So I jumped off the four-thirds train

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
Is the Tammy 28-75 2.8 available in Sony/Minolta mount?

Yes, it is. In fact, it should be optically identical to the Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 because both share the same design, both being made by Tamron. However the Minolta version is much more consistent and many people have reported that the Tamron version can sometimes have iffy quality control and it can take a couple of tries to get a good copy. The good Tamrons are just as good as the Minolta, but pretty much every Minolta copy is good.

ZV

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Ultimately, I think Oly's decision to go to a smaller sensor will be the fundamental flaw, as some people have suggested.

I agree about the sensor probably being their limiting factor but I do think that Oly's choice to scrap their existing lens mount & range in favour of a totally new, designed-for-digital one is vindicated.
& I agree that if CaNikon are going to be placed in the position of having to replace/upgrade their lenses then it does put Sony in a competitive position especially as the largest single shareholder in Tamron.


The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 are very closely related but they aren't identical.
There's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that says that it's a mainly Minolta rather than Tamron design as indeed are probably the 11-18mm & the 17-35mm.
Apparently the new Tammy 70-200mm f2.8 draws heavily from the 28-75mm so hopefully it will be sharp, sharp, sharp - no USM, SSM etc. though.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst
The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 are very closely related but they aren't identical.
There's a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that says that it's a mainly Minolta rather than Tamron design as indeed are probably the 11-18mm & the 17-35mm.
Apparently the new Tammy 70-200mm f2.8 draws heavily from the 28-75mm so hopefully it will be sharp, sharp, sharp - no USM, SSM etc. though.

They are optically identical. There are mechanical differences between the two that have caused issues with some copies of the Tamron, but the two lenses share the same optical design.

ZV

 

[Heidfirst]

coatings & iris are different which do have a very minor difference optically.
(& I believe that the focus ring turns opposite ways too).

 

[foghorn67]

Tammy's have a 6 year warranty. Worth swapping a faulty copy for.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst
coatings & iris are different which do have a very minor difference optically.
(& I believe that the focus ring turns opposite ways too).

Traditionally "optical" has referred only to the glass and not to coatings, iris, or construction and that's all I meant. Apologies for confusion, completely my fault for not clarifying well. You have a point about the coatings and about the iris. Though the Tamron still has a 7 blade iris it does lack the Minolta's "circular aperture" where the blades are curved and that can make a definite difference in close-up work.

ZV

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

I think it places Sony at an advantage, since they are building their lens lineup now. It's based on Minolta's lenses, of course, but they are introducing new designs and reintroducing old ones, presumably with longevity in mind. I think Canon has been resting on its laurels for awhile, and Nikon has taken advantage recently. That being said, neither of those companies has the resources of Sony, and anyone who doubts that advantage needs to learn about capital, which is another reason why Oly (and Pentax) is handicapped.

canon doesn't have the resources of sony? canon is just as big. nikon is a much smaller company than either, iirc. pentax, of course, is now part of the largest optical glass maker in the world.

4/3 has it's advantages, but there is no law of physics that says canon and nikon (and sony and pentax, for that matter), can't design lenses with angles of incidence to match digital sensors for their mounts. the new nikon UWA basically shows that to be true. 'near telecentric' is a marketing term, and nothing more.

olympus has always been different, and as they basically missed the boat on autofocus SLRs there wasn't a huge reason for them to continue with the OM system when going digital. but there are a lot of people who bought into the 4/3 kool aid hook, line and sinker.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AndrewR

I think it places Sony at an advantage, since they are building their lens lineup now. It's based on Minolta's lenses, of course, but they are introducing new designs and reintroducing old ones, presumably with longevity in mind. I think Canon has been resting on its laurels for awhile, and Nikon has taken advantage recently. That being said, neither of those companies has the resources of Sony, and anyone who doubts that advantage needs to learn about capital, which is another reason why Oly (and Pentax) is handicapped.

canon doesn't have the resources of sony? canon is just as big. nikon is a much smaller company than either, iirc. pentax, of course, is now part of the largest optical glass maker in the world.

Canon is larger than I thought, relatively speaking, but Canon has less than half the annual revenue of Sony ($33B vs. $70B) plus Sony has the advantage of tie-ins with its own computers, televisions, audio & video* equipment, video game systems, and entertainment -- none of which Canon competes in. That's also what I was addressing, since DSLRs are becoming pieces of electronics, Sony has a better position to take advantage of that with their much more extensive electronics experience. They've already started with the HDMI connection to their Bravia TVs (a somewhat minor example but an example, nonetheless).

Cameras are less about glass than circuit boards these days. Many companies have proven they can make quality glass, but the innovations are coming in software and hardware.


*Meaning, the professional grade video systems for movie production and such, which I understand is an area that Sony dominates.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Cameras are less about glass than circuit boards these days. Many companies have proven they can make quality glass, but the innovations are coming in software and hardware.

And Sony doesn't need to produce quality glass in-house; they have KM and Zeiss on their payroll, and a working give/take relationship with Nikon.

Sony is already #2 in the P&S digital camera market. They know how lucrative the digital imaging market is (especially the higher-margin DSLR market) and have done a good job working on a competitive line-up from the bottom up.

I honestly expect the unreleased 'A900' to make some shock waves in the semi-pro market. I think Sony will price it competitively against the Canon 5D, and give people a real alternative in the entry-level full-frame segment. I know the megapixel myth isn't everything, but a 16MP 5D MkII vs. a 24MP A900 will be a tough choice.

 

[tfinch2]

Well, today I lucked out and picked up the Sony 50mm f/1.4 for $194 from the Sony Factory Outlet. :thumbsup:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Sony is already #2 in the P&S digital camera market. They know how lucrative the digital imaging market is (especially the higher-margin DSLR market) and have done a good job working on a competitive line-up from the bottom up.

sony used to be #1 in the p&s market. then canon stole it from them :evil:

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Sony is already #2 in the P&S digital camera market. They know how lucrative the digital imaging market is (especially the higher-margin DSLR market) and have done a good job working on a competitive line-up from the bottom up.

sony used to be #1 in the p&s market. then canon stole it from them :evil:

Canon used to be #1 in the DSLR market and then Nikon stole it from them.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Sony is already #2 in the P&S digital camera market. They know how lucrative the digital imaging market is (especially the higher-margin DSLR market) and have done a good job working on a competitive line-up from the bottom up.

sony used to be #1 in the p&s market. then canon stole it from them :evil:

Canon used to be #1 in the DSLR market and then Nikon stole it from them.

canon was ahead of nikon worldwide in 2007. the D40 has been a terrific seller for nikon, though. bet canon had a higher ASP than nikon.

edit: canikon's share increased during 2007 :shocked:

edit2: link

 

[Heidfirst]

nm.


2008 should be interesting though.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Sony is already #2 in the P&S digital camera market. They know how lucrative the digital imaging market is (especially the higher-margin DSLR market) and have done a good job working on a competitive line-up from the bottom up.

sony used to be #1 in the p&s market. then canon stole it from them :evil:

Canon used to be #1 in the DSLR market and then Nikon stole it from them.

canon was ahead of nikon worldwide in 2007. the D40 has been a terrific seller for nikon, though. bet canon had a higher ASP than nikon.

edit: canikon's share increased during 2007 :shocked:

edit2: link

Oh, I realize what I was thinking -- Nikon exceeds Canon within Japan (I think that's what it was, anyway). I remember there was a stir about Nikon overtaking Canon awhile back. Nikon saw 77% growth in DSLR sales! Wow.

Thanks for the link. Bookmarking that site.