Re: Sony A100 to A700

Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either for handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy" category, is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it when I read about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be just a euphemism for "mirrors".

In article <1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost@xxxxxxx> wrote:

LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level models come out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not identical if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC Sony have made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the Nikon logically would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The "5D II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame dslr, but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers at DP review forums have talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it will be a long time before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but not a cheap or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

$3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to compete with the 5D on some level.

Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it also comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used both 5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage doesn't make up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs, and ymmv. Even when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price, good cameras cost good money.

I was real tempted by the D3 for low light & wide angle and since I have a bunch of full frame lenses but frankly I'd be embarrassed to be seen with that big beast. And yeah it's a whole lot of money. If Canon can make a 5D, Nikon can make a D70 body with full frame and a couple more features for $3,000 easily. I can see how a full frame D200 might be more than $3,000.

I think a lot of assumptions about full-frame are made on the basis that APS-c sensor cameras ceased to improve after the D70 or 20d. For me, sure I'd like a full-frame D300 - but not a full-frame D70. I used 5d and 17-40L and D300 with Sigma 10-20 - and even the "w/a advantage" really wasn't there... perhaps with a Nikkor 14-24, but then the old price thing comes back to bite one on the butt. (The 17-40L offered similar edge performance to the 10-20 - worse extreme edges - yet cost twice as much) So even if the 5d II has 20mp, Canon doesn't yet have the lenses to interest me (except the 200mm f4 IS - the lens Nikon needs to also make when they replace the 70-200)
Sony might be the one to come up with a killer system. Take a look at the MTF for the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4 at Photozone - tested on APS-c. If they hold up even close to as well on the full-frame a900, and they can make that quality in wide angle and do a couple of pro quality standard and telephoto zooms, then Nikon and Canon have some serious competition.
My guess is that Sony has these Zeiss primes also in mind for high resolution cine "Red One" type developments. That looks to me where this is all heading.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sony A100 to A700
    ... Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level models come out with it. ... The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor configuration. ... I guess I'm underwhelmed by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it also comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Rockwell Nikon D200, 300 vs Cannon 5D
    ... I just don't understand why Nikon has taken these steps, no Full Frame ... It's hard to find reasonably priced Nikon lenses ... you are going to have a cheap line of cameras and a proline. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Rockwell Nikon D200, 300 vs Cannon 5D
    ... I have an F5 with some Ok lenses. ... Between that side that the Full Frame article linked I ... Cameras' abilities because if they are, before I'd buy a D300, I'd buy ... Nikon do the D300 without full frame? ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Nikon D3 vs Canon 5D ?
    ... The 1D III is not full frame. ... Anybody seen head-to-head comparisons of the Nikon D3 vs Canon 1Ds? ... They're all great cameras. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses
    ... upgrade to a full frame 5D or if Nikon brings out a full frame DSLR. ... not disappear because of large format cameras. ... For Nikon it's DX for the small sensor lenses; ...
    (rec.photo.digital)