[Kunzite]

That was my immediate thought when I read the interview. Those who buy the A99II will already have an investment in compatible glass. I certainly wouldn't buy into A-mount if I were switching systems these days, however good the A99II may be. But, in a few years time - when prices come down - I could see myself picking up an A99II to use with the lenses I have.

From this point of view, indeed, they are similar - but then, about every system out there is mainly for existing users

However, on a strategic level, they can't be more similar: the A99 II looks like A-mount's swan song, a long lived higher end camera which would keep the current users buying for a while (like the Olympus' E5). OTOH, the K-1 represents Pentax' first foray into the FF DSLR market, and Ricoh Imaging is working at expanding the FF product line.
One is an end, the other, a beginning.

[D1N0]

Imaging Resource interviewed Sony about the A99 II and the A-mount in general.

Sony executive interview: The strategy and technology behind the Sony A99 II

My conclusion is that it is a lure to keep a-mounters with Sony and they are using it as a development platform for their new lsi-chip for their front end. (AF and operating performance). We will probably see that in the A7r III or a9.

[SeaRefractor]

Pentax is focussing heavily on FF K-mount and expends its line of FF lenses quite fast. At that game, investing now in any DSLR mount, Canon, Nikon or Pentax is as risky if in 5 years from now DSLR become irrelevant and everybody migrate to mirrorless. Sure some will stay but if the migration play the same pace and ways as film -> digital, DSLR might be relegated to the nostalic guys.

My opinion is different. I believe that camera manufacturers will learn that larger glass can command greater profit and DSLR can simply become mirrorless. As long as the focal lengths match up for the mirrorless sensor the existing mounts work great. Just think of liveview for example. Plenty of room to put in the EVF electronics where the prism or mirror box for the old viewfinder lived.

When that happens it'll be "DSLR is dead, long live DSLR".

That's why I'm tired of all this mirrorless vs DSLR talk as if the existing lucrative mount technology is somehow incompatible with a mirrorless future.

[Nicolas06]

My opinion is different. I believe that camera manufacturers will learn that larger glass can command greater profit and DSLR can simply become mirrorless. As long as the focal lengths match up for the mirrorless sensor the existing mounts work great. Just think of liveview for example. Plenty of room to put in the EVF electronics where the prism or mirror box for the old viewfinder lived.

When that happens it'll be "DSLR is dead, long live DSLR".

That's why I'm tired of all this mirrorless vs DSLR talk as if the existing lucrative mount technology is somehow incompatible with a mirrorless future.

This is a possibility. My point was not that DSLR mount WILL be obsoletes in 5 years (even if I think this might actually be the case. might, not will). The point was more I don't see then how Canon or Nikon are in any better position

[clackers]

Mirrorless sales are falling too now. The industry itself is having a hard time.

[Nicolas06]

Mirrorless sales are falling too now. The industry itself is having a hard time.

Yeap mirroless market share grow, still smaller than DSLR, but the whole market is shrinking ... But this year the hearthquake may also have some responsability.

Honestly if the sales drop, that for a good reason: there no innovation anymore.

Sure for Pentax K1 is new and quite improved because we had no FF but really who really need a D810 if he has a D800 ? A K3-II if he has a K3 or a D7200 if he has a D7000 ? The improvement are quite incremental, and the only things that manufacturers do now is to fine tune their AF, their noise algoritms and adding a bit more pixels.

Photos taken with brand new gear most of the time look exactly the same as with top gear of 5 year ago. There simply no noticable difference since we got CMOS sensors.

I am sure that if we some innovation that really improve things, that would boost the sale drastically for something like 5 years, the time for everybody to get it. But if you don't provide enought incentive to get the new product, people keep the old one and when they change, they can buy a cheaper replacement...

[reh321]

Yeap mirroless market share grow, still smaller than DSLR, but the whole market is shrinking ... But this year the hearthquake may also have some responsability.

Honestly if the sales drop, that for a good reason: there no innovation anymore.

Sure for Pentax K1 is new and quite improved because we had no FF but really who really need a D810 if he has a D800 ? A K3-II if he has a K3 or a D7200 if he has a D7000 ? The improvement are quite incremental, and the only things that manufacturers do now is to fine tune their AF, their noise algorithms and adding a bit more pixels.

Photos taken with brand new gear most of the time look exactly the same as with top gear of 5 year ago. There simply no noticeable difference since we got CMOS sensors.

I am sure that if we some innovation that really improve things, that would boost the sale drastically for something like 5 years, the time for everybody to get it. But if you don't provide enought incentive to get the new product, people keep the old one and when they change, they can buy a cheaper replacement...

I mostly agree with you. The one area we seem to be seeing innovation in is "insanely high" ISO settings. If they can get this to work well, keeping noise under control {especially for JPEG} they will be opening a new frontier of sorts, because people will be able to take certain pictures needing neither flash nor {expensive} constant aperture lenses. I say JPEG especially, because this will especially open new opportunities to common folk, the people who take pictures for own use one sports season a year.

[Nicolas06]

I mostly agree with you. The one area we seem to be seeing innovation in is "insanely high" ISO settings. If they can get this to work well, keeping noise under control {especially for JPEG} they will be opening a new frontier of sorts, because people will be able to take certain pictures needing neither flash nor {expensive} constant aperture lenses. I say JPEG especially, because this will especially open new opportunities to common folk, the people who take pictures for own use one sports season a year.

This is happening but slowing. The biggest gap was CCD vs CMOS with rougly 1-2EV improvement.

Now it continue but more slowly. More importantly even if the very high iso improve a lot the moderate iso not as much. it nowhere as important is on APSC the new 51200 iso look as good as the old 12800 iso as to how the current 1600 and 3200 iso look like. While it could be argued that K5 3200iso looked as good as K7 iso 800. Part was hardware, part was noise algorithms. I don't think even in JPEG there that level of difference of K70 looking as good at 3200 iso as K5 at iso 800... And theses iso settings are much more important. The problem is that if your 51200 iso setting much improved to 12800 isos that still basically... Not good enough anyway.

so that still incremental, and I guess it will continue to improve but if to get a very noticable 2EV gain take say now 10 year, you'll have incentive to upgrade every 10 years... Not every 3 or 5 years.

FF is a big factor and help a lot, but it was there for year so already in the pipe. They the price decrease but this one go slowly so again incremental. Before FF was 3000€, not so long ago it was 2000€, now there a few at 1000€. In 5 years there will be a few at maybe 500-700€ and many at 1000-1500€ but still incremental.

And even for high iso there something that is even worse. We improve continuously but people don't need infinite performance. Many people think their K5 is enough for all their photographic need. They will be back in the market only when their body stop working. Because they may have already a 17-50 f/8 they paid 300€ and get satisfied with they indoor anniversary shoots with a K5 and their cheap 17-50. Why would they upgrade if they are satisfied? They still get more performance than if they'd spend 800€ on a K70 + 18-5 3.5-5.6...

Again think of all theses K1 owner. They have the bigger sensor and the same improved high iso technology as in K70. Both combined their camera does well until 6400-12800 iso. There no many situations where honestly you need more than that, in particular as they are quite likely to have invested at least some reasonnably fast lens like a 300€ 28-75 from tamron or a 120€ DA35 f/2.4. They have already more than they need.

And the more the high iso improve, the more people will think finally APSC, or m4/3 or Q... Or their smartphone is enough. Now smartphones start to have 2 sensors and so have kind of zoom. They are the biggest area of research. If a breakthrough give 2EV improvement to sensors, the first one to benefit will be smartphones with the new generation as a consequence giving results as good as current 1". Combined with the now moderate zooming capabilities, even more people would call that enough and sale would go up only for smartphones, not DSLR or mirrorless...

Maybe the next thing photography related is not a camera as we know it. maybe that's something radically different. I don't know like a drone taking the picture for you automatically and that you could control if you wished... Maybe that the prototype of smartphones with a dozen sensors that - in theory - give as much performance as current m4/3 or APSC bodies. Maybe that's camera that scan and understand the scene really and built it overtime rather than taking a pure snapshot... We don't really know...

But today when you have the current camera, the next one look a lot what you really have and that why you don't upgrade.

[Kunzite]

FF is a big factor and help a lot, but it was there for year so already in the pipe. They the price decrease but this one go slowly so again incremental. Before FF was 3000€, not so long ago it was 2000€, now there a few at 1000€. In 5 years there will be a few at maybe 500-700€ and many at 1000-1500€ but still incremental.

Hmm... the cheapest FF camera - considering only MSRP - is the Sony A7 II - for 1700$. Canon's and Nikon's latest entry level cameras were launched for 2100$ and 2000$, respectively - but, we had the 2000$ FF DSLR since 2009 (Sony A850) so this isn't "progress".
I think you're too optimistic regarding the price decrease. Unless you're considering old, replaced models and even second hand ones?

[Nicolas06]

Hmm... the cheapest FF camera - considering only MSRP - is the Sony A7 II - for 1700$. Canon's and Nikon's latest entry level cameras were launched for 2100$ and 2000$, respectively - but, we had the 2000$ FF DSLR since 2009 (Sony A850) so this isn't "progress".
I think you're too optimistic regarding the price decrease. Unless you're considering old, replaced models and even second hand ones?

MSRP is only a hint. In most country, seller are free to set the price their want and the lobying of manufacturers/brand to try to force a price is carefully monitored. if there any proof, there be a trial, because forcing prices is illegal and prices are set freely. I don't buy MSRP, I buy actuall seller price. Sometime the actual price is more than the MSRP, unfortunately. Sometime the actual price is less. Anyway MSRP is not what I buy and so it doesn't count.

If a good seller has the A7 to sell new for the price then it is the price you can get. Sony A7 is 1100$ at Adorama and 1100€ at digit photo. As I understand Adorama is decent and here in France digit photo is great. So that's the price.

There also good prices for D610 and 6D but they basically took 200€ / $200 quite recently. But noticably that can be with a lens in some case so you can still resell it. This shift over time, of course. Typically the price start they annual inflation now with Christmas approaching as this is when there the most sales.

Starting february they should go down again.

[Kunzite]

The MSRP is IMO a good indicator regarding camera price trends; as they don't include factors like camera age, discounts, stock clearance for replaced models etc. It's not the best, but it's better than the alternative you're using.

The problem with using "actual seller prices" is that you're actually talking about heavily discounted 3-4 years models. Looking at discounts can make you think prices will drop forever (false), and that cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper (also false).
Let's take the A7, for example: introduced for 1700$, now 1100$. Cool. It could be discounted further, but how long until Sony takes it out of production? Note that a replacement - the A7 II - already exists.
IMO instead of seeing the same A7 (or perhaps the A7II), 5 years from now, still in production and sold as new for 500-700$, it would be retired and replaced with newer models - and the process of discounting will start anew, from a MSRP not unlike the ones we're seeing right now.

[Nicolas06]

The MSRP is IMO a good indicator regarding camera price trends; as they don't include factors like camera age, discounts, stock clearance for replaced models etc. It's not the best, but it's better than the alternative you're using.

The problem with using "actual seller prices" is that you're actually talking about heavily discounted 3-4 years models. Looking at discounts can make you think prices will drop forever (false), and that cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper (also false).
Let's take the A7, for example: introduced for 1700$, now 1100$. Cool. It could be discounted further, but how long until Sony takes it out of production? Note that a replacement - the A7 II - already exists.
IMO instead of seeing the same A7 (or perhaps the A7II), 5 years from now, still in production and sold as new for 500-700$, it would be retired and replaced with newer models - and the process of discounting will start anew, from a MSRP not unlike the ones we're seeing right now.

- First the same tendency is visible on MSRP as actual price. This is just that actual price are lower. First FF available by Canon was like 6 thousand, second one was like 3.5 thousand. Both Nikon and Canon release officially camera with MSRP at 1600-1800€. Price have been divided by a factor of 4 in 10 years and the entry level of today is still much better than the best most expensive first FF digital of the past.. For APSC the trend is the same. Worse overall, lower end model have more and more features so there far less need for the high end model. A K70 for example is better on all aspect than old FF of 7-8 years ago and can is still better than any flagship previous to K3 in Pentax land. As sharp or sharper, better high iso, as good or better AF, better Jpeg engine, more accurate WB...
- Second I don't care one bit of the year of introduction of the gear. I care about what it does provide. Sony A7 will likely not be available anymore in 3 years from now (maybe even 1 year from now), but the A7-II or A7-III will be. They'll have more feature and their street price will be even lower.
- Again I don't pay MSRP, I pay an actual price to a seller. That may even include addtionnal warranty (like 3 years), a special offer with a lens, a grip or a bag. But that's the price I actually pay.

The last thing maybe is the apparition of alternate manufacturer. Remember Sony FE mount can be licenced easily as well as m4/3. There a new chinese manufacturer that just made an m4/3 camera with 2 lenses. Very aggressive price, packed feature set and the kit lenses look great. Just announced at photokina. And now China is the biggest market worldwide. Things are no longer designed for Japan or US/Europe anymore. In 5 years we may very well find ourselve with a the equivalent that huawei did for smartphones but for for cameras. While Canikon would not hesitate to sell 2000€ to you a camera that cost then 200-300€ to make, the chinese will manage to make it for even cheaper and sell it for 500€... it is not like chinese manufacturers didn't do it to many other industries. This will drive the price down even futher, companies that will not adapt will simply disapear or be marginalized. And neither Canon, Sony or Nikon has the Luxury of MF to have a small niche in case of big storm. Fuji didn't just introduce one MF for no reason... MF is the new FF in term of price and FF is the new APSC.

Finally, I really fail to see how the real price I pay fail to be the best indictator, I'am sorry. I don't get why I should use another price that is not the price I pay to evaluate the price I pay. For me this is convoluted and doesn't make sense.

[Kunzite]

Hmm... MSRP didn't decline much since 2009 - I already mentioned the A850. IMO, the 1700$ MSRP of the A7 was possible because that camera was designed to be cheap, and its successor was announced for the same MSRP; so I'm not expecting an accelerating MSRP decline.
To compare the MSRPs from 10 years back and those of now it's a mistake, as it implies a linear trend. But, we don't have a linear trend - as I was able to prove with the A850. We should consider all data points, not just two.

The year of introduction of the gear is important, because it allows us to differentiate between newly introduced gear and heavily discounted, (nearly) end of life products. Only the first would see significant price drops; the latter already had gone through the process.

Indeed, you don't pay MSRP, and I'm not disputing this. I'm talking strictly about an expectation of street prices of 3-4 years old models becoming half of what they currently are, and - regarding MSRPs - how to identify real price trends (which is not the same as real street prices). I believe that a camera designed to be sold - after several years - at much lower street prices would start with a lower MSRP.

The street price is a very good indicator of the price you'd actually pay for a product The MSRP, IMO, is a better indicator of the price a manufacturer want to ask for a product. Let's take the K-1, its 2000 euro MSRP is not something random, not a mere marketing decision: the camera was designed to be sold - initially - for that price. If it didn't sell, if they had to lower the price to half - that would've been a disaster.

[Nicolas06]

Hmm... MSRP didn't decline much since 2009 - I already mentioned the A850. IMO, the 1700$ MSRP of the A7 was possible because that camera was designed to be cheap, and its successor was announced for the same MSRP; so I'm not expecting an accelerating MSRP decline.
To compare the MSRPs from 10 years back and those of now it's a mistake, as it implies a linear trend. But, we don't have a linear trend - as I was able to prove with the A850. We should consider all data points, not just two./

You can dislike it all you want but official price for a an entry level FF camera start $1099 as per official manufacturer price. That current official selling price of Sony A7 on Sony website, USA. As a consequence, officially, even following recommender manufacturer prices, you can grab an FF body officially starting as low as $1099.

As I understand it, your point is that in 2009 there was already entry, previous generation FF camera for $1099 ans so overall the price didn't go down in the last 7 years. Not counting of course that back time even for $3000 you would have that advanced 'previous generation' generation camera as an A7, of course.

Do you have any source for $1099 FF camera or cheaper in 2009 on a manufacturer website?

[D1N0]

You can dislike it all you want but official price for a an entry level FF camera start $1099 as per official manufacturer price.

EU price: Beste Kleine Pro-Camera | a7 Full-Frame & Mirrorless | Sony NL

In the US it is