Golden Sony?

I read David Pogue's recent review of the state of photography with some interest, but I did have a few comments.

The biggest thing I liked about the article was how he kept coming back to sensor size as a proxy for image quality.  It isn't the only thing that matters (my five-year-old Nikon D90 isn't nearly as good as the new D7100, despite identical sensor size), but it does hold within a generation (the one exception I can think of is that medium format doesn't deliver the increased ISO flexibility that it should; I guess the camera companies think it's not worth the cost).

So I really liked that he showed scaled images of the sensor sizes of various cameras.  My one question with the series, though, was whether the sensor size shown for an iPhone is the new 5s size, or that of the prior models.

This part is very important:

the camera companies cranked out new models that basically stuck to the same formula: Big sensor = big camera = big price.

What he fails to note there, though, is that that is a simple fact driven by silicon yields, and that the sensor will, necessarily, go up quadratically with the increase in sensor size.  The sensor isn't the only thing driving unit pricing, of course, but it's by far the largest single factor, because of that yield issue.

I'm going to come back to a couple more general issues, but first let's look at a specific issue he brings up:

If I wanted to buy an inexpensive SLR, you’d better believe I’d get one of Sony’s NEX cameras. Why on earth would I want a camera that’s four times as big, 85 percent heavier, and $50 more expensive — if I could get the same photos from a smaller, lighter, less expensive camera?

The answer is you can't necessarily get the same photos.  If you're just taking pictures of unmoving things, or in very good light, you might be able to do so.  But there are several places where you're going to fall down.  The biggest is in lens selection:

• Sony has nothing remotely approaching Sigma's 18-35 f/1.8 lens, in relatively normal lenses.
• How about long telephoto?  I see nothing longer than 200mm, and that only at f/6.3.
• How about macro?  All I see is one 30mm lens, and that at f/3.5.  That means you need pretty good light, and be ok with a very small working distance (under 1")
• Fisheye?  Only with a conversion lens.
• Perspective correction?  Good luck with that.

Then you also need to look at focusing.  The NEX only has contrast-detect autofocus, meaning that it's going to be very slow, comparatively speaking.

Then there's viewfinder vs rear screen.  There are real advantages to a viewfinder, the biggest being that it keeps the camera closer to your body, which has several advantages:  less distraction and greater stability being the biggest two.

Then there's controls.  That extra size on the Nikon gives room for more controls, meaning that you can adjust settings faster.

And how about flashes.  The closer the flash is to the camera, the harsher the light, and more likely to cause red-eye.  It looks like there is an external flash (with a custom plug), though a small one.  Like lenses, bigger does make for better pictures.

And then there's some oddball edge cases like ability to use tethered.  Want to use a tripod with Arca-Swiss quick-release?  Looks like you're SOL unless you want to go to the NEX5, or bigger (and it looks pretty awkward, even there).

Maybe all of those advantages aren't worth $50 (and size and weight) to you, but they are real advantages.

Yes, mirrorless will get to matching SLR, but it's not there yet.

The Sony's are pretty good, and worth considering.  But they (so far) are only for certain styles of photography.

As a more general comment on the review, you should note that Sony's not terribly good with supporting their products, long-term.  Look at the Alpha SLR; they've already basically discontinued that (the new A7* models have almost no connection to the older, pellicle mirror-based cameras, despite the naming).

You should also note that Sony's going in all these directions at once.  Basically, they've got the money (and lack of market share) to be able to throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

Still, several photographers I know and respect have switched (but I should also point out that they're landscape photographers, who are least likely to be affected by Sony's shortcomings).  I'm certainly not saying it isn't worth considering.  Just be aware of what you're giving up, as well as what you're getting.

I'll certainly be watching.  It isn't worth switching, for me, but it might be in several years.  I'd certainly like to reduce weight.  The D4 is a fantastic instrument, but it's definitely a heavy beast.  And I don't choose light lenses for it.

Future is now?

I was pretty surprised to read that Trey Ratcliff is switching from Nikon to Sony NEX.  I knew he was at least playing with those after he talked about his shots from the CN Tower in Toronto (which I liked seeing, as I had been there fairly recently, although I didn't go outside like he did).

I remember his article about mirrorless overtaking DSLRs in the not-too-distant future, and generally agreed with him.  I was a little skeptical about his time-frame (seemed a little optimistic), but mostly agreed.

But he's decided that that time-frame was actually pessimistic, and is already switched over.

His reasoning is interesting, and it makes a lot of sense (I have a friend who fairly recently switched from Canon 1D to Sony NEX; it also made total sense for him, as most of his shooting is on hiking trips).  I don't think NEX would make a lot of sense for me, at least not now (I do too much shooting of my kids in some combination of fast action and low light, where NEX would have problems.  I also do a little bit of sports shooting), but I can still see going in that direction in a few years (especially if they come out with a full-frame mirrorless with very fast auto-focus).

I did wonder about a couple things he mentioned.  One, images looking very grainy in the viewfinder when shooting at night seemed to conflict with what he said about being certain of focus.  Maybe the focus peaking makes that not a problem.  Two, he was saying something about a weakness of the NEX that I was unclear of what he was saying.  He seemed to say that, whatever the problem was, shooting on a tripod largely obviated it.  Would be curious to know what the actual problem was.

I liked his suggestions for what Sony could do to improve; I'd go with all of them.  The second one was particularly interesting to me; I'd never heard of that feature, but have had a few situations where I was wishing for that (trying to shoot long exposures with people moving, and had no idea how long of an exposure I really needed.  I wanted an indication of those people there, but also to see them move.  Of course, while I tried to work around it, I really needed my tripod and neutral density filter for those shots, too).

Anyway, it's an interesting read.  If I get a backup camera, I'll definitely think about something along those lines.