[osv]

The raw manipulations would be matching up just perfectly to cancel the light loss on two specific lenses, but not the other sony fe lenses I looked at, that makes me think it's not likely the major cause here.

like i said before, you can't have zero light loss in a lens, it can only be explained by some form of manipulation... some have it, some don't.

fe55 raw file is tweaked:
Photozone review: Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens - FM Forums

the dxo iso testing that you linked is done with no lens on the camera, so we don't know what happens to the iso with a lens on the camera.

what i find disturbing is that dxo doesn't say whether it's the raw file that gets tested, or the jpeg.

[zapp]

I look at the market place right now and it seems like Canon and Nikon are on very different tracks than Sony is. Every new "big" camera from Canon and Nikon -- the 7D Mk II, the D750 -- are SLR type and while they have gotten a little smaller over time, they are what they are.

On the other hand, it seems that Sony generates a huge amount of buzz with every new iteration of the NEX series of cameras. Whether crop sensor or, full frame, it doesn't seem to matter. Is it the smaller size, or the EVF? I'm not sure. I am just questioning at this point whether the days of the traditional SLR are numbered. Are we going to see SLRs limited to a small number of professional shooters who happen to use fast telephoto lenses?

It feels like this makes a big difference to a company like Pentax. Pentax has made the decision not to pursue the mirrorless market with a larger sensored market, I guess think that people will either get an SLR or a Q.

I wonder if the SLR market is dying and if Pentax should be exploring mirrorless options, rather than hanging on to the mirror.

Don't get me wrong. I like a good OVF. I haven't used an EVF that I like better than an OVF, but it just feels like the market is shifting and maybe Pentax is going to be way behind again, just as they were when the "digital revolution" started and then the "full frame revolution" started.

Just some thoughts, but wondered what others think?

SLR cameras are a fancy addition to photography starting some point in the 60s/70s. Leica kept the M concept - mirrors are pointless in the long run.
We just should not call a camera mirrorless. Cameras do not need mirrors, but most people forgot about these details.

[Rondec]

I think DXO Mark works with RAW files, That's their bread and butter.

It is funny to me that a thread talking about mirrorless cameras in general has turned into an argument about whether or not Sony will take over the camera world. I think it is pretty definitive that Sony is an electronics maker first, camera maker second and as such, it is clear that others create better cameras around those sensors (and get better performance out of those same sensors).

But mirrorless isn't just Sony. Sure, they have money to burn. They can sell all of their cameras for a loss, for awhile anyway, but there are lots of other companies that have at least dabbled in the field and it does feel to me like we are getting to a tipping point, where lower end cameras that used to have pentamirrors will end up with EVFs, even if they keep the same registration distance and can mount all of the old lenses without adapters.

[osv]

Don't be so sure - Sony cameras are NOT bigger than Nikon cameras.

yes, they are, because it includes the pro video division.

point being that it's kind of asinine for posters out here to act like sony is some flakey little unprofitable company that's betting on a milc segment that's going nowhere... rubbish.

it's so bad that some people out here don't even know that sony sells dslrs... and both you and that other poster made claims that were unsubstantiated with links back to the source.

In point of fact, Sony no longer has a camera division. It has been restructured into the omnibus 'Imaging Products and Solutions' segment.to include compact digital cameras, video cameras, interchangeable single-lens cameras, broadcast and professional-use products.

i stated that it included pro video in the linked post that i made, and the info that you posted was already in the dpr thread... nothing new there.

[monochrome]

yes, they are, because it includes the pro video division.

point being that it's kind of asinine for posters out here to act like sony is some flakey little unprofitable company that's betting on a milc segment that's going nowhere... rubbish.

it's so bad that some people out here don't even know that sony sells dslrs... and both you and that other poster made claims that were unsubstantiated with links back to the source.



i stated that it included pro video in the linked post that i made, and the info that you posted was already in the dpr thread... nothing new there.

I added no links whatsoever to my post - source, rumor or internet. I merely wrote truth of the restructuring Sony is performing and has been performing since 2012. As far as the DPR thread referring to Pro Video - sure, it was mentioned, but the scale of Sony's professional video (including studio, system and cinematic cameras and editing equipment) dwarfs the ILC sales. In any fair comparison, Sony does not sell more interchangeable lens cameras than Nikon, end-user, shipments, units nor dollars. They simply don't. STOP.

Nikon doesn't have any professional cinematic or broadcast digital or analog cameras and equipment that I've ever heard of. By your logic Panasonic makes more cameras than Nikon and Canon.

You may, if you wish, rest on your default, "if there ain't links there ain't proof' defense all day long. Doesn't change anything. Unfortunately I cannot link proprietary, subscription research on Sony Corp.


Where does Nikon compete with any of this? It counts in the revenue comparison you cite.

Oh -and while we're at it - it isn't profitable.

But - do I think SLR's are dying? I think SLR unit volume is on a slow decline to mid-2000's units - that period before the giant wave of consumer household conversion to a digital interchangeable lens body with a kit zoom lens that was never interchanged for anything else. If MILC's take up the smartphone upgraders and superzoom fixed lens buyers, that's fine. It shouldn't affect Ricoh much because they didn't get any of that 2007-2012 volume anyway. Canon, Nikon - sure, they'll need to rationalize productive capacity for the new reality.

Ricoh can quite comfortably and profitably chug along making fine camera bodies in many formats and sensor sizes, certainly to include a large-sensor MILC offering eventually. And if Sony makes gobs of money - or Samsung - killing Nikon and Canon, more power to them. I'll just keep using Pentax cameras and laughing at all the angsty, bleeding cuticles.

[BrianR]

like i said before, you can't have zero light loss in a lens, it can only be explained by some form of manipulation... some have it, some don't.

Of course there's always some light loss, but as I said before it could still be too low for them to measure or rounding to zero.

Here are someone's measurements of Tstops of a bunch of Nikon lenses: Part 1: Lens T-stops: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

They're only measuring the efficiency in the green channel, but it's kind of interesting that the AIS 50mm f/1.8 hit T/1.83. This kind of efficiency doesn't seem to be the norm, but doesn't seem impossible.

fe55 raw file is tweaked:
Photozone review: Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens - FM Forums

the dxo iso testing that you linked is done with no lens on the camera, so we don't know what happens to the iso with a lens on the camera.

It's certainly possible.

what i find disturbing is that dxo doesn't say whether it's the raw file that gets tested, or the jpeg.

I'd bet on raw, but yea. They could be more transparent at times.


What we need is one of these:

Lens Measuring Technologies | ZEISS Canada

Though it may be rigged to lie for zeiss lenses

[Nicolas06]

Of course there's always some light loss, but as I said before it could still be too low for them to measure or rounding to zero.

Here are someone's measurements of Tstops of a bunch of Nikon lenses: Part 1: Lens T-stops: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

They're only measuring the efficiency in the green channel, but it's kind of interesting that the AIS 50mm f/1.8 hit T/1.83. This kind of efficiency doesn't seem to be the norm, but doesn't seem impossible.

"All of these test results are for the green channel only, as that makes up the greatest share of the apparent image brightness. Measurements were made at the center of the image, thus do not include any vignetting effects. Red and blue channel data was also collected, but this will not be discussed until part 3, about lens color cast."

To me, it is naive to speak of T-stop and make mesurement only on the center. Vigneting is a fact that come with many lenses, in particular wide open. T-stop is often only provided for the wided apperture where vigneting has a big influence.

So the 50mm f/1.4 D has very good T-stop of 1.48, that is indeed really, really good.

Still take the look of the vigneting test of lenstip: Nikon Nikkor AF 50 mm f/1.4D review - Vignetting - Lenstip.com.

The borders fall off is quite visible. It is mesured to be 0.58EV average loss for borders and 0.99EV average loss for corners. We can extrapolate that you loose arround 0.3EV overall, this is the kind of bump in exposure I add when I also add artificial vigneting so the image doesn't appear darker overall. So the 1.48 T-stop should be more 1.7. (1.48*1.3^(1/2) = = 1.687)

As if overall reviewers do their T-stop only on center or include border performance, I don't know, but for sure a lens with 1EV vigneting in corners should not have near perfect results.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-02-2014 at 03:08 PM.

[BrianR]

To me, it is naive to speak of T-stop and make mesurement only on the center. ..

Rather than pointing out the shortcomings, point me to something better. Please. I've been trying to find anything outside of DxO that gives any kind of measurements for Tstops for a bunch of lenses at once, but I haven't been able to find much besides brief articles explaining the difference

[Nicolas06]

Rather than pointing out the shortcomings, point me to something better. Please. I've been trying to find anything outside of DxO that gives any kind of measurements for Tstops for a bunch of lenses at once, but I haven't been able to find much besides brief articles explaining the difference

I don't know, T-stop is more something they care of in video where apparently the key aspect is to have enough light... On photos, it seems we care more of the apperture than the T-stop because we are more after the creativity than the ultimate low light performance.

[MarkJerling]

I'll just keep using Pentax cameras and laughing at all the angsty, bleeding cuticles.

Well written, specially your last line.

[Nicolas06]

When I read more the article from DxO & Luminous landscape they explain that the widest appertures lens (below f/4 or even more below f/2) that part of the light is lost not only by the lens but also by the sensor itself. The digital sensor and how it made has an impact on how it is able to catch incidental light, a kind of light ray that is much more present at the widest apperture. They have also found a correlation between pixel size and the light loss at wide apperture.

At f/1.2, the light loss due to the sensor alone vary from 0.5 to 1EV... And from the mesurement camera makers (both Nikon & Canon) hide this fact by silently boosting the isos for theses lenses.

To me, this greatly reduce the interrest of f/1.2 or even f/1.4 lenses, and this may explain the heavy vigneting on Sony lenses on both Nex and A7 familly of bodies.

We speak of mirrorless, registration distance is shorter and lenses designer are pushed to use it at its best for smaller lens design. Still this mean from a practical point of view that the actual diaphram of the lens is more near to the sensor and that it would allow for even more incidental light than a longer registration distance.

The issue can be simply solved. Use a bigger lens design like you would do on a standard DSLR or even a longer one. But this make the lens big, exactly what you want to avoid while designing for mirrorless that play in the small/light category. The temptation is then huge for one to under design the lens, make it then smaller... And hide everything behind lens profiles and automatic corrections and to boost the isos silently.

Still in the end, you may not really get the advertised but loose 0.5V - 1EV between the transmitence, the vigneting and the sensor loss.

Overall it seems a function of pixel size and so the more pixel you have in a smaller sensor, the more you are going to loose from the widest apertures. A7R/D810 have same pixel size than K5 and should get similar fall off logically. K3 or A6000 would be more impacted. Old FF with design with lower pixel density perform the best. They also typically come with CCD sensor that perform better on this topic.

[philbaum]

The issue can be simply solved. Use a bigger lens design like you would do on a standard DSLR or even a longer one. But this make the lens big, exactly what you want to avoid while designing for mirrorless that play in the small/light category. The temptation is then huge for Sony to under design the lens, make it then smaller... And hide everything behind lens profiles and automatic corrections and to boost the isos silently.

I think building small mirrorless cameras was an idea from some companies as a way to compete with the big DSLRs. But now that the mirrorless cameras, and their merits are established, i see no reason not to build some large cameras as mirrorless. Let the best camera win in the market place. Is there something to be afraid of - not that i can see.

For example, build a K mount mirrorless camera. It should be cheaper to build that way and more reliable without the mirror and the need to calibrate phase focusing. Include all the functions that the K3 now has. Before someone mentions the K01, i'd mention that the K01 was a stripped down version of a DSLR at a large price, just under $900 if i remember correct.

The answer to the thread is: Noone knows for certain. I frankly don't care whether DSLRs die or not. I just want the best camera for the kind of shooting i do. Its called voting with your feet or money or something. There's no reason that different kinds of cameras can't coexist, like they have for decades already.

[Nicolas06]

I think building small mirrorless cameras was an idea from some companies as a way to compete with the big DSLRs. But now that the mirrorless cameras, and their merits are established, i see no reason not to build some large cameras as mirrorless. Let the best camera win in the market place. Is there something to be afraid of - not that i can see.

For example, build a K mount mirrorless camera. It should be cheaper to build that way and more reliable without the mirror and the need to calibrate phase focusing. Include all the functions that the K3 now has. Before someone mentions the K01, i'd mention that the K01 was a stripped down version of a DSLR at a large price, just under $900 if i remember correct.

The answer to the thread is: Noone knows for certain. I frankly don't care whether DSLRs die or not. I just want the best camera for the kind of shooting i do. Its called voting with your feet or money or something. There's no reason that different kinds of cameras can't coexist, like they have for decades already.

For me size is still biggest argument. Focus peaking is not so necessary with AF and with an body like K3 focussing tend to be very accurate as is metering. The OVF look more natural... There less reason to switch.

I agree that a K01 as a good price, good size and EVF could be an interresting product if it keep the same focussing performance (speed, low light, accuracy) as what you get out of K3 AF. You could combine it with limited for a smaller overall set while you would bring the K3 for working with bigger zooms, tele and sports/action.

[osv]

I added no links whatsoever to my post - source, rumor or internet. I merely wrote truth of the restructuring Sony is performing and has been performing since 2012.

without proof, what you wrote was nothing more than idle speculation.

your claim that an undisclosed source that only *you* know about, is the only source of the true facts, is silly... that approach would earn a failing grade in any elementary school english class.

As far as the DPR thread referring to Pro Video - sure, it was mentioned, but the scale of Sony's professional video (including studio, system and cinematic cameras and editing equipment) dwarfs the ILC sales. In any fair comparison, Sony does not sell more interchangeable lens cameras than Nikon, end-user, shipments, units nor dollars. They simply don't. STOP.

prove it.

Nikon doesn't have any professional cinematic or broadcast digital or analog cameras and equipment that I've ever heard of. By your logic Panasonic makes more cameras than Nikon and Canon.

no, according to the link that i posted, sony grosses more $$$ from sales of camera gear and sensors than nikon does.

that's the entire point.

---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 05:29 PM ----------

Oh -and while we're at it - it isn't profitable.

"Restructuring and lay-offs have also returned Imaging Products and Solutions, as well as Home Entertainment and Sound, to profitability despite low revenue growth - See more at: HTC Corp and Sony Corp Earnings Paint a Bleak Picture for Smartphones - Analyst Insight from Euromonitor International

"Aside from G&NS, Home Entertainment & Sound as well as Imaging Products & Solutions showed vast signs of improvement by returning to profitability." http://seekingalpha.com/article/2626155-update-sony-q2-earnings-building-on-...esults-from-q1

"[Sony]Profit-making Businesses:
Game and Network Services; 26bn yen rise on the same period last year
Imaging Products & Solutions; 22bn yen jump
Home Entertainment and Sound; 8bn yen jump
Devices; which includes smartphone camera lenses, posted a 17bn yen rise versus the same quarter last year
Music; yep Music made a profit while Mobile didn’t. 11.8bn yen profit
Financial Services; 47bn yen profit"
http://www.sonyrumors.net/2014/11/04/sonys-q2-performance-winners-losers/

[eddie1960]

without proof, what you wrote was nothing more than idle speculation.

your claim that an undisclosed source that only *you* know about, is the only source of the true facts, is silly... that approach would earn a failing grade in any elementary school english class.



prove it.



no, according to the link that i posted, sony grosses more $$$ from sales of camera gear and sensors than nikon does.

that's the entire point.

---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 05:29 PM ----------



"Restructuring and lay-offs have also returned Imaging Products and Solutions, as well as Home Entertainment and Sound, to profitability despite low revenue growth - See more at: HTC Corp and Sony Corp Earnings Paint a Bleak Picture for Smartphones - Analyst Insight from Euromonitor International

"Aside from G&NS, Home Entertainment & Sound as well as Imaging Products & Solutions showed vast signs of improvement by returning to profitability." http://seekingalpha.com/article/2626155-update-sony-q2-earnings-building-on-...esults-from-q1

"[Sony]Profit-making Businesses:
Game and Network Services; 26bn yen rise on the same period last year
Imaging Products & Solutions; 22bn yen jump
Home Entertainment and Sound; 8bn yen jump
Devices; which includes smartphone camera lenses, posted a 17bn yen rise versus the same quarter last year
Music; yep Music made a profit while Mobile didn’t. 11.8bn yen profit
Financial Services; 47bn yen profit"
Sony's Q2 Performance - Winners and Losers

On dollars alone I'd be very surprised if the pro studio Video gear didn't dominate the volume. they dominate the broadcast industry still on that side