11 ms·

For those uninitiated to the photography world, Sony, in the past few years has completely disrupted the entire profesional, and amature camera markets. They ar

For those uninitiated to the photography world, Sony, in the past few years has completely disrupted the entire profesional, and amature camera markets. They are ahead of the curve in mirrorless formats, and have forced other makers like Nikon and Canon to make the switch.

geerlingguy 7y ago
Sort of. The high end pro market is barely starting to turn a page and use mirrorless bodies Like the Sony a9/a9II. Nikon and Canon are following a bit behind in mirrorless tech, but are still very much on top of the pro market (for now), mostly due to professional services, support, and glass.
- selectodude 7y ago
  Glass, of course, is more important and expensive than anything else.
  - matwood 7y ago
    I’ve been envious of the Sony bodies, but the thought of giving up my Nikon glass meant I wasn’t moving. I’ve been thinking about picking up a z6, but I’m not sure it’s worth the price.
    - geerlingguy 7y ago
      From what I've seen, the D780 is a very well rounded 'best of both worlds' body. And I, having tasted the amazing quality and ease of use of video on the Z50, paired with forever-battery and very good focus system on the D750, am tempted to pick one up.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      Is there no adapter?
      - kinleyd 7y ago
        Yes, there is. It comes for free (depending on source) with Nikon mirrorless cameras.
        matwood 7y ago
        The F to Z mount adapter is ok from what I’ve read. The cross brand adapters usually have a lot of gotchas though.
        Ididntdothis 7y ago
        I see videos from a lot of wildlife photographers who are using their big 600f4 lenses on Z6/Z7. It seems that adapter works really well.
        matwood 7y ago
        Great to know since it’ll be awhile before they have lenses to replace my F mount ones.
      - thedance 7y ago
        Sure, you can get a $500 adapter to mount Nikon glass on a Sony body. There may be advantages (you already own the lenses, it throws a shitload of light onto a small area of the sensor) but there are also disadvantages (running at less than half of the resolution the camera body offers, fully manual operation). I personally wouldn't choose this route for a fancy body like the A9, but I think it's a reasonable choice when using a cheaper MFT body.
      - hatsunearu 7y ago
        There's always the dumb adapter that allows you to use without AF (and possibly lose aperture for some lenses) but I think there's like a 300 dollar one (nikon F to sony FE) that lets you use autofocus and whatnot. But the general consensus is to get rid of your old glass if you're switching to mirrorless because the AF performance with adapters is on the "it barely works enough to not call it unusable" level.
- hatsunearu 7y ago
  Nikon and Canon both thought mirrorless was a toy and both of them made shitty cameras that are basically point and shoot with interchangable lenses. As anyone that isn't living under a rock might know, the point and shoot markets are basically annihilated from existence. The professionals/pro-amateurs who care about image quality etc didn't like the Nikon 1 and EOS M. Out of nowhere, Sony released the E mount Alpha lineup, which reached the #1 position in mirrorless cameras. They also released the Alpha 7, which was AFAIK the first full frame mirrorless (that means the imaging sensor is the same size as 35mm film. Most DSLRs used APS-C sized sensors, which are 1.5 times smaller than 35mm film). This was unprecedented because everyone thought mirrorless was basically a toy. Both Nikon and Canon have realized their mistakes and recognized mirrorless is serious business and is the future. Nikon has scrapped the Nikon 1 line and started making Nikon Z, which is a super pro/prosumer oriented mirrorless lineup with a full frame sensor. Canon hasn't scrapped the old mirroless line but is pushing the RF mount lineup which is also full frame. Sony was able to seize the market by being first to market by a long shot, not to mention the vertical integration from their imaging sensor division to deliver quality products. But now that Nikon and Canon entered the game with guns blazing, we'll see what happens to Sony. One thing of note is that Sony has opened up the E mount spec and allowed 3rd parties to create lenses. As a result there's a fuck ton of 3rd party lenses (most of them of dubious quality, but some are excellent) with autofocus support, and not just from Tamron and Sigma. It's a really interesting time to be in this hobby/profession IMO.
  - bitL 7y ago
    Isn't Sigma making the best lens at the moment anyway?
    - to11mtm 7y ago
      Ehhhhh... IDK what they're like nowadays, but Sigma has in the past had a reputation for a larger quality variance than others.
      - lostapathy 7y ago
        Old Sigma lenses were often pretty bad, but the new Sigma Art lenses are amazing!
- petepete 7y ago
  For now. Sony's recent 600mm f/4 paired with a a9II and animal eye-af is something that will tempt wildlife and sports photographers. It's unrivalled. Services, yeah, Canon are miles ahead but one step at a time. I'm a Nikon shooter, mainly wildlife. If I was starting over today I don't know which system I'd buy into.
zitterbewegung 7y ago
I don’t think that’s the only reason. They also supply camera sensors for a lot of Smart phones.
- Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
  True, Samsung has started the megapixel wars again with their 108 megapixel ISOCELL sensor[1] which are being used by couple of manufacturers already & it would be interesting to how Sony responds to it. [1]https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/image-sensor/mobile-image-sensor/S5KHMX/ https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/image-sensor/mobile-im...
  - AgloeDreams 7y ago
    Yes...but. Is the ISOCELL any good? It very much seems to be mostly numbers but it really can't back up the claims in actual visual image quality. The noise and required light to get anything near good shots is very high, the DOF on such a large sensor is downright tight, which is nice for making pretty looking shots..but really bad for just someone trying to capture a photo. Even on the S20 Ultra taking a photo of a person from 5 feet away results in the nose and eyes being in completely different focus. The fact of the matter is that in normal use, a medium format mobile sensor with a moderate pixel count is preferrable. (I.E. iPhone 11 Pro, Pixel 4) as for 95% of shots you want a wide DOF to put all of the content in focus and great per-pixel aperture to reduce exposure time and ISO so you can reduce camera shake and Noise. Even in the shots you want DOF (Portrait), faking it tends to lead to a more adjustable shot where you can correct after the fact instead of being actually stuck in a inch-wide focus gap where any movement of the camera or subject results in out of focus capture. Plus most photos are posted online in the 1-2MP size. Now cropping is a great extra 5% item, but for those who want really great photos they would have a lot to gain from a much larger sensor with a larger lens and lower MP count to get way less noise and better exposure times (I.e. The Sony A7R IV) Whereas dedicated full-frame equipment just trashes mobile results.
    - klodolph 7y ago
      Good points but “medium format” is a term of art in sensor sizes, referring to sensors larger than 24x36mm, such as the sensor in the Fuji GFX. We went through some “megapixel wars” in the past and it turns out, like you said, there are a lot of tradeoffs here and optimizing for high pixel count means you have to make unacceptable sacrifices elsewhere.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> mirrorless formats Sorry, what is this and why is it revolutionary? (Why did Nikon and Canon miss it?)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- shawnz 7y ago
  Nikon and Canon's flagship products are DSLRs, which are cameras that have an analog viewfinder and a moving mirror inside to redirect the image to either the viewfinder or sensor. Mirrorless cameras use an LCD viewfinder instead. The biggest things holding back mirrorless technology previously was battery life and autofocus technology. I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered.
  - to11mtm 7y ago
    > I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered. You nailed it on the head for the most part. Nikon had a mirrorless camera in the J1 series, which had some very nifty features but was just an absurdly expensive system for what you got (especially since it is basically a dead end, proprietary platform.) Canon did a bit better with their first MILCs, but they weren't amazing. At the time they were introduced Canon suffered from a lack of on-sensor Phase Detection AF, and Contrast detection systems weren't as fast as they are now. I mean, a big issue is glass; While there are exceptions to this, you can't just re-use an existing lens design on a mirrorless without making the thing longer than it needs to be (Which looks off on a Mirrorless.) Which means that Nikon/Canon can't just release the 18-55 EFAF Mark 10 lens. Designing proper lenses takes time and money. I mean, the first few years I had an E-mount, the pickings were slim for lenses, while the a6000 was a good start it wasn't till the A7II and A7RII with their ability to do usable PDAF with adapted lenses that the platform felt safe to pick up.
rosstex 7y ago
No mention of Fuji here? I love me my X-T20.
- Infernal 7y ago
  IIRC Fuji uses Sony sensors.
  - wyager 7y ago
    Correct, Fuji sensors are made by Sony and are mostly the same (including the use of Dr-Pix adaptive pixel capacitance), except that Fuji has a nonstandard Bayer pattern. I think just about everything else about the Fuji cameras is markedly better than Sony's mirrorless offerings. I occasionally wish I had a full-frame sensor, I suppose, but those are very overrated by prosumers.
    - _visgean 7y ago
      i also sometimes wish i had full frame, but as I understand it it would also mean heavier lenses.
      - simonlc 7y ago
        it would not. I think lens weigh comes entirely from the design and speed of the lens. The designs don't vary that much so I would t consider it. Take the full frame canon 70-200 f4, it weighs 760g, vs the 1.5 crop fuji 50-140 f2.8 which weighs 995g. They are nearly identical in aperture size and focal length, and will produce similar looking images for comparisons sake. All that to say, the amount of glass used is what will determine the size and weight of a lens, not the sensor size. There are many other factors but in general for crop bs full frame there is little difference.
- dsego 7y ago
  As a new Fuji x-t30 owner myself, the camera controls just make sense (unlike PASM) and the shooting experience is so much fun.
- 7y ago
fnord77 7y ago
I think at least Nikon has caught up in the mirrorless area. Nikon's new Z-mount has some advantages over Sony's E-mount, too. Nikon and Canon have long used Sony sensors.
- eropple 7y ago
  For purely photo Nikon has gone from “no reason to exist anymore” to “tolerable”. But if you care about video it’s hard not to view mirrorless as a two horse race between Sony and Panasonic. (Sony is much better at the full frame/high end in a lot of ways but Panasonic offers a ton of value for the money; my G9 is a tremendous performer for both photo and video.)
DeathArrow 7y ago
Even if Sony is ahead in mirrorless sales, camera sales as a whole is going down due to mobile phones. We will probably reach the point where only pros and advanced amateurs will own an interchangeable lens camera. I, as a photographer, find my P30 Pro good enough for family, friends and vacation shots and all other casual snapshots. I use my DSLRs only when I can't afford to lose a shot, when I need top IQ and when I have special lighting needs. To take a memory of your kid playing, of grandma in the garden, of your cat chasing the dog or some cityscape, the mobile phone is good enough for many people.
- nobrains 7y ago
  Who do you think researches and supplies the lens and sensors for some really good phone cameras? Yes, Sony.
- dsego 7y ago
  I think the one inch sensor that's rumored to come soon to smartphones will definitely push the smartphone to the next level and make the prosumer compacts (like the rx100) finally obsolete.
  - sideshowb 7y ago
    Won't that either need a lens the size of the rx100's (way too big for a phone) or just be poor quality?
    - sideshowb 7y ago
      ...unless light field stuff gets ready for the big time in which case lenses become obsolete
  - airza 7y ago
    I don't think the sensor size is the limiting factor on a smartphone; rather the very small lens just doesn't let in enough light to really capture sharp images, especially ones that are far away

geerlingguy 7y ago

Sort of. The high end pro market is barely starting to turn a page and use mirrorless bodies Like the Sony a9/a9II. Nikon and Canon are following a bit behind in mirrorless tech, but are still very much on top of the pro market (for now), mostly due to professional services, support, and glass.

selectodude 7y ago
Glass, of course, is more important and expensive than anything else.
- matwood 7y ago
  I’ve been envious of the Sony bodies, but the thought of giving up my Nikon glass meant I wasn’t moving. I’ve been thinking about picking up a z6, but I’m not sure it’s worth the price.
  - geerlingguy 7y ago
    From what I've seen, the D780 is a very well rounded 'best of both worlds' body. And I, having tasted the amazing quality and ease of use of video on the Z50, paired with forever-battery and very good focus system on the D750, am tempted to pick one up.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Is there no adapter?
    - kinleyd 7y ago
      Yes, there is. It comes for free (depending on source) with Nikon mirrorless cameras.
      - matwood 7y ago
        The F to Z mount adapter is ok from what I’ve read. The cross brand adapters usually have a lot of gotchas though.
        Ididntdothis 7y ago
        I see videos from a lot of wildlife photographers who are using their big 600f4 lenses on Z6/Z7. It seems that adapter works really well.
        matwood 7y ago
        Great to know since it’ll be awhile before they have lenses to replace my F mount ones.
    - thedance 7y ago
      Sure, you can get a $500 adapter to mount Nikon glass on a Sony body. There may be advantages (you already own the lenses, it throws a shitload of light onto a small area of the sensor) but there are also disadvantages (running at less than half of the resolution the camera body offers, fully manual operation). I personally wouldn't choose this route for a fancy body like the A9, but I think it's a reasonable choice when using a cheaper MFT body.
    - hatsunearu 7y ago
      There's always the dumb adapter that allows you to use without AF (and possibly lose aperture for some lenses) but I think there's like a 300 dollar one (nikon F to sony FE) that lets you use autofocus and whatnot. But the general consensus is to get rid of your old glass if you're switching to mirrorless because the AF performance with adapters is on the "it barely works enough to not call it unusable" level.
hatsunearu 7y ago
Nikon and Canon both thought mirrorless was a toy and both of them made shitty cameras that are basically point and shoot with interchangable lenses. As anyone that isn't living under a rock might know, the point and shoot markets are basically annihilated from existence. The professionals/pro-amateurs who care about image quality etc didn't like the Nikon 1 and EOS M. Out of nowhere, Sony released the E mount Alpha lineup, which reached the #1 position in mirrorless cameras. They also released the Alpha 7, which was AFAIK the first full frame mirrorless (that means the imaging sensor is the same size as 35mm film. Most DSLRs used APS-C sized sensors, which are 1.5 times smaller than 35mm film). This was unprecedented because everyone thought mirrorless was basically a toy. Both Nikon and Canon have realized their mistakes and recognized mirrorless is serious business and is the future. Nikon has scrapped the Nikon 1 line and started making Nikon Z, which is a super pro/prosumer oriented mirrorless lineup with a full frame sensor. Canon hasn't scrapped the old mirroless line but is pushing the RF mount lineup which is also full frame. Sony was able to seize the market by being first to market by a long shot, not to mention the vertical integration from their imaging sensor division to deliver quality products. But now that Nikon and Canon entered the game with guns blazing, we'll see what happens to Sony. One thing of note is that Sony has opened up the E mount spec and allowed 3rd parties to create lenses. As a result there's a fuck ton of 3rd party lenses (most of them of dubious quality, but some are excellent) with autofocus support, and not just from Tamron and Sigma. It's a really interesting time to be in this hobby/profession IMO.
- bitL 7y ago
  Isn't Sigma making the best lens at the moment anyway?
  - to11mtm 7y ago
    Ehhhhh... IDK what they're like nowadays, but Sigma has in the past had a reputation for a larger quality variance than others.
    - lostapathy 7y ago
      Old Sigma lenses were often pretty bad, but the new Sigma Art lenses are amazing!
petepete 7y ago
For now. Sony's recent 600mm f/4 paired with a a9II and animal eye-af is something that will tempt wildlife and sports photographers. It's unrivalled. Services, yeah, Canon are miles ahead but one step at a time. I'm a Nikon shooter, mainly wildlife. If I was starting over today I don't know which system I'd buy into.

zitterbewegung 7y ago

I don’t think that’s the only reason. They also supply camera sensors for a lot of Smart phones.

Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
True, Samsung has started the megapixel wars again with their 108 megapixel ISOCELL sensor[1] which are being used by couple of manufacturers already & it would be interesting to how Sony responds to it. [1]https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/image-sensor/mobile-image-sensor/S5KHMX/ https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/image-sensor/mobile-im...
- AgloeDreams 7y ago
  Yes...but. Is the ISOCELL any good? It very much seems to be mostly numbers but it really can't back up the claims in actual visual image quality. The noise and required light to get anything near good shots is very high, the DOF on such a large sensor is downright tight, which is nice for making pretty looking shots..but really bad for just someone trying to capture a photo. Even on the S20 Ultra taking a photo of a person from 5 feet away results in the nose and eyes being in completely different focus. The fact of the matter is that in normal use, a medium format mobile sensor with a moderate pixel count is preferrable. (I.E. iPhone 11 Pro, Pixel 4) as for 95% of shots you want a wide DOF to put all of the content in focus and great per-pixel aperture to reduce exposure time and ISO so you can reduce camera shake and Noise. Even in the shots you want DOF (Portrait), faking it tends to lead to a more adjustable shot where you can correct after the fact instead of being actually stuck in a inch-wide focus gap where any movement of the camera or subject results in out of focus capture. Plus most photos are posted online in the 1-2MP size. Now cropping is a great extra 5% item, but for those who want really great photos they would have a lot to gain from a much larger sensor with a larger lens and lower MP count to get way less noise and better exposure times (I.e. The Sony A7R IV) Whereas dedicated full-frame equipment just trashes mobile results.
  - klodolph 7y ago
    Good points but “medium format” is a term of art in sensor sizes, referring to sensors larger than 24x36mm, such as the sensor in the Fuji GFX. We went through some “megapixel wars” in the past and it turns out, like you said, there are a lot of tradeoffs here and optimizing for high pixel count means you have to make unacceptable sacrifices elsewhere.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> mirrorless formats Sorry, what is this and why is it revolutionary? (Why did Nikon and Canon miss it?)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shawnz 7y ago
Nikon and Canon's flagship products are DSLRs, which are cameras that have an analog viewfinder and a moving mirror inside to redirect the image to either the viewfinder or sensor. Mirrorless cameras use an LCD viewfinder instead. The biggest things holding back mirrorless technology previously was battery life and autofocus technology. I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered.
- to11mtm 7y ago
  > I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered. You nailed it on the head for the most part. Nikon had a mirrorless camera in the J1 series, which had some very nifty features but was just an absurdly expensive system for what you got (especially since it is basically a dead end, proprietary platform.) Canon did a bit better with their first MILCs, but they weren't amazing. At the time they were introduced Canon suffered from a lack of on-sensor Phase Detection AF, and Contrast detection systems weren't as fast as they are now. I mean, a big issue is glass; While there are exceptions to this, you can't just re-use an existing lens design on a mirrorless without making the thing longer than it needs to be (Which looks off on a Mirrorless.) Which means that Nikon/Canon can't just release the 18-55 EFAF Mark 10 lens. Designing proper lenses takes time and money. I mean, the first few years I had an E-mount, the pickings were slim for lenses, while the a6000 was a good start it wasn't till the A7II and A7RII with their ability to do usable PDAF with adapted lenses that the platform felt safe to pick up.

rosstex 7y ago

No mention of Fuji here? I love me my X-T20.

Infernal 7y ago
IIRC Fuji uses Sony sensors.
- wyager 7y ago
  Correct, Fuji sensors are made by Sony and are mostly the same (including the use of Dr-Pix adaptive pixel capacitance), except that Fuji has a nonstandard Bayer pattern. I think just about everything else about the Fuji cameras is markedly better than Sony's mirrorless offerings. I occasionally wish I had a full-frame sensor, I suppose, but those are very overrated by prosumers.
  - _visgean 7y ago
    i also sometimes wish i had full frame, but as I understand it it would also mean heavier lenses.
    - simonlc 7y ago
      it would not. I think lens weigh comes entirely from the design and speed of the lens. The designs don't vary that much so I would t consider it. Take the full frame canon 70-200 f4, it weighs 760g, vs the 1.5 crop fuji 50-140 f2.8 which weighs 995g. They are nearly identical in aperture size and focal length, and will produce similar looking images for comparisons sake. All that to say, the amount of glass used is what will determine the size and weight of a lens, not the sensor size. There are many other factors but in general for crop bs full frame there is little difference.
dsego 7y ago
As a new Fuji x-t30 owner myself, the camera controls just make sense (unlike PASM) and the shooting experience is so much fun.
7y ago

fnord77 7y ago

I think at least Nikon has caught up in the mirrorless area. Nikon's new Z-mount has some advantages over Sony's E-mount, too. Nikon and Canon have long used Sony sensors.

eropple 7y ago
For purely photo Nikon has gone from “no reason to exist anymore” to “tolerable”. But if you care about video it’s hard not to view mirrorless as a two horse race between Sony and Panasonic. (Sony is much better at the full frame/high end in a lot of ways but Panasonic offers a ton of value for the money; my G9 is a tremendous performer for both photo and video.)

DeathArrow 7y ago

Even if Sony is ahead in mirrorless sales, camera sales as a whole is going down due to mobile phones. We will probably reach the point where only pros and advanced amateurs will own an interchangeable lens camera. I, as a photographer, find my P30 Pro good enough for family, friends and vacation shots and all other casual snapshots. I use my DSLRs only when I can't afford to lose a shot, when I need top IQ and when I have special lighting needs. To take a memory of your kid playing, of grandma in the garden, of your cat chasing the dog or some cityscape, the mobile phone is good enough for many people.

nobrains 7y ago
Who do you think researches and supplies the lens and sensors for some really good phone cameras? Yes, Sony.
dsego 7y ago
I think the one inch sensor that's rumored to come soon to smartphones will definitely push the smartphone to the next level and make the prosumer compacts (like the rx100) finally obsolete.
- sideshowb 7y ago
  Won't that either need a lens the size of the rx100's (way too big for a phone) or just be poor quality?
  - sideshowb 7y ago
    ...unless light field stuff gets ready for the big time in which case lenses become obsolete
- airza 7y ago
  I don't think the sensor size is the limiting factor on a smartphone; rather the very small lens just doesn't let in enough light to really capture sharp images, especially ones that are far away