Sony "Digital Mamiya 7" Medium Format Mirrorless rumor...

I wish the Sony Rumor was for an interchangeable lens camera. Maybe, if all the stars align, it will be like RX1 -> A7/A7r
 
I wish the rumor site fad would disappear. What a waste of bandwidth and emotions.
We could all be sharing images right now instead of measure-wanking camera systems.
 
edge100 said:
It's interesting that you refer to the A7r as an alternative to the M240. I don't see it that way at all. They are entirely different cameras where it matters: how the user interacts with the camera.

IMHO, the only thing the M240 and the A7r have in common is that they both use FF sensors and you put a lens on the front of them. Beyond that, they could not be more different.

The A7r is a mirrorless camera with an EVF, which has a very limited selection of lenses, and which handles 3rd party lenses with varying degrees of success. It has a mode dial, and very few dedicated knobs, buttons, or selectors. It is typical of most digital cameras; feature-laden, but correspondingly inefficient in use.

The M240 is a rangefinder camera (for better or worse), which has a massive selection of native lenses (and can handle 3rd party lenses, but why?!?). f/stop is selected by a dedicated ring on the lens, shutter speed by a dedicated dial on the body. It is, to the extent that any digital camera can be, the very model of efficiency.

The cameras could not be more different. You've reduced them to the sensor inside, which, I would argue, is one of the least important parts of a camera (but the one on which most people place the greatest importance), for all but a very few photographers. Who cares if you have 36MP if using the camera isn't a joy?
Click to expand...

Actually, Sony came within a few sensor toppings of a camera superior to the M240 WITH leica glass, for many users.

But in the end they piled too much on top, and both edges and ultimate sharpness suffers.

The Sony shutter is also not great, but the Leica EVF and it's manual focus system is far behind the sony.

The RF itself is very unpredictable at wide aperture and with longer FLs.

It's true the R is especially flawed with non-native glass, but the regular 7 is friendly to many many lenses. Alas, not the WA RFs, though a few work OK.

6 months ago the A7s did not exist, and today we take them for granted. LOL

Sony is in a lot of trouble money-wise, we have to pray they survive, because they are the only serious innovators for lovers of great MF glass.

SAR is the best rumor site ever, much more interesting and accurate than the others.

The idea that Sony is looking to make a 50mp camera has been out there for months.

But I have to say, the M9's 18mp seems plenty to rule the roost below ISO 800.

Sry M240. No lust here.

Anyway, hilarious thread, TY to all :)

People like to bash Sony, but jeez, look at the great frozen prism: canikon.
 
uhoh7 said:
Actually, Sony came within a few sensor toppings of a camera superior to the M240 WITH leica glass, for many users.

But in the end they piled too much on top, and both edges and ultimate sharpness suffers.

The Sony shutter is also not great, but the Leica EVF and it's manual focus system is far behind the sony.

The RF itself is very unpredictable at wide aperture and with longer FLs.

It's true the R is especially flawed with non-native glass, but the regular 7 is friendly to many many lenses. Alas, not the WA RFs, though a few work OK.

6 months ago the A7s did not exist, and today we take them for granted. LOL

Sony is in a lot of trouble money-wise, we have to pray they survive, because they are the only serious innovators for lovers of great MF glass.

SAR is the best rumor site ever, much more interesting and accurate than the others.

The idea that Sony is looking to make a 50mp sensor has been out there for months.

But I have to say, the M9's 18mp seems plenty to rule the roost below ISO 800.

Sry M240. No lust here.

Anyway, hilarious thread, TY to all :)

People like to bash Sony, but jeez, look at the great frozen prism: canikon.
Click to expand...

Holy paragraphs, Batman!

" the Leica EVF and it's manual focus system is far behind the sony."

Huh?!?

"The RF itself is very unpredictable at wide aperture and with longer FLs."

This is like criticizing a cat for not being a dog.
 
This rumor does sound exciting. What I'd like to know is why a so-called MF sensor costs so much more? Think about it; an aps-c sensor camera is a grand, or less, a FF sensor is about two grand, or less; why would a slightly bigger sensor be $10k or more? It's not the materials, so how do they justify it, simply that only rich professionals would buy MF digital backs? If Sony can knock down that wall, I'm sure we'd all love to put some glass in front of a big MF sensor, no matter the overall platform and software oddities. No?
 
sooner said:
What I'd like to know is why a so-called MF sensor costs so much more?
Click to expand...
The main issue in this case is sensor yield. A wafer will fit a certain number of sensors of certain size. Some of them are good, others aren't. The percentage of good sensors is reduced significantly as their size goes up, which makes the cost and thus price of the bigger sensors much higher. The other issues are the same as for anything relatively niche vs. mass market product.
 
edge100 said:
Holy paragraphs, Batman!

" the Leica EVF and it's manual focus system is far behind the sony."

Huh?!?

"The RF itself is very unpredictable at wide aperture and with longer FLs."

This is like criticizing a cat for not being a dog.
Click to expand...

But from a practical application standpoint, he's right.

An RF mechanism is not a good method of focusing particularly long or fast lenses. Leica's EVF implication (as seen in the M type 240 and X series) is mediocre compared to other companies. Just look through an A7's EVF and see how sharp, bright and neutral it is compared to Leica's rebadged Olympus EVF.

If Leica isn't even offering an EVF option, that is Leica's choice. But Leica delivering a mediocre one when there clearly are better options available (how about making a new clip-on piece?) is their own fault.
 
gavinlg said:
Sorry man I just don't agree with you. I never liked Minoltas, I don't like the clumsy adapters to use the A mount lenses, and the difference in IQ between a full frame and aps-c xtrans sensor is not enough to lose the gift from god/perfection itself/holy divinity (redisburning are you listening) of the fujis manual controls and aperture rings, and optical shoot-through VF.
Click to expand...

Fuji has exactly ONE camera with interchangeable lens and a optical viewfinder. The VF cannot be used for zooms, wider lenses or telephotos, and cannot be used alongside manual focus. There is no focus confirmation overlay availble, simply a green box on the frame that is nowhere near accurate enough and suffers from parallax.

If using an optical viewfinder matters that much, why not mount a third-party finder onto any camera?
 
YYV_146 said:
But from a practical application standpoint, he's right.

An RF mechanism is not a good method of focusing particularly long or fast lenses.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. They also suck for macro and fast action. On the other hand, for moderate focal lengths (28-90mm) of moderate speed (f/2 and smaller), they're terrific.

Again, a cat is not a dog, and that's not the cat's fault, is it?
 
YYV_146 said:
Fuji has exactly ONE camera with interchangeable lens and a optical viewfinder. The VF cannot be used for zooms, wider lenses or telephotos, and cannot be used alongside manual focus. There is no focus confirmation overlay availble, simply a green box on the frame that is nowhere near accurate enough and suffers from parallax.

If using an optical viewfinder matters that much, why not mount a third-party finder onto any camera?
Click to expand...

If u are talking third party lenses in regards to zooms, wide and tele u are correct. But if we are talking Fuji's own af lenses.. NOT. Optical viewfinders works fine w/ all their native lenses.

So unless we are talking slr, all optical based vf whether Fuji's, Leica rf, etc suffer from parallax.. It is the nature of the beast. Nothing new here.

Gary
 
GaryLH said:
If u are talking third party lenses in regards to zooms, wide and tele u are correct. But if we are talking Fuji's own af lenses.. NOT. Optical viewfinders works fine w/ all their native lenses.

So unless we are talking slr, all optical based vf whether Fuji's, Leica rf, etc suffer from parallax.. It is the nature of the beast. Nothing new here.

Gary
Click to expand...

I don't think the Xpro1's OVF covers the FOV of lenses wider than 18mm. The 55-250's long end is also not within the display ability of the OVF's frame lines. I remember they have a frame for the 56mm f1.2, but it is quite small and not nearly as useful as other framelines.
 
YYV_146 said:
I don't think the Xpro1's OVF covers the FOV of lenses wider than 18mm. The 55-250's long end is also not within the display ability of the OVF's frame lines. I remember they have a frame for the 56mm f1.2, but it is quite small and not nearly as useful as other framelines.
Click to expand...


It's useful. Quite in fact. The frame line correction for distance is as well very useful.
It's difficult to imagine a better execution of optical viewfinder than what the Xpro-1 is currently offering (Maybe SLR but that's not what we are talking about).
 
edge100 said:
I couldn't agree more. They also suck for macro and fast action. On the other hand, for moderate focal lengths (28-90mm) of moderate speed (f/2 and smaller), they're terrific.

Again, a cat is not a dog, and that's not the cat's fault, is it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure 28-90 is all "terrific" for RFs. I wear glasses and cannot see the 28mm frame without moving my eye around, even with a .58x finder. 90mm f2 is stretching the limit of what could be accurately focused using an RF patch, and I gave up on trying to make my 90mm Summicron deliver on film bodies. Granted, things might be better if the body is .85x or 1.0x...but that would not be possible if one also shoots digital.

My claim of what is "terrific" on an RF would be closer to 35-75mm.
 
YYV_146 said:
Fuji has exactly ONE camera with interchangeable lens and a optical viewfinder. The VF cannot be used for zooms, wider lenses or telephotos, and cannot be used alongside manual focus. There is no focus confirmation overlay availble, simply a green box on the frame that is nowhere near accurate enough and suffers from parallax.

If using an optical viewfinder matters that much, why not mount a third-party finder onto any camera?
Click to expand...

Gee how have I survived the last 2 years with my apparently useless optical viewfinder? :bang:

Sorry but this post only displays your inability to use the camera, especially the last comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top