>> |
okto
>>205145 Smaller system, slightly weird control layouts on bodies, almost no technological innovation. In-body stabilization was Pentax's inventionor at least, they announced it first. Yeah, yeah, Zeiss lenses, but Zeiss is kinda bullshit these days. As far as still photography, they mostly sit on their asses and try to convince you that Sonnar, Distagon, and Flektogon are sacred Eldar words for God's Own Lenses, even though some of their designs are in their third century. T* coating was a great addition, but that was 1980.
Do Zeiss make great lenses? Yes. Do they make better lenses than Canon, Nikon, or Leica? Debatable. Do they make the best lenses in the world overall? No.
CAD has pretty much leveled the playing field when it comes to optical design, the only thing left is to invent new materials and manufacture the current ones to more exacting standards. The modern lens game is just a question of how much money you are willing to throw at a certain design and how few compromises you are willing to make.
None of this is to say Sony makes bad SLRs or that Zeiss make bad lenses; I haven't used a Sony, and Zeiss' reputation didn't come from nowhere. I just think Sony has a lot of catching up to do, and they need to stop marketing with this HDNA bullshit. A DSLR is a serious tool, not a capture device for your motherfucking Bravia.
|