I have to laugh though; one guy was quite busy calling me a crack-whore attention moron!!  Actually, I’m touched by this, but probably don’t deserve it; I thought only real website operators such as KenRockwell got called a crackhead and/or moron etc.  I guess I’ve finally made it.  Seriously; when nobody calls you names in cyberspace, you probably don’t really matter; sad, but true.  So thanks to the dude, or dudet and probably others in the past that have ‘validated’ me.  Hey, it’s kind’a cool in a weird sort of way!

OK, back to why I don’t think full frame is necessary anymore.  Remember back in the 1960s when all the Speedgraphic pressmen and landscaper shooters where laughing at the boys with the 35mm cameras?  The little 35mm’s were the toys back in the day.  You know, no depth of field, no resolution, no lens movements, no nothing.  Well, guess what?  The little cameras lost many battles, but won the war.  Few people are using medium format or even 35mm film now, the interest is mostly driven by nostalgia, not demand from clients.

Medium format cameras (and larger) were popular for newsprint and magazines back in the olden days because you didn’t need to enlarge the image, it was printed close to, or at 1:1.  But times changed.  Reality in the 1960s and up to about ten years ago was 35mm film would easily provide enough resolution for newspapers and magazines.  A 35mm camera could be at your side comfortably all day—ready to go, offering more depth of field for set-and-forget shots, faster focusing, quick lens changes, fast shot-to-shot speeds and cheap film and processing.  Sure, if you plan on poster size printing where the image has to be super sharp, get a medium or large format camera.

Fast forward to 2012; times are changing fast.  Print media is disappearing.  Major newspapers and magazines are going online, either partially or fully; or going out of business altogether because they won’t adapt, or their readers are older people that won’t adapt to using the internet and looking at a screen.  In the future, nearly everything important will be available only by means of an electronic viewing device, probably smaller than your standard laptop or desktop screen is now.  You’re not going to need more than about two (high quality) megapixels to show your images on a 17” computer screen right now, which is probably the average viewing size, but maybe tomorrow it’ll be smaller, like ipad size.

The guy in the picture below is carrying a bunch of expensive full frame gear, like 3 pro Canon bodies, 2 flashes, a 400/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 and other stuff in a waist bag.  He, and several other ‘pros’ were there with the same basic gear, and all had inside the ropes media passes for the 2012 Accenture match play championship in Tucson AZ.  During the course of a couple of hours, I saw only one of those people actually taking pictures, and then it was only for a couple of seconds, predictably, they were all so tired carrying all that gear they just stood around and watched.  I don’t blame them; I’m guessing they probably aren’t being paid much.  The gear is more than likely corporate owned, they’re just being paid to snap for the Golf Channel, golfing mags, PGA.com and I’m sure others.  Most of the images are available at 600-700 pixels wide on those websites.

Check out the pictures I took at the same event with two crappy lenses and an amateur APS-C camera; would you have guessed they were taken by crappy equipment?  Of course not.  If I would’ve said I took these golf pics with the Sony A900 and 75-300mm lens would anybody think otherwise?  No, they have no reason to, because they can’t actually tell the difference between full frame or APS-C.  I had my little NEX camera out-fit in a waist bag, which weighed about the same as one pro Canon camera body; so I enjoyed walking around all day and having fun taking snaps while they appeared to be miserable.  I don’t believe they need that kind of equipment, and certainly not when APS-C alternatives are available.  Again, most of the images are going to be downsized to around 600 pixels wide and viewed on a website!  Does the little NEX have the same AF speed and accuracy as the pro camera?  No, but a small APS-C body will come very close.  With an APS-C system, you’ll get smaller lenses, smaller bodies, less expense and weight, while giving up very little or nothing that’s noticeable in the picture.

I hear a lot of misleading chatter about full frame DOF, pixel pitch, better high ISO noise performance, and worse, full frame color and contrast!  Sure, the DOF can be shallower, the ISO might be better, but will you notice that stuff if the two images (FF, APS-C) stand by themselves in an art gallery?  Or in another way; put two completely difference images up for inspection with no EXIF; one using full frame, the other APS-C; does anyone really think they can tell the difference?

As I said earlier, times are changing, super high resolution is not needed, and in most cases there is no demand for it; high megapixel cameras are marketed to amateurs, that’s what they want, they’ll pay the price.  Pros will stick with what’s cost effective; that’s their business, they know what their clients want, and what they need to get the job done right, and believe me, it ain’t megapixels.  This guy did a glamour shoot with an old iphone.  How many people in chatrooms can do that with a Nikon D800 and 70-200/2.8 lens?  I doubt I could pull it off with my gear.  You want a sharp, poster size print of a static subject for promoting things like architecture, landscapes or interiors?  Stitch two or more images together.  What about fast action sporting events images? You need high megapixels right?  Not when they’re viewed in your local rag, or posted to websites, or even for a mag cover, unless you missed the shot and need to do a heavy crop.

I’ve been following a few high-end interior photographers via their websites for several years now.  Back when I was getting more involved in photographing interiors I contacted some of these guys and asked if they would care to explain the process and techniques for their images.  They all said basically, ‘it’s best to learn from trial and error’.  Well I didn’t let up, and I asked if they had any personal tutoring programs or workshops available: again, it was ‘no, sorry’.  I can understand if they’re busy, but as I found out later, they weren’t so busy; their responses were a reaction to a sinister force outside their world!  I caught a couple of these photographers complaining through their facebook pages that some of their long time clients were now hiring ‘hobbyists’ (amateur photographers) to do the work for less money.  Well what the crap!  Here’s my take on what they really wanted to say: ‘how can someone with an ounce of dignity call themselves a photographer when they’re using less expensive (consumer grade) gear to achieve the same results as we do, (while pleasing their clients no less), and then turn around and charge less money; they’re taking our gravy away darn it.’  In other words, the  new breed of photographer is working just as hard as the old pro, but using less expensive equipment, and producing results that truly pleases their clients; that’s a sign of the times, and the future.  A lot of people want to earn a living taking pictures, and those people will need to be realistic with their business models and expectations.  I’d say it appears capitalism is working well in the photography world.  Like many other professions, the seasoned pros don’t like others getting ‘in’ on the action!  If a professional photographer tells you that you need a full frame camera and a bunch of expensive equipment to compete in the photography world; that’s total BS, they don’t want you inside their world, and so they try to scare you off with the high cost.

Camera manufacturers spend billions of dollars trying to figure out how to get you to spend your money on new products, like buying a new camera to take better pictures.  The big companies know darn well their new cameras won’t help you take better pictures.  The buying decision is emotional, just like a car, so they know that by adding a few gimmicks like extra horsepower, or megapixels in our case, is what separates you from your money.  They also know how and when to promote big, heavy and expensive ‘pro’ cameras and lenses to amateurs, who are the driving force of the market.  Serious high-end professional photographers make up a very small portion of the market, that’s why the true pro stuff is so expensive, it’s not mass produced.  The Leica is an amateur camera marketed to rich people that just enjoy holding it.  The Nikon D800 and Canon 5D mkIII are aimed at budding photographers with excess cash that want to look like a ‘real’ photographer; or they think those pro cameras will turn out pro images!  Hah!  And while we’re on the subject, what is a ‘real’ photographer anyways?  Well I guess I don’t know, but GettyImages licesnsed the pictures taken by this guy with an iphone in a bathroom!  And you think I’m joking when I say full frame isn’t necessary?

Well, I’m a little long winded here, and have probably added a few too many loose thoughts!  This article is not well polished, but I wanted to respond in a timely manner to those people that are thinking a full frame camera is somehow going to make better pictures.  Full frame cameras will not make better pictures, only the person behind the camera is capable of making better pictures.  If you’re unhappy with your images, spend your money on tutoring, books or workshops.  Learn composition and lighting, it’s never about the camera or lens, or size of the sensor.

Again, the future for cameras is smaller, lighter and less expensive.  The Full frame sensor will no doubt be around for a long time, but with improvements to APS-C lenses and choices, there won’t be any reason to own one.

Watch this video on YouTube.

I’ll start off with some stats for all of Sony’s cameras and lenses, and then offer some thoughts on Sony’s progress (FF, APS-C and NEX) since their purchase of Konica Minolta’s imaging division in late 2005.

Sony has been in the DSLR/SLT business for a relatively long period of time (over six years now), so let’s see what they’ve achieved!

Note; the term ‘current’ or ‘currently’ means May of 2012.

Prices and availability are from Sony’s US retail website on the last week of April, 2012.

Sony DSLR lenses.

Total number of lenses offered by Sony since buying Konica Minolta’s DSLR business in late 2005; 35, plus 2 teleconverters.

Current number of lenses available for purchase from Sony, 32.

Number of new lenses designed by Sony and Carl Zeiss; 13.

Number of tele-converters designed by Sony or CZ; 0.

Number of tilt-shift or other specialty lenses designed by Sony or CZ; 0.

Current number of legacy lenses (designed by Minolta or Konica Minolta, both FF and DT) still offered by Sony; 13.

Number of currently available full frame lenses; 20.

Number of lenses still using the 1980s Minolta slot-screw focusing system; 14.

Number of manually focusing lenses available; 1.

Full frame lenses introduced in the last two years (since summer of 2010); 1, the 500/4.

Number of lenses discontinued by Sony; 3+ (24-105mm, 28mm F/2.8, 500mm F/8), and the 18-70mm, although it’s still listed as a clearance item on Sony’s US website.  Also, the first 55-200mm DT lens which was replaced by the 55-200mm using the new SAM focusing system.

Average current retail price of Sony DSLR lenses including FF and DT; $1532.

Average current retail price of a Sony Full frame lens; $2092.

Number of full frame lenses with a retail price under $1000; 7.  (7 out of 20 FF lenses)

DSLR and SLT Cameras

Total number of Sony cameras produced; 23.

Total number of pro camera bodies produced; 2

Total number of intermediate camera bodies produced; 2

Current number of pro camera bodies available; 0

Current number of intermediate bodies available; 1

Current number of camera bodies for sale at all levels; 5—really 3, as the A35/55 are listed as ‘no longer available on Sony’s US website.

Full Frame system.

Right now, Sony’s full frame system is inferior to the SLT and even NEX system, here’s why:  Sony currently has no full frame cameras available, you have to buy new old stock, or used on eBay.  That’s just plain wrong.  Additionally, the quality and variety of lenses is not first class; look at the differences between the CZ 24/2 and NEX CZ 24/1.8, the NEX lens is smaller, lighter, faster, performs better at all levels, and is cheaper.  If you try and argue the focal length is more appropriately compared to the 35/1.4, the NEX CZ 24/1.8 looks better yet.  Also compare the new DT 16-50mm SSM to the full frame 28-75mm SAM; the DT 16-50mm is built better, sharper at the long end, less expensive, and has superior SSM focusing, why is that?  Again, how about the new NEX 50/1.8 OSS, it’s better overall than the 25 year old 50/1.4 full frame lens, and much less expensive.  One last item, Sony is trying to get $1000 for a 1980s fisheye lens (Sony 16mm F/2.8) with archaic film filters built-in?  That’s a joke!  Get a good quality $280 Bower fisheye for your APS-C camera and save the $720 for a nice vacation!

Sony does have a few top-notch lenses for full frame, like the 70-400mm, CZ 135/1.8, 300/2.8, 500/4 (no review yet) and the cheap but good 85/2.8.  Price for the five lenses; $24,100!

As mentioned above, well over half of Sony’s full frame lenses are re-badged Minoltas from the mid 1980s to late 1990s, and most of those use the old fashioned slot-screw focusing system.

Also worthy of mention; the APS-C A77 is more useable than the now defunct, and former flagship A900 due to the tilting screen, much faster continuous shooting, live-view focusing and peaking feature.  I think the different viewfinders (optical VS OLED) have their pluses and minuses, so that’s a toss-up.

The lack of good quality, less-expensive lenses such as a 70-200mm F/4, or 200/300mm F/4, 35/1.8, 85/1.8 etc will keep Sony from becoming a real player in the full frame camera business.   Sony has been doing this for six years now, with no real progress.  At least they had one or two full frame cameras to offer between 2008 and 2011, now there’s nothing.  I’m sure Sony will come out with a new FF camera later this year or in 2013, but who will care?  I think Sony’s whole FF system is meant to impress amateur photographers; making them think Sony is a legitimate force in the professional camera world, and a logical choice when they become more advanced photographers, and ready for professional equipment.  Unfortunately, Sony is not a real player by any means in the world of full frame, so switch to Canon or Nikon for the best value and choice in full frame pro cameras.  However, not all is lost.  In the APS-C world, things are looking very good for Sony.

APS-C, or ‘DT’system.

Sony’s APS-C system is moving forward in a very good way.  Most of the ‘DT’ lenses within the past several years have been winners, like the fabulous 35/1.8, 16-50/2.8 and older CZ 16-80mm.  Prices for cameras and lenses are very reasonable and competitive in the market.  The newest cameras are also setting the standard with high continuous shooting speeds, focus peaking, auto lens corrections, well implemented video features, stunning OLED EVF’s and  of course the ever present built-in SteadyShot.

No big complaints here, although Sony should expand the lens line-up with a few more fast primes and high quality tele- zooms to keep people satisfied as their level of creativity and knowledge grows.

Number of APS-C cameras produced; 21.

Current number of APS-C camera bodies available; 5, or 3 in the US from Sony’s website.

Average retail price of a Sony ‘DT’ lens; $501.

Number of ‘DT’ lenses with a retail price under $1000; 11 (12 with 18-70mm)

Number of currently available ‘DT’ lenses; 11 (12 if you count the 18-70mm)

DT lenses introduced in the last two years (since the summer of 2010); 1; the 16-50/2.8.

NEX system.

Sony’s newest system is the shining star of their small-scale imaging abilities, and it’s clearly number one on their list of priorities.  Since the debut of the NEX system in early 2010, Sony has come out with five cameras and seven lenses, with many more coming up according to Sony.  This system has great potential, it remains to be seen if Sony can lock down this segment of the market before other manufacturers are able to create a better camera and more lens selections at lower prices.

Total number of cameras produced; 5

Total number of lenses produced; 7 (excludes converter lenses).

Number of lenses produced in last two years (since summer of 2010); 4.

Number of lenses over $1000; 1.

Average retail price for a NEX lens; $497.

Well, that’s about it.  In six years Sony has come a long ways in the consumer grade DSLR/SLT/mirrorless market; where will Sony be in 2018?  Will there be a full frame camera?  My hope is that Sony abandons the full frame market, (too heavy, too expensive, totally unnecessary now for good images) and concentrates its resources on bringing out more inexpensive, but excellent quality lenses for its APS-C market, and making the NEX cameras capable of phase detect focusing without the adapter, with the addition of more great lenses like the CZ 24/1.8, and a high quality zoom or two.

The Canon G1X is a stellar performer, especially when you consider the size, and that is has a very useful zoom lens.

Folks that are picky about their images, and want to really learn how to take better pictures should look very closely at this camera.  The pictures look great using auto mode, so you don’t have to worry about shooting in RAW and fiddling with apertures, shutter speeds and ISOs.  Good pictures come from concentrating on composition and lighting, not the camera.

I bought this camera from B&H photo because I liked it so much, and now I use it for almost everything except paying jobs, although I have used it a time or two for Real Estate work.

For those that want a great factory flash for the Sony camera, I’d highly recommend the HVL-F43AM, it’s the best Sony has to offer if you’re going to use it away from the studio, plus, it’s $318, or $30 off.  For Studio shooters, get the HVL-F58AM, $448 or $50 off.  It has the cable socket for off-camera use,  and a plug for an external battery pack which provides quick recharges.  But seriously, if you want a great studio set-up, get the Elinchrom D-lite-4 IT kit, it has two 400ws flash heads, two stands, and two softboxes.  It also comes with a skyport, which allows radio control from your camera.  It’s way more powerful than a couple of camera flashes, and much cheaper too!  I bought one of these kits (in part) for shooting from outside to inside through windows when it’s cloudy out to make it look like it’s sunny.  They work great, and have super sensitive built-in slaves, so you only need one flash going off to set the two heads off.  I’m going to review this kit when I get time.

The Canon G1X review is about done, look for it in a few days.

Kurtmunger.com will be updated slowly, but surely over the next month or so.  I’ll be adding new cameras to the data base, re-working the NEX page and lens chart, and adding useful information to the lens reviews, such as alternatives that have become available recently, and links to comparisons etc.  The site should be fully updated by mid to late May.  Areas that need quick attention are the recommended cameras and accessories pages.  I”m doing this to reflect new products I use, products that are no longer available,  and getting rid of others that I don’t find very useful anymore.  One of those items is the DF-293 Vivitar flash, it really doesn’t hold up well for daily use, although for occasional use it may be fine.  Of course the memory card deals need to be updated more often.

The Canon G1X will probably be the last camera I review for the rest of the year, as it takes a long time to post a good review, and cameras don’t tend to stay around long before they’re replaced.  I do plan on reviewing more lenses, like the new Sigma NEX primes etc, but I want to update the old site first, and that’s going to take a while.

I’ve been very busy lately with my real job, (interiors photography), so the reviews and updates have been slow to come.  Both of my websites are hobbies, so it’s business first.  As summer approaches, business will probably slow down some (as it usually does), and I can get working on adding more stuff to both websites.

The NEX fisheye converter looks pretty good in the center and right side, but the corners and left side are noticeably sharper on the Vivitar.  I also see the Vivitar is capturing more area than the converter.

Both lenses were tested at F/11, and stopping down only softens the  images due to diffraction.  Focusing (all manual) was on the house wall.

Location of cropped areas

NEX fisheye center

Vivitar center

NEX fisheye right side

Vivitar right side

NEX fisheye left side

Vivitar left side

NEX fisheye corner

Vivitar corner

Sony NEX-C3 fisheye converter full view

Sony A580 and Vivitar 7mm fisheye full view

Sad, but true, for about the same price of the Sony 16/2.8 fisheye lens, you can get the Sony NEX-5N, 16mm pancake lens, and the fisheye converter, which works almost as good!

This viewfinder is only for the 16mm F/2.8 lens, and will not provide the right field of view when using any other lens, or the two converters for the 16mm F/2.8 lens.

Box, carrying case, eyepiece and cap for front, but not the back.

Front of eyepiece

Mounted on Sony NEX-C3

Back side, 15mm eye relief.

Specifications.

Magnification; approximately 0.49.

Optical configuration; 5 elements in four groups.

Construction material; glass optics and plastic housing.

Size; 35.5 x 38 x 33  (1.45″ x 1.5″ x 1.3″)

Weight; 34.5g or 1.3oz.

Type; Albada type inverse Galileo lens.

Actual coverage; 81%

Eye relief; 15mm.

Multi-coatings; magenta and cyan.

Made in Japan.

Use.

Very simple to use, just line up the pins and screw it down like the flash unit.

It’s very bright and clear, even in bright sun light or dim evening light.

The outer guide frame is for general composition, the lower segregated line is for close range correction, use this when you’re about 66cm from your subject.  Place the subject just below the lower guide marks.  The manual says if you’re closer than 66cm, use the LCD!

Eye glass wearers will probably need to touch their glasses to the optics to see properly.

In super bright light, there are some reflections from the guide marks, but you can still see quite well.

Conclusion.

The FDA-SV1 optical viewfinder is useful if you’re using the NEX 16/2.8 lens in difficult viewing conditions, or like to see the real image instead of the LCD generated version, which may include blotchy color in low light, slow refresh rates, and poor highlights.

If you have a NEX camera with the EVF, or the add-on version, I’d pass on this rather expensive optical viewfinder as it really has limited value in my opinion, and makes the small NEX camera system more bulky when attached.