FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

what is the future of A mount?

Page  <1 4647484950 52>
Author
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2957
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 12:52
Originally posted by whiteheat whiteheat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:


I honestly don't care how backwards compatibility is maintained as long as it is maintained without degrading the kind of performance I enjoy at present. I make that requirement #1, then removing the mirror is fine if requirement #1 is met. This is what separates me from others who simply begin by saying Sony, please remove the mirror.

You know you make me laugh :) Let's just take a quick moment to think about that statement: "This is what separates me from others who simply begin by saying Sony, please remove the mirror." Me thinks this 'separation' of yours is to say the least a simplistically artificial one. How so? Well, it implies that all those 'others' who apparently just (and only do so) keep bemoaning the presence of our ever present SLT mirror and wish to the heavens that Sony would remove it, that somehow they would then not care if all their legacy lenses suddenly failed to work or work properly. It is like you are making this distinction because they, these others, then also do not add, "....of course we want all our legacy stuff that used to work with our SLT body to continue working in the new sans SLT mirror A mount body." Don't you think it is implicit in their requirements of the SLTless body that all their A mount glass continues to function at least as good as it did before, even if they don't explicitly state it? So, in reality they are no different to you in this respect.


Surprisingly enough I find myself agreeing with Syber on this one (I had to read it twice just to make sure ). I suspect many people asking for the miror to be taken out have been doing so for a pretty pointless obsession with light loss, and haven't really asked themselves if more valuable performance would be thrown away than was gained. And Syber has listed what those defects would be.

You may well be right in supposing that they they take Syber's prerequisite for granted, but I have yet to hear how the existing performance of all Minolta screw-drive lenses (including the expensive long ones) could be maintained without an off-sensor PDAF module accessed by some kind of mirror. If you know of such a method, please tell us. Otherwise I will continue to doubt that this is possible.

Perhaps some A-mount users are content to ask for enhancements to their use while accepting a loss to other people's, but when Sony start obsoleting Minolta lenses by a change to A-mount design, I think that *will* be the end of A-mount, because the die-hard followers will give up in disgust.

Edited by Miranda F - 22 March 2018 at 12:55
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
 



Back to Top
whiteheat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 September 2011
Country: Australia
Location: Altona Meadows
Status: Offline
Posts: 947
Post Options Post Options   Quote whiteheat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 13:35
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Originally posted by whiteheat whiteheat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:


I honestly don't care how backwards compatibility is maintained as long as it is maintained without degrading the kind of performance I enjoy at present. I make that requirement #1, then removing the mirror is fine if requirement #1 is met. This is what separates me from others who simply begin by saying Sony, please remove the mirror.

You know you make me laugh :) Let's just take a quick moment to think about that statement: "This is what separates me from others who simply begin by saying Sony, please remove the mirror." Me thinks this 'separation' of yours is to say the least a simplistically artificial one. How so? Well, it implies that all those 'others' who apparently just (and only do so) keep bemoaning the presence of our ever present SLT mirror and wish to the heavens that Sony would remove it, that somehow they would then not care if all their legacy lenses suddenly failed to work or work properly. It is like you are making this distinction because they, these others, then also do not add, "....of course we want all our legacy stuff that used to work with our SLT body to continue working in the new sans SLT mirror A mount body." Don't you think it is implicit in their requirements of the SLTless body that all their A mount glass continues to function at least as good as it did before, even if they don't explicitly state it? So, in reality they are no different to you in this respect.


Surprisingly enough I find myself agreeing with Syber on this one (I had to read it twice just to make sure ). I suspect many people asking for the miror to be taken out have been doing so for a pretty pointless obsession with light loss, and haven't really asked themselves if more valuable performance would be thrown away than was gained. And Syber has listed what those defects would be.

You may well be right in supposing that they they take Syber's prerequisite for granted, but I have yet to hear how the existing performance of all Minolta screw-drive lenses (including the expensive long ones) could be maintained without an off-sensor PDAF module accessed by some kind of mirror. If you know of such a method, please tell us. Otherwise I will continue to doubt that this is possible.

Perhaps some A-mount users are content to ask for enhancements to their use while accepting a loss to other people's, but when Sony start obsoleting Minolta lenses by a change to A-mount design, I think that *will* be the end of A-mount, because the die-hard followers will give up in disgust.
Surprisingly enough??? I won't ask why so surprising. Well now, your posit is premised on the assumption that ditching the mirror would mean loss of performance. But surely even you wouldn't believe that if the SLT mirror was removed, that its functionality would not be replaced with another technology that gave the same or greater functionality and performance that the SLT gave you? I can't believe that you would think Sony would ditch the SLT without replacing it with something else? Naturally, by the concept of 'progress', we should be served up with something better/faster/more sensitive/more responsive, etc. Perhaps not all of those, but at least some of them.

You may well be right and we have reached the evolutionary end for this method of AF focusing for legacy lenses. On the other hand, history is replete with technologies that people could not foresee how or where the next improvement in functionality or performance was going to come from. Let's see, I seem to remember a certain boss of IBM predicting that: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" - Thomas Watson, President of IBM 1943. The point is not that he was wrong, but that he could not predict how technology would adapt to overcome an obstacle or to exploit an unrequited requirement. So no, I can't tell you how our SLT mirror is going to be replaced.

However, I do have a novel concept for you - not that I believe in it for a second. At the moment we have an SLT mirror that acts as a beam splitter, diverting light into a dedicated AF module. Well, how about this. We reverse our current conception of how things work now. So, what we could do would be to have our AF module located where the main image sensor currently resides. Then we place our main image sensor on a lever carousel - almost exactly the same mechanism that Canikon have in their DSLRs to move their normal mirror up and down. So how the camera works is that the light entering the camera through the lens is constantly illuminating the AF module, allowing for some sort of continual AFing to happen. Then, when you actually want to capture an image, you press the button/trigger/actuator, etc and the main sensor is lowered in to the light path in front of the AF module to capture the image, in a sort of opposite way to movable mirrors being lifted out of the way at the instant of image capture. Viola, there you have the SLT removed and the AF module constantly getting light but I don't know what else you would need to do to maintain, let alone improve, current functionality/performance. Perhaps a micro image sensor, like a camera phone sensor lodged in the AF module so you could maintain live view and WYSIWYG etc, - I don't know.
Nothing is as it first appears.
Back to Top
Cliff View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2006
Country: United States
Location: Richmond Va
Status: Offline
Posts: 683
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cliff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 14:36
Then there are some of us who have not been "asking" that Sony remove the mirror, but "predicting" that Sony will remove the mirror as part of its deployment of "disruptive technology" to change cameras to fit its strengths. The reason is simple, electronics are cheaper and easier for Sony to manufacture and assemble than mechanical, and Sony is very, very good at electronics.

Do we have any evidence that the focus mechanism of the a7iii is not capable of focusing screw drive lenses? It has 1,118 on sensor focus points, 693 PDAF and 425 CDAF. Have we perhaps reached the point where on sensor focus technology can handle our crusty old screw drives?

I have been puzzled. What is the magic in the SLT focus mechanism that makes it capable of focusing our screw drive lenses while modern electronics are not up to the task? Minolta engineers figured out PDAF more than 30 years ago. Sony engineers with more than 10 generations of electronics advances since then are not up to replicating that achievement with data coming off the sensor today? Really?

Please understand that I'm with y'all. A mount has been my photographic life for around 30 years. I have way too many lenses, dozens. Perhaps a half dozen are sam/ssm and a grand total of two are very ordinary native E. When my A mount lenses are no longer functional I may be done too. OTOH, the mixture of native A and adapted E bodies I currently have will likely out live me. They all do so profoundly much more than the mechanical cameras I learned on that I've got no real bitches.

Edited by Cliff - 22 March 2018 at 14:39
ContaxRF, Min7000i, Sony A100, A65, Nex5T, A7ii, A6500. 2 many lenses, mostly ordinary Minolta & 3rd party A, MC/D, other mf, vintage Vivitars & cats, LA-EA2,3,4 E16-50&55-210mm
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2957
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 14:45
Originally posted by whiteheat whiteheat wrote:

Well now, your posit is premised on the assumption that ditching the mirror would mean loss of performance. But surely even you wouldn't believe that if the SLT mirror was removed, that its functionality would not be replaced with another technology that gave the same or greater functionality and performance that the SLT gave you?

I already gave an answer to the question whether Sony would do such a thing (and what the consequences would be), but the imprtant question is not whether Sony would do it, but whether the people who ask for it have thought it through.

I ask you again - can you suggest another means of providing off-sensor AF without using a mirror? If you can't, the request is pointless. It's all very well to say 'Sony will invent something' - but they already did! The SLT mirror on A-mount and the OSPDAF in E-mount. Why would they put a lot of money into finding a third solution to a problem they've already solved twice before?

Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
jackal2008 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 08 March 2018
Country: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 18
Post Options Post Options   Quote jackal2008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 16:30
for e mount, we could get new full frame camera around 1000-2000USD
but for a mount, new full frame is around 3000USD

new 'entry' level full frame a mount camera around 1000-2000USD would also make me happy
Back to Top
jackal2008 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 08 March 2018
Country: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 18
Post Options Post Options   Quote jackal2008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 16:33
with sensor tech recent years, i don't care SLT mirror any more. esp a7iii sensor blow this concern away.
 



Back to Top
overeema View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 September 2008
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 309
Post Options Post Options   Quote overeema Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 16:52
Originally posted by jackal2008 jackal2008 wrote:

for e mount, we could get new full frame camera around 1000-2000USD
but for a mount, new full frame is around 3000USD

new 'entry' level full frame a mount camera around 1000-2000USD would also make me happy

The only current full frame A-mount camera is currently the A99ii which is in the same class as the E-mount A7Riii, same pricelevel, same sensor, comparable specs otherwise
For the A7iii there is no comparable A-mount camera
In APS-C format we have the A77ii that compares to the A6500. However the A77ii has the same form factor as the A99ii, whereas the a6500 is significantly smaller than the A7Riii.
Entry level we have the A68 vs. the A6000.
minolta owner since 1969; A350-SAL1680Z-SAL70300G-Tamron60F2-Minolta100F2-Minolta35105-Minolta28135-Minolta50F1.7; NEX6-SELP1650-SELP18105G (and some minolta MC/MD glass )
Back to Top
Aavo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 April 2013
Country: Estonia
Location: Tallinn
Status: Offline
Posts: 4967
Post Options Post Options   Quote Aavo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 16:53
Yes, SLT mirror has now probably unobtrusive impact.
a6500 & some nice e-mount lenses
Back to Top
overeema View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 September 2008
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 309
Post Options Post Options   Quote overeema Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 17:13
Originally posted by jackal2008 jackal2008 wrote:



option 1, throw in the a7iii sensor in a77ii and make it full frame camera, call it a88
option 2, update la-ea4 to the a77ii af module, call it la-ea6
option 3 add motor to la-ea3, call it la-ea5

any of these product will make me very happy.

+1
minolta owner since 1969; A350-SAL1680Z-SAL70300G-Tamron60F2-Minolta100F2-Minolta35105-Minolta28135-Minolta50F1.7; NEX6-SELP1650-SELP18105G (and some minolta MC/MD glass )
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 13947
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 18:16
Originally posted by whiteheat whiteheat wrote:

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:


I honestly don't care how backwards compatibility is maintained as long as it is maintained without degrading the kind of performance I enjoy at present. I make that requirement #1, then removing the mirror is fine if requirement #1 is met. This is what separates me from others who simply begin by saying Sony, please remove the mirror.

You know you make me laugh :) Let's just take a quick moment to think about that statement: "This is what separates me from others who simply begin by saying Sony, please remove the mirror." Me thinks this 'separation' of yours is to say the least a simplistically artificial one. How so? Well, it implies that all those 'others' who apparently just (and only do so) keep bemoaning the presence of our ever present SLT mirror and wish to the heavens that Sony would remove it, that somehow they would then not care if all their legacy lenses suddenly failed to work or work properly.

It does not imply anything because there is no information offered on what lenses those people have. You seem to be inserting an assumption that they have legacy lenses. That's a logical fallacy.

You are also ignoring the possibility that a number of people don't even realize that there are possible negative consequences of removing the mirror, so they overlook that aspect entirely. So there's another logical fallacy.

It is like you are making this distinction because they, these others, then also do not add, "....of course we want all our legacy stuff that used to work with our SLT body to continue working in the new sans SLT mirror A mount body."

Exactly correct. That's good communication that eliminates guesswork on anyone's part.

Don't you think it is implicit in their requirements of the SLTless body that all their A mount glass continues to function at least as good as it did before, even if they don't explicitly state it?.

No, I do not.

If people don't explain what sort of lenses they own or intend to own and don't clearly state their positions, it would be presumptuous of me and logically fallacious to assume something beyond what was stated.

Look again at the quotes I included earlier in the thread:

So forget the SLT and use the (technique of the) sensors of the A7/A9 series in a A-mount body. Please Sony....

Absolutely - an A9 and/or A7III and/or A6500 with an a-mount option - without mirror. That'd be almost perfect (in an oldfashioned bigger DSLR body).

You'll find the full posts from the members on page 42 of the thread.

You may imagine those words mean whatever you wish them to mean, but I will not commit the logical fallacy of doing that.
Back to Top
jackal2008 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 08 March 2018
Country: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 18
Post Options Post Options   Quote jackal2008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 18:16
For many of us, a99ii is too expensive. a7ii/iii is on sweet spot. but fe lens price is also a big hurdle, and we want to keep our Minolta collection.
Back to Top
djfoxy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 September 2015
Status: Offline
Posts: 181
Post Options Post Options   Quote djfoxy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 18:44
Originally posted by jackal2008 jackal2008 wrote:

For many of us, a99ii is too expensive. a7ii/iii is on sweet spot. but fe lens price is also a big hurdle, and we want to keep our Minolta collection.


héhé well summed-up

Now that A7rII price has dropped a bit due to the release of A7rIII, the 3k of A99ii should have be dropped a bit too. (I don't include grey market of course)

When we think of it, A99ii got the OSPDAF + a dedicated PDAF module, that works together. It's probably the most advanced camera in sony line up AF-wise that can explain the price-tag but still... almost the price of a A7r3
Minolta: XG1/ D7D/<beercan>135 f2.8/ 35-70 f4/ 35-105/ 70-210 f4/ 100-200 f4.5</beercan>/ 500 f8/ 17-35 f2.8-4/   50 f1.7/   50 & 100 f2.8 macro
Sony: A58/ A77ii / 28-75 f2.8 SAM/ DT 35 f1.8/ 85 f2.8
Back to Top
whiteheat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 September 2011
Country: Australia
Location: Altona Meadows
Status: Offline
Posts: 947
Post Options Post Options   Quote whiteheat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 March 2018 at 22:41
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Originally posted by whiteheat whiteheat wrote:

Well now, your posit is premised on the assumption that ditching the mirror would mean loss of performance. But surely even you wouldn't believe that if the SLT mirror was removed, that its functionality would not be replaced with another technology that gave the same or greater functionality and performance that the SLT gave you?

I already gave an answer to the question whether Sony would do such a thing (and what the consequences would be), but the imprtant question is not whether Sony would do it, but whether the people who ask for it have thought it through.

I ask you again - can you suggest another means of providing off-sensor AF without using a mirror? If you can't, the request is pointless. It's all very well to say 'Sony will invent something' - but they already did! The SLT mirror on A-mount and the OSPDAF in E-mount. Why would they put a lot of money into finding a third solution to a problem they've already solved twice before?

And I'll answer again. If you read the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph of my last post, you'll find a direct answer to your question and the last paragraph of my last post which in my book counts as suggestion.
Nothing is as it first appears.
Back to Top
Photosopher View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Knowledgebase Contributor

Joined: 13 June 2010
Country: United States
Location: St. Louis Mo
Status: Offline
Posts: 4074
Post Options Post Options   Quote Photosopher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 March 2018 at 02:44
EDIT: Open any photo in new tab/window and magnify to full.

Perhaps there are comparisons out there... DPReview is the only source I know, and from their widget I have a hard time understanding why anyone would continue to complain in any way about the SLT. But the argument against it persists nonetheless. I've done many side by side comparisons but never published. So here's a quicky to confirm that I JUST DON'T CARE... The differences are completely negligible to the real world.

Method-

a99II vs a7RII/LA-EA3 Adapter.

Samyang 35/1.4 to prevent any RAW baking. Shot at f5.6.

6400iso, because thats the lowest ISO that I can fathom to make any difference at all to anyone.

WB preset to tungstein.

sRGB Standard Color.

Base exposure set from a7RII 1/15ss at f5.6. a99II starts from there.

Screen Shots made from Panasonic UHD 32" 4K Monitor.

Adobe Bridge Magnifier set to 100%.

JPG's below saved at QTY8 and saved directly from Adobe Camera RAW from the RAW files.

All cameras shot Compressed RAW.

In all blocks:
Top Left = a99II 1/15ss
Top Right = a7RII 1/15ss
Bottom Left = a99II 1/15ss + .33 ACR Exposure Adjustment
Bottom Right = a99II 1/13ss to accommodate 1/3 fstop from base exposure.

Here's the base photo compare to illustrate exposure differences. Note the slightly higher color saturation in a7RII, and the slightly finer highlight detail with a99II even when adjusted to match. These differences should be considered mute as they only reflect how ACR handles each camera. C1 would be different.


Bridge Magnifier set to 100% in center of image exactly where all shots were focused manually with EVF magnifier.


Magnifier set on the Yashica.


Magnifier set on the Lady Lamp.


Magnifier set on the Chest Hinge.


Full Resolution a99II 1/15ss RAW from ACR saved to JPG QTY8


Full Resolution a99II 1/15ss +.33 Exposure Compensation RAW from ACR saved to JPG QTY8


Full Resolution a99II 1/13ss RAW from ACR saved to JPG QTY8


Full Resolution a7RII 1/15ss RAW from ACR saved to JPG QTY8

________

As far as I'm concerned, the SLT debate is blown way out of proportion. I like the technology. It keeps my sensor cleaner. And if developed further, in theory could always add an extra benefit to whatever tech was already present on sensor. Even if OSPDAF+OSCDAF was really great... It would always be greater when combined with a dedicated PDAF from the SLT. It makes no sense to me that such an insignificant loss of light is too much for anyone to accept. If it's not good enough for you, then please illustrate why with a photograph.

This thread is about "the Future of AMount". Allowing continued erroneous myth to be spread affects that future in an unfair manner. Put your photos where your mouth is and show me.

Edited by Photosopher - 23 March 2018 at 02:54
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > A-mount full frame Page  <1 4647484950 52>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.