Re: Sony A100 to A700

frederick <lost@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
frederick wrote:
Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,

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 ***. (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.

I think this approaching point where the full-frame sensors have
medium format film resolution is one of the critical elements in a
number of impending developments which will make a radical change in
digital camera design possible. The first important change, as you
mention, is that in order to take full advantage of the resolution a
completely new range of higher precision lenses will be required.

The second point is that it is easier and cheaper to design high
resolution lenses if you can get the back of the lens closer to the
sensor than the mirror allows. The only reason we still need the
mirror is to get the optical viewfinder, and the only reason we need
the optical viewfinder is because EVF isn't yet as good as a good
optical viewfinder. But like sensor resolution, that too is simply a
matter of waiting for the technology to get there at an affordable
price. Just as with the sensor resolution improvement, there's no
inherent physical barrier to making EVFs as good as optical
viewfinders, it's just a case of waiting for the well-established
technological development bandwagon to to get there. The only question
is how long we'll have to wait. We need higher resolution small
internal LCDs, and faster processors capable of translating the larger
amount of sensor "pixels" into the larger display at a fast enough
speed.

It could all be done now in fact, but it just costs too much for the
digital camera market.

The point is that once you have a good enough EVF, you can then design
a range of new high resolution lenses for an exchangeable lens camera
which doesn't have to be reflex. You no longer need the mirror so you
can make significant savings in the costly new lens range.

So the new kind of camera made possible by combining these
developments would be the DSL non-reflex exchangeable lens camera with
through-the-lens (and through the sensor) viewing. They could be
supplied with an extension widget so that people with lots of old
expensive DSLR glass could still use it. For someone with a lot of old
glass it would be like having an upgraded DSLR which could be upgraded
to medium format resolution and quality simply by using one of the new
lenses.

I suspect that's exactly where Sony are going. It's an excellent
opportunity for a company with excellent vertical integration in all
the necessary technologies to steal a march on its rivals in the high
end digital camera marketplace.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

.

Loading