[osv]

4. If there is a sinking ship wrt lenses/mount system, the A mount would be it. I am apprehensive about buying A-mount lenses at current prices and be under Sony's mercy as to how long they will support this mount (via the adapter)

we've all purchased and used lenses from companies that have abandoned mounts, or been out of the lens business for many years.

konica ar-mount and canon fdn for mf use, for example... lenses don't become unusable just because they don't have any company support.

sony bought the minolta a-mount nine years ago, and sony still sells adapters with electronic interface... if anything, the laea3 adapter is getting more use than it ever did with the release of the a7rii.

b&h has 82 ff a-mount lenses for sale, and 21 of those are sony lenses: SLR Lenses, DSLR Lenses | B&H Photo Video

i've not seen any evidence that sony nor any 3rd party a-mount lens manufacturer is abandoning a-mount? did someone stop making a-mount lenses, for instance?

[Ratcheteer]

deep down i wish sony would abandon the a-mount

the canon fd/n and konica ar-mount are very popular at the moment thanks to the a7

[osv]

fwiw, new a-mount lenses are still being released: "Tamron relaunches SP series with 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD and SP 45mm F1.8 Di VC USD
While no pricing is available yet, the lenses will go on sale in October in Canon and Nikon mounts. Sony Alpha mount will follow without the VC function."

Tamron relaunches SP series with 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD and SP 45mm F1.8 Di VC USD: Digital Photography Review

[TaoMaas]

I've been debating on whether to semi-switch or not. I need better video and the prices for used Canon and Sony options for camera bodies are very attractive. For still shots...and for what I shoot, the body really doesn't matter all that much.

[Ratcheteer]

I've been debating on whether to semi-switch or not. I need better video and the prices for used Canon and Sony options for camera bodies are very attractive.

first thing you should ask yourself is 3 simple questions
1. how often will you shoot video (if not often its not worth changing systems)
2. will you be grading the video (if yes then the sony is out, grading will show up the flaws in the file compression)
3. is it for personal or commercial (if commercial your better off getting a blackmagic system)

for shits and giggles i would get a sony a7s for recording at iso 80,000 and the odd sex tape
for personal ie family stuff thats to be graded canon with magic lantern for raw video
for wedding, music videos ie anything i can get paid for then its blackmagic hands down

[Nicolas06]

Is Sony mentionned in the sentence that you quoted? I did not compare Pentax and Sony regarding lens selection. My point was that if a photographer does wildlife, he is better served with a Nikon or Canon DSLR+supertele combo. If a photographer favorite style of photography is landscape + portrait, then a mirrorless such as Sony is a better way to go. Pentax limited lens concept was appealing when mirrorless was not deployed, but now, for size, Sony A7 beats Pentax limited combos for size and IQ. And for supertele, Nikon and Canon beat Pentax offering. So at the moment, Pentax is kind of stuck in the middle: DSLR sized body, with relatively slow AF for tracking and not so competitive supertele lens selection options.

Let's imagine I want my gear in A/FE mount, what the difference in cost? I take you to your words: Sony A7 beat Pentax limited in size and IQ:


Pentax APSC, priority on Pentax gear / Sony A FE when possible, A mount when not, Priority on Sony gear.


K3 800€, 800g => A7R 1700€, 465g
Native lense 0€ => LA-EA4 349€, 160g
DA15 550€, 189g => 20mm f/2.8 A mount: 650€, 285g
DA21 300€, 134g => Sony 28mm => 449€, 200g
DA35 ltd 450€, 214g => Sony 55mm f/1.8 800€, 281g
FA77 800€, 270g => 135mm f/2.8 1100€ 730g
F135 318€, 395g => Nearest equivalent is tamr 180mm macro f/3.5, 699€, 980g

Pentax APSC: 3218€, 2002g

Sony A7R FE + converter: 5747€, 3101g

I'am sorry but foundamentally A7R doesn't change the fact that FF is more expensive and is bigger/heavier. In the end, a 200mm lense is going to be bigger/heavier than a 135mm lense, and a 135mm lense is going to be bigger/heavier than a 77 or 85mm lense. Hybrid doesn't change that. Worse to get a 200mm lense I need to resort to a tamron 180mm because there no 200mm from Sony neither sigma. Extensive echosystem? Not so impressive.

Also I'am always getting all my gear with me with the Pentax. That 2kg. I think that many time, the tamron will stay at home if I go the Sony route.

And really for IQ, I'am not sure I'am loosing much with the FA77 for example and that FA31 or FA43 would not give Sony some hard time !

[biz-engineer]

I'am sorry but foundamentally A7R doesn't change the fact that FF is more expensive and is bigger/heavier. In the end, a 200mm lense is going to be bigger/heavier than a 135mm lense, and a 135mm lense is going to be bigger/heavier than a 77 or 85mm lense. Hybrid doesn't change that. Worse to get a 200mm lense I need to resort to a tamron 180mm because there no 200mm from Sony neither sigma. Extensive echosystem? Not so impressive.

Yeah , clear, FF lenses get heavier faster as FL increases, I'd consider the A7 stuff only with a couple of lenses for traveling and landscapes. Other than that, if I take your number, price per kg of gear, Sony (1853 Euros/kg) is still slightly more expensive than Pentax (1609 Euros/Kg).... just kidding ;-)

[Nicolas06]

Yeah , clear, FF lenses get heavier faster as FL increases, I'd consider the A7 stuff only with a couple of lenses for traveling and landscapes. Other than that, if I take your number, price per kg of gear, Sony (1853 Euros/kg) is still slightly more expensive than Pentax (1609 Euros/Kg).... just kidding ;-)

The worst when you look at it is that all thoses pentax ltd lenses that are so FAT due to DSLR mirror and stuff... They are all lighter than their Sony equivalent. This doesn't really match the marketing idea that removing the mirror help.

Hey this stay true even if we look at the same focal length... The ltd are smaller/lighter... And adding the A mount converter make the A7R as big and heavy as classic DSLR like K30 or KS2 and if you do that on the model with SR, it get as heavy as a K3 !

Honestly I looked a lot on many system recently, including m4/3, APSC mirrorless and so on. 1" compact too. I understood that there no thing as a usable range of focal length (at least eq. 135mm FF, better 200mm), reasonnable low light performance, bokeh, quality and small size. I'am quite interrested in the LX100, but really 70mm equiv FF max? that really too wide for me ! I love so much going out with the FA77, so small/light and yet you get reach and quite interresting field of view ! And the quality, there nothing to complain !

Out of all of this, I don't say Pentax is the best, but overall their offering is solid and an interresting compromize.

In general I find that DSLR win for the price/money game because their echosystem is huge and one need to be competitive. Want FF? Buy an used 5D, add tamron 28-70 and 70-200 and you have already quite a lot. Unbeatable combo for me if you want lot of reach, lot of possibility and a fair price!

I agree with you that if you don't need anything past 70mm FF equivalent, a mirrorless give you quite a lot in term of quality and price. m4/3 might well be a better compromize in particular if you really value the size aspect and the quality is there for quite significant print size alredy. Main drawback would be low light but fast lense can be quite affordable and small too! The Fuji APSC mirrorless look quite good too and A7 give you the best quality for a much greater price and already heavier system.

I also agree that if you are into birding/wildlife you'll want Canikon, but that may be APSC because you want the reach. Nikon D7200 make lot of sense.

FF DSLR I'll guess that would be portraiture, studio because the weight/size isn't a factor and wedding because you need both high iso and fast zoom up to 200mm.

In the end, it depend a lot of what you want to do and of the money you are willing to spend !

[spiralcity]

There no such thing as Sony vs Pentax.

You think you need to justify your buy, that the best one ever possible for you and for everybody. You have to have made the best choice. You need to convince yourself and show other your sharp mind. But others don't care.

Hey if you choose a random brand and invest into the system, the most visible difference may be the forum you'll subscribe too and the money you'll spend on gear. But really theses day any camera can take great pictures and the differentiator is that some prefer MF, some prefer OVF, some prefer a rangefinder... Some love to develop their own film rolls. Some play with project lenses. Some use lense baby. Doesn't matter in the end. If you are not a pro, there no even any requirement to produce anything usefull

Sure there sharpness there, MF ultimate performance for this model or whatever blabla you want to put into it. Let's not forget the all mighty EVF. But there no Camera that make the sun shine and the sky blue when you shoot on an overcast day. They no camera that'll shoot a portrait of your mother showing her joy of living and be sure you keep it so you have some memories when she dies. No Camera will bring you safe to a war zone to take some shoot to report back how it is there.

For things that count, it is not the camera that matter.

So yeah you can continue to use Pentax lenses on Sony body and pretend that the best thing since sliced bread and that if one doesn't do the same as you do yourself, he is stupid... In the end it not like it will change other people mind, or it will change in any way its ability to take great picture in any way.

I agree with you Nicolas. It seems that every forum I have joined there is always a large discussions on every spec of camera and lens. I am not saying this is a bad thing, but I am saying for the most part it's all irrelevant. It doesn't matter how you get there, it's getting there that counts. Many people seem to have forgotten that photography is about getting a useable image. I don't care if you used a pinhole camera to do this, the fact is that it's all about a workable useable image. Many of the cameras and lenses (regardless of specs) will take you there, it's a matter of preference and of course bank account.

It's time to shut off the computers, pick up you favorite camera and lens and start shooting. If your a photographer, this is what matter's, if your a camera tech, maybe not.

Helmut Newton was holding a DSLR and said, “It’s all automatic. All I have to do is press the button.” He then pointed to his head and said, “It’s all in here.” Did he mean . . .

1.The camera is irrelevant
2.He understood exactly how the camera works
3.This camera is a miracle of modern engineering

[osv]

K3 800€, 800g => A7R 1700€, 465g

24mp crop loses the pq battle to 36mp ff in a pretty big way, you are trying to compare apples vs. oranges, it's a fail.

if pentax thought that crop was as good as ff, like you do, they wouldn't be making a ff camera, because no one would buy it.

k3 plays in the a6000 league, they are both 24mp crop cameras.

these seem like simple concepts, but perhaps it's difficult to understand for people who don't have any 36mp experience.

And really for IQ, I'am not sure I'am loosing much with the FA77 for example and that FA31 or FA43 would not give Sony some hard time !

you are claiming 24mp crop vs. 36mp ff... so, no, not comparable at all.

[TaoMaas]

first thing you should ask yourself is 3 simple questions
1. how often will you shoot video (if not often its not worth changing systems)
2. will you be grading the video (if yes then the sony is out, grading will show up the flaws in the file compression)
3. is it for personal or commercial (if commercial your better off getting a blackmagic system)

1. Every day...it's my job.
2. eh...it'll be mixed with P2 video from a couple of cameras, as well as GoPro Hero 3 video.
3. I want better video for primarily personal use, but it will ultimately be used for commercial purposes. I want to be able to shoot broadcast quality video on my own time, then use that footage on-air if I choose.

[Nicolas06]

24mm crop loses the pq battle to 36mp ff in a pretty big way, you are trying to compare apples vs. oranges, it's a fail.

if pentax thought that 24mm crop was as good as ff, like you do, they wouldn't be making a ff camera, because no one would buy it.

k3 plays in the a6000 league, they are both 24mp crop cameras.

these seem like simple concepts, but perhaps it's difficult to understand for people who don't have any 36mp experience.

Man you really don't get it. I don't buy RAW files, I don't buy bits, I don't buy specs. I buy actual images. What will make an image good is your talent for composition, to get the right instant, to have an interresting subject to get the mood, to craft the scene with the light.

The 2 devices do exactly the same thing and once you took the photo and try to show it to friend or sell it, nobody care the brand the megapicke or if it was taken with a FF, APSC crop or MF with digital back. Not like the A7 will give you a blue sky when the sky is cloudy anyway. Not like there screen that can display more than 4K (8MP) or there human than can appreciate a picture with more than 10MP anyway. The eyes don't follow. 24MP give you some comfort for cropping and yeah 36MP on the FF allow you to use a shorter focal length and crop more to keep the gear small, but that all. In a sense the 36MP of the Sony are needed to conpensate for it downside of needing such long lenses to get the job done.

People want FF because people always want more. They want more MP for the same reason. There even phones with 40MP, maybe they give sharper images? Then they shoot brickwall and stare at them at 100%... Real photographers go out and take pictures of real subjects

I tryed to look at your signature I get a domain name no longer registrered for one and a few video on a very small frame on my browser (with ads taking most of the space) Could have been taken with an old feature phone for the resolution that it wouldn't make a difference.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Man you really don't get it. I don't buy RAW files, I don't but bits, I don't buy specs. I buy actual images. What will make an image good is your talent for composition, to get the right instant, to have an interresting subject to get the mood, to craft the scene with the light.

The 2 devices do exactly the same thing and once you took the photo and try to show it to friend or sell it, nobody care the brand the megapicke or if it was taken with a FF, APSC crop or MF with digital back. Not like the A7 will give you a blue sky when the sky is cloudy anyway. Not like there where screen that can display more than 4K (8MP) or there where human than can appreciate a picture with more than 10MP anyway. The eyes don't follow. 24MP give you some comfort for cropping and year 36MP on the FF allow you to use a shorter focal length and crop more to keep the gear small, but that all. In a sense the 36MP of the Sony are needed to conpensate for it downside of needing such long lenses to get the job done.

Camera is part of the equation, It makes no sense at all to ignore its role in making a good image.

[Nicolas06]

Camera is part of the equation, It makes no sense at all to ignore its role in making a good image.

Sure, but the camera should bring usefull feature and theses features could be different for different people. 2 different camera still take pictures. If the other one has more expensive and heavier lenses we could hope for better images and that's a compromize. There no point to always go to work with a truck because it can move more weight or think you need a formula 1 in traffic jam.

Some people compared the D600 to the K3 and found that is was very very hard to see any difference in quality. Only visible difference was the high iso stuff that also mean shallower deph of field. If you are not into that a 36MP FF camera vs 24MP give you 183dpi instead of 150dpi on a 30x40" print. You would need 96MP for 300dpi, here that would make a real difference. Twice the resolution. But 36MP vs 24MP? That 22% more resolution barely visible. Well that's not like any human could see more that 8-10MP anyway. The interrest is to crop or to be able to stare at the picture with a magnifying glass to say hey I knew that this FF was better ! And then discover that it was maybe the APSC but that because the shutter speed was higher and the camera on a tripod, you got more sharpness out of it.

[spiralcity]

Camera is part of the equation, It makes no sense at all to ignore its role in making a good image.

Really?

I bet I can post 10 images here, all shot on different cameras and you wouldn't be able to place the camera to image. Want to give it a try?

Name the camera.