Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: aaykay on May 26, 2010, 12:29:11 pm
-
The Sony NEX mount is larger than a Leica M-mount, which means a Full-frame is on the way too, even with the reduced flange-back distance. They will probably do it through a combination of lens optics and sensor micro-lens offsetting. Remember that the old Sony DSC-R1, with its 1.68x near-APS-C sized sensor, used to have the rear element of its 14.3-71.5mm f/2.8-4.8 lens, positioned just 2.1mms (that is millimeters) from the sensor plane and the R1 had absolutely ZERO vignetting or other aberrations.
Also, even though these initial models (NEX3/5) are consumer oriented models, the "NEX7" that is expected to be announced in September, 2010, will come with buttons/dials galore, built-in EVF and also a built-in body-based Image Stabilization (which will be firmware controlled to switch off when IS lenses are mounted - especially for video).
Sony, going by their Alpha designations, have designated their consumer-grade models with the 2, 3 and 5 designations (NEX3 and NEX5 being consumer models). The NEX7 will be a semi-pro model, with the obligatory dials/buttons but will come with an APS-C sensor (a more advanced version of the NEX3/5 sensor). Their NEX8 and NEX9 can be expected to be the Full-frame models.
I would not be surprised if a Panasonic GF1-sized Full-frame NEX9, with direct user controls all around (buttons and dials) being released, with a few high quality Carl Zeiss Auto-focus primes. Remember that since such a format does not have to contend with a swinging/flapping mirror, the wides and the ultra-wides in turn do not need huge retrofocal designs and we are essentially looking at a Full-frame 14mm f/2.8 PANCAKE, with the whole thing (camera + lens) weighing in at 350gms - unthinkable for a dSLR ! We are essentially looking at such a Full-frame camera model, with a 14mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8 fitting into a tiny bag - again something that is incomprehensible in a dSLR based system. Video begins to make a whole lot more sense than when executed via kludgy dSLRs.
These NEX3/NEX5 models are definitely the start and I predict will shake up the marketplace a lot more than the micro-4/3 (which are "condemned" to perpetuity with their smaller sensor size and larger-than-needed flange-back distance which will make the bodies inordinately thick) models have.
-
For a moment I thought I was reading dpreview forums with their wild speculation and laundry lists of "must-have" features of cameras not even announced.
-
For a moment I thought I was reading dpreview forums with their wild speculation and laundry lists of "must-have" features of cameras not even announced.
Well, just thinking aloud on the possibilities from such a product. On the surface, what has been revealed till date do come across as some kind of p&s replacement type products, while the underlying potential is clearly far deeper.
-
Good luck with that.
-
These NEX3/NEX5 models are definitely the start and I predict will shake up the marketplace a lot more than the micro-4/3 (which are "condemned" to perpetuity with their smaller sensor size and larger-than-needed flange-back distance which will make the bodies inordinately thick) models have.
I read statements like this all over the internet. Yet I look at the current offerings and note that the distance from the front of the equivalent kit lens to the back of the camera is considerably more with the NEX system. That is the crucial dimension!
Micro-4/3 also have the many advantages of a smaller sensor - I mean advantages for the bulk of users, not pseudo-artistic or artistic photographers pushing the extremes. Advantages are greater depth of field at a given aperture, wider apertures at a given lens size, smaller and lighter lens at equivalent focal lengths and equal apertures and so on. The design is still more telecentric than Sony's despite the above, which makes less need to correct for vignetting and chromatic aberrations. Or, looked at another way, Sony has to work harder to make their lenses work as well.
I am neutral on this. I promised my Sony agent I wouldn't go either way until I had put a memory card in his camera (in about three weeks, he says) and tried the NEX5. There will be advantages either way but micro-4/3 is by no means condemned!
Don
-
I've used the NEX5. image quality seems much better than the GF1.
Also, it's LIGHT. feels like a point and shoot camera. I sold my GF1 for a Canon S90 because it was too bulky. This one seems small enough to manage as everyday carry.
The only problem will be availability of lenses. So far, one slow zoom and one pancake is less than sufficient. Will look forward to at least a normal prime and a portrait prime...
-
I read statements like this all over the internet. Yet I look at the current offerings and note that the distance from the front of the equivalent kit lens to the back of the camera is considerably more with the NEX system. That is the crucial dimension!
Micro-4/3 also have the many advantages of a smaller sensor - I mean advantages for the bulk of users, not pseudo-artistic or artistic photographers pushing the extremes. Advantages are greater depth of field at a given aperture, wider apertures at a given lens size, smaller and lighter lens at equivalent focal lengths and equal apertures and so on. The design is still more telecentric than Sony's despite the above, which makes less need to correct for vignetting and chromatic aberrations. Or, looked at another way, Sony has to work harder to make their lenses work as well.
I am neutral on this. I promised my Sony agent I wouldn't go either way until I had put a memory card in his camera (in about three weeks, he says) and tried the NEX5. There will be advantages either way but micro-4/3 is by no means condemned!
Don
Don,
If the competition did (or will do) the homeworks well, micro-4/3 could be seriously in trouble on a medium term.
But it seems that first the few competitors don't do it that well, and second, the brands that could really mine this market are in a wait-and-see position or simply are not interested.
When Sony decided to enter this market, and after the excelent results they acheived with the Apha 900 and 850, I had serious reservations
about the continuity of micro-4/3. I really thought that Sony would enter the game with a bomb, I was wrong. They entered with a fancy but not serious enough, proposal. So now, I must say that I moderate more my opinion and things seems to be more complex than I thought. They are in hands of young marketing executives so anything can be expected, except a consistent tool for the advanced-pro photographer.
In fact, micro-4/3 will keep being a great option at least for quite a long time, like it or not, and if the competitors are insisting with these wired menus and marketing orientated products, then micro-4/3 will have great time for much longer IMO.
Cheers.
-
I really thought that Sony would enter the game with a bomb, I was wrong.
They're still going to drop some bombs. They have a habit of sneaking up on us with them.
http://tinyurl.com/29vfzyc (http://tinyurl.com/29vfzyc)
-
Hi,
Your observations are interesting. I guess that the technology leaves some options for Sony to go whatever direction they want. In my view, getting rid of the mirror solves a lot of problems:
- Less problems. Only sensor and lens needs to be properly aligned.
- Autofocus utilizing sensor is obviously more exact than phase detect autofocus, at least if they get it working.
- More freedom alignment m of choice in lens design.
Whatever Sony will build a full frame NEX camera depends on their perception of the marketplace.
Best regards
Erik
The Sony NEX mount is larger than a Leica M-mount, which means a Full-frame is on the way too, even with the reduced flange-back distance. They will probably do it through a combination of lens optics and sensor micro-lens offsetting. Remember that the old Sony DSC-R1, with its 1.68x near-APS-C sized sensor, used to have the rear element of its 14.3-71.5mm f/2.8-4.8 lens, positioned just 2.1mms (that is millimeters) from the sensor plane and the R1 had absolutely ZERO vignetting or other aberrations.
Also, even though these initial models (NEX3/5) are consumer oriented models, the "NEX7" that is expected to be announced in September, 2010, will come with buttons/dials galore, built-in EVF and also a built-in body-based Image Stabilization (which will be firmware controlled to switch off when IS lenses are mounted - especially for video).
Sony, going by their Alpha designations, have designated their consumer-grade models with the 2, 3 and 5 designations (NEX3 and NEX5 being consumer models). The NEX7 will be a semi-pro model, with the obligatory dials/buttons but will come with an APS-C sensor (a more advanced version of the NEX3/5 sensor). Their NEX8 and NEX9 can be expected to be the Full-frame models.
I would not be surprised if a Panasonic GF1-sized Full-frame NEX9, with direct user controls all around (buttons and dials) being released, with a few high quality Carl Zeiss Auto-focus primes. Remember that since such a format does not have to contend with a swinging/flapping mirror, the wides and the ultra-wides in turn do not need huge retrofocal designs and we are essentially looking at a Full-frame 14mm f/2.8 PANCAKE, with the whole thing (camera + lens) weighing in at 350gms - unthinkable for a dSLR ! We are essentially looking at such a Full-frame camera model, with a 14mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8 fitting into a tiny bag - again something that is incomprehensible in a dSLR based system. Video begins to make a whole lot more sense than when executed via kludgy dSLRs.
These NEX3/NEX5 models are definitely the start and I predict will shake up the marketplace a lot more than the micro-4/3 (which are "condemned" to perpetuity with their smaller sensor size and larger-than-needed flange-back distance which will make the bodies inordinately thick) models have.
-
Hi,
The Sony patent is interesting. It seems that they have moved the autofocus assembly in front of the prism. That gets rid of of the secondary mirror assembly redirecting some of the light for focusing. A system with pellicular mirror removes a few movable parts from the solution. Another advantage is that the mirror/sensor/shutter assembly may be sealed, much reducing the issues with dust on the sensor. We get problems with dust on the mirror instead.
Best regards
Erik
They're still going to drop some bombs. They have a habit of sneaking up on us with them.
http://tinyurl.com/29vfzyc (http://tinyurl.com/29vfzyc)
-
Whatever Sony will build a full frame NEX camera depends on their perception of the marketplace.
To quote Andy Westlake from DPR (the lens review expert) on whether Sony would release a Full-Frame NEX model: "It is far more about economics, than technology". The DPR guys have had the NEX cameras from 2009 !
In other words, technologically the NEX mount is fully able to accomodate future sensor needs that go upto a 35mm Full-frame sensor. But of course a market for such a product has to exist first, before they will venture down that path, since it is not only a matter of fitting a Full-frame sensor and make it work with the the body, but also a matter of going through the expense of creating sub-components like Full-frame lenses and other things, which in turn would need to be sold in high enough numbers to make the investment viable.
That (the "economics" side) is probably the limiting factor when it comes to a future full-frame NEX8/9, and thus we may be looking at such a product further out in time.
As it stands, folks involved in a focus group exercise in South Africa a couple of weeks back, did try the NEX5 with lenses like the 24-70ZA, 16-35ZA, 70-300G etc (essentially lenses with a built-in motor) and all of these lenses functioned perfectly well (via the A-mount adapter) when it came to Auto-focusing on the NEX5 (even though Sony has disabled AF temporarily in the retail versions, while they fine-tune some settings). They focused slightly slower than Phase Detect AF but *far* faster than any of the Contrast Detect AF that one finds in dSLRs.....in other words, fully functional and usable. AF for these legacy dSLR lenses (via the adapter) will arrive via a firmware upgrade, as per Mr.Toru Katsumoto, the Sr.GM of Sony Imaging.
Also, the president of Sony Imaging (Masashi Imamura) specifically stated that Carl Zeiss lenses for the NEX format are on the way. And of course nobody comes out with Carl Zeiss lenses, for them to be deployed on bodies like NEX3 or NEX5.
-
Even the APS sensor NEX models look great, if only they had a display that could be moved in every direction, which would turn it into superb waist-level-finder camera .
The trouble with the larger chips, imho, is that you can't use them in cameras with a fixed screen on the back as the only viewfinder .
Cameras equipped with the tiny, cheap 4/3 sensors etc., mostly used for internet snapshots anyway, don't show the blur you get when you hold a camera away from the body as much as a camera with a larger sensor will.
-
Even the APS sensor NEX models look great, if only they had a display that could be moved in every direction, which would turn it into superb waist-level-finder camera .
The trouble with the larger chips, imho, is that you can't use them in cameras with a fixed screen on the back as the only viewfinder .
The Sony NEX screens are not fixed but are articulated. They can be tilted 80 degrees upward and 45 degrees downward and thus can be used for waist-level or overhead shooting.
-
Also, the president of Sony Imaging (Masashi Imamura) specifically stated that Carl Zeiss lenses for the NEX format are on the way. And of course nobody comes out with Carl Zeiss lenses, for them to be deployed on bodies like NEX3 or NEX5.
So you're suggesting that any new CZ glass will be capable of working across the Alpha and NEX formats.
-
So you're suggesting that any new CZ glass will be capable of working across the Alpha and NEX formats.
Depends on what CZ glass gets released and to which mount it belongs. For instance, CZ lenses in the A-mount (DSLR), especially ones with the built-in motor, like the 24-70 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar, the 16-35 f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar and also the upcoming 24mm f/2, will work with the Adapter, upto and including the ability to Auto-focus (could also be useful for shooting 1080 line video). The Carl Zeiss lenses like the 85mm f/1.4 Planar and the 135mm f/1.8 Sonnar will be able to "work" with the adapter, just that it will need to be manually focused - the adapter itself will permit aperture control etc.
Now the E-mount lenses (current ones and upcoming Carl Zeiss lenses etc), would almost certainly not work with the A-mount bodies, primarily since those lenses would be designed around an 18mm flange-back distance. In fact, the 18mm flange-back distance of the E-mount will ensure that every single dSLR lens in existence, including those from the pre-EOS Canon era, the pre-AF Minolta era, Nikon mount lenses, Pentax lenses, Contax lenses and such will all be able to function on the E-mount, via adapters.
Novoflex has announced an adapter to enable Minolta MD lenses (lenses from the pre-AF Minolta era) to work with the E-mount. Japanese manufacturer Rayqual has announced adapters to permit Nikon, Canon FD, Pentax and Leica lenses to be mounted on the new Sony NEX/E-mount cameras. And the camera has not yet reached the retail shelves ! The incredibly low flange-back distance of the new E-mount (lower than even the smaller sensored micro-4/3 and the Samsung NX format) is the biggest attraction for these manufacturers.
-
The Sony NEX screens are not fixed but are articulated. They can be tilted 80 degrees upward and 45 degrees downward and thus can be used for waist-level or overhead shooting.
The display can actually only be moved in one axis, so it's not of much use for vertical shots .
As for MF lenses adapted to the NEX - see above. How on earth are you going to focus while shooting a vertical format ?
No IS can compensate for this sort of clumsiness, let alone the way one looks when doing it .
I'm hoping Sony will make some changes for the release model, as unlikely as it is .
-
The incredibly low flange-back distance of the new E-mount (lower than even the smaller sensored micro-4/3 and the Samsung NX format) is the biggest attraction for these manufacturers.
Being "incredibly low" is scarcely a factor here, and no advantage relative to m4/3 or NX. Non-SLR mount designs naturally have far lower flange-back distance than SLR mounts, and with m4/3, NX and NEX also using smaller formats than 35mm film format, it is no surprise that all of these new lens mounts easily accommodate adaptors for lenses in mounts designed for 35mm film SLRs. This includes lenses designed for APS-C DSLRs, which use mounts with flange-back distance originally chosen for 35mm film SLRs.
Since most of this backward compatibility is manual-focus only, I doubt it will be a major factor anyway. The only AF options are 4/3 lenses on m4/3 bodies and the relatively few Sony alpha-mount lenses that have AF motors on NEX E-mount bodies, and in many cases, the different mechanical operation needs of mirrorless CD AF makes for sluggish AF.
-
Don,
If the competition did (or will do) the homeworks well, micro-4/3 could be seriously in trouble on a medium term.
But it seems that first the few competitors don't do it that well, and second, the brands that could really mine this market are in a wait-and-see position or simply are not interested.
When Sony decided to enter this market, and after the excelent results they acheived with the Apha 900 and 850, I had serious reservations
about the continuity of micro-4/3. I really thought that Sony would enter the game with a bomb, I was wrong. They entered with a fancy but not serious enough, proposal. So now, I must say that I moderate more my opinion and things seems to be more complex than I thought. They are in hands of young marketing executives so anything can be expected, except a consistent tool for the advanced-pro photographer.
In fact, micro-4/3 will keep being a great option at least for quite a long time, like it or not, and if the competitors are insisting with these wired menus and marketing orientated products, then micro-4/3 will have great time for much longer IMO.
Cheers.
Just to update - and to prove that micro 4/3 is still viable in my eyes, I can report that I spent an hour with a Sony NEX5, took a good range of photos and video, went home and pixel-peeped ..... and ordered an Olympus EP-1. I really, really liked the NEX but the shape with kit zoom (small yet bulky) isn't good, the pancake is too wide for a general purpose lens for me and the edges of the images were disturbing. Plus I already have lenses which will bolt onto the micro 4/3. Unlike others, I did not like the build of the NEX- the plastic grip feels cheap, while the EP-1 feels superb.
My thought is that, in around two years, I will probably switch because this market will start to mature and someone will make what I really want (small boxy shape with built in viewfinder and good, fast, small lens to match in the wide landscape, "standard" and portrait focal lengths). Interesting times.
Don.
-
Ha, I had just the opposite experience -- after playing with the Olympus E-PL and the Panasonic GF1, I bought the Sony NEX-5 with the 18-55mm zoom lens.
And the experience is very good. I am perhaps a bit picky since I normally shoot full-frame 24MP, but still, I find the image quality of the NEX very good and I have no hesitation to take photos at ISO1600 where there is hardly any noise.
I use the NEX in A-mode and it is very quick to set the aperture and exposure compensation. The form factor is also just right in my opinion where the NEX easily fits in a bag or can be carried on the shoulder -- I have it always with me.
Anyway, different strokes for different folks but for me it is the ideal companion to my full-frame camera. My only wish is for a nice 24mm F2 or 35mm F2 prime -- I am not impressed with the quality of the 16mm.
-
The concept of a FF EVIL camera is just too good for not happening.
A Leica M9 type with HD video and life histogram....(I still don't care for video)
Maybe Sony will do it - if they don't I believe it will come sooner or later by someone else ...
-
I handled the NEX with the pancake 16mm, the Olympus, and the Panasonic GF-1 last weekend. I liked them all for different reasons -- but I spent my money on the GF-1 with the 20mm lens. Felt like the best fit for my style of shooting, and what I wanted in a compact camera.
-
Sony have quite clearly targeted the nx5 at p&s users that want to take a step up rather than dslr users wanting a light/small take anywhere camera so hopefully this is just the first step for them and a full frame nx5 targeted at serious photographers is around the corner. We always had 'full frame' 35mm film p&s cameras and while digital does have it's challenges at this size perhaps sony can make this happen.
-
The concept of a FF EVIL camera is just too good for not happening.
My guess is that if this happens, it will be done first by a company that can offer the most in the way of 35mm format SLR lenses that work adequately through adaptors, to complement the initially more limited selection of new lenses dedicated to the new system. Those lens designs might also be usable for adaption to versions in the new mount.
And that probably means Canon: unlike Sony's Alpha mount system, all Canon EF lenses have AF motors (all 30 million of them?), which will almost surely be needed for AF with a mirror-less body, since I doubt any new system will use the dying approach of in-body AF motors. Canon's experience in video and getting decent CD AF performance on its SLR bodies will help too. Nikon is the second most likely option, with far more lenses with AF motors than Sony, less than Canon --- but Nikon seems to be going the other way, for a smaller, lighter system based on a smaller-than-DSLR format like 17mm diagonal.
And it might be that with mirror-less systems, a trade-off is at work of gaining smaller size and weight and other conveniences at some sacrifice in still imaging performance aspects like IQ and AF speed, and so long as there is a disadvantage for those with a high priority on those performance factors, it will make little sense to introduce a mirror-less system that is burdened with the higher cost and greater bulk of larger than mainstream format sensor and lenses. (Rangefinder style compact, symmetric, manual-focus-only primes are not a viable option, so do not bring Leica M system size into the discussion!)
-
My guess is that if this happens, it will be done first by a company that can offer the most in the way of 35mm format SLR lenses that work adequately through adaptors, to complement the initially more limited selection of new lenses dedicated to the new system. Those lens designs might also be usable for adaption to versions in the new mount.
And that probably means Canon: unlike Sony's Alpha mount system, all Canon EF lenses have AF motors (all 30 million of them?), which will almost surely be needed for AF with a mirror-less body, since I doubt any new system will use the dying approach of in-body AF motors. Canon's experience in video and getting decent CD AF performance on its SLR bodies will help too. Nikon is the second most likely option, with far more lenses with AF motors than Sony, less than Canon --- but Nikon seems to be going the other way, for a smaller, lighter system based on a smaller-than-DSLR format like 17mm diagonal.
And it might be that with mirror-less systems, a trade-off is at work of gaining smaller size and weight and other conveniences at some sacrifice in still imaging performance aspects like IQ and AF speed, and so long as there is a disadvantage for those with a high priority on those performance factors, it will make little sense to introduce a mirror-less system that is burdened with the higher cost and greater bulk of larger than mainstream format sensor and lenses. (Rangefinder style compact, symmetric, manual-focus-only primes are not a viable option, so do not bring Leica M system size into the discussion!)
A big problem with FF sensors in an EVIL type camera will be corner smearing, assuming that short registration distances and non-retrofocal lenses are the goal. Digital sensors just don't handle those extreme light angles well. The Sony NEX already has a mount near the diameter of the fullframe a-mount in order to accommodate large image circles in relation to APS-C, and I would imagine that even bigger mounts than what we currently see in FF DSLRs would be desirable in a compact FF EVIL.
Now, of course, if small size isn't a goal, and retrofocus wides and/or registration distances similar to what we see in our current DSLRs are an option, then none of the above is an issue. Someone could just remove the mirror assembly and prism, replace it with an EVF setup, and things would be fine.
Ultimately, I think you may be correct that the trade-off for size will trump the need for 35mm sensors in small EVIL cameras.
-
Can't these issues be fixed with lens specific software correction inside the camera or with the raw converter?
What I really like about the FF EVIL idea is the possibility of symmetric near distortion free super wide angles
and generally faster lenses with smaller size.
E.G. the Zeiss 15 mm f 1/2.8 M-mount wide angle is such a lens and I don't think it has an equivalent in the DSLR family.
-
I might chip in that there is an underlying obsession with many that so called "Full Frame", which is based on the once so popular 35mm film format, which is a bit of a red herring in the digital era. The format is unnecessarily large for a compact bodied camera. Sensors with half or quarter the area are producing photos of easily good enough quality for most purposes (including posters and magazines) already and things will only get better. Sony has shown that, even at APSC size, with all their effort at producing an amazingly small body, the lens size is already quite big. The rumoured baby Nikon is going the right way. And please, don't tell me that a bigger sensor has more depth of field control. 90+% of the time we want more depth of field, not less! Subject isolation is better done by technique in most cases anyway.
Don.
-
Hi,
My point would be that there are advantages to getting rid of the mirror. Would Sony make a full frame camera with EVIL design at reasonable I would absolutely buy it, because of exact focusing.
Best regards
Erik
I might chip in that there is an underlying obsession with many that so called "Full Frame", which is based on the once so popular 35mm film format, which is a bit of a red herring in the digital era. The format is unnecessarily large for a compact bodied camera. Sensors with half or quarter the area are producing photos of easily good enough quality for most purposes (including posters and magazines) already and things will only get better. Sony has shown that, even at APSC size, with all their effort at producing an amazingly small body, the lens size is already quite big. The rumoured baby Nikon is going the right way. And please, don't tell me that a bigger sensor has more depth of field control. 90+% of the time we want more depth of field, not less! Subject isolation is better done by technique in most cases anyway.
Don.
-
The rumoured baby Nikon is going the right way. And please, don't tell me that a bigger sensor has more depth of field control. 90+% of the time we want more depth of field, not less! Subject isolation is better done by technique in most cases anyway.
Right -- just like a few years ago when Nikon did just DX and declared they would never do FX (full frame) since that didn't make sense... we all know what happened
And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a small size and weight.
-
Hi,
My point would be that there are advantages to getting rid of the mirror. Would Sony make a full frame camera with EVIL design at reasonable I would absolutely buy it, because of exact focusing.
Best regards
Erik
Right -- just like a few years ago when Nikon did just DX and declared they would never do FX (full frame) since that didn't make sense... we all know what happened
And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a small size and weight.
+1 to both
-
And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a small size and weight.
Indeed. That is also before we get onto the ever greater demands on lenses with small sensors and high iso noise problems. I'd love a NEX type camera that could shot easily get a decent ISO 3200 like my D700, Cameras of this type are often used in demanding situations like low light with no tripod.
-
Now, of course, if small size isn't a goal, and retrofocus wides and/or registration distances similar to what we see in our current DSLRs are an option, then none of the above is an issue. Someone could just remove the mirror assembly and prism, replace it with an EVF setup, and things would be fine.
Quite true, but if smaller size and lower weight than a DSLR is not a goal, one might as well just use a DSLR with Live View. To the idea that an EVIL camera still has some advantage because the EVF is sometimes preferable to either OVF or rear-screen Live View, I reply that a DSLR could also offer an EVF, probably as an optional clip-on as with some m4/3 models. And the main objection I can see to that is some increased bulk, which brings us back to where we started -- how much do size and weight matter, in particular to those who demand "film-sized" sensors?
-
... it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control.
Those factors plus cost maybe? There are some problems with thinking that the same format will be the ideal balance in digital as it was with film:
- image quality at equal format size is far higher for digital than for film, pushing the balance towards smaller formats
- cost at equal format size is far higher for digital than for film, pushing the balance towards smaller formats
- evidence from the market place: almost eight years after the first "full frame revolution" (Kodak 14N, Canon 1Ds), and almost five years after the "second revolution" (Canon 5D), the smaller DSLR formats still outsell 35mm format by well over ten to one, and the 35m format DSLRs still cost far more than most SLR users have ever for a camera.
P. S. on size. It is laughable to suggest to a telephoto enthusiast like me that the 400mm and longer lenses I would want in 35mm format are anywhere near to an ideal balance of size (and price) vs performance. For most SLR users, the bulk of such telephoto lenses was merely the price we had to pay in the bad old days when film offered far inferior combinations of resolution and low light performance than electronic sensors now can.
P. P. S. on DOF control. By the end of the era of 35mm film cameras, the great majority of users of those cameras used them with zoom lenses of maybe f/5.6 at the long end on SLRs, slower on the compacts that accounted for the great majority of 35mm film cameras. Thus the DOF control they had was no more than the smaller mainstream DSLR formats now offer when used with lenses of suitably low minimum f-stops. So the mainstream DSLR formats like EF-S and DX can match or exceed the IQ and DOF control that most people were getting with 35mm film back then.
-
Right -- just like a few years ago when Nikon did just DX and declared they would never do FX (full frame) since that didn't make sense... we all know what happened
And DOF control is an issue, and full-frame shows an advantage here. Actually, full-frame is not just a coincidental historic accident: there have been many formats, smaller and many larger ones in the film days and it just so happend that 35mm was the goldilock format for most people striking the balance between size and weight of the body, and image quality and DOF control. and I think that most people would prefer even larger sensors like the Leica S2 or medium format if technology would allow for a small size and weight.
Well, as has just been pointed out, what counts for film does not count for digital. 35mm became popular in film days because smaller formats (APS, 110 for example) just did not cut it when enlargements were required. Anyone wanting big prints eventually moved towards larger formats too. In film days, we put up with big lenses and shallow depth of field - it was always a struggle to keep shutter speeds high enough without losing depth of field but we did it because there were no practical options. I know, I have had many 35mm cameras and larger. I choose to shoot with the 4/3 system because there is LESS compromise than larger formats. I get sufficient image quality to impress my clients so would gain nothing in 99% of cases by using a larger format. It is erroneous to suggest what counted in film days is still correct for digital capture.
And a note on this current fascination with shallow depth of field. My flatmate has a Sony 900 - a lovely camera. Testing the Zeiss 85/1.4, I was amazed that I could not get a whole eyebrow in focus at f1.4! My standard portrait lens in film days was a Canon 100/2.8 but I had to stop it down to f4 or 5.6 to have a sufficient d.o.f. for good portraiture (subject in focus but isolated from background) The internet is plastered with "show-off" shallow d.o.f. photos which would be so much better if the photographer had actually stopped the lens down a bit and controlled the photo. This thing has become an obsession!
APS-C and 4/3 are liberating. Something even smaller could be even better.
Don
-
And the main objection I can see to that is some increased bulk, which brings us back to where we started -- how much do size and weight matter, in particular to those who demand "film-sized" sensors?
The NEX 16mm f/2.8, with a built-in ultra-sonic ring-motor, weighs in at 70gms and is "pancakey" in profile.....a 24x36mm version of this lens would have weighed say 90gms. How much do you think an equivalent retrofocal dSLR 16mm f/2.8 would have weighed ?
-
- evidence from the market place: almost eight years after the first "full frame revolution" (Kodak 14N, Canon 1Ds), and almost five years after the "second revolution" (Canon 5D), the smaller DSLR formats still outsell 35mm format by well over ten to one, and the 35m format DSLRs still cost far more than most SLR users have ever for a camera.
You forgot to add (with your classic deceptiveness and sneering approach, that is visible both here and also in DPR) that the "ten to one" ratio is of course fueled on by the cheap-as-dirt 1.6x Rebels, the 1.5x D40s, the D60s, the A200s, the A300s, the 2.0x lower-end 4/3 products, the 1.7x Sigma products and a variety of such mish-mash formats, while the 1.0x sensored brethren are all magnesium-alloy bodied weather-sealed behemoths that command a far higher margin, thus increasing the price of entry of ownership.
At one time, Nikon was churning out 12,000 D3s from their Sendai plant when it got released and for the first whole year, the $4000 D3 was just sold-out everywhere. Sure, they could not churn out as many D3s as say the D60s to balance out some of that 10 to 1 ratio that you speak about, but the 5.8 BILLION dollars in sales revenue that the D3 single-handedly generated in its very first year (not counting the even more critical secondary demand in lenses and such that it would have triggered off additionally), was not a bad investment decision from Nikon's perspective.
You have time and again shown your disdain for 35mm Full-frame all these years. We all know that. You don't have to repeatedly make the same old tired points, again and again. Let it go, fellow and move on.
-
Testing the Zeiss 85/1.4, I was amazed that I could not get a whole eyebrow in focus at f1.4!
Did you not know that if you needed more DOF, you just had to stop it down as needed and/or step farther away ? And did you position the camera right in front of them to take the picture, to only have the eyebrow in focus at f/1.4 ? And if so, then I would be curious to know why, other than to prove some kind of esoteric point ?
-
You forgot to add (with your classic deceptiveness and sneering approach, that is visible both here and also in DPR) that the "ten to one" ratio is of course fueled on by the cheap-as-dirt 1.6x Rebels, the 1.5x D40s, the D60s, the A200s, the A300s, the 2.0x lower-end 4/3 products, the 1.7x Sigma products and a variety of such mish-mash formats, while the 1.0x sensored brethren are all magnesium-alloy bodied weather-sealed behemoths that command a far higher margin, thus increasing the price of entry of ownership.
At one time, Nikon was churning out 12,000 D3s from their Sendai plant when it got released and for the first whole year, the $4000 D3 was just sold-out everywhere. Sure, they could not churn out as many D3s as say the D60s to balance out some of that 10 to 1 ratio that you speak about, but the 5.8 BILLION dollars in sales revenue that the D3 single-handedly generated in its very first year (not counting the even more critical secondary demand in lenses and such that it would have triggered off additionally), was not a bad investment decision from Nikon's perspective.
You have time and again shown your disdain for 35mm Full-frame all these years. We all know that. You don't have to repeatedly make the same old tired points, again and again. Let it go, fellow and move on.
Where did you get that $5.8B number?
-
Where did you get that $5.8B number?
12000 x 12 x $4000 = 5.76 Billion USD (rough estimate)
-
12000 x 12 x $4000 = 5.76 Billion USD (rough estimate)
I figured that. Where did you get those numbers from? Does Nikon publish numbers in their reports?
-
Did you not know that if you needed more DOF, you just had to stop it down as needed and/or step farther away ? And did you position the camera right in front of them to take the picture, to only have the eyebrow in focus at f/1.4 ? And if so, then I would be curious to know why, other than to prove some kind of esoteric point ?
Hmm. You missed my point completely. But, reading your post before your reply to mine, I'd say you don't want to know? Fair enough.
Don
-
I would contend that NEX is "fullframe," because its mount and lenses are designed for APS-C. I'm always for bigger sensors, but, when you have a system designed with small size in mind, there must be a balance struck between size and IQ. NEX seems to do that well.
-
The NEX 16mm f/2.8 ...
Most users of interchangeable lens cameras want more than one slowish prime lens offering a single wide-angle focal length. Look at a typical kit with a standard zoom (say 28-105) and a telephoto zoom reaching 300mm (though I for one much prefer the "400mm equivalent" of my 4/3 50-200mm); that is where the size and weight difference between 35mm format and the new smaller mainstream digital formats comes in.
-
You forgot to add (with your classic deceptiveness and sneering approach, that is visible both here and also in DPR) that the "ten to one" ratio is of course fueled on by the cheap-as-dirt 1.6x Rebels, the 1.5x D40s, the D60s, the A200s, the A300s, the 2.0x lower-end 4/3 products, the 1.7x Sigma products and a variety of such mish-mash formats,
Wow, you accuse me of a sneering approach and then describe mainstream DSLRs with words like "cheap-as-dirt" and "mish-mash"!
Stripping the insulting language aside, what you are saying is something that I completely agree on: that cost is a major reason for the difference in sales volume. I have never hidden that at being a major facto, so I do not see why you accuse me of being deceptive. Perhaps it is more precise to say that price/performance balance is the reason: the great majority of SLR users find that the mainstream DSLR formats can offer high enough quality that any improvement from going to 35mm format would not be enough to justify the substantially higher cost.
And the cost gap applies not only to the "cheap-as-dirt" models you mention: for example, even the good quality, well built models at the top of the Canon EF-S line continue to cost substantially less than Canon's cheapest 35mm format option. Even Canon, overall the most aggressive promoter of 35mm format DSLRs, has not managed to get it down to a price vaguely close to what most SLR buyers find worth paying.
In case you are confused, I am not at all denying that 35mm format has an important place towards the high end of digital photography, and in the bottom line for Canon and Nikon. I am only skeptical about the persistent prediction that 36x24mm format will ever get close to the dominance it had in the film era, when the lower resolution and lower sensitivity of chemical emulsions compared to electronic sensors forced the use of a larger format than with digital to get comparable image quality.
P. S. Being old enough to remember $300 was an above-average price for a (film) SLR, it is strange to read any DSLR described as being "cheap-as-dirt".
-
12000 x 12 x $4000 = 5.76 Billion USD (rough estimate)
Try 576 million USD ... if this production volume of 12,000 was sustained for a full year, not just during the initial months of satisfying pent-up demand from Nikon users. [Edited: this was the prediction from Rob Galbraith.]
-
Most users of interchangeable lens cameras want more than one slowish prime lens offering a single wide-angle focal length. Look at a typical kit with a standard zoom (say 28-105) and a telephoto zoom reaching 300mm (though I for one much prefer the "400mm equivalent" of my 4/3 50-200mm); that is where the size and weight difference between 35mm format and the new smaller mainstream digital formats comes in.
I agree that more primes are needed for NEX ( and they are surely coming.) However, I personally think that using zooms on such a camera defeats the whole purpose. Once a lens is big enough to make the camera non-pocketable, I might as well just use a 35mm. I would never even consider a zoom on NEX or m4/3. Until more NEX primes come, I'm going to use M lenses.
-
Try 576 million USD ... if this production volume of 12,000 was sustained for a full year, not just during the initial months of satisfying pent-up demand from Nikon users. [Edited: this was the prediction from Rob Galbraith.]
Weigh in there that they amortized their development of the D3 body and mechanicals, and the volume manufacturing costs, across the combined D3/D3s/D3x models. This was a profitable venture for Nikon.
With all the benefits of small sensors, the 24x36mm sensor is a live product. As such, the idea of putting a full frame sensor into the smallest possible form factor while retaining lens interchangeability cannot be resisted. Any number of backpacking landscape photographers will welcome the prospect of being able to get D3x quality images out of a package that weighs 500 grams. PJs will welcome the possibility of being able to work quickly and easily in any confines. It will have a niche. And since the development of the camera body will be amortized across any number of consumer offerings (NEX3/5 for example), I don't think the costs of bringing the product to market will be prohibitive.
-
Weigh in there that they amortized their development of the D3 body and mechanicals ...
With all the benefits of small sensors, the 24x36mm sensor is a live product.
You seem to misunderstand me; while correcting that over-estimate of D3 gross retail sales revenue, I am not disputing that very high quality professional 35mm format DSLRs like the $4000 D3 are worthy and profitable; or high quality advanced amateur models like the $2,500 5D2. My skepticism is about frequent claims for about a decade now that 35mm format will ever spread much beyond its high end 10% or so of the interchangeable lens digital camera and become a majpr part of the mainstream of the interchangeable lens camera market place.
Any number of backpacking landscape photographers will welcome the prospect of being able to get D3x quality images out of a package that weighs 500 grams.
Total kit weight is what matters, not the weight of a body without a lens, and a working interchangeable lens 35mm camera including lenses with total weight 500 grams seems unlikely, except perhaps for someone who wants neither telephoto reach nor more than one or two focal lengths available.
PJs will welcome the possibility of being able to work quickly and easily in any confines.
Yes; and PJ's already have the D3, even though Canon has for whatever reason not yet made a full 35mm format digital camera aimed at the PJ market. Mirrorless systems have some major speed disadvantages (AF, VF lag) to overcome before they can serve the PJ market.
-
You seem to misunderstand me; while correcting that over-estimate of D3 gross retail sales revenue, I am not disputing that very high quality professional 35mm format DSLRs like the $4000 D3 are worthy and profitable; or high quality advanced amateur models like the $2,500 5D2. My skepticism is about frequent claims for about a decade now that 35mm format will ever spread much beyond its high end 10% or so of the interchangeable lens digital camera and become a majpr part of the mainstream of the interchangeable lens camera market place.
You might be right that 35mm will never spread beyond a certain segment, not where the more cost-effective APS-c will do the job, which is the case for most people. But I think it has been a special segment with its own dynamic. It doesn't compete with the huge stampede of P&S offerings, and certainly not with the iPhone. And it's profitable, partly because the competition is narrow I suppose at this point. It could be blown further open. The potential is right there for full frame cameras to move into the $1700 DSLR price sector. That would disrupt the high-end APS DSLRs pretty well. Beyond that, I don't know.
-
You might be right that 35mm will never spread beyond a certain segment, not where the more cost-effective APS-c will do the job, which is the case for most people. But I think it has been a special segment with its own dynamic. It doesn't compete with the huge stampede of P&S offerings, and certainly not with the iPhone. And it's profitable, partly because the competition is narrow I suppose at this point. It could be blown further open. The potential is right there for full frame cameras to move into the $1700 DSLR price sector. That would disrupt the high-end APS DSLRs pretty well. Beyond that, I don't know.
It's happened already. The Sony A850 is now available in New Zealand for $2,600NZ, less than some DSLRs with smaller sensors, which really makes me think hard.
Looking further ahead, we may end up with a situation in which mirrorless cameras make small sensor SLRs all but redundant but larger formats will keep the mirror. I say this because few smaller format cameras have a good enough viewfinder anyway (except the ones which cost the same as the A850!) so the EVF route is no big disadvantage. Likewise, I don't see the big lenses needed for 35mm working well in a compact, mirrorless system.
Great times!
Don.
-
It's happened already. The Sony A850 is now available in New Zealand for $2,600NZ, less than some DSLRs with smaller sensors, which really makes me think hard.
Makes me think they aren't selling.
-
Here is some possibly disruptive news: Fuji has introduced an image sensor with phase detect AF built in, so with the potential to offer the AF speed advantages of an SLR, and full use of SLR lenses in a camera without a mirror. That would leave electronic viewfinder performance (lag, resolution etc.) as the only reason for staying with the SLR approach, and the digital video industry seems to be working hard on improving EVF/LCD performance. Actually, it merges phase detection and and contrast detection measurements, to give potentially better performance than either alone can.
For now this is in a compact with 1/2" CCD sensor, the FujiFilm FinePix F300EXR (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/f/finepix_f300exr/), but I have read that other camera makers have patents on similar ideas, so maybe it will move up to interchangeable lens cameras. What might that do to the evolution of 35mm format digital cameras and EVIL cameras?
-
...but I have read that other camera makers have patents on similar ideas, so maybe it will move up to interchangeable lens cameras. What might that do to the evolution of 35mm format digital cameras and EVIL cameras?
If they can get the AF to be fast and EVFs to be acceptable to most users, then the sky is the limit. I'd think it would be interesting if a company like Sigma, that knows how all the lens interfaces work, teams up with a company like Panasonic or Fuji to make an EVIL system that via adapters can fully utilize all the features in existing lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.
But I'm dreaming...
In the short run, even Canon and Nikon to Nex fully functioning electronic adapters would probably be a big seller for someone.
-
Here is some possibly disruptive news: Fuji has introduced an image sensor with phase detect AF built in, so with the potential to offer the AF speed advantages of an SLR, and full use of SLR lenses in a camera without a mirror. That would leave electronic viewfinder performance (lag, resolution etc.) as the only reason for staying with the SLR approach, and the digital video industry seems to be working hard on improving EVF/LCD performance. Actually, it merges phase detection and and contrast detection measurements, to give potentially better performance than either alone can.
For now this is in a compact with 1/2" CCD sensor, the FujiFilm FinePix F300EXR (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/f/finepix_f300exr/), but I have read that other camera makers have patents on similar ideas, so maybe it will move up to interchangeable lens cameras. What might that do to the evolution of 35mm format digital cameras and EVIL cameras?
Sony patented something similar over a year ago: link (http://sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-new-sony-patent-shows-phase-detection-integrated-on-the-image-sensor/)
-
My skepticism is about frequent claims for about a decade now that 35mm format will ever spread much beyond its high end 10% or so of the interchangeable lens digital camera and become a majpr part of the mainstream of the interchangeable lens camera market place.
I've never heard of such a claim; but judging by the success of the Canon 5DII, a 35mm, affordable, non-SLR digital camera might be marketable, and mainstream isn't really neede for a success .
It's not going to be the NEX, due to the poor view finder design, but there is hope .
On the one hand, a large part of photography is shown on the internet only, not requiring quality cameras; on the other hand, there might still be a sizable market for a silent, unobtrusive and small high-quality camera .
One that isn't the Leica M9 .
Remember the Mamiya 7 ? Huge hit amongst photo journalists and lots of other pros and amateurs .
Yes; and PJ's already have the D3, even though Canon has for whatever reason not yet made a full 35mm format digital camera aimed at the PJ market. Mirrorless systems have some major speed disadvantages (AF, VF lag) to overcome before they can serve the PJ market.
Mirrorless designs do not have a speed disadvantage; electronic view finders do .
-
Mirrorless designs do not have a speed disadvantage; electronic view finders do .
So far, the mirrorless systems have slower AF than good SLR systems, due to the speed disadvantage of CD AF compared to PD AF. At best, maybe some mirrorless systems are comparable in speed to consumer level SLR and lens combinations, but not as fast as high end SLRs with fast lenses (brighter lenses help PD AF speed.)
And since the mirrorless digital systems must use a video VF to offer the TTL viewfinder that almost everyone wants theses days, "video viewfinder lag" is in practice a speed disadvantage of those systems so far.
-
Interestingly, two rumored Sony cams coming this year have only LCD/EVF viewfinders, and they use phase detection af via a pellicle mirror. We'll see....
-
How successful has the 5DII (or even the 5D) been?
I've never heard of such a claim; but judging by the success of the Canon 5DII, a 35mm, affordable, non-SLR digital camera might be marketable, and mainstream isn't really neede for a success .
It's not going to be the NEX, due to the poor view finder design, but there is hope .
On the one hand, a large part of photography is shown on the internet only, not requiring quality cameras; on the other hand, there might still be a sizable market for a silent, unobtrusive and small high-quality camera .
One that isn't the Leica M9 .
Remember the Mamiya 7 ? Huge hit amongst photo journalists and lots of other pros and amateurs .
Mirrorless designs do not have a speed disadvantage; electronic view finders do .
-
Try 576 million USD ... if this production volume of 12,000 was sustained for a full year, not just during the initial months of satisfying pent-up demand from Nikon users. [Edited: this was the prediction from Rob Galbraith.]
Yes, that is true. $576 million and not 5.76B.....of course just including the camera body sales alone and not factoring in the secondary demand for expensive lenses, which I would opine would have been 3-4 times that of the camera body sales numbers in dollar terms. Yes, the sales backlog was sustained till the D700 was announced, at which time the demand shifted from the D3 to the D700.
-
Total kit weight is what matters, not the weight of a body without a lens, and a working interchangeable lens 35mm camera including lenses with total weight 500 grams seems unlikely, except perhaps for someone who wants neither telephoto reach nor more than one or two focal lengths available.
I would say the FF body alone in such a NEX type product, would weigh in at less than 350gms, including the EVF, the built-in flash etc. And if one were to take a Leica M9 type of approach of using such products, where the usage is primarily focused on the wider-end and upto say 135mm or so, you can have a pretty light overall kit in such a NEX based kit. Of course a 300mm f/2.8 (or 600mm f/4 etc) is a large lens, regardless of format, and is just the nature of the beast. And in case of a 600mm f/4, whether you use a D3X or whether you use a NEX5, the camera functions essentially like a lens-cap.
Also, if we are talking about effective FOV etc., where we are playing with pixel density and pretending that a 300mm FL has magically become a 600mm and so on, that game can be played with a FF sensor too, with adequate/equivalent pixel density, and then cropping as needed.....while masking off the electronic view-finder via some kind of a firmware adjustment and allowing the user to choose whatever format or "magnification" he needs while composing or shooting....and then switch to the full-view when needing to shoot wide and so on.
-
P. S. Being old enough to remember $300 was an above-average price for a (film) SLR, it is strange to read any DSLR described as being "cheap-as-dirt".
True, but $300 in those days, when translated into today's dollar terms is a pretty hefty chunk of cash. Of course once we factor in the price of the Film (especially for a prolific shooter), which comes "free" with such digital SLR products, that difference gets narrowed even further.
-
Thom Hogan said on July 26 at his site http://www.bythom.com/ (http://www.bythom.com/) that Sony Semiconductor is likely to discontinue 35m format ("FX" in Nikon-speak) sensors, because Thom's claimed inside sources say that "high management in Sony is saying that full-frame cameras and sensors aren't bringing the payback necessary to make them long-term profitable."
Combining this with repeated reports that Sony's DSLR division has not yet attained profitability hints that maybe the future for Sony (like Panasonic and Samsung) with interchangeable lens systems is the far higher sales volume and revenues of mirror-less digital cameras with "mainstream-sized" sensors; sensors that can be fabbed without the extra cost barrier of stitching.
-
Thom Hogan said on July 26 at his site http://www.bythom.com/ (http://www.bythom.com/) that Sony Semiconductor is likely to discontinue 35m format ("FX" in Nikon-speak) sensors, because Thom's claimed inside sources say that "high management in Sony is saying that full-frame cameras and sensors aren't bringing the payback necessary to make them long-term profitable."
The general impression I got about the Thom "rumor" is that he has gotten bamboozled by someone with an agenda, who fed him what they wanted him to publish. He himself may not have had any malicious intent. Unfortunately, due to the way the internet operates, even such poorly vetted "rumors" which had in some instances been elevated to being referred to as "news", too get a wide enough audience.
There were some creative after-the-fact statements that the true intent from the posting was to "help Sony" and things along those lines and that Sony users need to "petition Sony" to bring back the supposedly dying sensor line. Absolute hogwash ! The poster clearly knows that any such "petition" will have precisely the opposite effect of the claim, since any potential buyer would just be scared away from purchasing any more equipment.
Essentially a VERY tricky and VERY cleverly worded underhanded trick played on Thom, IMO, intended to play on some real fears that some people have about Sony, regardless of what products they release. For the past year or so, with Nikon not yet releasing their much awaited D700X (essentially a D700 with the D3X high resolution sensor in it), Sony has been capturing quite a few Nikon shooters with the A850, since an A850 and a couple of lenses could be obtained for a relative pittance, when compared to the $8000 for the D3X. And this could be a way for Nikon to hit back at that specific target segment......and just used Thom as their instrument.
-
Essentially a VERY tricky and VERY cleverly worded underhanded trick played on Thom, IMO, intended to play on some real fears that some people have about Sony, regardless of what products they release.
Sort of a Sony WMD scam, in other words...
-
The general impression I got about the Thom "rumor" is that he has gotten bamboozled by someone with an agenda, who fed him what they wanted him to publish. He himself may not have had any malicious intent. Unfortunately, due to the way the internet operates, even such poorly vetted "rumors" which had in some instances been elevated to being referred to as "news", too get a wide enough audience.
There were some creative after-the-fact statements that the true intent from the posting was to "help Sony" and things along those lines and that Sony users need to "petition Sony" to bring back the supposedly dying sensor line. Absolute hogwash ! The poster clearly knows that any such "petition" will have precisely the opposite effect of the claim, since any potential buyer would just be scared away from purchasing any more equipment.
Essentially a VERY tricky and VERY cleverly worded underhanded trick played on Thom, IMO, intended to play on some real fears that some people have about Sony, regardless of what products they release. For the past year or so, with Nikon not yet releasing their much awaited D700X (essentially a D700 with the D3X high resolution sensor in it), Sony has been capturing quite a few Nikon shooters with the A850, since an A850 and a couple of lenses could be obtained for a relative pittance, when compared to the $8000 for the D3X. And this could be a way for Nikon to hit back at that specific target segment......and just used Thom as their instrument.
What is the evidence trail that supports this? He indicated multiple sources in his article and has traditionally refused to publish anything from a single source.
-
What is the evidence trail that supports this? He indicated multiple sources in his article and has traditionally refused to publish anything from a single source.
And what is the evidence trail that supports all of his assertions about a competitor's future product plans ? Remember, his assertions not only talked about Sony Semiconductor Kyushu corporation but also talked about an entirely different Sony division, which is the Sony Imaging group. Both of these are core Japanese corporations based solely out of traditionalist Japan and are highly centralised in their decision making, with maybe the tier-2 level managers knowing what the longer term plans are. Sony Imaging (along with Sony Semi-conductor) is (are) typically VERY tightlipped about everything they do, unless they themselves decide to release something. It is not only highly improbable that Mr.Thom (a long term Nikon shooter, based out of America), was ever contacted by anyone (from senior management who had any knowledge of a future roadmap) from the Japan-based Sony Imaging, let alone the even more secretive Japan-based Sony Semi-conductor.
I rate this rumor's credibility as ZERO and the intent of the true source(s) of the "rumor" was damaging a competitor's reputation and sow doubts about its future, than something constructive.....even though they are craftily trying to paint a positive spin about the rumor's intent.
-
And what is the evidence trail that supports all of his assertions about a competitor's future product plans?
Thom Hogan, who is known to have contacts in the photographic industry and has a decent track record for previous claims of inside information (like the first correct rumor of a Nikon 35mm format DSLR), has put his name on these claims, and thus has to some extent put his reputation behind what he says. Not that this rules out his sources being wrong or even lying (he has been wrong on some rumors too) but his authorship at least makes it a higher grade of rumor than most of what flies around in photography forums.
So against, this, can you name any source or give any evidence whatsoever for your claim that he has been bamboozled?
Since you probably read it on a website, can you give us links to the sources? Preferably sources who, like Thom Hogan, give their name and are people we know something about, so we have some chance of assessing their credibility.
Or are you just summarizing the sentiment expressed in a large number of forum posts?
-
I would drop all the wonderful (and very wishful) things on your laundry list for one good wide/normal prime pancake lens. With f/2.0 or faster. The 16mm, while fun, is too wide for most things and the corners are blurry something nasty.
I still can't believe Sony chose an ultrawide for their only pancake prime.
IMO other than that, surprisingly good cameras. The rotating hi-res LCD is really a game-changer I think, it's the first viewfinder-free camera with a LiveView LCD that feels up to the task. Love the waist level shooting- Like an old TLR.
-
I would drop all the wonderful (and very wishful) things on your laundry list for one good wide/normal prime pancake lens. With f/2.0 or faster. The 16mm, while fun, is too wide for most things and the corners are blurry something nasty.
I still can't believe Sony chose an ultrawide for their only pancake prime.
IMO other than that, surprisingly good cameras. The rotating hi-res LCD is really a game-changer I think, it's the first viewfinder-free camera with a LiveView LCD that feels up to the task. Love the waist level shooting- Like an old TLR.
I would have picked one up if that 16mm had decent corners. Just a ridiculously small setup.
The best thing about a twisty LCD (like the Nex or my G1) is it lets me move the camera from eye level without me needing to get that knee scoped.
-
And what is the evidence trail that supports all of his assertions about a competitor's future product plans ? Remember, his assertions not only talked about Sony Semiconductor Kyushu corporation but also talked about an entirely different Sony division, which is the Sony Imaging group. Both of these are core Japanese corporations based solely out of traditionalist Japan and are highly centralised in their decision making, with maybe the tier-2 level managers knowing what the longer term plans are. Sony Imaging (along with Sony Semi-conductor) is (are) typically VERY tightlipped about everything they do, unless they themselves decide to release something. It is not only highly improbable that Mr.Thom (a long term Nikon shooter, based out of America), was ever contacted by anyone (from senior management who had any knowledge of a future roadmap) from the Japan-based Sony Imaging, let alone the even more secretive Japan-based Sony Semi-conductor.
I rate this rumor's credibility as ZERO and the intent of the true source(s) of the "rumor" was damaging a competitor's reputation and sow doubts about its future, than something constructive.....even though they are craftily trying to paint a positive spin about the rumor's intent.
Thom has built up credibility over the years. Doesn't mean he's right but I don't expect wild rumors out of him. How often has he been played?
-
The general impression I got about the Thom "rumor" is that he has gotten bamboozled by someone with an agenda, who fed him what they wanted him to publish. He himself may not have had any malicious intent. Unfortunately, due to the way the internet operates, even such poorly vetted "rumors" which had in some instances been elevated to being referred to as "news", too get a wide enough audience.
Perhaps, on the other hand Sony has been known to put in place very bold cost reduction campains and it wouldn't be too surprising if they decided to rationalize their product lines in some BUs.
Nikon users would most probably be affected negatively by such a move. Sony DI hasn't managed to steal too much market share from Nikon, but their semi-conductor unit is a major supplier of Nikon, including for FF sensors...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon users would most probably be affected negatively by such a move ... [Sony's] semi-conductor unit is a major supplier of Nikon, including for FF sensors...
It depends on whether Nikon can extend its success with the "low resolution, high speed" sensor designs for the D3 and D700 series to good higher resolution sensors for the "X" series. My guess is that Nikon wants to bring its high-end [36x24mm] sensor design operations entirely in-house to have a USP, but if and when it can do that, I do not speculate.
-
It does not make a lot of sense to drop FF cameras, even for a company like Sony which is well known for dropping products that are not successful.
They have a growing line up of expensive FF lenses, which would become a very hard sell to amateurs who owns sub 1000$ bodies.
Those lenses are not exactly suitable for the Sony professional video cameras that support the alpha mount, since they suffer from the same problem of canon and nikon lenses which are not "cinema lenses" and cannot repeat follow focus reliably.
Therefore the question, if they drop FF and they do not source it from another factory, what are they going to do with all those lenses?
IMo, Sony needs a serious flagship product on order to keep the DSLR department looking decent.
As for thom hogan rumor, he is recognized as a no BS person, I normally tend to consider his view, yet I know that many times he has been wrong, even if in bona fede.
This time he does not exactly quote his sources.
The way he quotes them, is too vague for giving its the due credibility. I think if he cannot quote sources properly, he should have kept it for himself.
Hopefully he is wrong, it would be better for Nikon, Sony and also Canon user. I would hate to see FF development slowing down and going back to 8K cameras bodies only.
Anyway for what is worth, there are also rumors of the next FF Sony camera that it is due for beginning 2011, it would offer a new sensor technology and it has been tested on the MP count of 24 and 30+.
it was posted on the usual Sony Alpha rumors site, which has about the same succes rate than Thom Hogan.... actually a bit higher.
cheers!
-
It does not make a lot of sense to drop FF cameras ... They have a growing line up of expensive FF lenses, which would become a very hard sell to amateurs who owns sub 1000$ bodies.
Money already spent is not enough reason to keep spending more money if management judges that there is little prospect of adequate return on an such future spending. Think of all the other fine lens systems that have been orphaned over the last decade: the Zeiss lenses for the Contax 35mm and 645 systems; the Zeiss and Schneider lenses for Rollei/Hy6 medium format; the Leica, Olympus and Pentax lenses for 35mm formats SLR's, etc. (Looking at that list, Zeiss seems almost cursed in the SLR market!)
... there are also rumors of the next FF Sony camera that it is due for beginning 2011, it would offer a new sensor technology and it has been tested on the MP count of 24 and 30+.
And the solid fact of a couple of new 35mm format lenses including one high end Zeiss-Sony 24/2, so the short term is not bleak. But finalizing and releasing products that are well into the development process is not inconsistent with a longer term plan to stop initiating further product developments beyond what is already in the pipe-line. To be optimistic, the time lag might be enough to lead to a change of plans if Sony's 36x24mm sensor sales and profitability improve.
-
"high management in Sony is saying that full-frame cameras and sensors aren't bringing the payback necessary to make them long-term profitable."
Sony is amateur market only, it surprises me they even bothered to make an FF camera in the first place.
-
Sony is amateur market only, it surprises me they even bothered to make an FF camera in the first place.
While not being professional in the sense of having something akin to CPS, Sony does provide many professional landscape, wedding, fine art and studio photographers with fullframe camera bodies. As for "professional" build, the A900 certainly competes.
-
While not being professional in the sense of having something akin to CPS, Sony does provide many professional landscape, wedding, fine art and studio photographers with fullframe camera bodies. As for "professional" build, the A900 certainly competes.
Actually, I am thinking of getting a 35mm format system for specific, professional work and the Sony system is the one that appeals the most to me, by quite some way.
Don.
-
While not being professional in the sense of having something akin to CPS, Sony does provide many professional landscape, wedding, fine art and studio photographers with fullframe camera bodies. As for "professional" build, the A900 certainly competes.
That is about how I see it: Sony has some bodies and lenses of good enough quality for some kinds of professional usage, but lacks the breadth of choices (no fast lenses beyond 300mm for example), support and "user mindshare" to win adoption in many professional sectors. For example, AFAIK, no news organization uses anything other than Canon or Nikon, because they adopt one system, and choose a system that can best covers their wide range of needs.
Maybe this sort of more specialized high level system can be made viable (like Leica rangefinders and MF systems), maybe not. Wedding and portrait photography keeps coming up, I suppose because the practitioners are more often making individual gear choices, and it is easier for a smaller system to cover the range of lenses and accessories needed. But there is always the question of "what does it offer that is different from or better than Canon or Nikon?", to compensate for the advantages those two largest systems have from their economies of scale. Sensor based stabilization? Some Carl Zeiss connection in some lenses? Mirrorless, with better video than DSLR's offer?
-
But there is always the question of "what does it offer that is different from or better than Canon or Nikon?", to compensate for the advantages those two largest systems have from their economies of scale. Sensor based stabilization? Some Carl Zeiss connection in some lenses?
Those are exactly the two reasons that drew me into the system, initially. You make a good point about the word "professional." Obviously, Sony isn't after any of the sports or news agency markets. That has been sewn up for a long time. However, "professional" photography is a broad term with many types.
-
Think of all the other fine lens systems that have been orphaned over the last decade:... Pentax lenses for 35mm formats SLR's
Pentax ? 35mm, 645 and 67 can be mounted and used on current Pentax dSLR
-
Pentax ? 35mm, 645 and 67 can be mounted and used on current Pentax dSLR
Yes: my phrasing was poor; I just meant that Pentax no longer makes any 35mm format [36x24mm] SLR's that use those lenses "as intended". Likewise, Sony's 35mm format lenses would still be usable on Sony's APS-C format DSLRs. My point was only that the existence of a good collection of 35mm format lenses is not a sufficient reason for Sony [or Pentax] to keep making 35mm format SLRs.
Aside: Pentax did announce its intention to make 35mm format DSLRs, using the same 6MP Phillips/Dalsa sensor as Contax used in its ill-fated DSLR, but then Pentax abandoned than plan, presumably because it was decided that it would not be profitable, and this decision was made despite Pentax having a fairly good 35mm format lens system.
-
Yes: my phrasing was poor; I just meant that Pentax no longer makes any 35mm format [36x24mm] SLR's that use those lenses "as intended". Likewise, Sony's 35mm format lenses would still be usable on Sony's APS-C format DSLRs. My point was only that the existence of a good collection of 35mm format lenses is not a sufficient reason for Sony [or Pentax] to keep making 35mm format SLRs.
Aside: Pentax did announce its intention to make 35mm format DSLRs, using the same 6MP Phillips/Dalsa sensor as Contax used in its ill-fated DSLR, but then Pentax abandoned than plan, presumably because it was decided that it would not be profitable, and this decision was made despite Pentax having a fairly good 35mm format lens system.
Although you have a made a good point that sales of lenses are not a good reason enough to keep producing FF sensors if they are not cost effective, I would not set the example of Pentax, Contax and Rolley which are companies of the size of a small subsidiary of Sony. And probably despite Sony having only 10% (probably more as today) of the DSLR market, all the 3 companies combined may not have been able to sell the same amount of lenses Sony alone is selling today.
Again when Pentax decided of not doing the FF DSLR body was at the time when sensor technology was not as advanced and cost effective as today. They also had to outsource the sensor.
Sure that all those ff lenses would work very well on cropped sensors and are actually sold mostly to APS-c customers, therefore I can agree that a FF body is not necessary for sony. (nikon was pretty successful for 5/6 years previous having a FF body). Yet having a valid flagship FF product as Sony and Nikon have today, probably still help to sell more APS-c cameras.
Imo, the main reason of the small success of the a900/a850 (and D3x) was that they came to the market 1 year after the 1Ds3.
FF DSLR customers were already tied to Canon from the previous 5 years, the majority were a lot of Nikon and MF film switchers (including myself), most of us had already bought the 1ds3 which was not worth to be replaced with cameras that were pretty similar.
-
While not being professional in the sense of having something akin to CPS, Sony does provide many professional landscape, wedding, fine art and studio photographers with fullframe camera bodies. As for "professional" build, the A900 certainly competes.
There is this stereotype that the a900 cannot be used outside of studio by: wedding, fashion and advertising photographers, but In my experience this is not the case.
The a900 can be safely used up to 1600 iso for commercial printing (magazine spreads not even showing a bit of grain) and with some precautions up to 3200iso.
You probably have noticed that. while being in every way a much better camera, the a900 suffered a bit from Kodak 14n syndrome and some diehard Canon users have often compared the a900 to the Kodak.
there is nothing more wrong than that comparison.
I went from using the 1ds 1 and 2, to the A900, and I do not miss them one bit. actually I would be disappointed if I had to go back to Canon for still photography. ( still use 7d and 5d with zeiss lenses for filming).
-
While not being professional in the sense of having something akin to CPS, Sony does provide many professional landscape, wedding, fine art and studio photographers with fullframe camera bodies. As for "professional" build, the A900 certainly competes.
My apologies, I didn't mean to be depreciating; professional camera systems for me are the ones that I can rent, buy and have repaired in any major city in the world, with little or no delay.
-
My apologies, I didn't mean to be depreciating; professional camera systems for me are the ones that I can rent, buy and have repaired in any major city in the world, with little or no delay.
You cannot rent a Leica or Hasselblad in any major city of the world.....
Though you cannot rent a Sony, a part for NY and few other places, you can get it repaired with little or not delay practically everywhere.
-
You cannot rent a Leica or Hasselblad in any major city of the world.....
Though you cannot rent a Sony, a part for NY and few other places, you can get it repaired with little or not delay practically everywhere.
Well, most commonly rent departments of the bigger pro photo stores carry Hasselblad, Mamyia, Canon, Nikon and Sinar, the typical work horses , with an assortment of lenses and accessories .
Let's say you give your producer an equipment list, for a shoot in another country, in most cases there will be no problem getting extra bodies, lenses, batteries etc. for the systems listed above.