Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: bob mccarthy on September 08, 2005, 09:29:26 am
-
Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x. No doubt, Canon is doing the same. As the same time they are killing everybody else. If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin>
Virtually the same chip, in a $1100 camera.
I forsee this as the leak in the dike, when the dike breaks, we'll all see pretty significant price drops.
I can now believe a $1500-1800 semi-pro, 12+ mplxl APC/DX is easily within reach.
I'll bet the D2x and Canon equivalent (TBA) are below $3000 within 6-12 months.
Maybe then, Nikon will give the world a FF (or near FF), D3x.
Its getting real interesting.
I see my backpack (hiking) camera changing if this thing (and the soon to follow offshoots from the others) does image quality as well as the D2x. My back thanks you Sony
Wooo-weee
bob
-
Well, I wouldn't call it 'wild" speculation. The chip sizes are very close with the pixel dimensions being identical.
I disagree.
The new chip clearly is different in at least some significant respects, such as the live preview feed to the electronic viewfinder or LCD flip-up monitor.
A smaller sensor, such as this one, requires a different production line in the factory, and it should also provide a higher yield from the silicon wafers than the DX sensors.
This new sensor also provides less sensitivity adjustments (ISO 160 to 3200) than the D2X, and we still don't know anything about noise levels, dynamic range or image quality.
A rule of thumb is the direct manufacturing cost is roughly 1/4 th of selling price. So this camera costs Sony $250 to manufacture. Can the chip be 1/4 (or a 1/3rd??) of the cost of manufacture.
Yes, it can.
Anyway, the $2000 dollar premimum of the D2x over the D2hs doesn't seem warrented other than the demand was there to charge the high price.
You don't think that a 13 Mpx chip in the same format would warrant a significantly more expensive infrastructure within the camera, nevermind a significantly more expensive chip?
It's pushing over three times the amount of data.
One thing, mass production of this chip and variants should allow the cost of cameras to drop dramatically,
The price Sony has set for this camera is most likely the price that's representative for mass production. It's typical marketing tactics from Sony; price the product according to how well you expect it to sell.
-
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "
Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??
In theory, this should be a very good thing: no need for retrofocus lens designs. Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box. All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc. That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras: their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.
My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in higher-end digital cameras is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.
Eric
-
Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x.
bob
Pixel count and sensor size are just part of the equation. The D2x has an F5/F6 class high speed shutter. It also has high speed electronics to support the high speed shutter, and lots of buffer memory to handle the high frame the without stalling. I'm sure part of the cost covers R&D and as they sell, so these costs get paid off, and the price can reduce. Then again, would any company sell a camera for £2500 (assuming at a profit) if they could also sell all they can make for £3000?
That's why the D200 or equivalent can be about £1500 or less.
Also don't forget that Sony make the sensor in the D2x and hence they can probably make a camera with their sensor for less money (less people taking a cut).
Leif
-
The interesting point mentioned in the imaging resource review is that there is no mirror box, and hence the lens can extend almost to the sensor. This gives the designer more freedom to reduce aberrations, especially for wide angle lenses, and is one reason why rangefinders lenses are so good. According to the IR review, an equivalent quality lens for a 35mm (APS) DSLR would cost $1000 i.e. as much as the Sony digicam.
At the price point I could see a lot of people buying one as a 'toy' and if it is as good as suggested, then it could take serious pictures. I'm not sure if it has RAW support. If not, then that would be a serious limitation for many.
One issue that is not mentioned is dust. Is the zoom dust proof, and if not, what happens when dust is drawn into the lens, and onto the sensor? Presumably is stays there until a full service.
Leif
-
I agree with different parts of both Bob and Pom. I *really* like the idea of a single-unit, high-quality lens, high-function point-and-shoot; anybody who is interested in street photography would.
This camera is getting there...except that it's way too big and too heavy. For the weight and size, you'd be better off with a Rebel. To appreciate it, you have to look at the size in all three dimensions -- it's 5.5 inches by 6.6 inches by 3.8 inches -- in other words, it's almost a cube, and it can't be broken down from that cube shape. You couldn't really carry it comfortably in a briefcase; you're back to a camera case. You could more easily carry an XT, with the lens detached.
Also, with a camera this large, you're putting a big noticable blob up to your face. Again, might well be an XT.
However, I'm sure some competitor -- Canon, possibly Nikon -- will cut the size down. One of the nice things about the Nikon cameras that twist open is that the form factor for carrying the camera is very flat, until you're actually shooting...
Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again: small (700 grams with lens), flat, high-quality lens, 8mp+ sensor, wide to short-telephoto (this Sony lens would be fine, if it would fit in a smaller camera), vibration reduction, optical viewfinder, back-mounted twist LCD screen.
If I don't get it soon, I may have to fly over to Japan and kick some ass.
JC
-
This _might_ be interesting to me as a carry around.
My current walk around is an Olympus 7070 - I can't stand the LCD/optic viewfinder - the LCD is invisible in moderately bright light and the optic isn't accurate enough to frame with. The lack of high ISO is a royal pain given what I'm used to, but I like the zoom range - 27-110, and I like the live preview.
Within reason I'm not too concerned about the size, I always have a knapsack with me - but the weight is important. My "standard" config is a 1DMKII and the 24-70L = 2.5 kgs and I can't deal with that on a "always with me basis".
The R1 is less than half that (plus), but 2x the 7070 (minus), no dust (plus), live preview (plus) no "IS" (slight minus - it's only 120mm). I don't expect to get the 16 - 400 range out of a carry around that I do from the 3 or 4 lenses I use with the MKII.
The alternative might be a Rebel 350 with the new 24-105 = 1.2.kg, heavier, and twice the price and not very wide on the Rebel - but the lens is usable on the MKII - but I've got that range already covered with 2.8 L's.
I've downloaded a 1600 iso shot that looks pretty OK. Shutter lag sounds OK and if I need 8 fps I'll use the MKII. I'll definitely check it out when it hits the stores - probably bottom line will be how much worse the lens is than the 24-105, and how much of a pita the EVF is.
-
This camera might well interest me as a backpacking and ski-touring camera. I need something small and light but with good image quality. Rocket-fast AF and high FPS are not important to me, but high MP and a good lens are.
Julian
-
check out this link
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/ (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/)
Just over a $1000 list, I wonder how good the Zeiss lens is??
Bob
-
Very interesting. I wonder how quiet it is. If the noise is low, both soundwise and pixel wise this could be useful at pub, theatre etc. The lens is a bit small, but there is a new direction here.It comes from Sony too, nort Canon, Nikon etc. Forget Kodak. Epson couldhave something up their sleeve too..........
Brian
-
Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x. No doubt, Canon is doing the same. As the same time they are killing everybody else. If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin>
Virtually the same chip, in a $1100 camera.
Do you have any documentation for this claim, or is it just wild speculation on your part?
Remember, the chip (21.5 x 14.4 mm) is smaller than that in the older EOS 350 XT, a 22.2 x 14.8 mm chip with 8 Mpx.
And the street price of the XT is certainly lower than the Sony.
-
This is the continuation of a development that will push our current DSLRs further and further in the direction of full-fledged medium format cameras, capable of doing really exquisite high-end fashion and art work, while these smaller cameras willl eventually take over the functions formerly served by film 35mm cameras. I have had several digital point-and-shoots to augment my DSLRs, and for most shooting, I'm been amazed at their capabilities. I use a Canon Powershot Pro1 and a Pentax Optio 750z, and shoot both of them more than I use my D2x. Neither would replace the D2x, however.
Notice that this camera, while impressive, is actually larger and heavier than the Canon Rebel which has interchangeable lenses. Notice also that it has only an electronic viewfinder.
But it's getting close to the perfect camera of its type, especially with that 22mm equivalent at the wide end. IMHO, to be perfect, it would need:
To be smaller (no bigger than the Pro 1, which is notably smaller than the Rebel); to have image stabilization, which it may have (I didn't see it in the specs); to have an optical viewfinder; to have a clip-on lens adapter which would take it out to (say) 300mm.
The sensor is not such a big deal, I don't think. You don't need that many pixels -- this isn't an art or high-end-fashion camera. I mean, 10mp is fine, but 7 or 8 would be okay too -- I'd take smaller and lighter in exchange for the additional megapixels.
My experience with the Pro 1 is that virtually nobody who is not a serious amateur or a pro needs much more, other than refinement. In fact, this camera would be more than enough for 95% of news photography.
I'd be really interested in hearing what this Zeiss lens will do...
JC
-
Notice that this camera, while impressive, is actually larger and heavier than the Canon Rebel which has interchangeable lenses. Notice also that it has only an electronic viewfinder.
Well, it's larger and heavier than the Rebel/Rebel XT as long as they don't have a decent lens attached. The instant you do, however ...
But it's getting close to the perfect camera of its type, especially with that 22mm equivalent at the wide end. IMHO, to be perfect, it would need:
To be smaller (no bigger than the Pro 1, which is notably smaller than the Rebel); to have image stabilization, which it may have (I didn't see it in the specs); to have an optical viewfinder; to have a clip-on lens adapter which would take it out to (say) 300mm.
It has a clip-on telephoto adapter, wide angle adapter, macro adapter, ...
-
I got this off of the press release
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "
Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??
Bob
-
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "
Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??
In theory, this should be a very good thing: no need for retrofocus lens designs. Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box. All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc. That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras: their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.
My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in higher-end digital cameras is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.
Eric
-
I guess the gerbils are back on strike!!!
-
Yikes! When I submitted my original post, the message board failed to respond and timed out; and when I refreshed the thread from another window, my message had not been posted. So I retried several times before giving up. Moral of the story is to wait a couple hours or so before retrying a post!
-
One aspect which is often ignored is the validation.
We take for granted that cameras like the 1Ds2 or D2x work flawlessly as part of the very broad Canon and Nikon systems, they work when it snows, between -20 and +40c, they keep working after we drop them...
Ensuring these things takes a complex process of validation with impacts on the design etc...
I am not saying that it explains 100% of the price gap, but it does contribute to these flag ship models costing significantly more to design.
Regards,
Bernard
-
This camera may start a large sensor high-end digicam trend.
If a manufacturer released such a product with a 20-70 high quality zoom along with a companion model with a similar high-quality 70-200 zoom, that 2 camera combo would fill a lot of photogrphers' requirements. There may be enough shooters out there who don't mind EVF and who do not need a lot of what the top-end systems offer, but who do want good glass and access to focal lengths from 20 to 200. It all comes down to price though and if D-SLR's and accompanying lenses are similar in cost to the two camera offering, it may not worth doing.
What made me think of this is my Oly Stylus Epic with 35 mm lens. Nice camera, great lens, terrific for travelling light. But if they had made two other models, one with a 24 mm lens and a third with a 45 or 50 mm lens, the 3-pack might have taken up less room than a Rebel with lenses, and almost certainly would have weighed less. But I guess there was not enough of a market for non-zoom P&S's.
-
I don't get who would buy this. At a similar price point to a 20D, I can't see any pro's choosing this over an SLR, the lack of hotshoe and interchangeable lenses would be serious no go for me.
For p&s shooters 11 megapixels is far more than they need, anyone want to suggest how many people buying this camera will *ever* use it with a tripod and cable release? I need every bit of my knowledge to squeeze the 11 megapixels provided by the 1Ds and handholding at 1/60th isn't it!
As a pro travel camera where no flash in needed? I'd prefer the tiny XT with a couple of fast primes at a similar price. Far far more versatile.
-
I don't get who would buy this. At a similar price point to a 20D,
20D w/o lens is $1300. Add a comparable lens, hmmm, $4-600 (I know it doesn't exist). Since the lens will be in high volume (verses limited) production, it will likely provide more capability than an equivalent 35mm format lens.
I now read the Sony is coming in at just under $1000 (us) list or I can buy it at $900 at my favorite camera dealer.
Sounds like 2 to 1 to me.
Closer to the price point of the bottom end of the dslr line with cheap kit lens. And there out there marketing pixels again (oooh oooh lookey 10 mpxls, the corresponding Nikon and Canon is 6 to 8 mpxls). And these are pretty good pixels if the D2x is any indication.
A pro may have different needs, but most people are not studio bound pro's.
The quality of the supplied lens is the key determinant to me, for what it's worth.
Bob
-
If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin
Since KM recently announced a partnership with Sony, I expect a similar 10MP+ Sony sensor in forthcoming joint products.
So far, Sony has been happy to sell its sensors to any one who asks (like providing Canon with most of its digicam sensors), so probably Pentax will get new sensors, perhaps at a time lag.
BJL,
I was refering to the DSLR market. The digicam/P&S market is so competitive that everyone is killing each other over market share.
The DSLR market is showing pretty handsome profits by the big two and losses by the others who do not have real time access to the latest technology.
bob
-
or me, the big issue with the p&s cameras is the shutter lag. Not sure how the Sony's is, but I went with the 10D over the 8MP Canon p&s because of the shutter lag. Of course, I was pleasantly surprised at all the other wonderful differences...!
-
If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin
Since KM recently announced a partnership with Sony, I expect a similar 10MP+ Sony sensor in forthcoming joint products.
So far, Sony has been happy to sell its sensors to any one who asks (like providing Canon with most of its digicam sensors), so probably Pentax will get new sensors, perhaps at a time lag.
The E-1 seems due for replacement (Kodak no longer lists its sensor as a current product) and a joint Panasonic-Olympus effort in Four Thirds has been announced, with products scheduled for announcement at PMA (February 2006?). So I am guessing at one or more higher MP models coming in Four Thirds with Kodak and/or Panasonic (Matsushita) sensors.
P. S. Ray, I do not need to wonder about how my three year old E-1 performs, I can tell by looking at my photos! I do not suffer from upgrade envy so long as I am happy with what I have.
A three year old Canon DSLR matches up fairly poor against recently announced products too, but such comparisons over a big technological tiime gap are rather irrelevant. The more relevant question for me is what Four Thirds bodies will be on offer in several years' time, with what Kodak and Panasonic sensors, when I am in the mood to upgrade.
-
So far, Sony has been happy to sell its sensors to any one who asks (like providing Canon with most of its digicam sensors), so probably Pentax will get new sensors, perhaps at a time lag.
BJL,
I was refering to the DSLR market.
So was I, though my aside about Canon was a bit confusing: the point there was that Sony has so far provided sensors even for products that directly compete with their own cameras. In the DSLR world, too, Sony has so far provided Nikon, Pentax and Konica-Minolta (not to mention Epson for their range-finder).
I suppose it is possible that the Sony/Konica-Minolta partnership involves an agreement to cut off supplies of DSLR sensors to Pentax, but the threat of Pentax responding by changing to other sensors suppliers for its far larger number of digicams makes that seem unlikely.
-
The aperture and shooting velocities are controled by menus in the camera?
How does that differ from a D2x or 1Ds mkII (or whatever)where I set "A" or "S" mode and control exposure selected by adjusting an offset, +, _ or 0 from what the camera picks for me?
I know I can set the aperture and shutter speed manually, but then I still adjust from what the camera suggests, if I use the internal meter. Most high end P&S's work the same way.
Bob
-
Wow! The competition is heating up. A 21.5 x14.4m sensor just slightly smaller than that of the 20D, and with 10MP.
These are indeed exciting times. BJL must be wondering how his 5MP Olypus E-1 stacks up.
Yes! The quality of the lens is crucial, but I'm sure that the name of Zeiss will not be compromised :D .
-
Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x. No doubt, Canon is doing the same. As the same time they are killing everybody else. If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin>
Virtually the same chip, in a $1100 camera.
Do you have any documentation for this claim, or is it just wild speculation on your part?
Well, I wouldn't call it 'wild" speculation. The chip sizes are very close with the pixel dimensions being identical. A rule of thumb is the direct manufacturing cost is roughly 1/4 th of selling price. So this camera costs Sony $250 to manufacture. Can the chip be 1/4 (or a 1/3rd??) of the cost of manufacture.
Anyway, the $2000 dollar premimum of the D2x over the D2hs doesn't seem warrented other than the demand was there to charge the high price.
One thing, mass production of this chip and variants should allow the cost of cameras to drop dramatically, "if "competition comes into play. Canon holding on to its technology and Nikon/Sony holding on to theirs, is killing all the rest and making it a two player field.
bob
-
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "
Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??
In theory, this should be a very good thing: no need for retrofocus lens designs. Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box. All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc. That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras: their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.
My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in higher-end digital cameras is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.
Eric
-
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "
Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??
In theory, this should be a very good thing: no retrofocus lens design. Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box. All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc. That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras: their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.
My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in a higher-end digital camera is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.
Eric
-
I doubt it adds that much to the cost, especially as a lot of the material design was made for previous generations of bodies such as the F5. Even if they had to run up 30 copies to get the ergonomics right, the R&D costs would far outway the materials costs.
What I would love to do is work in the units they use for testing car safety. Imagine purposely totalling cars worth tens of thousands of dollars every day and then saying 'nah, we'll have to run that one again', now that would be real fun! :p :p
-
I doubt it adds that much to the cost, especially as a lot of the material design was made for previous generations of bodies such as the F5.
That's not entirely accurate, even if the D2X body was just a re-hashed version of the F5.
The electronics in the F5 and the D2X are different, and electronics must also be protected against shock, dust, humidity etc.
Even if they had to run up 30 copies to get the ergonomics right, the R&D costs would far outway the materials costs.
Yes, materials like these are actually cheap, but making the materials in a specific shape when you're requesting very small quantities is not.
While not entirely analogous, someone I know checked -- on behalf of his company, IIRC -- what it would cost to custom-build mock-ups of a self-designed gadget of a similar size, and the cost was prohibitive. One mock-up would have cost around USD 20,000, ten or twenty would bring the price per unit down a bit, I think it ended up lower than USD 15,000 each. This was around Y2K, so it's not ancient history yet, either. Whether this is representative of the cost of making D2X bodies in a prototype run, I don't know, but it gives an indication of just how expensive such small numbers can be.
Just making the moulds is a pretty expensive affair, depending on what you make, of course, so manufacturers tend to reuse moulds for standardized parts (e.g. battery compartment doors).
What I would love to do is work in the units they use for testing car safety. Imagine purposely totalling cars worth tens of thousands of dollars every day and then saying 'nah, we'll have to run that one again', now that would be real fun!
Yes, there were some remarks to the joy/sadness of crashing a brand new Aston Martin DB9 or a Koenigsegg CCR ... (They only crash one of these each, unless there is a requirement to test two different crashes.)
But these cars aren't fully featured, so they are not only at factory cost for a regular vehicle, but also at a somewhat lower price point.
Still hideously expensive, though. And you'd not be happy paying for one of those crash test dummies out of your own pocket! ::
-
Pom, the camera does have a hot shoe. It's on the handgrip.
I going to make a couple of assumptions. First is that there will be a number of copycats, exactly like there was with the 8 mpxl camera series from Nikon, Canon, Oly, K-M.
The camera as I said has flash capability. Will it interface with the Nikon TTL setup (or Canon, etc.), then its a big plus.
The sensor being "much" larger should be very low noise in comparison to other P&S's.
Being a longterm Leica user, I can assure you the limited range of the zoom is not a problem for the vast majority of outdoor shooting.
I'm convinced its going to be a success, for everybody but the studio shooter, and will put pressure on the manufactures to get the selling price of DSLR's down. It will impact the lower end initially, but ultimately the whole lineup.
And I agree with all that hate (hate) the lcd viewfinders.
bob
-
The aperture and shooting velocities are controled by menus in the camera?
It is only my opinion but I find these cameras more toys than real cameras.
The new Sony digicam is big, heavy and a bit ugly.
-
... the big issue with the p&s cameras is the shutter lag.
A good point, and I am waiting for the "lab. rat" reviews on that one.
SLR's have better shutter lag partly because they use phase difference AF whereas P&S camera use contrast difference AF. Phase difference has speed advantages such as knowing which way the lens is out of focus, reducing hunting. Does anyone know what the AF system is on the new Sony mega-EVF?
Another aspect of AF speed is lens aperture size: the bigger the maximum effective aperture diameter, the stronger the OOF effects that the AF system has to measure (like the ease of manual focusing with shallow DOF.) The new Sony has bigger aperture diameters than compact digicam lenses, so it might have an AF speed advantage there.