Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony Kicks Butt  (Read 409534 times)

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #80 on: June 27, 2015, 07:16:54 pm »

I've wondered about this. If the issue is just a matter of a firmware upgrade, surely Sony would have taken the opportunity when announcing the marvellous new features of the A7RII, to boast about a new lossless 14 bit RAW mode which they could have claimed would take full advantage of the improved performance and light-gathering capability of its first full-frame BSI sensor.

Surely this could have been a big advertising opportunity for them, even if in reality the improvement in image quality for most users of the camera, who probably shoot jpeg anyway, would not be noticeable.

I could be wrong, but I've suspected the compression may be done on the sensor itself.  It would produce a dramatic increase in frame bandwidth to put it there.  It's a simple on-the-fly method that can be done very fast in a fixed-size hardware register.

Then one wonders how much downstream processing is dependent upon that fact.

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #81 on: July 16, 2015, 06:15:11 am »

Thanks, Kevin, for calling out Sony's obvious innovation.  I think that you're spot on when you say the $3200 price tag is NOT outrageous for a flagship camera.  Heck, just compare it to Nikon and Canon equivalents.

Last I looked it was over 2100 in the UK making it more expensive than equivalent DSLR's
Granted we can talk about IBIS and 4k, however when all is said and done it's just a sensor shoved into a case and unquestionably costs far less to make than a DSLR (less parts quicker build time)

The camera industry continues to try to fool itself it can buck the trend and ignore the golden rule of electronics..ie "they get cheaper"
Cameras are grossly overpriced which is why the industry is in serious trouble and sales are poor.
Logged

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #82 on: July 16, 2015, 08:17:36 am »

Last I looked it was over 2100 in the UK making it more expensive than equivalent DSLR's
Granted we can talk about IBIS and 4k, however when all is said and done it's just a sensor shoved into a case and unquestionably costs far less to make than a DSLR (less parts quicker build time)

The camera industry continues to try to fool itself it can buck the trend and ignore the golden rule of electronics..ie "they get cheaper"
Cameras are grossly overpriced which is why the industry is in serious trouble and sales are poor.

The price tag does make me wonder (especially how quickly Sony's cameras depreciate) what was amazing about A7rII was it was almost a D800 in a smaller form factor for 1k less. Just about all other electronics get cheaper over time but the cameras prices just seem to keep going up.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #83 on: July 16, 2015, 08:51:42 am »

The price tag does make me wonder (especially how quickly Sony's cameras depreciate) what was amazing about A7rII was it was almost a D800 in a smaller form factor for 1k less. Just about all other electronics get cheaper over time but the cameras prices just seem to keep going up.


Mark there is no doubt the price of the Sony will drop (as the other E mount bodies have possibly sharply over time) However one of the obvious potential attractions is "smaller camera, cheaper to make - less expensive" seems to have escaped many ILC makers. Until they start passing on some of those savings and stimulating the market I'll continue to ignore them.

I already have IBIS anyway so it's not something that would make much difference to me, I don't need 4k either
Cameras have got to get cheaper much cheaper otherwise the industry is going to be in terminal decline. If we had the "build" cost of the A7RII I bet jaws would fall all round it's just rip off pricing trying to bag some frustrated Canon users who want better DR. To them it might be a good deal to everyone else it's not 
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6427
electronics gets cheaper mostly through downsizing the ICs
« Reply #84 on: July 16, 2015, 08:57:02 am »

Just about all other electronics get cheaper over time but the cameras prices just seem to keep going up.
Maybe because a major factor is the decreasing cost of electronic devices is making the IC chips smaller, allowed by moving to fabrication with smaller feature sizes (IBM is demonstrating early versions of a 7nm process!).  The unit cost of making a 36x24mm format camera is instead dominated by the cost of a chip of fixed large size (36x24mm), requiring special fabricate techniques not needed for ICs of mainstream sizes (under about 33x26mm).

The main hope for cost reduction with a given format size is improved economies of scale through increased sales volume -- but with the ever-improving performance of cameras in smaller formats (24x16mm and down) with their inherently for less expensive sensors, I suspect it is going to be hard for 36x24mm format to increase its sales volume very much,and so hard to reduce costs much.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 09:05:17 am by BJL »
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #85 on: July 16, 2015, 01:55:12 pm »

Just about all other electronics get cheaper over time but the cameras prices just seem to keep going up.


First of all cheaper is a really misleading term.  Cheap doesn't infer value at all.  If cheap were the criteria that governed all our purchases we'd all be using generic products and would only purchase the least costly tvs, computers, software, cars, homes, food, etc.  I doubt you do that.

I don't believe that cheap is the case for any electronics other than commodity items. Most of the reduction in price for those are based on longer term volume and recovery of capital costs of manufacture.   

I don't think DSLRs or mirrorless cameras can be considered commodity items.  In the markets that aren't commodity items you generally see price points or tiers that exist.  What that means is that you get more or better features with new models rather than lower prices.  This is exactly what we're seeing with the A7r to A7R II progression.  Competition enters into pricing also.  Sony obviously wants into the market in a big way and is willing at this point to accept lower profit margins to gain volume and market share not to mention mind share over Nikon, Canon, et al.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #86 on: July 16, 2015, 09:55:36 pm »

First of all cheaper is a really misleading term.  Cheap doesn't infer value at all.  If cheap were the criteria that governed all our purchases we'd all be using generic products and would only purchase the least costly tvs, computers, software, cars, homes, food, etc.  I doubt you do that.

I don't believe that cheap is the case for any electronics other than commodity items. Most of the reduction in price for those are based on longer term volume and recovery of capital costs of manufacture.   

I don't think DSLRs or mirrorless cameras can be considered commodity items.  In the markets that aren't commodity items you generally see price points or tiers that exist.  What that means is that you get more or better features with new models rather than lower prices.  This is exactly what we're seeing with the A7r to A7R II progression.  Competition enters into pricing also.  Sony obviously wants into the market in a big way and is willing at this point to accept lower profit margins to gain volume and market share not to mention mind share over Nikon, Canon, et al.


I remember the price of HD TV's when they first came out that was LCD too not LED the quality has improved not fallen and they are dirt cheap now. Watch the same with 4k sets. The cost of a FF sensor cannot be that high not a chance it's really not that hard to make nowadays and the original A7 price indicated that too (it's quite cheap) I don't need features most of them are not particularly useful. But you can't ignore reality cameras are consumer electronics products.

Demand is fairly low too. The industry sat on it's hands and allowed the compact market to collapse because they refused to tackle the rise of smart phones (all that was required was a l larger sensor) that would have distinguished dedicated cameras from phones, to a degree that no phone could really match (due to the size you can only go so big on camera phones) With other cameras they seem to be pushing premium products and new releases. Question is how many cameras do you need? I've quite a few I cannot honestly say the "features" on newer models makes much difference to me, thus there is little point in upgrading very often. If some amazing new "organic" sensor turned up with awesome low light abilities and major advantages it might grab my attention, but again we've hit that "good enough" point and have done for a while now.

Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6427
Cheapest 36x24mm "quite cheap" at four times cheapest APS-C prices?
« Reply #87 on: July 17, 2015, 07:02:51 am »

The cost of a FF sensor cannot be that high not a chance it's really not that hard to make nowadays and the original A7 price indicated that too (it's quite cheap)
It depends on what one's scale for "quite cheap" is.  The lowest price I know of for a new model camera with 36x24mm sensor is about US$1600-1700, well beyond what the vast majority of ILC buyers pay.  For comparison, the least expensive DSLRs in smaller formats.t US$300-400.  That gap of over US$1000, or a factor of about four, seems mostly due to the higher sensor cost and related sales volume and economies of scale factors, because the cheapest 36x24s are not that rich in other expensive components.

One factor of course is the fabrication technology gap between sensors up to 24x16mm and those 36x24mm and bigger; fabricating ICs larger than 33x24mm requires on-wafer stitching, reducing yields.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Cheapest 36x24mm "quite cheap" at four times cheapest APS-C prices?
« Reply #88 on: July 17, 2015, 01:58:25 pm »

It depends on what one's scale for "quite cheap" is.  The lowest price I know of for a new model camera with 36x24mm sensor is about US$1600-1700, well beyond what the vast majority of ILC buyers pay.  For comparison, the least expensive DSLRs in smaller formats.t US$300-400.  That gap of over US$1000, or a factor of about four, seems mostly due to the higher sensor cost and related sales volume and economies of scale factors, because the cheapest 36x24s are not that rich in other expensive components.

One factor of course is the fabrication technology gap between sensors up to 24x16mm and those 36x24mm and bigger; fabricating ICs larger than 33x24mm requires on-wafer stitching, reducing yields.

The original A7 is currently selling (with 100 cashback) for 699
I very much doubt Sony are making a loss on that model and I think it basically leaves the "FF sensors are really expensive to make" argument peppered with 38 cm naval shells... lying on the bottom of the ocean.

I don't doubt they are more expensive to make than APS-C sensor but they are not nearly as pricey to make as some would "believe"
A strong dose of scepticism does a world of good  :o
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6427
Re: Cheapest 36x24mm "quite cheap" at four times cheapest APS-C prices?
« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2015, 06:34:04 am »

The original A7 is currently selling (with 100 cashback) for 699
I compared new model prices because EOL discounts on superceded models can be very misleading about sustainable (adequately profitable) pricing; EOL items can even be selling excess stock at a loss.

Even then, that A7 EOL price is again three or four time the EOL prices on some smaller format cameras, so the question remains: what proportion of photographers will be wiling to pay over three times as much (and to buy and carry the bigger, heavier lenses needed to get the low light advantage claimed for a larger format sensor but ultimately due to bigger lens aperture diameters when comparing at equal f-stop) now that by the standards of the vast majority of ILC camera users, the mainstream ILC formats from 24x16mm down are providing excellent results?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 06:36:52 am by BJL »
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Cheapest 36x24mm "quite cheap" at four times cheapest APS-C prices?
« Reply #90 on: July 21, 2015, 06:28:33 pm »

I compared new model prices because EOL discounts on superceded models can be very misleading about sustainable (adequately profitable) pricing; EOL items can even be selling excess stock at a loss.

Even then, that A7 EOL price is again three or four time the EOL prices on some smaller format cameras, so the question remains: what proportion of photographers will be wiling to pay over three times as much (and to buy and carry the bigger, heavier lenses needed to get the low light advantage claimed for a larger format sensor but ultimately due to bigger lens aperture diameters when comparing at equal f-stop) now that by the standards of the vast majority of ILC camera users, the mainstream ILC formats from 24x16mm down are providing excellent results?

Say that again in English?

Full frame will always have some appeal but APS-C is more than good enough for many too I see both as interchangeable some of my crop lenses can be used on full frame (11-16mm for example) most of my lenses are full frame I am geared up for both formats but use mostly APS-C for digital. Bodies like the A7 do have some appeal due to their low cost (it's a way to shove your lenses on a FF sensor at a low cost) but I do lose IBIS which is a factor. If the newest Sony drops hugely in price over it's life time it might have some pull but it's going to have to be really good on price to appeal.

All that said as I have a near complete lens collection I would certainly not be interested in any native E mount lenses. It remains to be seen if that's the way things go for Sony they might find themselves struggling to move the lenses and mostly selling bodies. If ILC's offer freedom from being locked into a native mount then buying E mount lenses is putting yourself back in the same scenario again.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6427
Re: Cheapest 36x24mm "quite cheap" at four times cheapest APS-C prices?
« Reply #91 on: July 22, 2015, 08:40:21 am »

Say that again in English?
you do a fairly god job of summarizing my meaning in the next sentence:
... APS-C is more than good enough for many too ...
To which I just add that (a) that "good enough for many" is true for Four Thirds too, and maybe even 1" (b) the price jump up to 35mm is a factor of about three or four however one compares, which is likely to make a large proportion of digital ILC buyers stay with one of those mainstream "good enough" options.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 09:29:37 am by BJL »
Logged

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Re: Cheapest 36x24mm "quite cheap" at four times cheapest APS-C prices?
« Reply #92 on: August 01, 2015, 09:33:06 am »

The original A7 is currently selling (with 100 cashback) for 699
I very much doubt Sony are making a loss on that model and I think it basically leaves the "FF sensors are really expensive to make" argument peppered with 38 cm naval shells... lying on the bottom of the ocean.

I don't doubt they are more expensive to make than APS-C sensor but they are not nearly as pricey to make as some would "believe"
A strong dose of scepticism does a world of good  :o

Also:
A7r price at release: $2198
A7r II price at release: $3,198

Quite a hike for an updated sensor and stabilisation.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #93 on: August 01, 2015, 11:22:40 am »

Perhaps you're aware of how a market economy works.  The price is determined by demand and other factors NOT by the cost of production. 
Logged
Regards,
Ron

MoreOrLess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #94 on: August 03, 2015, 04:34:30 pm »

The big problem for Sony is IMHO that the FE lenses tend to be overpriced relative to performance, that was easier to sell when the body was significantly cheaper than rival FF DSLR's but now its just looking like a very expensive system.
Logged

peterottaway

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #95 on: August 03, 2015, 08:32:01 pm »

New lenses will cost more than old production lenses - and not just from Sony. Have tou had a look at the price of the latest Nikon 300mm f 4.0 in comparison to the last generation lens ?

I/m not  blind to the facts that a number of Minolta and then Sony lenses were more expensive than their Canon or Nikon counterparts. Just keep an open mind on the subject.
Logged

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #96 on: August 04, 2015, 07:59:22 am »

The big problem for Sony is IMHO that the FE lenses tend to be overpriced relative to performance, that was easier to sell when the body was significantly cheaper than rival FF DSLR's but now its just looking like a very expensive system.

I imagine Sony must think the system has come of age and can compete on performance alone rather than price.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3025
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #97 on: August 04, 2015, 09:50:11 am »

The big problem for Sony is IMHO that the FE lenses tend to be overpriced relative to performance, that was easier to sell when the body was significantly cheaper than rival FF DSLR's but now its just looking like a very expensive system.

If you're looking for quantitative data about performance then look at DXOMark lens results.  The recent Sony FE lens scores seem to indicate high quality when compared to Canon and Nikon.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

MoreOrLess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #98 on: August 04, 2015, 12:13:42 pm »

If you're looking for quantitative data about performance then look at DXOMark lens results.  The recent Sony FE lens scores seem to indicate high quality when compared to Canon and Nikon.

I wouldn't say the Sony lenses are poor performers(although they do seem prone to having a few more weaknesses, especially light dropoff) just that there worse value for money.

You look at say the UWA zooms and the Sony 16-35mm F/4 seems quite similar to the Nikon being good from 16-28mm but weak at the long end yet it costs 50% more, the same as the Canon 16-35mm F/4 that's good across the entire focal range.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Sony Kicks Butt
« Reply #99 on: August 04, 2015, 08:54:30 pm »

Strictly speaking one cannot compare DXO lens scores across platforms, because the score is for a given lens used on a specific camera. A setup such as Roger Cicala has is indeed capable of measuring lens characteristics in the absence of a sensor. DXO does not do it that way. An identical optical design (say, Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 in different mounts) produces different DXO scores depending on which model camera it sits on - within brand and between brands.

What DXO scores are useful for is in comparing various 35mm f/1.4 lenses for a given camera body. Zeiss in Canon mount, Sigma Art in Canon mount, SamBowRokYang in Canon mount, and finally Canon in Canon mount.  ::)   This is a useful service.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up