adapter on and before anything else, you've just turned it into a $3000 f3.2 lens.

wrong, lol... aperture is not determined by the camera's mirror.

good grief!

---

Last edited by osv; 12-06-2014 at 11:41 AM.

[Nicolas06]

osv, yes the A7 is going to have significantly better low light than K3... A bit less than 1stop. (0.9 ?)

So how does it apply?
- using any lense not native to FE, losing AF you get 0.9 stop gain. Perfect for any manual focusser. I fully agree.
- using FE lens you get 0.9 stop gain but there only one fast lens (55mm f/1.8). Overall FE lenses are one stop slower than other lenses from other mounts, including Pentax offering. No practical gain here as anybody on APSC can just use f/2.8 instead f/4 zoom or a stop faster prime to negate the dof control and high iso adventage of the sensor size. A J30 guy with 17-50 tamron would achieve the same for 1/5 of the price.
- using a-mount lens through lea4 to get PDAF, you loose some light reducing the adventage... Getting something like 0.5-0.7 Ev adventage only. And needing to invest into A-mount. As some have already mentionned, Sony didn't make new body (or new lenses) for a-mount lately. Anyway for something that is costing twice as much (K3 or even K30 on one side vs A7 + lea4 on the other side) that's not an impresive improvement.

Now somebody with a D610 (or really any Nikon FF... based ironically on Sony sensors) get significantly better high iso performance than the A7. There something like 0.3EV gain from the camera... that you get. If you want AF on your Sony and fast apperture lenses from a-mount for any serious low light need, the lea4 draw in light add up... You have 0.5-0.7 EV disadvantage in low light with A7 FF compared to Nikon FF. Ironically A7 + lea4 and D610 are in same price range... Still the Nikon will in low light performance easily.

Only if one does go the A7s route does he get really good low iso performance (0.3EV more than best Nikon). Something you really only benefit through manual focussing. Here you have the best of the best low light performance in FF format. Through native FE lenses have slow apperture overall and if you are after AF ultimate performance, you need a-mount for fast lenses. Lea4 light loss remove the gain you could have for A7s for low iso shoots. That's a draw for low light performance. But the reduced resolution from A7s is for all shoots.

So yes, A7 sensor is better than K3 sensor. I mean hopefully from the sensor size difference !

In practice, if you are not particulary after manual focus you may fail to fully leverage it.

Already this kind of stuff only apply to extreme apperture by definition (if you can't open more with decent quality on the smaller format) but with A7 this only fully apply to manual focussing cases. The practical gain for AF shooter is not that great.

[Nicolas06]

wrong, lol... aperture is not determined by the camera's mirror.

Let say it differently... The light loss for the 70-200 G on DxO show 3.2 T stop. Let's add the lea4... and the effective T-stop is more 3.7 (if we count 0.3Ev loss from the lea4).

[osv]

osv, yes the A7 is going to have significantly better low light than K3... A bit less than 1stop. (0.9 ?)

So how does it apply?
- using any lense not native to FE, losing AF you get 0.9 stop gain.

i know that english isn't your first language, but i see where you are going, i'll try to sum it up.

a7 has ~.9ev better iso performance over k3, according to you?
~.9ev minus lea4 light loss ~.3ev = a7 has ~.6ev better iso performance over k3, with the lea4 on it?

makes sense to me, i guess?

- using FE lens you get 0.9 stop gain but there only one fast lens (55mm f/1.8). Overall FE lenses are one stop slower than other lenses from other mounts, including Pentax offering. No practical gain here as anybody on APSC can just use f/2.8 instead f/4 zoom or a stop faster prime to negate the dof control and high iso adventage of the sensor size.

if fastest aperture was the goal, you could mount any f/.95-1.2 lens, from any company, on the a7.

a7 wins, k3 loses again.

As some have already mentionned, Sony didn't make new body (or new lenses) for a-mount lately.

we already covered this? doesn't b&h list eleven ff f/2.8 zoom lenses for sony a-mount, and three ff f/2.8 zoom lenses for pentax?? none of which were made by pentax?

no ff future for pentax.

Now somebody with a D610 (or really any Nikon FF... based ironically on Sony sensors) get significantly better high iso performance than the A7.

i don't agree with that at all... but we are talking about pentax here, not nikon.

so what you are claiming there is that nikon blows pentax completely out of the water wrt to high iso performance.

so why didn't you buy nikon instead of pentax, since you think that nikon is so much better?

another failed strawman argument... bring in something completely irrelevant(nikon) to prove a non-existent point.

---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 12:04 PM ----------

Let say it differently... The light loss for the 70-200 G on DxO show 3.2 T stop. Let's add the lea4... and the effective T-stop is more 3.7 (if we count 0.3Ev loss from the lea4).

taking your dxo claim at face value...

you just told us that the a7 has ~.6ev iso better performance over the k3, so the a7 is still better

when the a7ii comes out, the a7 is liable to go on sale for maybe $200 more than a k3.

you can mount any pentax lens to an a7, and get an evf that gives you real manual focusing capability.

hmmm...

[Rondec]

i know that english isn't your first language, but i see where you are going, i'll try to sum it up.

a7 has ~.9ev better iso performance over k3, according to you?
~.9ev minus lea4 light loss ~.3ev = a7 has ~.6ev better iso performance over k3, with the lea4 on it?

makes sense to me, i guess?



if fastest aperture was the goal, you could mount any f/.95-1.2 lens, from any company, on the a7.

a7 wins, k3 loses again.



we already covered this? doesn't b&h list eleven ff f/2.8 zoom lenses for sony a-mount, and three ff f/2.8 zoom lenses for pentax?? none of which were made by pentax?

no ff future for pentax.



i don't agree with that at all... but we are talking about pentax here, not nikon.

so what you are claiming there is that nikon blows pentax completely out of the water wrt to high iso performance.

so why didn't you buy nikon instead of pentax, since you think that nikon is so much better?

another failed strawman argument... bring in something completely irrelevant(nikon) to prove a non-existent point.

---------- Post added 12-06-2014 at 12:04 PM ----------



taking your dxo claim at face value...

you just told us that the a7 has ~.6ev iso better performance over the k3, so the a7 is still better

when the a7ii comes out, the a7 is liable to go on sale for maybe $200 more than a k3.

you can mount any pentax lens to an a7, and get an evf that gives you real manual focusing capability.

hmmm...

Let's just say that there aren't very many FE mount lenses and that there is some reduction in light when mounting alpha mount lenses (and keeping auto focus). As I said before it is a kludge. If Sony eventually comes out with native FE mount lenses, I think people will sell their adapters and alpha mount lenses pretty quickly (assuming the image quality is there).

In addition, not everyone has a desire to go out and buy odd lenses and manual focus them, even if the experience is wonderful. I shoot a small number of lenses and they are all auto focus -- for a reason -- I don't enjoy manual focusing and have no desire to learn. And there are an awful lot of folks like me out there. The whole adapting lenses from other mounts thing is the most important reason that forumites like shorter registration distances, but I don't believe it sells that many camera bodies in the real world.

But I don't think mirrorless has to be hitched to short registration distance -- I wouldn't see why it would.

[Saltwater Images]

EVF technology has become much better. I tried out a Sony a6000 at my local camera shop today out of curiosity. It was a tidy camera with fast AF however the kit lens was less than pedestrian and the EVF still has a long way to go before competing with a DSLR. Would I prefer the Sony over my K-5II with a HD DA 40 & HD Da 21 combo? Absolutely not. The appeal of these mirror-less cameras is small size…yet they often seem to have lenses attached that are significantly larger than Pentax pancakes...

[osv]

it's true that registration distance adds length, and turning a mirrorless camera into a dslr with the lea4 adds weight.

but you have to agree that all dslr cameras are also kludges, because they have mirrors.

i spent many hours flailing around with micro autofocus adjustments on the k10d, including having to download and install the hacked o.s. first; i even tried carrying a paper list of what adjustments to apply for every old af lens that i put on the camera ... most or all of that goes away when you get rid of the mirror.

[Winder]

yes the A7 is going to have significantly better low light than K3... A bit less than 1stop. (0.9 ?)

The IQ advantage is going to depend on ISO and the size of the final output.

Let's say the goal is an 8x10 print:
K-3: Pentax K-3 Review - Image Quality
"ISO 3200 yields good 8 x 10 inch prints, with only a mild trace of noise in shadowy areas of our target."

A7: Sony A7 Review - Image Quality
"ISO 12,800 prints will work for less critical applications at 8 x 10 inches and almost warrant the "good" seal, which is really amazing."

My K-3 is good for 13x19 at 800 ISO which matches what IR claims. For the A7 they consider 3200 ISO the max for a 13x19 print. Since my printed portfolios are 13x19 that is a significant difference for me. 13x19 is my target print size and it's the largest I can print on my Canon 9500II.

[Nicolas06]

i know that english isn't your first language, but i see where you are going, i'll try to sum it up.

This is not english but logic overall... That why insulting non native speaker doesn't really help you.

Put it another way:

A K30/K5 + tamron 17-50 f/2.8 can be find for 600€.
A K3 + tamron 17-50 f/2.8 can be find for 1100€
An A7 + some manual lenses can be find for 1500€ and get up to 0.9EV or even more but no AF
An A7 + tamron 28-70 f/2.8 + lea4 can be find for 2000€ and get 0.6EV advantage.
An A7s + tamron 28-70 f/2.8 + lea4 can be find for 2800€ and get 0.9EV advantage.
An A7 + FE 24-70 f/4 can be find for 2000€ and get 0.1EV less low light performance due to f/4 only.
An A7s + FE 24-70 f/4 can be find for 2800€ and get 0.2EV adventage due to f/4 only.
An D610 + tamron 28-70 can be find for 2000$ and get 1.15EV advantage.

There no point thinking that everybody will ever want to go for the third choice, even if they can buy cheap f/1.2 lenses. Some will choose that, maybe like you did, at least like you promote.

Some might be more budget cautious and choose the first solution. Some might want good AF but can't afford solution 4 or anything more expensive and go for K3+ tamron 17-50. After all, it is nearly half the price.

Some might prefer the D610 because they don't give a shit of EVF, manual focussing. But want better low light performance and want to use AF lenses. While keeping higher resolution and lower price than going A7.

That why in fact the market is shared among many actors and products. The needs are quite different and everybody can choose for himself whatever look best.

And here we just used AF vs MF and low light performance. But if size is critical micro 4/3 might be a better fit... or Sony Nex... or Fuji APSC. Or an high end compact; And if ultimate sport performance is critical, there only Canikon out there with the lenses.