Hot Full Frame Autumn: New Cameras

[nmccalip]

I haven't read much info about the 25mp Sony to be released.

Does anyone know when it will be released and a possible price-point?

I have no details and would appreciate if someone could link me to some reading.

Thanks All

[Christopher]

I haven't read much info about the 25mp Sony to be released.

Does anyone know when it will be released and a possible price-point?

I have no details and would appreciate if someone could link me to some reading.

Thanks All
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

October and 3000 is my guess ;-)

[douglasf13]

October and 3000 is my guess ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Should be shown at Photokina, and many are speculating closer to $2500, but we'll see.

[Tony Beach]

Should be shown at Photokina, and many are speculating closer to $2500, but we'll see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many speculated that the DSLR that would become the D700 would cost $2000 or so, and that proved to be a grossly optimistic.

[MarkL]

I agree with Tony. I really can't see a 25MP camera being brought to market at or below the cost of the D700.

[douglasf13]

I agree with Tony. I really can't see a 25MP camera being brought to market at or below the cost of the D700.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  The A900 camera shouldn't rival the D700 as far as the camera body is concerned.  It won't have the sophisticated AF and some of the other more pro features.  Everyone that I've talked to that has seen the A900 in person says that it more or less looks like an A700, but it's just a bit bulkier...similar to how the D700 compares to the D300.  The price difference between the D700 and the A900 may be similar to the price difference between the D300 and the A700, since adding more megapixels really doesn't add to much too the cost, and this camera isn't expected to be really fast, but we'll see.  I'd say $2500-$3000 is a pretty good estimate for the Sony.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Pixels don't cost, silicon does. I don't think that there is any significant difference on the manufacturing side. A bit more signal processing may be needed but I don't think that ads to the cost. Development cost are of course very high and need to be amortized, but they are also the same regardless of pixels.

I also expect the A 900 in the 3000 USD range. I'm not really sure I'm going to buy it, however. I'd love 25 MPixels but I don't really feel I need it. Also I think that we are going to need top notch lenses to really utilize those 25 Mpixels, so three new zooms need to be added to the equation. I guess that the Sigma 12-24 may be an alternate for ultra wide but then I would probably need a 24-70/2.8 and perhaps 70-200/2.8.

Erik

I agree with Tony. I really can't see a 25MP camera being brought to market at or below the cost of the D700.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Christopher]

Hi,

Pixels don't cost, silicon does. I don't think that there is any significant difference on the manufacturing side. A bit more signal processing may be needed but I don't think that ads to the cost. Development cost are of course very high and need to be amortized, but they are also the same regardless of pixels.

I also expect the A 900 in the 3000 USD range. I'm not really sure I'm going to buy it, however. I'd love 25 MPixels but I don't really feel I need it. Also I think that we are going to need top notch lenses to really utilize those 25 Mpixels, so three new zooms need to be added to the equation. I guess that the Sigma 12-24 may be an alternate for ultra wide but then I would probably need a 24-70/2.8 and perhaps 70-200/2.8.

Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most sony/zeiss lenses hold probably up better than the canon stuff  

[Ray]

Also I think that we are going to need top notch lenses to really utilize those 25 Mpixels, so three new zooms need to be added to the equation. I guess that the Sigma 12-24 may be an alternate for ultra wide but then I would probably need a 24-70/2.8 and perhaps 70-200/2.8.

Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Better lenses produce better results on any camera. However, as the pixel count increases, one needs to use the lens that is attached to the camera at its optimum or sharpest apertures, which usually range between F5.6 and F8, in order to see the benefit of the extra pixels. Stopping down to increase DoF reduces the benefit of the extra pixels whatever the quality of the lens.

It might be doubtful if one would notice any increased detail at F22, after appropriate interpolation and sharpening for a large print, when comparing 12mp with 24mp.

[douglasf13]

Better lenses produce better results on any camera. However, as the pixel count increases, one needs to use the lens that is attached to the camera at its optimum or sharpest apertures, which usually range between F5.6 and F8, in order to see the benefit of the extra pixels. Stopping down to increase DoF reduces the benefit of the extra pixels whatever the quality of the lens.

It might be doubtful if one would notice any increased detail at F22, after appropriate interpolation and sharpening for a large print, when comparing 12mp with 24mp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210819\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  FWIW,  the CZ 24-70, CZ 85mm and CZ 135mm fullframe lenses for Sony have an optimum aperture of f4, with f5.6 being nearly identical.  I have a feeling that Zeiss will go this route with the upcoming Zeiss ZA lenses, announced at Photokina, as well.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

One issue I have with all tests I have seen is that they are made on 1.5 crop cameras, so they say very little about edge sharpness on full frame. I hope that the Zeiss lenses are sharp across the field but I don't know. We have a journal here in Sweden (Foto) who is testing at the Hasselbald factory using their MTF equipment, they measure MTF up to 60 lp/mm but report only for 20 lp/mm for full frame and 30 lp/mm for APS-C.

They have tested he CZ 85 and the CZ 135. They considered the CZ 135 to be a top class lens, but not the CZ 85. I am quite interested in the 24-75, but Foto has unfortunately not tested it yet.

Another issue is that all full frame tests are now done on either 3D (Nikon) or D5 (Canon) testing a lens on a 12 MPixel body doesn't say much about performance on a 24 MPixel body that I would expect to be quite demanding.

I do have the th CZ 16-80 on my Alpha 700, yes I know it's a different class of lens. It is not sharp in the corners until stopped down two steps, center is quite sharp at all apertures.

Best regards
Erik

FWIW,  the CZ 24-70, CZ 85mm and CZ 135mm fullframe lenses for Sony have an optimum aperture of f4, with f5.6 being nearly identical.  I have a feeling that Zeiss will go this route with the upcoming Zeiss ZA lenses, announced at Photokina, as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

One issue I have with all tests I have seen is that they are made on 1.5 crop cameras, so they say very little about edge sharpness on full frame. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210879\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true. If you peruse the old Photodo MTF charts, you'll see that very few lenses have good performance to the edges and corners. Between about 15mm to 21mm from the centre of the image, even very expensive lenses (at the edges)can look like very cheap lenses (near the centre).

This characteristic of 35mm format lenses has always been the strong point of the cropped format. However, we should bear in mind that edge and corner resolution is usually of secondary importance in most images.

If you want an extensive DoF, it's necessary to stop down, which usually improves edge resolution. Generally, the shallower the DoF, the less important are the corners and edges.

[Cartman]

If we are prognosticating for five years from now I am going on record that 4/3 will be dead and abandoned by every major player in the market.  

I remember arguing with a friend about APS-C film.  When it was first announced he would explain his decision to buy a P&S in that format because of the specs on the new films for the formats.  I just couldn't explain to him that 35mm films were going to be similarly improved.

I just don't know of anything on the five year horizon to overcome the physics that limit the size of electron wells on ultra small pixels.  Anything 4/3 can do DX can do better.  IMO of course, and have no problem being proven wrong.

Thus, will 4/3 be that much better than a P&S and if someone feels the need to go beyond a P&S will they be willing to do SLR light with a 4/3 system instead of DX or FF?  I'm betting they won't.  If they're in for a penny they'll be in for a pound.

Why fiddle with an also-ran when you can get the real deal with practically no downside?

Well, it appears to me that a D300 with 12 MP has more DR than a D100 with 6MP...

They are 5 years apart.

My view is that none of us have any practical way to know exactly how much potential for progress sensor manufacturers still have. If I were running such a business, I would be careful to roll out enhancements little by little for the sake of sustainability and maximum integral sales.

So my bet - and we can look back at this thread again in 5 years from now - is that 4/3 will be by then at least at the level of a D3 today. You want more DR still? Then you will start to have issues with flat images requiring tone mapping to get pleasant results. One by one...

So my contention is that 4/3 does have potential, and considering the quality of the Leica lenses available, my view is that better pics will be taken with these cameras by then than with many of the competing systems on top today...

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Kenneth Sky]

I agree with the above but think physics is not the primary limitation. Digital photography (including printing) is approaching the limitation of the human eye to appreciate noticeable differences of newer technology. If you don't pixel peep, don't take pictures in a coal bin at night and view prints at 3-6 feet, I doubt the next five years technology (except for software) will change the quality of your images.

[Slough]

I agree with the above but think physics is not the primary limitation. Digital photography (including printing) is approaching the limitation of the human eye to appreciate noticeable differences of newer technology. If you don't pixel peep, don't take pictures in a coal bin at night and view prints at 3-6 feet, I doubt the next five years technology (except for software) will change the quality of your images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But where would we be if you could not take a ditch dull picture of your dog, or a wall, using ISO 20,000, and post it on dpreview, to prove that your camera walks over the competition?

[Slough]

If we are prognosticating for five years from now I am going on record that 4/3 will be dead and abandoned by every major player in the market. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would be my guess too, or at least it will remain a niche.

DX has the advantage of an upgrade path to FX if you want it, and a wide range of legacy lenses that also work on the DX camera. And buy Canon/Nikon, and you get loads of system accessories etc.

Whereas 4/3 is a new format, with a small range of often expensive lenses, no upgrade path, and a limited system. It sounds good to marketing wonks, but I think Joe Public has voted with his/her feet.

[CJL]

But where would we be if you could not take a ditch dull picture of your dog, or a wall, using ISO 20,000, and post it on dpreview, to prove that your camera walks over the competition?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You mean cat, don't you?  

[Let Biogons be Biogons]

Of course I really want Foveon to do something aggressive.  A higher resolution DB - say 4000x4000 true square format)  I'd even be happy with 3000X3000.  2,652 × 1,768 isn't quite good enough to compete with the new crop of 15-25MP cameras.  3000*3000 in a DB for say, $2,000 - that would be amazing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

THe problem with Foveon is that they need to cram more pixels in.  But the way the Foveon pixels are made, they are really big so it is increasing hard for them to make them smaller.  Foveon talks about these pixels are being simple layers for the RGB, but it more complex than that, they look more like concentric circles (viewed from the top) and produced by successively filling in a large pit with material for each color sensor.  It's main advantage is the reduction of moire without using AA filters.

One way to improve things would be to increase the size of the sensor.  One wonders why they settles on of 1,7x crop (when say going to 1.5X, would give them more pixels to compete more effectively while still being able to use APS-sized lenses).  One assumes that there is some limitation that prevents them from doing so.  Further, a full frame, 36x24mm, Foveon sensor would possibly make an attractive product that could be competitive with 5D/D700/A900 products (to satisfy the rabid Sigma fanboys out there, let's say more competitive).  Yet we do not see this.  Why, particularly noting that most manufacturers are moving to full frame sensors.  And the Foveon is not without it's own issues (particularly with the blue channel and with noise) -- it isn't perfect, in spite of what some may want you to believe.  If Foveon remains mired in 1.7x crop sized chips and the inability to increase pixel counts, this technology isn't going anywhere.

[BJL]

If we are prognosticating for five years from now I am going on record that 4/3 will be dead ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And none of your arguments are any different from those used by many people to make the same prediction five and more years ago; predictions that are now "expired" and proven wrong.

Please note the simple fact that all the undisputed advantages of a larger format over a smaller one involve using not only larger sensors (inherently more expensive, and persistently a major cost component for mainstream DSLRs) but also longer focal lengths to form a larger image on the larger sensor. This leads to disadvantages in size, weight and cost of a working kit: body plus lenses.  Whatever the technological progress, these sort of trade-offs will persist and camera buyers balance such pros and cons of different format sizes, so predictions about sales success which ignore them are automatically invalid.

The somewhat sad fact is that when this balancing is done, over 90% of camera buyers choose cameras with sensors less than 1/4 the area of 4/3 format. I doubt that the desire for SLR advantages like interchangeable lenses suddenly moves the preferred sensor size up by a factor of four or more, so if anything perhaps all SLR formats including 4/3 are too large for maximum sales success!

[Slough]

And none of your arguments are any different from those used by many people to make the same prediction five and more years ago; predictions that are now "expired" and proven wrong.

Please note the simple fact that all the undisputed advantages of a larger format over a smaller one involve using not only larger sensors (inherently more expensive, and persistently a major cost component for mainstream DSLRs) but also longer focal lengths to form a larger image on the larger sensor. This leads to disadvantages in size, weight and cost of a working kit: body plus lenses.  Whatever the technological progress, these sort of trade-offs will persist and camera buyers balance such pros and cons of different format sizes, so predictions about sales success which ignore them are automatically invalid.

The somewhat sad fact is that when this balancing is done, over 90% of camera buyers choose cameras with sensors less than 1/4 the area of 4/3 format. I doubt that the desire for SLR advantages like interchangeable lenses suddenly moves the preferred sensor size up by a factor of four or more, so if anything perhaps all SLR formats including 4/3 are too large for maximum sales success!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your arguments about 'crop' sensors having advantages due to less need for big heavy telephoto lenses is a good one, and IMO a reason why DX will persist despite the claims of many. But 4/3 has few advantages over DX, and plenty of disadvantages. Or do you see 4/3 market share growing suddenly from its current pathetic cut over the next few years?

The comment about tiny sensors is a red herring. Such P&S cameras offer a good solution for the mass market.