 |
| This photo was made with a Sony A7, tripod mounted, timer delay shutter release, EFCS, 24-70mm lens.............or ..........maybe it was a quick hand held shot with a micro four thirds camera and $100 kit zoom. Can you tell ? |
Almost last but by no means least in this little series we come to Sony.
Like Panasonic, Sony entered the imaging business with camcorders initially using the Sony developed Betamax tape format.
The Handycam label was introduced in 1985 and quickly became synonymous with any portable consumer video camera.
The first Sony Mavica (Magnetic Video Camera) was introduced in 1981. This was an electronic still video camera. This sounds like an oxymoron but it used video technology to produce still photos. The Mavica was photographically quite sophisticated with SLR design and interchangeable lenses.
It was the first electronic still camera although it produced analog images from a CCD sensor.
The Sony Cybershot DSC-D700 appeared in 1998. This was a true digital camera.
It weighed 900 grams, had a fixed zoom lens, TTL viewfinder and a full suite of controls for the expert user. Sony was announcing its intention to be a serious player in the digital still photo camera market.
In 2005, Sony formed a relationship with Konica Minolta to jointly develop DSLRs. All the Minolta DSLR assets were transferred to Sony in 2006.
The first Sony branded product of this venture was the A100 DSLR of 2006. This was followed by many models using the Minolta A mount, using both 28mm and 43mm sensors.
Although Canon had in past years used a fixed pellicle mirror on some specialised SLRs, Sony brought the technology to consumer A mount DSLRs using an EVF instead of the traditional optical viewfinder.
Sony’s first mirrorless ILCs were the NEX 5 and NEX 3 of 2010. These cameras introduced the new “E” lens mount and NEX label which Sony abandoned in 2014, deciding to refer to all its ILCs as “Alpha” models.
Thus buyers were faced with multiple manifestations of “Alpha” cameras, leading to confusion all round.
There were A Mount full frame, A Mount APS-C, and E Mount APS-C. Soon along came the FE mount which somehow fitted a full frame sensor behind the E mount, the inner diameter of which was no larger than the diagonal of the sensor.
It appears that Sony has overtaken Canon as the most innovative camera maker right now.
Sony has been especially energetic and productive in the development of new sensor technologies and the engineering of compact camera bodies.
Unfortunately this technology has not always, and I would suggest not often, found expression in good cameras.
From my perspective as a consumer I see two main issues with Sony’s offerings:
The first, as it seems to me anyway, is an emphasis on technological advancement with ergonomics and the HMI (Human Machine Interface) a secondary consideration.
So we got products like the RX1 of 2012 which showcased Sony’s ability to squeeze a full frame sensor and a 35mm f2 lens into a tiny compact body. No doubt this was a significant technical achievement but with no inbuilt EVF and no handle I would not want to own or use one.
More mainstream is the RX100 series now in Mk4 version. There is an RX100 (original) in our house but I never use it and neither does its owner. It is so small that it is not comfortable to hold and the controls are fiddly. A recent reviewer of the RX100(4) described the controls and the pop up EVF as “dinky”, meaning attractively (or disappointingly, depending on your expectations) small and neat.
I made the mockup camera (shown in the photos) which is marginally larger than the RX100 (3) or (4) as a proof of concept exercise. I showed that with a more ergonomic design it is possible to have a camera in the same size range as the RX100 but with a useful handle, decent thumb support, Mode Dial + Control Dial control system like a DSLR or good MILC, built in always ready EVF, fully articulated monitor, JOG lever and large buttons.
It’s all about ergonomic design which could easily be improved in the RX100 series. The cameras are small, neat, smooth, stylish even, but not engaging to use.
 |
| On the left RX100, original version. On the right proof of concept mockup. Yes there is a better way ergonomically. |
The layout of controls on the RX10 (1) and (2) is an ergonomic muddle.
There is an aperture ring on the lens, like that of a traditional manual control lens from the film era.
But the RX100 is neither traditional nor manual.
It is a modern electronic camera with all electronic operation. The aperture ring on the lens does not work the lens aperture at all. It just actuates a motor driven mechanism. This would be more efficiently operated using a well located and designed front dial like the one on the Panasonic G7 which I am currently reviewing.
People may well say they “like” the aperture ring but the dial does the job with fewer, less complex actions.
People may well say they “like” the aperture ring but the dial does the job with fewer, less complex actions.
The RX10 has an LCD information panel on the top plate just like a DSLR. But it is not a DSLR.
The LCD panel on a DSLR is there because it is difficult or impossible to present all that information in the optical viewfinder.
The RX10 is a mirrorless camera. All the relevant information is available if required in the EVF and/or monitor. The LCD panel is redundant. Worse, it is occupying camera real estate which would better be allocated to the Mode Dial. That would allow a Drive Mode dial to go where the Mode Dial now resides, for a more coherent user interface.
Next it has an Exposure Compensation dial on the far right side of the top plate. These things are a curse. There is one on the Panasonic LX100 which I have used a lot. It gets bumped about 50% of times I take the camera out of its bag. Plus the dial is visible in Prepare Phase of use when you don’t need to see it, but invisible in Capture Phase when you do need to see it.
The ergonomically preferred and much more effective alternative is a well designed twin dial layout for which there is plenty of space on the RX10.
There are ergonomic issues with the handle. It is thin, with the shutter button perched right on the tip.
This forces the palm of the right hand away from the right side of the camera, weakening the grip.
This is exacerbated by the thumb support location at the far right of the control panel when the panel is plenty wide enough for a diagonal thumb support Canon DSLR style, which gives a more relaxed but stronger hold.
When Sony introduced the A7 series of full frame cameras based on the FE mount they used a completely different handle, control layout and user interface from the A99, the equivalent A mount full frame model.
Granted the A7 cameras are smaller due to their mirrorless design but the hands which hold and operate these cameras remain obstinately the same size no matter which model they hold. With the second round of A7 cameras they changed the handle for better holding and operating but further improvements to the HMI are needed.
The other problem which seems to be endemic at Sony is a record of starting models and model lines then abandoning them.
For instance the R1 of 2005 was a very innovative large sensor, long zoom fixed lens camera with high specification. It soon drew a cohort of fans who eagerly awaited the next exciting instalment of the (hoped for) series…..and waited…..and waited……nine years until 2014 when the RX10 arrived.
Arising from the collaboration with Minolta, the full frame DSLR A900 was released in 2008. This showed promise as the start of a potential line of conventional flipping mirror DSLRs. Sony supporters bought the camera and lenses and waited for the next model in the line to come along. ……and waited…..and waited…….and are out of luck because no direct successor ever materialised.
What did come along in 2012 was the SLT A99, a fixed pellicle mirror full frame camera on the A mount.
Well, OK maybe buyers thought the future is with SLT technology. Maybe Sony thought so too at some stage, but there has been no follow up for the A99.
Indeed there has been much of nothing much in the way of follow up SLT models using either full frame or APS-C sensor.
I would guess the SLT line is probably dead and that is probably a good thing. I would not and did not buy any camera with a fixed mirror gathering dirt and dust between the lens and sensor. Yes, I know it can be cleaned but why put it there in the first place when alternative mirrorless technologies are and were available ?
Indeed it appears the fate of the A mount is in doubt. I recently read a report of an interview with Sony execs in which they were described as “evasive” when asked about the future of the A mount.
I am just a consumer or in the case of Sony a non consumer of cameras so I know nothing of the discussions which lead to the product development decisions which in due course appear as products.
But from my perspective as a, …..well…… potential consumer it looks to me as though Sony has backed itself into a difficult corner with regard to its ILCs.
The Minolta A mount is likely obsolete and probably was on arrival in Sony land. So they need to get out of that and go all mirrorless which they have declared to be the corporate intent. Fair enough but the way they are going about this seems a bit strange to me.
First they created the E mount for the NEX series with 28mm (diagonal) APS-C sensor.
The E mount has an internal diameter of about 43mm which is large enough for the 28mm sensor. It is not over large however. The M43 mount has an internal diameter only slightly smaller at about 40mm, but a substantially smaller sensor with 21.5mm diagonal. That works well on M43 and allows lenses to be built with a rear element of slightly greater diameter than the sensor. The Canon EF mount also allows large rear lens elements to be designed for full frame.
Anyway, in due course Sony’s clever engineers figured out how to fit a full frame (43mm) sensor into the E mount. They have made it work too, much to the surprise of some naysayers who said it couldn’t be done.
However I read a recent interview with a Sigma exec who was reported as saying that Sigma would like to make lenses for mirrorless ILCs but It’s a bit more difficult to make ART (Sigma’s premium line) lenses for the Sony FE system because of the not so large diameter of the mount. We don’t know why Sony did this. Likely because the E mount was meant for APS-C first and only after that they did use it for FF too.
So it looks as though Sony will abandon the A mount, keep the E mount for its “amateur” (erstwhile NEX) interchangeable lens camera lines and use the FE system for the “advanced/professional” ILC models.
We shall see how all that works out.
I will stay well clear of Sony until the dust settles, assuming that ever happens.
I nearly forgot: I actually did buy a Sony camera last year. The DSLR look-a-like, Alpha ILC-E, A3500 became available new, retail, for 300 bucks with a lens. I bought one to see for myself whether Sony could put a decent ILC on the market for that incredibly low price.
It turns out they could not. The A3500 came with so many compromises to features, performance, ergonomics and the whole user experience that I decided the camera was not worth buying at any price.
Anyway, in typical Sony fashion that potential product line has not seen further development.
Not yet anyway. You never know with Sony. The problem, I suspect, is that maybe they don’t know either.
Sigma
Last and I have to say in the scheme of things least, we come to Sigma. Sigma once made inexpensive lenses for ILCs, using low price as a selling point. A few years ago they changed strategy, confined manufacture to Japan and started to specialise in optics at the high end of the quality spectrum. Apparently these lenses are very good.
They make the Foveon triple layer sensor which has resolution advantages over standard Bayer pattern sensors at low ISO settings.
They also make the dp Quattro set of four cameras utilising the Foveon sensor. These cameras are the strangest things I have ever seen and they win my Camera Ergonomics special reverse award as the most ergonomically peculiar cameras you can buy. I even made a mockup of one to experience what it was like to hold and try to understand how it might be operated.
Answer: with difficulty.