Sony FF

txbonds · 01-31-2008, 12:34 PM

Per the pics on dpreview, I think they were smart to make the grip optional. Puts it down nearer to the canon 5d, but with higher mp count.

PMA 2008: Live from the Sony Press Event: Digital Photography Review

But, again I still say this furthers the need for Pentax to consider a FF body.

ankit · 01-31-2008, 12:37 PM

Hires pic of the "a900" prototype: http://news.sel.sony.com/images/larg...PMA2008_lg.JPG

txbonds · 01-31-2008, 12:39 PM

Another of the prototype here. I'd say it looks like Sony kept a bunch of the Minolta engineers on staff, because this looks very much like a product that evolved out of the 7d and the type of though process that Minolta was putting into the 7d.

Anastigmat · 01-31-2008, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by txbonds

Per the pics on dpreview, I think they were smart to make the grip optional. Puts it down nearer to the canon 5d, but with higher mp count.

PMA 2008: Live from the Sony Press Event: Digital Photography Review

But, again I still say this furthers the need for Pentax to consider a FF body.

Pentax is considering a full frame, but it is too busy selling APS-C lenses for now to release a full frame, which would put a damper on APS-C lens sales. It also looks like Pentax would prefer to source its sensors from Samsung in the future, but Samsung would really need to work extra hard to be able to come up with a full frame sensor.

Marcus · 01-31-2008, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by txbonds

But, again I still say this furthers the need for Pentax to consider a FF body.

For what?

Who is going to go Sony from Can or Nik? Just for resolution? Just for FF?

You'd have to absolutely LOVE FF and more megapixels to switch to... Sony. And forgo all the benefits of Can or Nik's systems to switch to... Sony.

If 5Ds sit on the shelf and collect dust, then what will this do? Especially looking at how expensive lenses are for Sony mount?

Don't get it wrong, this will probably be an excellent camera from Sony. But just a trophy. I don't think we'll see an upgrade for about 2 or 3 years though. Can't see another upgrade in 18 months, like with usual DSLRs.

I don't get how Pentax should piggyback a camera that sits on a shelf. Pentax needs to chase a moving target.

*jake123* · 01-31-2008, 01:11 PM

I thought that it wasn't viable to add SR to a FF sensor?

nosnoop · 01-31-2008, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by txbonds

But, again I still say this furthers the need for Pentax to consider a FF body.

Again, I still say Pentax can sit and see how the FF market unfolds.

First , do you think A900 will outsell A700? Would that be possible?

In Japan last week, A700 has a market share of 0.9%, comparing with 40D's 12% and D300's 6.3%. Sony surely would hope that the market share ratio would be better for A900 in the FF market segment (which is already very small to start with), otherwise, it won't be pretty.

kenyee · 01-31-2008, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by jake123

I thought that it wasn't viable to add SR to a FF sensor?

I thought you had to make it a 1.1x sensor to get the entire FF image from your lens too but I guess not.
Note that in the press release for the Sony sensor, it's 24.8 mpix IIRC. The big poster says 24.6mpix. So .2mpix is lost from the SR. Still impressive.

I'm sure Pentax/Samsung are working on FF...they'd have to so they can keep up w/ the marketplace. It shouldn't be that hard to do for Samsung...mostly a bigger die was extra waste.

nosnoop · 01-31-2008, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by kenyee

I'm sure Pentax/Samsung are working on FF...they'd have to so they can keep up w/ the marketplace. It shouldn't be that hard to do for Samsung...mostly a bigger die was extra waste.

Why would Samsung be interested in FF when they don't even have a foothold in the entry and mid level category? I think they are more interested in getting a new sensor for entry / mid level capable of taking high definition video than a FF sensor. That's where the money is.

ricardobeat · 01-31-2008, 08:03 PM

This talk about "keeping up with the marketplace" is getting boring. If Canon launches a 1Ds MK4 with a 1/2" sensor, do you think every other manufacturer should do the same?

I think APS-C is a great system, it works well, light cameras with great image quality, much better than 35mm film (high ISOs, sharpness). For god's sake, let 35mm go. Cameras are not dependant on it, they existed before it and will continue way beyond.

kenyee · 01-31-2008, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by nosnoop

Why would Samsung be interested in FF when they don't even have a foothold in the entry and mid level category?

R&D (i.e., you have to try to leapfrog competitors). If the top 3 competitors have a technology, you have to be at least thinking about how to do something similar or better (though not necessarily bringing it to market).

It's like saying AMD should only work on dual core processors because there's no software that uses quad core (but Intel has quad core it's selling already).
Or like saying no one needs LiveView because it just makes a dslr a P&S.
Or like saying no one needs more than 6mpix and you really want low ISO performance (which is why I have a Fuji F30 P&S but Fuji was getting killed in stores because competitors added more mpix so they gave up on the low ISO idea).

I agree APS-C is a great system, especially for birding and sports when the freebie 1.5x multiplier works well. However, if the majority marketplace buys competitor equipment instead of yours because you're missing XX, you're in trouble. If Pentax wants to go after the "pro" market, they'll have to do FF because the competitor systems have it. If Canon/Nikon decide to push them into enthusiast cameras, Pentax also will have to.
The market determines what Pentax will have to do to make money...

*isteve · 01-31-2008, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by kenyee

R&D (i.e., you have to try to leapfrog competitors). If the top 3 competitors have a technology, you have to be at least thinking about how to do something similar or better (though not necessarily bringing it to market).

It's like saying AMD should only work on dual core processors because there's no software that uses quad core (but Intel has quad core it's selling already).
Or like saying no one needs LiveView because it just makes a dslr a P&S.
Or like saying no one needs more than 6mpix and you really want low ISO performance (which is why I have a Fuji F30 P&S but Fuji was getting killed in stores because competitors added more mpix so they gave up on the low ISO idea).

I agree APS-C is a great system, especially for birding and sports when the freebie 1.5x multiplier works well. However, if the majority marketplace buys competitor equipment instead of yours because you're missing XX, you're in trouble. If Pentax wants to go after the "pro" market, they'll have to do FF because the competitor systems have it. If Canon/Nikon decide to push them into enthusiast cameras, Pentax also will have to.
The market determines what Pentax will have to do to make money...

Yes, it determines that they cannot make any decent revenue out of FF, that the cost would cripple them, and that noone would buy it and that they need to make serious money by selling volume. That only exists in the lower to mid sector which is APSC.

ankit · 01-31-2008, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by ricardobeat

I think APS-C is a great system, it works well, light cameras with great image quality, much better than 35mm film (high ISOs, sharpness). For god's sake, let 35mm go. Cameras are not dependant on it, they existed before it and will continue way beyond.

What's wrong with 35mm? There have always existed multiple film sizes, and different people use different formats depending on their requirements. Many people WANT the extra resolution of a full frame camera, and are willing to carry a bigger/heavier camera. Others pay $10,000+ for medium format cameras. Sure, it is a niche, and APS is probably enough for most people, but that doesn't mean Pentax (or any company for that matter) should not explore other formats.

jeff1101 · 01-31-2008, 10:00 PM

It doesnt mean that if there is no market for it that you cant create one. When digital first appeared, all camera manufacturers intended for their sensor to be FF frame. Only when it was found that it would be prohibitively expensive to make (for the technology at that time) that APS-C sensors came about. (i.e. remember the Contax N1 Digital or the Pentax MZ-SD??)

So actually digital FF came before APS-C. (not the other way around) Now that technology has matured, are camera makers re-introducing it as another price point and market.

Chocolar · 01-31-2008, 10:53 PM

I think from a marketing pov, it makes sense that Sony has a FF dslr, they need to create attention to their dslr brand so their other cameras can get some sales; I'm sure Sony marketing know this camera won't sell a bunch, it's a strategic move imo. If you really think about it, ff sensor and crop sensor only differ in physical sizes, you can put whatever #off pixels on the either sensor, what's important is the hardware around them, the hardware/firmware to move the data off the sensors and into storage (i.e. sd card etc...), I'll bet the hardware in the k20d has to work alot harder to move those 14m pixels off its crop sensor than the hardware in the ff 5d. Pentax is in no hurry to introduce their ff dslr, unlike Sony, who uses it to get attention. Pentax only introduces a ff dslr if it's is profitable, they have to come up with a msrp that make sense, which in turn would decide what kind of options this camrera offers. This is all speculation on my part of course.