/p/ - Photography » Thread #3506359

[234 / 43 / ?]

826KiB, 920x613, NikonZ6vSonyA7III-920x613.png

Nikon Z6 vs. Sony A7 III

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 11:36:32 No.3506359 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3506361 >>3506395 >>3506423 >>3506526 >>3506551 >>3509538 >>3509607 >>3509680 >>3510126 >>3510148

I want to upgrade to an entry-level full-frame camera primarily for travel and landscape.

Considering both the Nikon Z6 and the Sony A7 III, don't have any existing Nikon or Sony lenses. Is the Sony still worth buying or is it worth betting on the Nikon Nikkor Z lens line?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 11:38:30 No.3506360 Report

Quoted By: >>3506536

Sony E mount getting attention from third party lens manufacturers, but it's taking a while

Unsure on Z lens line

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Tue 16 Jul 2019 11:39:25 No.3506361 Report

Quoted By: >>3506371

>>3506359

If you're not looking for consumer grade lenses, there is no way Nikon will fuck up their lens lineup for Z.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 12:13:48 No.3506371 Report

Quoted By: >>3506373 >>3506411

>>3506361

So the FE line is a safer bet for consumer-grade lenses?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 12:16:06 No.3506373 Report

Quoted By: >>3506377

>>3506371
No. There are shit tons of old glass for F mount you can use on the Z if you want to be cheap

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1563122993238.jpg, 134KiB, 700x499

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 12:26:26 No.3506374 Report

Quoted By: >>3506408 >>3506860 >>3509803 >>3510228

Nikon has the ergonomics. Sony has all of the lenses.

Sigma recently released this. Not available for Z-mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 12:33:11 No.3506377 Report

Quoted By: >>3506406

>>3506373
you can use that or any old glass on Emount as well

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 12:46:09 No.3506395 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506359
Right now amongst the two, Nikon, but down the line RP with the kitlens, then wait for high res Canon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:15:51 No.3506406 Report

Quoted By: >>3506412

>>3506377
Why would you adapt non native lenses and get shitty autofocus performance to a camera you bought because of its autofocus performance? Nikon FTZ adapter is way faster than any Non-Sony to Sony adapter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:16:34 No.3506408 Report

Quoted By: >>3506435

>>3506374
But you can literally use every e-mount lens with nikon z. That's why they went with that mount design.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:20:21 No.3506411 Report

Quoted By: >>3510493

>>3506371

No, I was just saying they won't fuck up their pro line. As with everyone, the cheap stuff is hit or miss.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:20:34 No.3506412 Report

Quoted By: >>3506425 >>3506427 >>3506453

>>3506406
I was considering getting the A7 III with the FE 24mm f/1.4 GM as a walkaround lens. Can you recommend anything in place of that with the Z6? It looks like the closest they have is the 35mm f/1.8.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:34:49 No.3506423 Report

Quoted By: >>3509661

>>3506359
Sony all day long, there's a reason they've gone from #5 in camera sales, to healthily into #2, and the only thing separating sony and canon is a fuck ton of rebel sales.

They are the best value cameras as they are the only company that can do it all in house, this is also what enables their very quick turnaround time for getting brand new technology in brand new bodies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:38:09 No.3506425 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506412
According to the Z lens roadmap they're releasing a 24mm f/1.8 this year. Or you can adapt the Sony to the Nikon, or an F mount version.

Id read https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/sony-vs-nikon/z6-vs-a7iii/ pretty unbiased and accurate except for the weather sealing bit, the A7III is good except for the bottom and input covers, Z6 is built like a tank.

And after that either rent or handle both at a camera store. I liked the A7III specs a little more, but handling and operating is what I based my decision on and went with the z6. They're both great cameras and overkill for most people including me, you cant go wrong with either.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Product_Shot_4.jpg, 177KiB, 1200x1200

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:41:54 No.3506427 Report

Quoted By: >>3506435 >>3506524

>>3506412
Nikon has a 24mm f1.4 that you can use with their ftz adapter.
Or you could use the Sony one because there is adapter for that as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 13:51:23 No.3506435 Report

Quoted By: >>3506844

>>3506427
>>3506408
>J-just adapt it bro
That shitty AF performance though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 14:00:38 No.3506442 Report

Quoted By: >>3506570

People that get sony are the guys that watch middle aged dudes with caps walking around or skateboarding while playing hip hop sit down on a chair say what's going on guys and jerk off the spec sheet for 10 min be sure to buy it on amazon using the links below really helps me out. later.

So sick of these fags.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1537473167313.jpg, 180KiB, 1014x570

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 14:09:41 No.3506453 Report

Quoted By: >>3509545 >>3509670

>>3506412
>FE 24mm f/1.4 GM
That one is pretty unique. It's a night lens made to shoot the stars.

I would wait for reviews of the Sigma 14-24 though.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 15170452887580.jpg, 365KiB, 1080x1349

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 15:34:50 No.3506524 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506427
>that tiny 24 1.4
SMOL 35 1.4 WHEN

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 15:35:57 No.3506526 Report

Quoted By: >>3506530

>>3506359
I think the Nikon Z6 is probably fine, but the Sony mount has the better lens system at this point.

Plus Nikon's cameras aren't in a good place if Sony every stops supplying sensors to Nikon. Not that I hope that happens, but that the Nikon Z even looks good and can into PDAF is because of a Sony sensor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 15:39:29 No.3506530 Report

Quoted By: >>3506538

>>3506526
hard to compare lens choices when sonys been in the game so much longer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 15:55:01 No.3506536 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506360
>Sony E mount getting attention from third party lens manufacturers, but it's taking a while
I don't think any mount since digital had more srs lens releases per year than the E-mount did...?

After not much time at all they've virtually caught up with the old CaNikon SLR duopoly in terms of lenses still sold new in stores, never mind they're very well-represented among the best lenses available.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 15:58:58 No.3506538 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506530
Yea. Not saying it's Nikon's incompetence or anything, there really wasn't much time.

And the competition is good. But realistically speaking, that's a bit of a reason to get an E-mount camera.

I think at this point it's not even clear that Nikon offered 3rd parties favourable enough conditions for them to bring most/all their lenses to the Z-mount. Used to be a bit of an issue with CaNikon SLR already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 16:28:50 No.3506551 Report

Quoted By: >>3506554 >>3506555 >>3509861

>>3506359
When will Nikon finally release the FTZ adapter with AI, AIS and D lenses full support?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 16:32:37 No.3506554 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506551
Hopefully never.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Tue 16 Jul 2019 16:33:38 No.3506555 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506551

Judging from their extension tubes, never.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 17:02:30 No.3506570 Report

Quoted By: >>3506584

>>3506442
>hurr durrr, I can't believe someone would buy something different than my favorite brand. Why is the world like this? How could this happen to me?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO main-qimg-dcf1efb967be67c93f57df (...).jpg, 30KiB, 400x516

Anonymous Tue 16 Jul 2019 17:38:16 No.3506584 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506570
Touched a nerve, i did

Wish i didn't though, snot nosed sonyfags are almost as ridiculous as they are disgusting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jul 2019 03:31:35 No.3506844 Report

Quoted By: >>3506861 >>3506862

>>3506435
That's what sonyggers whinged for years tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jul 2019 04:37:33 No.3506860 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506374
they didnt release any of those lenses, they announced them

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jul 2019 04:41:06 No.3506861 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506844
But it is fast on Sony cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Jul 2019 04:43:55 No.3506862 Report

Quoted By: >>3509572

>>3506844
But it is fast on Sony cameras. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NxSaiH2AcI

And if you can't / couldn't use this you still at least had LA-EA4 tier performance (with a not too bad midrange PDAF for its time).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 14:33:09 No.3509538 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506359
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_24-70mmf28s/index.htm
It's pretty great if you can afford it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 15:10:13 No.3509545 Report

Quoted By: >>3509547 >>3509624

>>3506453
https://www.lenstip.com/506.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_14_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
https://www.lenstip.com/528.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_14-24_mm_f_2.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 15:15:29 No.3509547 Report

Quoted By: >>3509634

>>3509545
>https://www.lenstip.com/528.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_14-24_mm_f_2.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
Forget it! I thought the 14-24 FE is just the existing lens with another mount. Still it's probably gonna be better than that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 16:37:53 No.3509572 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506862
It’s the same AF system as my a-57 from 2012. 15 AF points in the center of the frame. It’s not worth adapting anything with the la-ea4. The SSM lenses may be worth adapting with the la-ea3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 18:35:12 No.3509607 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506359
Go Canon RP. Best kitlens of the bunch, and best backwards compatibility.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 189033_sig14_kom1c.jpg, 13KiB, 200x200

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:10:13 No.3509624 Report

Quoted By:

>>3509545
>Corner FF, f/1.8
Not catastrophic, but it's not on the same level of the GM.

The GM is special because it controls the astigmatism at F1,4, whereas other lenses need to stop down the Aperture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 19:40:49 No.3509634 Report

Quoted By:

>>3509547
>Still it's probably gonna be better than that.
It is indeed! Sigma has released the MTF chart:
https://www.sigma-global.com/common/lenses/cas/product/art/a019_14_24_28/data/images/mtf.gif
And it's incredible.

For reference here is the old 14-24: https://www.sigma-global.com/common/lenses/cas/product/art/a_14_24_28/data/images/mtf.gif

The new 12-24 is much, much better than the old one.
It just boils down to 14-24 zoom, or F1,4 Aperture.
Both lenses are pretty fucking awesome.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2019-07-22 at 2.08.3 (...).png, 54KiB, 868x512

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:12:40 No.3509661 Report

Quoted By: >>3509673 >>3510494

>>3506423
>Sony all day long, there's a reason they've gone from #5 in camera sales, to healthily into #2, and the only thing separating sony and canon is a fuck ton of rebel sales.
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

>betting on a lens line
If lenses are the most critical consideration (and they should be) then get an EOS R. Canon is the only one with no-compromises adaptation of DSLR glass to RF bodies, and Canon has the largest/most diverse lens library (EF+RF) on the planet.

That and the R is weather sealed so it won't fry like an egg if there's a drop of rain like the Sony.

The Nikon Z bodies are great so if the glass you want is available native or adapts well then they're a good option.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:43:08 No.3509670 Report

Quoted By: >>3509673 >>3510474

>>3506453
>only sony can literally eat your stars even on raw

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 21:46:06 No.3509673 Report

Quoted By: >>3509693

>>3509670
Sony's image is the faithful representation.

The other lenses adds imaginary wings for the stars.

>>3509661
Nobody in this thread cares about APS-C.
Sony has supplanted Nikon in FF, and they will eventually supplant Canon

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 22:24:09 No.3509680 Report

Quoted By: >>3509693 >>3509744 >>3510111

>>3506359
It's worth the bet. 5 years from now Nikon will be far ahead in lens quality simply because the size of the e mount prohibits Sony from the optic designs that the larger Z mount enables. Same thing with the new Canon RF mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 22 Jul 2019 23:32:58 No.3509693 Report

Quoted By:

>>3509673
>being in this much denial

>>3509680
This

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 02:26:07 No.3509744 Report

Quoted By: >>3509800

>>3509680
>prohibits Sony from
Did you know Nikon calls its 58mm F0,95 their "uncompromised lens"?
Did you also know the diameter of their rear elements did not exceed the diagonal of the sensor?
If you make the rear element too large and force the light rays through its edges, then you in fact compromise with the design of the lens, and will suffer from increased angle of incident. This is why Nikon matched the rear element with the sensor diagonal.

You speak of fantasy FUD like this because you haven't the slightest clue about lens design.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:23:50 No.3509800 Report

Quoted By: >>3509802 >>3509803

>>3509744
>all the lens engineers and testers who say a wider mount allows for more flexibility are wrong
>the sudden appearance of super fast lenses for RF mount just mean Canon was holding back for 30 years
>some random anonymous /p/ knows more about lens design then all of the above
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:30:57 No.3509802 Report

Quoted By: >>3509814 >>3509825

>>3509800
>all the lens engineers who say
Look at their words and their actions.

What the say is marketing.
What they do is engineering. And they have chosen to do as I say, making their rear element the size of the sensor diagonal to minimise the angle of incident.

I'm right, and you are wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 04:39:49 No.3509803 Report

Quoted By: >>3509814

>>3509800
>the sudden appearance of super fast lenses for RF mount
What about the sudden appearance of just as fast lenses on E-mount?

See>>3506374
Really shows the cognitive level of your brain is like a 5 year old.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 05:32:23 No.3509814 Report

Quoted By: >>3509815

>>3509802
>taking a ruler to a rear element
>not modeling the light cone
You literally know shit about lens design.

>>3509803
>What about the sudden appearance of just as fast lenses on E-mount?
E-mount has a 28-70 f/2 AF lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 05:39:01 No.3509815 Report

Quoted By: >>3510091

>>3509814
Sony have admitted the E-mount is incompatible with F/0,40 Lenses.
That is the only argument you will ever win, the retarded one.

>E-mount has a 28-70 f/2 AF lens?
On paper yes they have the patent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 06:14:16 No.3509825 Report

Quoted By: >>3509835

>>3509802
Where's your proof that the decision to do that was made for optical reasons and not to lower manufacturing costs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 06:27:44 No.3509835 Report

Quoted By: >>3510114

>>3509825
The 6000 dollar price tag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 08:53:32 No.3509861 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506551
I think it is more likely a third party will release an adapter with af motor.
If anyone is going to make them it's probably not going to happen until Nikon makes a couple of cheaper Z cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 17:42:53 No.3510091 Report

Quoted By: >>3510135

>>3509815
>everything is black and white
>if the lens can be made at all using any design then the mount is "compatible" and there's no difference
It's not just a question of "can you have this aperture even if the edges look like a coke bottle." IQ is part of the equation.

As an example: Canon would not do a 24-70 f/2.8 IS for EF because of IQ loss. While the Tamron 24-70 VC is good, the Canon 24-70 L II is clearly the sharper lens.

Guess what? They're doing a 24-70 f/2.8 IS for the RF mount. For that focal range zoom they can utilize a design which gives them the best-of-class IQ and IS on the RF mount. Now in this case it's because of the registration distance, not the mount diameter (EF and RF have the same diameter). But an idiot like you measuring rear elements would claim HURR DURR IT CAN BE DONE ON EF TO HURR HURR HURR.

It can be done...Tamron did it...but with a compromise. It's the same situation for SOME lens designs on a wide vs narrow mount. Could Sony make a 28-70 f/2 or 50 f/1.2 fit the E-mount? Sure. Would they be as good? Nope. You're going to compromise on IQ, weight, cost, or all of the above.

Now stop pretending you know shit about lens design since you don't even know how a pair of eyeglasses work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 18:28:35 No.3510111 Report

Quoted By: >>3510125

>>3509680
>e mount prohibits Sony from the optic designs that the larger Z mount enables. Same thing with the new Canon RF mount.
Yup, and here's another bombshell:
Sony's mount is glass intensive, it's costing everyone a fortune to make lenses for it. Once production for the larger mounts heats up it'll bring prices of lenses down to a point where Sony will not be able to compete, and then they'll dump it and jump tracks AGAIN. Probably going for semy affordable mf.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 18:35:22 No.3510114 Report

Quoted By: >>3510130

>>3509835
That doesn't prove anything but what people are willing to spend.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1486424259588.jpg, 43KiB, 339x435

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 18:54:58 No.3510125 Report

Quoted By: >>3510131 >>3510143

>>3510111
>mount is glass intensive
Please kill yourself you bald fat fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 18:58:33 No.3510126 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506359
If it's for landscape, get a D810.

Bigger, but better battery life, higher resolution, cheaper, full magnesium body, essentially compatible with all Nikkor lenses aside from z mount...

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:02:44 No.3510130 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510114
The marketing says it's uncompromised.
The pricetag says it's uncompromised.
The weight and dimensions say it's uncompromised
The image samples says it's uncompromised.

But apparently YOU somehow know better?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO QLVSzGJ.jpg, 63KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:03:14 No.3510131 Report

Quoted By: >>3510141

>>3510125
Only i get to sataniapost round these here parts bub, so zip it pee brain.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO JPA_431049645_000005-42b48.jpg, 51KiB, 1004x756

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:15:52 No.3510135 Report

Quoted By: >>3510144 >>3510145 >>3510192 >>3510375 >>3510489 >>3511032

>>3510091
>Guess what? They're doing a 24-70 f/2.8 IS for the RF mount.
Look what I just found. The patent for it.

Looks like all your assumptions are worth crap.
The rear optics for the new 24-70 is EVEN SMALLER than the sensor diagonal.

So much for your goatse mount.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO JPA_431049645_000013-45d3f.jpg, 52KiB, 1004x803

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:33:10 No.3510141 Report

Quoted By: >>3510144 >>3510145 >>3510147 >>3510489 >>3510825 >>3511479 >>3511482

>>3510131
And here is your 28-85mm f/2-2.8.

What is the use of spreading your asscheek so wide when your rear optics are smaller than the sensor diagonal?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:34:45 No.3510143 Report

Quoted By: >>3510144

>>3510125
Offcourse it is. Larger mount = less glass needed for large large aperture lenses. Sony needs to stack lenses like arigami to possibly hope to achieve what Nikon can do with ease, and that's not profitable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:37:58 No.3510144 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510143
Falso. See these two excellent Canon RF lenses
>>3510141
>>3510135
Canon likes to make them small.
At most they will make it as large as sensor diagonal.

Making the rear optics larger than the sensor will decrease the image quality because you force a higher angle of incident, which is not optimal.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1561571708890.jpg, 159KiB, 800x600

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:39:12 No.3510145 Report

Quoted By: >>3510146

>>3510135
>>3510141
he brings patents....
Olympus has patents for full frame lenses.

Your diagrams only confirms $ony is fucked. Count the number of elements... This shit would cost 10k grand per lens. Canon outprices it from the start.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:41:45 No.3510146 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510145
Those two are the Canon lenses.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SDI6p4b.jpg, 57KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:42:37 No.3510147 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510141
As long as you're not sataniaposting on my board pee brain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:48:37 No.3510148 Report

Quoted By: >>3510153

>>3506359
The Z everytime, better build quality, better lenses, better IQ, made by an actual camera company.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 19:58:26 No.3510153 Report

Quoted By: >>3510169

>>3510148
Sounds like superstition desu. Everything has changed since last week.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 20:33:25 No.3510169 Report

Quoted By: >>3510192

>>3510153
What has changed, has Sony magically increased it's mount diameter? If not, it's still the fourth best choice in ff mirrorless, behind Panasonic, Nikon and Canon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 20:53:13 No.3510192 Report

Quoted By: >>3510212 >>3510214

>>3510169
I already BTFO'd that argument>>3510135

None of your lenses will ever use that diameter. It's for marketing propaganda.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:10:35 No.3510212 Report

Quoted By: >>3510242

>>3510192
You did what? You're only moron in the world claiming mount diameter doesn't matter. That kinda deserves a first class ticket to mental asylum. Pronto.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:11:53 No.3510214 Report

Quoted By: >>3510217 >>3510242

>>3510192
Funny how you're calling out marketing propaganda while falling for marketing propaganda.

I feel like you're involved with the posts that are like "omg i wush going to buy the shoyny ey sheben tree but now that NEW pwoduct ish coming I've got to get the ey sheben ar tree!!" Have those people ever even held a camera? Will they ever? I'd give it a pass if they were asking whether to go with the ff or crop sony but no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:14:17 No.3510217 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510214
Probably know i meant the a7rFOUR, but just in case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:23:05 No.3510228 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506374
Nikon has a 14-30 S lens and a 14-24 is on the way next year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:37:43 No.3510242 Report

Quoted By: >>3510245 >>3510247

>>3510214
A7Riv is just a camera, not propaganda.

>>3510212
The argument is: why are you spreading the hole so big when every single one of your rear optics is so small.

the answer is Retards love big holes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:45:02 No.3510245 Report

Quoted By: >>3510265

>>3510242
What's got rear element to do with it? You're obviously missing some cogs in your optical knowledge. It's the FORE element that gets to be different because of large mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 21:47:15 No.3510247 Report

Quoted By: >>3510265 >>3510284

>>3510242
Not really no, it's more of a tool.

You said everything changed last week and I'm sorry, but i don't follow sony news so what happened last week? Did they finally put their tech inside a camera oh wait that's called a nikon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:05:46 No.3510265 Report

Quoted By: >>3510274

>>3510247
Better build quality, better lenses, better IQ, etc.

>>3510245
Wrong again. The front element can be made smaller due to flange, not diameter.

In this case you have such tiny rear lens that doesn't make use of the giant hole you teared up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:17:15 No.3510274 Report

Quoted By: >>3510278

>>3510265
>Better build quality, better lenses, better IQ, etc
Sounds like nikon

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:21:48 No.3510278 Report

Quoted By: >>3510288

>>3510274
Shattering to your identity and way you perceive the world I guess.
Better get used to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:27:40 No.3510284 Report

Quoted By: >>3510287 >>3510291

>>3510247
They put sensor from rx100 into ff body, and sonyfags think it's something new...

Fact is they lost the tech race. Panasonic ditched them and in their first attempt made the best sensor on the market right now, Canon has caught up, and has overtaken them in autofocus, and Sharp are gearing up to enter the fray with own sensors as well, so they hype megapicles instead, hoping nobody will notice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:30:14 No.3510287 Report

Quoted By: >>3510288

>>3510284
Delusions and hopes ~ The post.

Everything you wish for won't happen Anon. But I'm glad you could share your hopes and dreams with us all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:32:21 No.3510288 Report

Quoted By: >>3510289

>>3510278
>>3510287
Whatever you say lad, doesn't stop nikon from cucking you from your sensors and soon lenses too

>Pic related
Better get used to it

*whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir*

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO images.jpg, 23KiB, 739x415

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:33:24 No.3510289 Report

Quoted By: >>3510294

>>3510288
Just imagine i posted this pic with the last post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:34:54 No.3510291 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510284
I'm already stocking up on screencaps and wojaks from when the time comes. Dumb sonyfags.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:37:05 No.3510294 Report

Quoted By: >>3510296

>>3510289
There is a lot of good lenses you could adapt, but knowing you guys it would probably hurt your soul to even touch a Sony lens to begin with, so the adapter is sort of just its own thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:41:30 No.3510296 Report

Quoted By: >>3510301

>>3510294
They might be made for sony but they're not made by sony :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:45:12 No.3510301 Report

Quoted By: >>3510304 >>3510317

>>3510296
Hmmm Sharpest lens in the world is the GM 135
https://www.updatedc.com/2019/03/13/lens-rentals-fe-135mm-f-1-8-gm-lens-is-the-sharpest-lens-weve-tested-period/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 22:47:42 No.3510304 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510301
Ok :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 23:07:01 No.3510317 Report

Quoted By: >>3510319

>>3510301
>Sharpest Lens We’ve Tested
>sharpest lens in the world
Way to jump to conclusions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 23:09:12 No.3510319 Report

Quoted By: >>3510336

>>3510317
Lensrentals test everything that is worth testing.
so world's sharpest is its defacto title, until it's beat by something else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 23:30:29 No.3510336 Report

Quoted By: >>3510340

>>3510319
Not coastal optics, so no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 23:34:27 No.3510340 Report

Quoted By: >>3510342

>>3510336
It's not use to brandfag in the face of objective measurements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 23:38:43 No.3510342 Report

Quoted By: >>3510343

>>3510340
You mean the same objective measures that put CO on top? K.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 23 Jul 2019 23:42:03 No.3510343 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510342
Post the link to the Lensrental test, or it never happened.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 00:56:43 No.3510375 Report

Quoted By: >>3510449

>>3510135
>hurr durr the rear element is the ONLY thing that matters
Literally shut up because you're retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 06:11:51 No.3510449 Report

Quoted By: >>3510488

>>3510375
It's true.
Doesn't matter if RF mount is 54mm wide or 10 meter wide, it would be no difference since you still use tiny elements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 07:28:31 No.3510474 Report

Quoted By:

>>3509670
they have still problems with stareater?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 08:05:36 No.3510488 Report

Quoted By: >>3510489

>>3510449
>if i repeat it, it will become true
You're the idiot who thinks a bigger V8 doesn't actually make more power because "they both have eight cylinders man."

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 08:08:52 No.3510489 Report

Quoted By: >>3510677

>>3510488
No.

You can't even explain what your wide hole is good for in these two example>>3510141
>>3510135

If the hole was 100 meter wide, you would probably claim the hole gives superior image quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 08:13:13 No.3510493 Report

Quoted By:

>>3506411
I guess they never miss, uh ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 08:16:43 No.3510494 Report

Quoted By:

>>3509661
Canon has no in body stabilization and it's videos are shit because of shitty codec.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1328863385262.jpg, 106KiB, 700x500

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 08:19:43 No.3510495 Report

Quoted By: >>3510506 >>3510573

Okay let's sum up all the main arguments.

Canon: I have more sales!
Sony: I have the best sensor!
Nikon: I have the biggest hole!

Utterly fascinating.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO spid0.png, 360KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 09:23:28 No.3510506 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510495
holes are underrated

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 14:14:53 No.3510573 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510495
T b h nikon has a point

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 18:03:31 No.3510677 Report

Quoted By: >>3510755 >>3510782

>>3510489
>You can't even explain what your wide hole is good for in these two example
MODEL THE LIGHT CONE EXITING THE REAR ELEMENT YOU DUMB FUCK

AT ALL FOCUS DISTANCES AND FOR ZOOMS FOCAL LENGTHS

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.gif, 99KiB, 1004x803

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 21:14:54 No.3510755 Report

Quoted By: >>3510774 >>3510783 >>3511618

>>3510677
Calm down retard.
Here I drew the mount hole for you.

Now draw your shitty light cones, and explain why your light cone demands a larger hole in this situation.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Z-sony-a7-ii-front.jpg, 144KiB, 1024x756

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:00:24 No.3510774 Report

Quoted By: >>3510777 >>3510778

>>3510755
Man you're pathetic... It's like Nikon and Canon and Leica, and Sigma are all conspiring against Sony, by making their mounts larger! Those bastards! Take a cool shower and stare in the mirror for a while. You are only person in the world that argues larger mount diameter is not an advantage. Now accept the sad truth that you're dumb fanboy of a company that made too small mount. Now that competition has shown you that it was a bad design decision, you somehow attack everyone else like a sad little kiddy that lost his favourite toy. What's even sadder is that you have no stakes in it. You're a consumer that buys overpriced product, you're totally shit photographer, and you've had your brain washed out by consumerism agenda.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:04:36 No.3510777 Report

Quoted By: >>3510780 >>3510784

>>3510774
It'd be hilarious though if they did do that to make adapting their lenses either difficult or impossible without additional glass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:05:24 No.3510778 Report

Quoted By: >>3510782

>>3510774
It's not a conspiracy, it's marketing for retards who love big holes.

I have demonstrated every single one of your Canon, Leica, Sigma, Nikon lenses do not have rear elements that exceed the sensor diameter.
Not a single one of them do.

And now you resort to personal attacks because you can't demonstrate why your large hole is necessary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:09:44 No.3510780 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510777
It would be even more hilarious to see them stick to E-mount and rape everybody in sales regardless of the size of their hole.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:14:29 No.3510782 Report

Quoted By: >>3510783

>>3510778
See: >>3510677

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:15:43 No.3510783 Report

Quoted By: >>3510900

>>3510782
No, YOU model the light cone for me>>3510755

I drew the mount, now prove that mount is too small.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:16:14 No.3510784 Report

Quoted By: >>3510786 >>3510791 >>3511295

>>3510777
It's reverse. Sony mount is smaller, so it's lenses won't work well on larger mounts. It's akin to using crop lenses on ff body.
Adapting different lenses across ff mirrorless will be impossible anyway. It only works for dslr to mirrorless because of vastly larger flange distance of the former. In mirrorless format distances and mount sizes are optimised so you indeed need different rear element for different mounts.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1553372653689.png, 147KiB, 687x534

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:19:51 No.3510786 Report

Quoted By: >>3510795 >>3510809 >>3510820

>>3510784
>It's akin to using crop lenses on ff body.
Nope, we have evidence of Canon RF lenses suffering from even higher levels of vignetting than the Sony lenses.

>you indeed need different rear element for different mounts.
That's also another Nope. Sigma uses the same optics for both L-mount and E-mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:23:28 No.3510791 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510784
>It's the reverse
Not if the larger mount literally can't fit inside the smaller mounts hole it's not the reverse.

>Impossible
Nope, you can literally use a corrective element in the converter to make the light converge wherever you want. It's literally how optics works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:26:47 No.3510795 Report

Quoted By: >>3510797

>>3510786
First is entirely besides the point. Second is false. Rear element is different to account for mounts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:27:59 No.3510797 Report

Quoted By: >>3510803 >>3510806

>>3510795
No you idiot, it's the lens barrel that is adjusted for the mounts.
Not the optics themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:33:59 No.3510803 Report

Quoted By: >>3510804

>>3510797
Mounts imply the flange distance you cretin.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:35:55 No.3510804 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510803
So when mount 1 has 18mm flange, and mount 2 has 20mm flange, Sigma just designs their lenses for 20mm flange.

Problem solved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:36:50 No.3510806 Report

Quoted By: >>3510809

>>3510797
Not when you've smaller flange distance and larger mount. Sony lenses are designed for it's small mount, they will exhibit vignetting on wide open apertures on larger mounts. Same for everyone else, lenses are no longer interchangeable. What will remain is usage of dslr lenses on all mirrorless mounts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:39:46 No.3510809 Report

Quoted By: >>3510813 >>3510814

>>3510806
>they will exhibit vignetting on wide open apertures on larger mounts
First of all, Larger holes won't increase vignetting.

Second of all, it's not the mount that causes vignetting, it's the optics themselves.
See this>>3510786
Both mounts are 54mm wide, but their optics cause different levels of vignetting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:42:33 No.3510813 Report

Quoted By: >>3510816

>>3510809
What large hole? Talk is with fitting smaller mount lens on a larger mount. It will vignette in same way as when you mount apsc lens on ff body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:44:08 No.3510814 Report

Quoted By: >>3510817

>>3510809
>but their optics cause different levels of vignetting.
Different vignetting altogether. One is optical, the other is caused by fitting wrong lens on wrong mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:44:36 No.3510816 Report

Quoted By: >>3510823

>>3510813
No, you don't seem to understand the concept of image circle.
A lens is designed for a specific image circle, regardless of what mount you try to fit it into.

You can take a Canon RF lens and mount it to a hole that's 10 meters wide. It will still not cause any vignetting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:45:55 No.3510817 Report

Quoted By: >>3510819

>>3510814
>the other is caused by fitting wrong lens on wrong mount.
Did you mean the EF lens doesn't fit into the EF mount?
Or did you mean the RF lens not fitting into the RF mount?

Because you are clearly wrong here either way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:49:44 No.3510819 Report

Quoted By: >>3510820

>>3510817
You've clearly spent too much time on the net for today. You're not making any sense whatsoever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:50:47 No.3510820 Report

Quoted By: >>3510824

>>3510819
Nah See the image again>>3510786
Both lenses are native to the mount they are mounted to.

You are clearly damage controlling your own brain fart now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:55:18 No.3510823 Report

Quoted By: >>3510825

>>3510816
You're not doing that. You're trying to fit lens designed for smaller hole on larger hole. On flange distance lens was designed for, you're getting vignetting. If you extend the flange distance, it'll cause optical defects, because lens wasn't designed for extended flange.

You somehow think that if dslr lenses can be fitted to mirrorless bodies, so can mirrorless lenses across different mounts, that's not the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:56:48 No.3510824 Report

Quoted By: >>3510828

>>3510820
You may want to read again what you wrote before talking about brain farts...
>Did you mean the EF lens doesn't fit into the EF mount?
>Or did you mean the RF lens not fitting into the RF mount?

You're loosing it sonny boy... You're loosing it bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 22:59:37 No.3510825 Report

Quoted By: >>3510834

>>3510823
Adapters don't cause the distance between element and sensor to change.
Only macro extension tubes do that.

See this patent>>3510141
You can take that set of optics, and fit them to any FF mirrorless mount.
Nothing will change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:00:57 No.3510828 Report

Quoted By: >>3510834

>>3510824
What I said was correct. The FR lens was mounted on the RF camera.
The EF lens was mounted on the EF camera.
And then you began to babble incoherently about Vignetting being caused by wrong mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:18:27 No.3510834 Report

Quoted By: >>3510836

>>3510825
>You can take that set of optics, and fit them to any FF mirrorless mount.
Wrong. And you will be wrong unless you manage to fit sony lens on Z mount body, and get it working without defects.
>>3510828
kek, you're crazy man. You're images have nothing do do with anything, you're a certifiable lunatic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:21:19 No.3510836 Report

Quoted By: >>3510841

>>3510834
The only requirement shown in that patent is sensor size and distance to sensor.
Mount is irrelevant once you adjust that distance, which adapters do.

Brainlet.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1562106464013.jpg, 16KiB, 447x438

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:29:14 No.3510841 Report

Quoted By: >>3510844

>>3510836
Yeah, you're lunatic alright. Nobody is taking your patent images seriously. They mean nothing, because they mean nothing. It's vague design drawing on a paper without any scales or anything... You could make same design of a lens for a phone sensor! Only thing that would change is scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:30:43 No.3510844 Report

Quoted By: >>3510847

>>3510841
>It's vague design drawing on a paper without any scales or anything
The scale is important, because those patents are grounds for lawsuits.

You're wrong and defensive over the fact that your tiny brain couldn't keep up with reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:35:11 No.3510847 Report

Quoted By: >>3510849

>>3510844
>scale is important, because those patents are grounds for lawsuits.
>there is no scale

You, cannot be this stupid...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:37:00 No.3510849 Report

Quoted By: >>3510855

>>3510847
The sensor is defined as 35mm FF.
The image shows the sensor Diagonal.
Thus we have all the necessary knowledge to figure out the scale.

I bet that blew your mind right there.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1562596457043.jpg, 140KiB, 866x838

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:48:38 No.3510855 Report

Quoted By: >>3510860

>>3510849
>He's going to figure a scale without having a scale.
>Absolute state of Sonyggers in the age of 2019...

Be honest, how many times have you failed maths in school?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1266379483147.jpg, 20KiB, 526x350

Anonymous Wed 24 Jul 2019 23:58:33 No.3510860 Report

Quoted By: >>3510871

>>3510855
Don't go full butthurt on us now just because yo didn't know how the Patent system worked.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO index.jpg, 10KiB, 223x226

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 00:16:18 No.3510869 Report

Quoted By:

Either of those cameras are complete overkill for everyone in this thread, me included, and both do a fine job- you're splitting hairs.

Go to a best buy or camera store and handle both, then decide. You're going to be handling and operating a camera way more than you'll be using their super minor differences. Spec sheets can't tell you what you find more comfortable.

I did that and went with the z6. Felt better in the hands, better to operate, actual touch screen, just smarter camera design, etc. AF is a smidgen slower but plenty usable.

The native Z's so far are awesome and I like being able to adapt cheaper, often used, Nikon F glass for focal lengths or uses I don't shoot with often. Like Sony doesn't have a good performing equivalent to Nikon's 200-500 f/5.6. They're coming out with a native 200-600 5.6/6.3 that's a stop slower past like 300mm (lol) but for $2k. I got my Nikon 200-500 for $750 and it compares super well to the Sony unless you're majorly pixel peeping. I don't shoot sports and wildlife often so I can't justify dropping $2k on the Sony, but I shoot them often enough that renting is a waste.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1564012598449.jpg, 42KiB, 486x341

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 00:17:58 No.3510871 Report

Quoted By:

>>3510860
>us
Everything alright at home, anon? Is wifey being generous to milkman again?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 01:16:18 No.3510900 Report

Quoted By: >>3510901

>>3510783
>you do my homework for me
No. Do your own god damn homework since you're the only one here who thinks there's a conspiracy among lens designers to lie about the advantages of a wider mount.

Bet you also deny the moon landings and believe Earth is flat.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1390167628169.png, 430KiB, 824x720

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 01:18:54 No.3510901 Report

Quoted By: >>3510992 >>3511002 >>3511005

>>3510900
This is not homework. You have no evidence the red mount hole I drew is too small.

And you keep talking about cones because you have no fucking clue how to even begin to prove your point because any cone you draw will fit nicely into the mount I drew.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 03:49:12 No.3510992 Report

Quoted By: >>3510993

>>3510901
>Canon engineers say wider mount is better
>Nikon engineers say wider mount is better
>Fuji engineers say wider mount is better
>LensRentals testers say wider mount is better
>"You have no evidence the red mount hole I drew is too small."
You're an idiot. Stop talking idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 03:50:24 No.3510993 Report

Quoted By: >>3511288

>>3510992
But I proved to you none of their lenses use the width of the mount.
And you still can't draw your shitty light cone.
So it's all marketing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 8.55.2 (...).png, 164KiB, 1344x934

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 03:56:11 No.3511002 Report

Quoted By: >>3511005 >>3511009

>>3510901
>Lastly, the throat diameter combined with flange distance determines the maximum possible angle of incidence of the marginal rays from the lens, which is important in designing lenses – GENERALLY, THE LARGER THE ANGLE OF INCIDENCE, THE EASIER IT IS TO MAKE HIGH-PERFORMANCE LENSES.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 03:57:46 No.3511005 Report

Quoted By: >>3511009

>>3510901
>>3511002
https://photographylife.com/what-is-lens-mount

Also see:
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/101729/does-a-large-mount-diameter-really-allow-design-advantages-for-large-aperture-le

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 03:58:28 No.3511007 Report

Quoted By:

>travel and landscape
A7Riii an option? It came down now that 4 exist. You know you want all the pixels.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1522278976076.jpg, 443KiB, 1550x1080

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 04:01:02 No.3511009 Report

Quoted By: >>3511022

>>3511002
>>3511005
See the Fuji G mount. Same angle of incident as Sony's mount.

I know you are autistic but please try to understand the ideal angle of incident is 0 degrees.
Just because you CAN make a lens that use 33 degree angle doesn't mean you should, because it will lower your image quality.

The ideal angle for the light ray is 0 degrees, straight perpendicular to sensor plane.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 04:17:23 No.3511022 Report

Quoted By: >>3511032 >>3511195

>>3511009
>See the Fuji G mount. Same angle of incident as Sony's mount.
What's your point? That lenses are going to be harder to design for Fuji G? Agreed.

>I know you are autistic but please try to understand the ideal angle of incident is 0 degrees.
Every fucking lens designer on the planet is excited to get away from retrofocus designs thanks to higher incidence angles allowed by mirrorless, and early lenses that do this have better corner-to-corner sharpness, as do older Leica lenses, yet YOU think it's the best design? Who are you btw? Please post your resume.

Also: if it's truly the best, then why aren't you shooting a DSLR?

>Just because you CAN make a lens that use 33 degree angle doesn't mean you should, because it will lower your image quality.
[CITATION NEEDED]

High incidence angles were an issue with the first digital rangefinder/mirrorless designs. With proper microlenses it's no longer an issue.

Keep your head up your ass. It doesn't matter because we're already seeing the benefits of a wide mount in Canon and Nikon lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 04:27:11 No.3511032 Report

Quoted By: >>3511050

>>3511022
>That lenses are going to be harder to design for Fuji G?
Wrong, Fujifilm Sony knows anything beyond 28 degree is overkill and will never be used outside of marketing shills like you.

See the Canon patents>>3510135
They CANNNN But they WOOOONNNNN'T, because Canon knows narrow angle is best for the light ray.

>Every fucking lens designer on the planet is excited to get away from retrofocus designs thanks to higher incidence angles allowed by mirrorless
Yes, but only to a certain degree, you couldn't want a lens that depend on 80 degree angle of incident for example.
There are limits to how much microlenses can assist your your free lunch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 04:43:35 No.3511050 Report

Quoted By: >>3511057

>>3511032
>Wrong, Fujifilm Sony knows anything beyond 28 degree is overkill
>the number my brand uses is magically the right one

>Yes, but only to a certain degree, you couldn't want a lens that depend on 80 degree angle of incident for example.
>33 degrees = 41 degrees = 80 degrees
>33 or 41 degrees are an extreme angle
Wow you're a faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 04:47:20 No.3511057 Report

Quoted By: >>3511191

>>3511050
>the number my brand uses is magically the right one
It's two brands backing each other up.
Coincidentally only Fujifilm and Sony are in a healthy state.

Also, look at what Canon says and what Canon does.
Their actions secretly back up Fujifilm and Sony.
Their words are just marketing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2019-07-25 at 1.30.1 (...).png, 55KiB, 1618x312

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 08:31:21 No.3511191 Report

Quoted By: >>3511193

>>3511057
>It's two brands backing each other up.
Oh yeah they TOTALLY backed up Sony (pic related).

>Coincidentally only Fujifilm and Sony are in a healthy state.
>the company with 40% global marketshare and growing is not "healthy"
You're an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 08:34:18 No.3511193 Report

Quoted By: >>3511196

>>3511191
That's marketing as well, notice the pattern yet?
You are a drooling retard who believes in any marketing so long as they are jealous of sony and against Sony.

Fact of the matter is Fujifilm agrees 28 degrees is the perfect compromise for angle of incidentl

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 08:35:37 No.3511195 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511022
>new microlenses stop issues from extreme angles of incidence.

Lol, no, the ultra wide voigts and leica lenses STILL give weird colour shifts in corners on an a7iii and a7riii, so the nikons will have the same issue, but worse because the flange is too short.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 08:37:16 No.3511196 Report

Quoted By: >>3511198

>>3511193
>everyone that disagrees with me is marketing
You're marketing. You can't possibly be a real human. You're a paid Sony shill here to shit up the board.

I see the pattern clearly now. You're a Sonygger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 08:39:05 No.3511198 Report

Quoted By: >>3511215

>>3511196
Nah I'm objectively pointing out what Fujifilm says and what Fujifilm does.
Just like I pointed out what Canon says vs what Canon does.

It's their actions that matter. They made their Medium format mount exactly like Sony did.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 09:35:22 No.3511215 Report

Quoted By: >>3511218

>>3511198
>fujifilm X 35.34
>canon 33.62
>sony 28.58
>"i'm objective"
You're a marketing shill.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1504463476242.jpg, 372KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 09:38:03 No.3511218 Report

Quoted By: >>3511454 >>3511462

>>3511215
X-mount is outdated.
G-mount is their newest mount, built with all the wisdom they have in current year.

Fujifilm has defacto vouched for Sony's standard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 11:38:01 No.3511288 Report

Quoted By: >>3511454

>>3510993
I just read the thread and I applaud your valiant effort to try and bring some objectivity to the discussion with regards to how "well" used the highly marketed larger bayonet sizes are.

Although it apparently just fails with that anon, I at least get the argument. And here I was thinking that with all that fuss about the great advantages of larger bayonets, they PROBABLY would at least have made use of that advantage and DXO & friends just didn't get around to testing those new better lenses yet... apparently not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 11:50:59 No.3511295 Report

Quoted By: >>3511302 >>3511454

>>3510784
Honestly, sigma, tamron, etc, will just design for the sony flange width and canons flange distance. Just like they have always done for dslr lenses, designed around the most restricting aspects of all the mounts.

Sony cucked everyone, again. Fuck I love sony.

They're gonna cuck over everyone again later today with the new rx100.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 12:05:31 No.3511302 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511295
The only thing they'll cuck today is the owners of the old rx100.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 18:24:44 No.3511454 Report

Quoted By: >>3511474 >>3511476

>>3511218
>>3511288
>>3511295
>imaging samefagging this hard

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 18:35:10 No.3511462 Report

Quoted By: >>3511474

>>3511218
>the highest selling APS-C mount for Fuji is "outdated"
>the medium format mount which was constrained by other factors and NOT angle of incidence is the best mount in terms of angle of incidence
>HURR DURR I'M STUPID I'M STUPID I'M STUPID
With X mount Fuji had the freedom to design a mount allowing higher angle of incidence and they did. With G mount Fuji was constrained by size/weight and did the best they could.

Even Sony admits that E mount was APS-C and if they could go back, it would be wider.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 18:49:54 No.3511474 Report

Quoted By: >>3511476

>>3511462
>With X mount Fuji had the freedom to design
With X-mount Fuji had no freaking clue what they were doing because they had no experience with lenses for digital sensors.
With G-mount they got wiser.

>constrained by size/weight
Bullshit, the mount could easily be bigger in their current cameras if they wanted it to be.
G-mount is their ultimate image quality platform.

>Even Sony admits
Citation needed. All they admitted was they couldn't make F0,4 aperture lenses. Which nobody makes anyway.

>>3511454
You wish. Nothing has gone your way in this thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 18:53:45 No.3511476 Report

Quoted By: >>3511479 >>3511485

>>3511474
>>With X mount Fuji had the freedom to design
>With X-mount Fuji had no freaking clue what they were doing
Is that why they have the sharpest, best APS-C line up? Wow, lucky bastards.

>>constrained by size/weight
>Bullshit, the mount could easily be bigger in their current cameras
In the medium format cameras? Are you for real?
>>Even Sony admits
>Citation needed.
As soon as you provided an authoritative citation that bayonet width and angle of incidence doesn't matter.

>>>3511454
>You wish.
Your samefagging is painfully obvious. Take your meds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:00:14 No.3511479 Report

Quoted By: >>3511482

>>3511476
>Is that why they have the sharpest
That's Sigma who have the sharpest APS-C lenses.
Fujilenses are super soft, you are paying for the build quality, not the image quality.

>In the medium format cameras?
Their MF cameras do in fact have space for larger mount. They just didn't care about it because there is not effective marketing FUD to be gained.

>As soon as you provided an authoritative
I cited the G-mount.
See back when you used DSLR mount, you would still whine and bitch about E-mount which had superior angle of incident to your own shitty mount.

The pattern here is you will shit on Sony no matter what.
When their spec was superior, you still shit on them.

Fact of the matter is even Canon thinks your wide mount is retarded>>3510141
And only useful for marketing FUD.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:11:04 No.3511482 Report

Quoted By: >>3511483 >>3511490

>>3511479
>Fujilenses are super soft,
Well there's a bald faced lie.

>>In the medium format cameras?
>Their MF cameras do in fact have space for larger mount.
Sure, if they made the bodies and all the lenses even larger.

>>As soon as you provided an authoritative
>I cited the G-mount.
>"my interpretation of the factors behind G mount design is authoritative"
You are unbelievably stupid.

>See back when you used DSLR mount, you would still whine and bitch about E-mount which had superior angle of incident to your own shitty mount.
Nobody did this. Everyone agreed E-mount...any mirrorless mount...would allow more flexibility in lens design. Canon and Nikon just took it further.

>When their spec was superior, you still shit on them.
>Fact of the matter is even Canon thinks your wide mount is retarded>>3510141
Now draw the light CONE...not collimated cylinder...CONE that exits the rear element.

Now move that rear element inside the lens housing for focusing and/or zoom change (depending on lens and design).

Now come to the realization that you are a Sony shill and an idiot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1490687013735.jpg, 1MiB, 1603x2247

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:12:10 No.3511483 Report

Quoted By: >>3511495 >>3511506 >>3511521 >>3511535

>>3511482
>Well there's a bald faced lie.
Not when I can easily back it up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:14:32 No.3511485 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511476
>Is that why they have the sharpest, best APS-C line up?
Not even close. The APS-C Sigmas are better. The Zeiss' (24 and 32mm f/1.8 in particular) too, but they're just about the only lenses that seem even less economical than Fuji's ridiculously highly priced lineup.

Apart from that, multiple Canon Nikon Sony FF lenses also are better *on APS-C*. In this sense, that matters. How couldn't they surpass that if they actually set out to make the best lenses on the best mount?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:18:29 No.3511490 Report

Quoted By: >>3511495

>>3511482
>Sure, if they made the bodies and all the lenses even larger.
They will make their lenses as large as the lenses need to be.
Their bodies still have room for larger mount.

When you plan for a new mount that is supposed to last half a century, you don't make it too small, you make it just right.

>Nobody did this. Everyone agreed E-mount...any mirrorless mount...would allow more flexibility in lens design
That's a lie. /p/ vehemently argued against E-mount and said it was too small.
that's a lie you wouldn't want to thread into since we have the archives.

>Now move that rear element inside the lens housing
When the rear element moves, your lens get focus breathing. That's intentional retard.
In such a case, the lens maker has deliberately designed the lens to be a focus breathing lens, and you get slight crop factor out of it.

That's what happens when you manipulate the image circle.
Also draw your shitty cone yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:30:46 No.3511495 Report

Quoted By: >>3511499

>>3511483
>one lens = all lenses
Idiot.

>>3511490
>They will make their lenses as large as the lenses need to be.
>consumers will carry as much weight as Fuji wants them to
kek

>When you plan for a new mount that is supposed to last half a century, you don't make it too small, you make it just right.
>"just right" only involves a single criteria which happens to be my cherry picked criteria
kek

>That's a lie. /p/ vehemently argued against E-mount and said it was too small.
It's better than DSLR mounts in terms of registration distance but it is actually "too small" for optimal FF lens design.

>>Now move that rear element inside the lens housing
>When the rear element moves, your lens get focus breathing. That's intentional retard.
Oh God you are stupid. Rear element movement occurs for any number of reasons in the design. Whatever the reason, THE LIGHT CONE STILL HAS TO CLEAR THE OPENING WITH THE REAR ELEMENT FULLY RECESSED.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:36:59 No.3511499 Report

Quoted By: >>3511569

>>3511495
>They will make their lenses as large as the lenses need to be.
That tends to be the case with platforms that place importance in image quality.
And so far neither Canon or Nikon have made a rear lens that is larger than sensor diagonal.

>It's better than DSLR mounts in terms of registration distance
AND it had superior angle of incident.
And at that time you sat there with your inferior mount and critisized it.

Thus I have proved you actually don't give a flying fuck about Angle of Incident, you care about attacking Sony.

>Rear element movement occurs for any number of reasons in the design.
The image circle change size when you move the real lens.

What doe sit matter to you if the light falls outside of the sensor boundary or it the light is blocked by the mount?
the result if the same.

See, this is what happens to you retards, you think you're really smart, but you are such a dumbfuck who doesn't understand your own proposal.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sigma 16mm vs sony 16mm 2.8 shar (...).jpg, 274KiB, 1279x459

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:53:26 No.3511506 Report

Quoted By: >>3511509 >>3511519 >>3511533

>>3511483
By your logic Sony lenses are the worst in the world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 19:55:00 No.3511509 Report

Quoted By: >>3511512

>>3511506
That Sony lens is a pancake lens, so that's alright.

Was that the best you got?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:00:15 No.3511512 Report

Quoted By: >>3511516

>>3511509
That's the worst lens in the world. Any other company would be embarrassed of selling it. Chinese have nothing as bad. Not, Sony, they like to fuck their customers without vaseline, and they're thankful to be fucked, just like you are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:01:46 No.3511516 Report

Quoted By: >>3511518

>>3511512
Still, you compared a large F1,4 lens to a tiny Pancake lens.

That reveals everyhtign about your state of mind and your intentions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:05:32 No.3511518 Report

Quoted By: >>3511521

>>3511516
They sell it for 250!, Sigma is 390... That's embarrassing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:05:56 No.3511519 Report

Quoted By: >>3511520

>>3511506
Sony has shitty APS-C lenses.

You realize that 16mm Sony isn't a premium high end cost $850 or so lens like the 56mm but a lower end $200 pancake?
And that the Sigma 16mm IS available on the E-mount, as is a 56mm f/1.4 Sigma for $400 that completely surpasses the $850 56mm Fuji in IQ?

The 56mm wouldn't be that bad if it was a $200 lens and there was a better $400 or even a CORRECTLY amazingl performing $850 one, sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:07:22 No.3511520 Report

Quoted By: >>3511522 >>3511524

>>3511519
What are you trying to say here? That it's ok to scam customers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:08:04 No.3511521 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511518
And this lens>>3511483 sells for 1000 dollars, while the Batis has a 600 dolar clone.

Don't throw the rock when you live in a glasshouse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:09:07 No.3511522 Report

Quoted By: >>3511526

>>3511520
From what I can tell, you're trying to say it's okay when it's Fujifilm who does it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:10:59 No.3511524 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511520
No? I don't think the Fuji users got scammed as such, although if someone claiming the Fuji lenses are "the best" was a sales rep I guess that would be a scam attempt.

The Fuji primes just suck far more than the Sigma E-mount lenses, and you're paying $850 rather than $400 for *that* privilege. It's pretty damn silly. Apart from that, on the $850 price range you even get FF competition that is looking much better than that 56mm Fuji, namely the 55mm Zeiss f/1.8.

I guess it's not a scam though. Just Fuji not having all that many good lenses and they simply are missing Sigma, Zeiss and others.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fish_counter.jpg, 292KiB, 746x1032

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:17:19 No.3511526 Report

Quoted By: >>3511529 >>3511533 >>3511536

>>3511522
That has nothing to do with fuji. Sony's pancake is not worth it's weight in plastics. While Fuji lens is pretty darn amazing portrait lens. If you do know that portrait lenses don't necessarily need to be sharp? They need splendid micro contrasting and bokeh rendition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:18:31 No.3511529 Report

Quoted By: >>3511533

>>3511526
>It's okay to be soft when it's Fujifilm

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:22:58 No.3511533 Report

Quoted By: >>3511535

>>3511529
There is no softness here: >>3511526
You must be loosing your eyesight by pixelpeeping too much. >>3511506 Is complete trash, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:23:46 No.3511535 Report

Quoted By: >>3511541

>>3511533
>There is no softness here:
Because it's not a relative comparison like this one over here>>3511483

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:24:46 No.3511536 Report

Quoted By: >>3511541

>>3511526
You're paying TWICE that $200 pancake *extra* to get a significantly WORSE lens than the $400 Sigma 56mm f/1.4.

It's a $850 mediocre lens, who would expect that shit when even $400 Sigma lenses are supposed to be better and you get a better FF Zeiss for the same price too?

On the other hand if someone tells me their $200 pancake is a bit soft, I will give the great shrug of utterly unsurprised. What else. We can then debate if it shouldn't be $150 or if $200 is okay, but it's not outlandish either way even if I don't care for these lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:32:00 No.3511541 Report

Quoted By: >>3511544 >>3511549 >>3511554

>>3511535
>pixelpeeping better than real life sample
>sonygger
Figures
>>3511536
That pancake is not usable, it actually shouldn't be sold. It is that bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:34:04 No.3511544 Report

Quoted By: >>3511550

>>3511541
That bottle of whiskey was a real life sample.
You only hate it because it reveals the E-mount has superior lenses at a lower cost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:39:08 No.3511549 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511541
>That pancake is not usable, it actually shouldn't be sold. It is that bad.
Well, Fuji 56mm users still incur more of a loss than people who accidentally buy that "not usable" pancake twice and then decide on the much better 56mm Sigma,

Because that lens shouldn't even be sold for $400.

And unlike when stuck on Fuji where you're somewhat trapped with this or ultimately worse 50mm ish lenses (although I recall there was one cheaper one), how about just NOT buying the Sony pancake if you hate it? Pretty damn easy.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Fuji-X-T1-Sample-Image-29.jpg, 455KiB, 2048x1365

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:39:18 No.3511550 Report

Quoted By: >>3511564

>>3511544
It's cropped pixelpeeping... Look at real life samples, and you see outstanding lens, you're just too dumb to see it. But it is expected, you are a dumb pixelpeeper after all.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1462652125609.jpg, 193KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:42:42 No.3511554 Report

Quoted By: >>3511566

>>3511541
>shouldn't be sold
This is the logic of a coward who fears the free market.

I don't blame you though, your fear is indeed very rational, since Sony is demolishing fujifilm in the mass market.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:49:49 No.3511564 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511550
That argument has already been debunked:
https://youtu.be/_1MfQKPcDBs?t=152

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:53:05 No.3511566 Report

Quoted By: >>3511567

>>3511554
Correct. It shouldn't be sold. Anyone with any decency would pull the plug on it and buried it as a failed project. That Sony keeps selling it is testament of how low one company can go.
https://sonyalpha.blog/2018/08/25/sony-e-16mm-f2-8/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:54:21 No.3511567 Report

Quoted By: >>3511570

>>3511566
No the only thing correct here is you are a coward.

The market demands that lens. And you fear this demand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:58:56 No.3511569 Report

Quoted By: >>3511573

>>3511499
>And so far neither Canon or Nikon have made a rear lens that is larger than sensor diagonal.
You really are incapable of picturing in your head how light exits the rear element, aren't you? For many lens designs it's not collimated. (Do you even know what that word means? Probably not. It means the light rays are traveling in parallel.) It's a light cone that is expanding outward. A rear element that is SMALLER than the sensor can STILL require a large bayonet depending on the angle of that cone.

The steeper you can make that angle, the easier some focal lengths are to design. That is established fact, no matter how much you deny it. You can argue the importance to consumer lenses. You could argue, for example, that Sony can always resort to a retrofocus design to match a high incidence design on Canon RF or Nikon Z. But the fact remains a fact.

>And at that time you sat there with your inferior mount and critisized it.
I did no such thing. But feel free to show me on the doll where /p/ hurt you.

>What doe sit matter to you if the light falls outside of the sensor boundary or it the light is blocked by the mount?
It matters to the designers when they design a lens and try to get rays for a particular design onto the sensor.

For fuck's sake, this shit predates digital. Rangefinders had superior wide angles over SLRs for this exact same reason. When SLRs caught up they did so only with relatively large, retrofocus designs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 20:59:58 No.3511570 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511567
I got one to just use as a dust cap, it's great desu.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 21:07:20 No.3511573 Report

Quoted By: >>3511587

>>3511569
>A rear element that is SMALLER than the sensor can STILL require a large bayonet depending on the angle of that cone.
This is false so long as the mount is wider than the sensor.

>the easier some focal lengths are to design
This is a worthless argument once we have established that every lens Canon and Nikon makes have the rear element smaller than the sensor diagonal, or the same size as diagonal.
When you don't make use of something it's definable as worthless. Or useless.

>I did no such thing.
I'm pretty sure you did. This is back when the Sony people argued the mircro lenses and BSI allievate many of those issues.

>It matters to the designers when they design a lens and try to get rays for a particular design onto the sensor.
Wrong.
And it sounds like your brain has not comprehended the argument.

You told me to move that rear element until part of the light cone is blocked by mount.
My argument is that light would not have hit the sensor anyway, since you changed the size of the image circle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 21:21:03 No.3511582 Report

Quoted By: >>3511588

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT9ZR4FunRo
sony users cant relate

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2019-07-25 at 2.26.4 (...).png, 966KiB, 1112x754

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 21:27:59 No.3511587 Report

Quoted By: >>3511591

>>3511573
>>A rear element that is SMALLER than the sensor can STILL require a large bayonet depending on the angle of that cone.
>This is false so long as the mount is wider than the sensor.
No it's not. That you have too low of an IQ to mentally picture this is not my problem. It's a fact whether you like it or not.

And pic is related: the FE mount literally cuts into the corners of the sensor. So even by your own words there is a problem. The rear element can never recess to a point where those corners cut into the light cone OR the lens design has to be retrofocus like a DSLR.

>My argument is that light would not have hit the sensor anyway, since you changed the size of the image circle.
Your argument is false and portrays a shit poor understanding of lens design.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2019-07-25 at 2.28.5 (...).png, 123KiB, 772x854

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 21:29:14 No.3511588 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511582
This kills the Sony.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1558987138938.png, 522KiB, 2231x816

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 21:36:12 No.3511591 Report

Quoted By: >>3511603 >>3511604 >>3511650

>>3511587
We have the lens patent diagrams, and throughout all this thread you have been too much of a chicken to craw those mystical light cones.

>The rear element can never recess to a point where those corners cut into the light cone OR the lens design has to be retrofocus like a DSLR.
That's another one of your favourite lies. The light ray come from the opposite side of the image, because the lens flips the image. Hence there is enough room for the light to enter the corner by an angle.

Fact of the matter is Sony lenses have less vignetting than Canon RF lenses.

>Your argument is false
Says the chicken who is too scared of drawing his shitty cones because he knows it will show the light wouldn't hit the sensor anyway.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cvex1.gif, 12KiB, 398x205

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 21:53:47 No.3511603 Report

Quoted By: >>3511618

>>3511591
>We have the lens patent diagrams, and throughout all this thread you have been too much of a chicken to craw those mystical light cones.
Your diagrams don't show the lens mounted to anything or the sensor position, and you'll just claim I drew it wrong any way.

>That's another one of your favourite lies. The light ray come from the opposite side of the image, because the lens flips the image.
Pic related moron.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 21:54:05 No.3511604 Report

Quoted By: >>3511612

>>3511591
>lens patent diagrams
Jesus, you're still bringing that shit up? Patent diagrams aren't manufacturing design plans... They're not to scale at all. It's been explained to you by three anons already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:01:49 No.3511612 Report

Quoted By: >>3511627

>>3511604
That's because manufacturing requires microprecision.
The diagrams are to scale, enough for our argument, and enough for the lens maker to sure your ass if you dare to copy it unlicensed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:07:29 No.3511618 Report

Quoted By: >>3511649

>>3511603
>>Your diagrams don't show the lens mounted to anything or the sensor position,
This one does>>3510755
It has the sensor plane, and the size of the sensor plane which represents the sensor's diagonal length.

>Pic related
That's a single element, not a real lens.
Here is a real lens:
https://youtu.be/oRKpcgm-byA?t=28

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:19:23 No.3511627 Report

Quoted By: >>3511628

>>3511612
>The diagrams are to scale
They're not. Find one for existing lens, calculate it via your stupid method, compare to real lens dimensions. Then cut your internet cable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:20:39 No.3511628 Report

Quoted By: >>3511631 >>3511634

>>3511627
The patents are to scale relative to sensor size and sensor position.

It's your burden to prove otherwise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:23:33 No.3511631 Report

Quoted By: >>3511633

>>3511628
If there's not a scale on there they aren't to scale. Patents don't work via implication, and you're a retard to think that they do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:25:42 No.3511633 Report

Quoted By: >>3511638

>>3511631
>If there's not a scale on there
Make one yourself retard. The patent has sensor plane represent the length of the sensor diagonal.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1562600996881.png, 216KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:25:57 No.3511634 Report

Quoted By: >>3511636

>>3511628
Afraid it's on you. You're only one saying it's possible to calculate lens dimension from them. Are you going to chicken out?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:27:22 No.3511636 Report

Quoted By: >>3511643

>>3511634
>lens dimension
That implies barrels and other such things. No that's wrong retard.

The optics are to scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:27:46 No.3511638 Report

Quoted By: >>3511639

>>3511633
>the length of the sensor diagonal.

Nope

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:28:40 No.3511639 Report

Quoted By: >>3511640

>>3511638
Low IQ spatic who doesn't know of lens patents work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:35:36 No.3511640 Report

Quoted By: >>3511641 >>3511652

>>3511639
You're a literal retard. If there's no scale on the drawing, the drawing isn't to scale and is only considered representational of the concepts described in the text portion of the patent, where key measurements may be included but often aren't because they're trying to keep the patent as widely defensible as possible, which incidentally is further reason that the drawing isn't to scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:39:58 No.3511641 Report

Quoted By: >>3511646

>>3511640
Retard, stop harming yourself.

The actual patents includes that diagram, plus the other specifications and measurements of the diagram.
Zoom ratio: 3.04
Focal length: 28.00 - 53.77 - 85.00 mm
F number: 2.00 - 2.60 - 2.88
Half angle of view: 37.69 - 21.92 - 14.28
Image height: 21.64 mm
Lens length: 158.50 - 176.83 - 195.16 mm
Back focus: 16.00 - 28.52 - 41.05 mm

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg, 44KiB, 474x632

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:41:24 No.3511643 Report

Quoted By: >>3511645

>>3511636
We'll give you few mm for plastics on the filter screw. Rear must be on scale as you say, so you only take away protruding mount ring... Easy calculation. Now pick that calculator and start adding!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:43:40 No.3511645 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511643
Just convert the sensor diagonal form mm to pixels, and you have the scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:44:33 No.3511646 Report

Quoted By: >>3511648

>>3511641
Wow, congratulations on finding that, but not realizing that it doesn't tell you the linear distances between the groups! Or really, any information at all about the groups themselves! Or any measurements that can be translated to that drawing at all even if it were to scale!

You literally have no clue what you're talking about here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:47:10 No.3511648 Report

Quoted By: >>3511651 >>3511657

>>3511646
>the linear distances between the groups
You can actually calculate how many mm a pixel represents if you werne't retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:47:32 No.3511649 Report

Quoted By: >>3511650

>>3511618
>That's a single element, not a real lens.
It doesn't matter. Your statement about light rays show's that you are COMPLETELY IGNORANT about how any of this works. The image formed on one side of the sensor does not just come from the opposite side of the lens for the same reason the moon appears to 'follow you' when you drive at night.

Fucking hell I've never in my life read posts by someone as stubborn and ignorant as you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:49:13 No.3511650 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511649
See the comparison>>3511591
None of the bullshit you have spouted in this thread matters.

RF mount is still the mount with the worst Vignetting of all time. Regardless of the size of the hole.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:49:47 No.3511651 Report

Quoted By: >>3511653

>>3511648
Which doesn't mean anything at all. Sure, you'll get some numbers by doing that, but as the drawing isn't to scale, it has no relationship to reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:49:51 No.3511652 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511640
Well, this. It is called patent drawing for a reason. It is not a design plan! Also to add, patent drawings are made much before a lens goes into production, and are freely available. It would be unwise to divulge precise manufacturing secrets to competition by showing everything to scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:51:17 No.3511653 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511651
>it has no relationship to reality
Enough to sue you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:58:15 No.3511657 Report

Quoted By: >>3511658

>>3511648
Just do it fucker. You say that you can calculate shit. Everyone else says that you can't. Do it on existing lens, and if what you get is vaguely similar, you'll win a point.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1558992723143.jpg, 159KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Thu 25 Jul 2019 22:59:37 No.3511658 Report

Quoted By: >>3511727

>>3511657
The time for calculations are over.

The RF mount and Z-mount are already outdated due to heavy Vignetting.
We should demand never and bigger holes from Canikon!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:22:01 No.3511727 Report

Quoted By: >>3511734

>>3511658
Maybe they should try to match the size of the hole where your brain used to be?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 85KiB, 990x524

Anonymous Fri 26 Jul 2019 02:47:14 No.3511734 Report

Quoted By:

>>3511727
Tell me more about these microlenses.

I believe your ass leaked some nonsense about microlenses solving all the issues of using 33 degrees angle of incident.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Aug 2019 20:40:59 No.3514971 Report

Quoted By:

you niggers should get out and take more photos. BTW OP you should get a holga: mf > 35mm

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Nikon Z6 vs. Sony A7 III