Sony 24mp line up

[BernardLanguillier]

Tough days for the Canon and Nikon shooters focused on the specs of their cameras! 

The R&D power of Sony is impressive. It will be interesting to see how the big guys will manage to answer to the beating they are taking specwise (and possibly also qualitywise if we extrapolate based on recent sensors from Sony). That is probably going to translate soon in sales.

The only question for me remains whether an EVF is the right option or not.

Other than that the new Sony line up is very interesting! The ability to use a given set of lenses for stills and for a dedicated video camera sounds a lot for relevants than attempts to use DSLR form factors devices for video applications. Canon is IMHO going to loose big if they don't react soon.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ndevlin]

Nex-7 with Leica glass.....I'll take one sight-unseen! They are going to sell as many of those as they can make if they are any good. My 24 Elmar and 35 Cron are chomping at the bit.

- N.

[Ray]

What I want is an upgraded D700 with D7000 pixels, but I guess that will be a long time coming. 

[aaykay]

Nex-7 with Leica glass.....I'll take one sight-unseen!

I would do the above with a NEX9 (Full-frame sensor), assuming they release a couple of key FF lenses that cover some of the oft-used FLs.

[Dave Gurtcheff]

Nex-7 with Leica glass.....I'll take one sight-unseen! They are going to sell as many of those as they can make if they are any good. My 24 Elmar and 35 Cron are chomping at the bit.

- N.

24 megapixels in an APSc size sensor....it begs the question: What does this density convert to in a full frame 24x36mm sensor? I already have a A900---it is magnificent!
Dave

[Roberts J]

24 megapixels in an APSc size sensor....it begs the question: What does this density convert to in a full frame 24x36mm sensor? I already have a A900---it is magnificent!
Dave

Taking into account:

1) dimensions of this new Sony sensor: 23.4mm x 15.6mm = 365.04 sq.mm area;
2) FF sensor dimensions: 24mm x 36mm = 864 sq.mm area;
3) FF sensor area is 2.367 times bigger than this new Sony aps-c sensor (864sq.mm / 364.04sq.mm = 2,366863905325444);
4) Sony new sensor is 24.3 Mpix,

FF sensor with the same pixel density would be around 57.5 Mpix (24.3 Mpix x 2,366863905325444 = 57,51479289940828)

BR,

Roberts

[Craig Murphy]

I'm unsure about all of this.  I have a Sony 850.  Going back to a crop sensor camera is not very appealing but I do want to have video capability.   

[Dave Gurtcheff]

I'm unsure about all of this.  I have a Sony 850.  Going back to a crop sensor camera is not very appealing but I do want to have video capability.   

Craig: I agree with you. I have a A900, full frame camera, and also use a Pentax 645D, so I hesitate to go back to a small sensor. BUT the small, light weight 24 Mp camera that accepts my existing lenses is so tempting I asked my dealer to notify me when they receive one.
Dave

[Mike Sellers]

Hey Dave,
If you ever want to sell the 645D can you contact me??
Mike

[Dave Gurtcheff]

Hey Dave,
If you ever want to sell the 645D can you contact me??
Mike

I'm taking it with me to my grave. It is the most straight forward camera I have ever used. I am at this minute printing out a 24"x32" image. It looks like this:

[douglasf13]

I'm unsure about all of this.  I have a Sony 850.  Going back to a crop sensor camera is not very appealing but I do want to have video capability.   

I've gone down this road, and I haven't missed it THAT much.  After using the NEX-5 and rangefinder lenses for a few months, I sold my A900 system that I'd been shooting for a couple of years.  Sure, there are slight differences in the print size that I make, but it isn't drastic, and I expect the NEX-7 to make up most of the difference.  The only thing to get used to is that lost stop of equivalent DOF, but I'm not a super shallow DOF kind of guy all of the time, so the transition has been ok for me.  Being able to have such a small gear footprint has been a godsend.

[feppe]

It's awful when a new camera comes out and all of a sudden the pictures from my current camera start looking like crap. Hate when that happens.

[sbay]

The nex-7 seems really attractive to me but I wonder if you will really be able to take advantage of the 24mp on the sensor. With the 5dII I find that I have to shoot at x2 the focal length to get sharp images handheld -- I imagine it would be a much bigger problem given the greater pixel density.

[aaykay]

The nex-7 seems really attractive to me but I wonder if you will really be able to take advantage of the 24mp on the sensor. With the 5dII I find that I have to shoot at x2 the focal length to get sharp images handheld -- I imagine it would be a much bigger problem given the greater pixel density.

Some advantages of the NEX (over a dSLR) are the lack of vibration from mirror-slap and also lack of vibration from the shutter (due to the electronic first curtain), until after the exposure,, all of which conspire to make it a lot more hand-holdable than an equivalent SLR.

However, your point is true that with such high pixel densities, one will have to use perfect technique (preferably on a solid tripod) to get the most benefit from it.

[Ray]

The nex-7 seems really attractive to me but I wonder if you will really be able to take advantage of the 24mp on the sensor. With the 5dII I find that I have to shoot at x2 the focal length to get sharp images handheld -- I imagine it would be a much bigger problem given the greater pixel density.

I'm not sure there should be a bigger problem if both cameras (full frame and cropped-format) have similar pixel count. Not much difference between 21mp and 24mp.

If you find that you need a shutter speed of 1/2FL with the 5D2, then the same requirements should apply to a 24mp cropped format, provided the FL figure used is the FF 35mm equivalent, ie. 1/160th with an 80mm lens on the 5D2 becomes 1/160th with a 50mm lens on the cropped format, both situations providing the same FoV and the same resolution of image (approximately).

Nevertheless, as pixel count increases, faster shutter speeds are required for the larger images or prints that are possible. A base ISO of 200 is really nice. Both my Nikon D700 and Canon 50D have a base ISO of 200.

However, there's no free lunch. My D7000 at its slower base ISO of 100 provides significantly greater dynamic range than the D700 and 50D at ISO 200. Even at ISO 200, the D7000 provides 0.75 stops greater DR than my D700 and a whopping 1.5 stops greater DR than the 50D.

Since the D7000 uses a Sony sensor, I'd be surprised if the DR at ISO 200 in these new cameras were not better than the DR of the 5D2 at its base ISO of 100, although the 5D2 should still have lower noise at 18% grey because it's a full frame format.

[Mike Sellers]

Nice picture. What if they bring out a 60mp version next year?
Mike

[Craig Murphy]

I've gone down this road, and I haven't missed it THAT much.  After using the NEX-5 and rangefinder lenses for a few months, I sold my A900 system that I'd been shooting for a couple of years.  Sure, there are slight differences in the print size that I make, but it isn't drastic, and I expect the NEX-7 to make up most of the difference.  The only thing to get used to is that lost stop of equivalent DOF, but I'm not a super shallow DOF kind of guy all of the time, so the transition has been ok for me.  Being able to have such a small gear footprint has been a godsend.

My concern is I shoot some interiors and am not sure what lenses I would be using to replace a 24mm focal length for instance.  Some rooms require even wider FL than 24mm with full frame.  So for me to get back to a 24mm view I'd wind up with a 16mm.  Things start to look a little weird with super wide angle lenses.   

[douglasf13]

I'm not sure there should be a bigger problem if both cameras (full frame and cropped-format) have similar pixel count. Not much difference between 21mp and 24mp.

If you find that you need a shutter speed of 1/2FL with the 5D2, then the same requirements should apply to a 24mp cropped format, provided the FL figure used is the FF 35mm equivalent, ie. 1/160th with an 80mm lens on the 5D2 becomes 1/160th with a 50mm lens on the cropped format, both situations providing the same FoV and the same resolution of image (approximately).

Nevertheless, as pixel count increases, faster shutter speeds are required for the larger images or prints that are possible. A base ISO of 200 is really nice. Both my Nikon D700 and Canon 50D have a base ISO of 200.

However, there's no free lunch. My D7000 at its slower base ISO of 100 provides significantly greater dynamic range than the D700 and 50D at ISO 200. Even at ISO 200, the D7000 provides 0.75 stops greater DR than my D700 and a whopping 1.5 stops greater DR than the 50D.

Since the D7000 uses a Sony sensor, I'd be surprised if the DR at ISO 200 in these new cameras were not better than the DR of the 5D2 at its base ISO of 100, although the 5D2 should still have lower noise at 18% grey because it's a full frame format.

I believe the A77 and NEX-7 have a base ISO of 100.

[aaykay]

I believe the A77 and NEX-7 have a base ISO of 100.

I remember the time they stated that a Full-frame version of the  Leica M-rangefinder was an impossibility and that at best it will need to be a 1.3x.....well, we have had a FF Leica-MR for a while now.  As long as the mount is large enough (and in fact the Sony E-mount is larger than the Full-frame Leica M-mount) a FF will arrive.  My prediction.

[Ray]

I believe the A77 and NEX-7 have a base ISO of 100.

Yes. It seems to be the case, which could be considered a disadvantage for such a high pixel-count sensor. But it also depends on the degree of IQ difference between ISO 100 and ISO 200.

On the D7k, there's a significant difference in DR and noise between ISOs 100 and 200, whereas on the 50D there isn't.  In fact there isn't any difference at all. The only purpose of ISO 100 on the 50D, as far as I can tell, is to allow one to use a slower shutter speed to create blurring effects.

I wasn't aware of this fact when I fist started using the camera. If I had been there would have been many occasions when I would have used ISO 200 at F4 instead of ISO 100 at F2.8.