[philbaum]

Mirrorless cameras need a lot more processing power and bigger batteries. The A99II has more processing power, bigger batteries, handles heat better and balances better the "professional" F/2.8 zooms. For people using primes mirrorless is great, but the size advantage vanishes with big fast glass. Sony needs to continue to improve its A-mount glass with SSM so that it works with the new AF system. Hopefully some of the technology from the GM line will makes its way over to A-mount.

That has the ring of credibility to it. So it isn't nostalgia thats keeping the A-mount live, i don't think a lot of us individuals understand the larger Sony business plan. After i got my A7rII a year ago, i bought a plastic fantastic lens, the Sony 85 f2.8 lens with SAM focus motor (apparently these SAM motors are cheaper than the SSM actuators used in pricier lens). Even so, this lens was quite good, but there are FEW of these cheap lenses about. Most of them have screw actuation which is the same situation with Pentax. But the screw actuated lense require a different Sony adapter. Eventually i ended up buying the Sigma MC-11 adapter and a great Canon 85 f1.8 lens that was designed back in 1992 but has excellent sharpness stopped down and excellent bokeh wide open.

So the world of A7X cameras has become a world of various adapters, but more choices because of them. But i can see the value of the A-mount for more intensive studio and industrial applications. To Sony's credit, they are tailoring a more complete cadre of camera types to suit the wider photography spectrum. And there has been no quick sell-off of A-mount lenses that might indicate any short term future.

[Nicolas06]

I've thought that Pentax dropped the K-01 because they were affronted by the K-01 reception. But now I think that it was a smart assessment that the K-01 did not offer the effective way forward. Moving a part of the lens into the body cavity resulted in limitations and was a long-term dead end. Sony's provided the best model for the way forward. You design a mirrorless camera around a new shorter lens mount, then provide a smart adapter to use the legacy lenses. Once in place, the adapter becomes an integral part of the body - no big deal. Long term, folks will move to new native lenses. Life's messy at times - get used to it

But i could be wrong and DSLRs will continue forever as the camera of choice for the majority. If you buy a camera for a purpose, and it fulfills that purpose, then the name on the camera body or the type of camera body matters not at all.

Sony FF line in mirrorless is a set of expensive, many under corrected, many big/huge lenses. Often the vigneting and barrel distorsion are terrible. To keep acceptable size, many of the zoom have moderate to slow appertures. The rather small body doesn't help on balance. From all people speaking of it, it seems the key factor to its success are a combination of small body, great MF support of legacy lenses and low price point (now A7 is under €1000). Their recent body gone bigger/heavier anyway. The A7-II has similar weight than a K70. Many find the Sony FE line terrible and the didn't like the ergonomics and gone back to other brands.

Their native lens line is among the worst overall. The whole line is extremely expensive for what it offer and not that great optically outside a few picks.

E mount was likely a good decision for APSC and consumer grade that don't care about f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, but FE mount was made for compatibility with E mount, and was not an optimal choice. For FF, the classical registration distance of SLR mounts is not a real problem. Teles are smaller and only lenses with very fast appertures and focal lens under 28mm are big. That's basically one lens in most people kit at worst.

To me Sony was successfull because neither Nikon, Canon or Pentax dared make a real mirrorless with great AF, great EVF in their respective historical mount.

[philbaum]

Sony FF line in mirrorless is a set of expensive, many under corrected, many big/huge lenses. Often the vigneting and barrel distorsion are terrible. To keep acceptable size, many of the zoom have moderate to slow appertures. ....

Their native lens line is among the worst overall. The whole line is extremely expensive for what it offer and not that great optically outside a few picks.....

To me Sony was successfull because neither Nikon, Canon or Pentax dared make a real mirrorless with great AF, great EVF in their respective historical mount.

After reading your post, I felt like pretty much agreeing with everything you said. So i went back and looked at some of the history on the A7 series and came to a different opinion.

In 2013, the A7 and A7R were announced

In 2014, the A7II and the A7S were announced

In 2015, the A7RII and the A7sII were announced, along with many other camera bodies during those 3 years including a fixed lens FF mirrorless body.

As to high costs, today's engineering and manufacturing costs are much higher than they were years ago. The Nikon FX 85 f1.4 G currently lists for $1600. rounding off. But its current basic configuration was first issued back in 1995. The comparable FE lens 85 f1.4 G costs $1800 rounding off. I don't think this is a big difference in costs considering that the FE lens was engineered in the last year - i would guess. BTW Tamron apparently is manufacturing a lot of these lenses judging by a statement on their corporate website. I don't like today's lens prices either, so my recent purchase of a lens for my Sony A7rII was a Canon EF 85 f1.8 USM lens (first engineered in 1992) that has superlative sharpness in the F4, F5.6 area on up and gorgeous bokeh - all for the price of $369. With Sigma's MC-11 adapter, it has fast and reliable AFs and AFc.

Unlike Nikon with their FX mount or Canon with their EF mount, Sony had no such long line of mirrorless lenses to borrow from for the A7X system. They've done a remarkable job. The only lens i would object to is the FE 24-240mm - don't much like super-zooms. All the F4, F2.8, and even the f4.5-5.6 70-300 are pretty comparable to similar lenses for other brands. Not sure why you would call theses lenses slow for zooms.

In short, i think Sony did an amazing job in going thru 6 "generations" of FF mirrorless body designs in as little as 3 years time. Perhaps the real reason that Canon and Nikon haven't built a FF mirrorless body is that they don't want to compete with Sony on Sony's FF turf.

Far from being annoyed with Sony, i think we ought to be grateful over their superlative sensor designs that are now a feature of many Pentax bodies, several Nikon bodies, some Canon bodies and didn't they build some for MFT - i can't remember.

[Nicolas06]

As to high costs, today's engineering and manufacturing costs are much higher than they were years ago. The Nikon FX 85 f1.4 G currently lists for $1600. rounding off. But its current basic configuration was first issued back in 1995. The comparable FE lens 85 f1.4 G costs $1800 rounding off. I don't think this is a big difference in costs considering that the FE lens was engineered in the last year - i would guess. BTW Tamron apparently is manufacturing a lot of these lenses judging by a statement on their corporate website. I don't like today's lens prices either, so my recent purchase of a lens for my Sony A7rII was a Canon EF 85 f1.8 USM lens (first engineered in 1992) that has superlative sharpness in the F4, F5.6 area on up and gorgeous bokeh - all for the price of $369. With Sigma's MC-11 adapter, it has fast and reliable AFs and AFc.

As a consumer I don't care the justification of why it is more expensive. I want to get the most of my money because I don't have infinite suply of it. Natively on FE mount I don't benefit of tamron 28-75 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 screw drive version that I can get for 300€ and 550€ new respectively, 200€, 450€ user respectively.

Canon/Nikon/Pentax all have an offering of nice, innexpensives prime like for example 35, 50 and 85mm. This doesn't exist in FE mount.


As for the zooms, for example the 24-70 f/4, I don't think that 2.5EV of vigneting at 24mm wide open is great. The average T stop of the lens measured by DxO is 4.4 and go as high as 4.5 at 70mm. Nothing to rave about. The distorsion go as high as 3% barrel distortion at 24mm and 3% pincunchion at 70mm (not so great for portraiture !)

The comparable f/4 canon lens has average measured T stop of f/4 with the worst being 4.1 at 70mm. The vigneting is 1.8 EV, not good but almost 1Ev better. The distorsion is 2.4% at 24mm and 0.7% at 70mm.

The Sony, measured with a 36MP sensor vs the Canon on a 5D mark II manage to even have worse extreme border performance at 24mm.

The Sony FE lens is under corrected, under designed and hide it behind automatic corrections applied on the raw. In the same range of price, you can get a tamron 24-70 f/2.8 that perform the same sharpness wise at f/4, much better for distorsions and also support f/2.8.

The f/2.8 version of the 24-70 is extremely expensive (double price than the DFA24-70), same weight, 3cm longer... We don't have much review yet, but that not that impressive price wise.

The 70-200 f/4 of Sony is as big/heavy as the Canon equivalent. The Canon has less vigneting. Both are terrible for transmission (4.7 for sony, 4.6 for Canon). Canon bokeh is smoother while the Sony not bad.

How can we be impressed with that?

The bodies are quite impressive, that true. This is maybe the best echosystem for old manual lenses, by far. All granted. If you don't care of the price, this is still a good opportunity to save on weight and size, if you keep looking at short focal length and small appertures. But the FE line is still lacking and overpriced for what it offer.

The recent bodies with SR are as heavy as their DSLR counterpart. They are still smaller but that's about it. The lenses are as big overall and noticably bigger than the Pentax limited line, even the FA. If you buy native FE mount lenses the A7 serie doesn't deliver any compactness/weight advantage and is overall more expensive with less choice. If you buy the adapter, this doesn't help for size/weight and price...

This a success in term of marketing. But like many would complain that Pentax even with K1 is not good enough for pros (pro plans, AF performance, choice of lenses), Sony A7 serie is worse.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 09-25-2016 at 12:50 AM.

[reh321]

Sony says they plan to keep the A-mount.

Photokina Interview: Kimio Maki of Sony 'A-mount is a keeper' - Amateur Photographer

[clackers]

Sony says they plan to keep the A-mount.

Photokina Interview: Kimio Maki of Sony 'A-mount is a keeper' - Amateur Photographer

They won't give figures, but I reckon the A-mount has been destroyed by E-mount cannibalising it.

As for convincing customers to switch brand to it, Maki knows better … he says the intended audience is simply the base of existing SLT owners … a bit like the K-1 for Pentaxians.

[BigMackCam]

he says the intended audience is simply the base of existing SLT owners … a bit like the K-1 for Pentaxians.

That was my immediate thought when I read the interview. Those who buy the A99II will already have an investment in compatible glass. I certainly wouldn't buy into A-mount if I were switching systems these days, however good the A99II may be. But, in a few years time - when prices come down - I could see myself picking up an A99II to use with the lenses I have.

[Nicolas06]

That was my immediate thought when I read the interview. Those who buy the A99II will already have an investment in compatible glass. I certainly wouldn't buy into A-mount if I were switching systems these days, however good the A99II may be. But, in a few years time - when prices come down - I could see myself picking up an A99II to use with the lenses I have.

Yep that make sense event if they don't let completely their users down, their focus is on FE mount. After all we didn't get that many A mount DSLR anouncement recently just one and quite expensive if I understand it right.

[Nicolas06]

They won't give figures, but I reckon the A-mount has been destroyed by E-mount cannibalising it.

As for convincing customers to switch brand to it, Maki knows better … he says the intended audience is simply the base of existing SLT owners … a bit like the K-1 for Pentaxians.

But the reasons are different. Sony is by their action focussing on FE mount, honestly not A mount. Even if they don't let their user completely down.

Pentax is focussing heavily on FF K-mount and expends its line of FF lenses quite fast. At that game, investing now in any DSLR mount, Canon, Nikon or Pentax is as risky if in 5 years from now DSLR become irrelevant and everybody migrate to mirrorless. Sure some will stay but if the migration play the same pace and ways as film -> digital, DSLR might be relegated to the nostalic guys.

The only real difference may be the respective market share but not the long term viability or relevancy. It could be very well that Pentax stay well there as a niche player, even if mostly for 645 and a few K mount fans while Canon may loose all its market by missing the boat. Who know?

But A mount is already in maintenance mode.

[D1N0]

They should make A-mount versions of their new G-master lenses. The A mount lenses were not designed for high megapixel sensors.

[pathdoc]

The A mount lenses were not designed for high megapixel sensors.

Neither were the Takumars or any of their M42 brethren, yet that doesn't stop the 42MP crowd buying screwmount adapters for their full frame mirrorless monsters.

[D1N0]

Neither were the Takumars or any of their M42 brethren, yet that doesn't stop the 42MP crowd buying screwmount adapters for their full frame mirrorless monsters.

Legacy glass and the top rated current lenses for a system is something entirely different.

[BigMackCam]

The A mount lenses were not designed for high megapixel sensors.

That very much depends which A-mount lenses you're referring to. Some are based on older designs, others are very much current in both design and resolution - such as the Sony Zeiss A-mounts...

[Winder]

That very much depends which A-mount lenses you're referring to. Some are based on older designs, others are very much current in both design and resolution - such as the Sony Zeiss A-mounts...

Yes. The 135mm F/1.8 CZ is simply a stellar lens on any sensor.

[Nicolas06]

Neither were the Takumars or any of their M42 brethren, yet that doesn't stop the 42MP crowd buying screwmount adapters for their full frame mirrorless monsters.

Getting a camera that has less than 24MP theses day is difficult, in particular on the FF market. Pentax FF is typical of this: 36MP or nothing. The cheapest Sony camera in the A7 familly is 24MP already. But this doesn't mean this is really necessary for most use cases. Typically, if you have good eyes sight you can't resolve more than 8MP anyway, it would be only if you decide to look at the picture from a near distance preventing you to see it entirely that you'll be able to see more detail than 8MP resolution.

And honestly old 50 or 35mm primes can get you very far already. If one accept his old 50mm is enouhg for 16MP APSC, then it is good enough for 36MP FF as the required MTF are the same.

So there no issue at all to have a camera with lot of MPs and having basic lenses. Advanced lenses are expensive but pixels are cheap and difficult to avoid. The latest entry level Pentax Camera has 24MP on an APSC sensor. That require from the lens the same MTF as 55MP on FF. And is completelly unecessary for most use: web share, full screen viewing, 8x12" or even 16x24" prints.