Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Holly Cow Batman - Sony dscr1  (Read 5634 times)
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2005, 10:10:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't get who would buy this. At a similar price point to a 20D,

20D w/o lens is $1300. Add a comparable lens, hmmm, $4-600 (I know it doesn't exist). Since the lens will be in high volume (verses limited) production, it will likely provide more capability than an equivalent 35mm format lens.

I now read the Sony is coming in at just under $1000 (us) list or I can buy it at $900 at my favorite camera dealer.

Sounds like 2 to 1 to me.

Closer to the price point of the bottom end of the dslr line with cheap kit lens. And there out there marketing pixels again (oooh oooh lookey 10 mpxls, the corresponding Nikon and Canon is 6 to 8 mpxls). And these are pretty good pixels if the D2x is any indication.

A pro may have different needs, but most people are not studio bound pro's.

The quality of the supplied lens is the key determinant to me, for what it's worth.

Bob
Logged
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2005, 02:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin
Since KM recently announced a partnership with Sony, I expect a similar 10MP+ Sony sensor in forthcoming joint products.

So far, Sony has been happy to sell its sensors to any one who asks (like providing Canon with most of its digicam sensors), so probably Pentax will get new sensors, perhaps at a time lag.

BJL,

I was refering to the DSLR market. The digicam/P&S market is so competitive that everyone is killing each other over market share.

The DSLR market is showing pretty handsome profits by the big two and losses by the others who do not have real time access to the latest technology.

bob
Logged
Steven M Anthony
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2005, 03:10:16 PM »
ReplyReply

or me, the big issue with the p&s cameras is the shutter lag.  Not sure how the Sony's is, but I went with the 10D over the 8MP Canon p&s because of the shutter lag.  Of course, I was pleasantly surprised at all the other wonderful differences...!
Logged

Steve

http://www.smaphoto.com/

Canon 10D
Tamron 28mm - 300mm
Epson R2400
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2005, 01:20:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin
Since KM recently announced a partnership with Sony, I expect a similar 10MP+ Sony sensor in forthcoming joint products.

So far, Sony has been happy to sell its sensors to any one who asks (like providing Canon with most of its digicam sensors), so probably Pentax will get new sensors, perhaps at a time lag.

The E-1 seems due for replacement (Kodak no longer lists its sensor as a current product) and a joint Panasonic-Olympus effort in Four Thirds has been announced, with products scheduled for announcement at PMA (February 2006?). So I am guessing at one or more higher MP models coming in Four Thirds with Kodak and/or Panasonic (Matsushita) sensors.


P. S. Ray, I do not need to wonder about how my three year old E-1 performs, I can tell by looking at my photos! I do not suffer from upgrade envy so long as I am happy with what I have.

A three year old Canon DSLR matches up fairly poor against recently announced products too, but such comparisons over a big technological tiime gap are rather irrelevant. The more relevant question for me is what Four Thirds bodies will be on offer in several years' time, with what Kodak and Panasonic sensors, when I am in the mood to upgrade.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2005, 04:37:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
So far, Sony has been happy to sell its sensors to any one who asks (like providing Canon with most of its digicam sensors), so probably Pentax will get new sensors, perhaps at a time lag.

BJL,

I was refering to the DSLR market.
So was I, though my aside about Canon was a bit confusing: the point there was that Sony has so far provided sensors even for products that directly compete with their own cameras. In the DSLR world, too, Sony has so far provided Nikon, Pentax and Konica-Minolta (not to mention Epson for their range-finder).

I suppose it is possible that the Sony/Konica-Minolta partnership involves an agreement to cut off supplies of DSLR sensors to Pentax, but the threat of Pentax responding by changing to other sensors suppliers for its far larger number of digicams makes that seem unlikely.
Logged
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2005, 02:15:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The aperture and shooting velocities are controled by menus in the camera?

How does that differ from a D2x or 1Ds mkII (or whatever)where I set "A" or "S" mode and control exposure selected by adjusting an offset, +, _ or 0 from what the camera picks for me?

I know I can set the aperture and shutter speed manually, but then I still adjust from what the camera suggests, if I use the internal meter. Most high end P&S's work the same way.

Bob
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2005, 04:35:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow! The competition is heating up. A 21.5 x14.4m sensor just slightly smaller than that of the 20D, and with 10MP.

These are indeed exciting times. BJL must be wondering how his 5MP Olypus E-1 stacks up.

Yes! The quality of the lens is crucial, but I'm sure that the name of Zeiss will not be compromised  Cheesy .
Logged
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2005, 10:15:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Upon reflection, I just now realized how much Nikon is making on the D2x. No doubt, Canon is doing the same. As the same time they are killing everybody else. If KM, Oly,Pentax, et al, don't get access to some of this technology, they're relegated to duty (and death) in the discount bin>

Virtually the same chip,  in a $1100 camera.

Do you have any documentation for this claim, or is it just wild speculation on your part?
Well, I wouldn't call it 'wild" speculation. The chip sizes are very close with the pixel dimensions being identical. A rule of thumb is the direct manufacturing cost is roughly 1/4 th of selling price. So this camera costs Sony $250 to manufacture. Can the chip be 1/4 (or a 1/3rd??) of the cost of manufacture.

Anyway, the $2000 dollar premimum of the D2x over the D2hs doesn't seem warrented other than the demand was there to charge the high price.

One thing, mass production of this chip and variants should allow the cost of cameras to drop dramatically, "if "competition comes into play. Canon holding on to its technology and Nikon/Sony holding on to theirs, is killing all the rest and making it a two player field.

bob
Logged
blubo2
Guest
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2005, 04:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "


Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??

In theory, this should be a very good thing:  no need for retrofocus lens designs.  Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box.  All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc.  That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras:  their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.

My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in higher-end digital cameras is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.

Eric
Logged
blubo2
Guest
« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2005, 04:28:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Because of the sensor’s live preview capability, there is no need for the camera to have a traditional “mirror and prism” construction common to digital SLRs. This allows a lens-to-sensor distance of as little as 2 mm, optimizing image quality and color accuracy. "


Wouldn't this cause all sorts of bad issues due to the short distance from sensor to lens back element. Corner issues etc ??

In theory, this should be a very good thing:  no retrofocus lens design.  Mirror-box cameras typically require retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses, since a conventional wide-angle lens design cannot get close enough to the sensor/film plane due to the obstruction of the mirror box.  All else being equal, retrofocus designs increase design complexity and result in increased distortion, flare, etc.  That's why rangefinders (Leica, Mamiya 6/7, etc.) and LF are such good wide-angle cameras:  their wide-angle lenses do not need design modifications to accommodate a mirror box.

My main concern with eliminating the mirror box in a higher-end digital camera is whether the electronic viewfinder provides sufficient resolution for critical focusing.

Eric
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2005, 06:34:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I doubt it adds that much to the cost, especially as a lot of the material design was made for previous generations of bodies such as the F5. Even if they had to run up 30 copies to get the ergonomics right, the R&D costs would far outway the materials costs.

What I would love to do is work in the units they use for testing car safety. Imagine purposely totalling cars worth tens of thousands of dollars every day and then  saying 'nah, we'll have to run that one again', now that would be real fun!  :p  :p
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2005, 07:28:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I doubt it adds that much to the cost, especially as a lot of the material design was made for previous generations of bodies such as the F5.
That's not entirely accurate, even if the D2X body was just a re-hashed version of the F5.

The electronics in the F5 and the D2X are different, and electronics must also be protected against shock, dust, humidity etc.

Quote
Even if they had to run up 30 copies to get the ergonomics right, the R&D costs would far outway the materials costs.
Yes, materials like these are actually cheap, but making the materials in a specific shape when you're requesting very small quantities is not.

While not entirely analogous, someone I know checked -- on behalf of his company, IIRC -- what it would cost to custom-build mock-ups of a self-designed gadget of a similar size, and the cost was prohibitive. One mock-up would have cost around USD 20,000, ten or twenty would bring the price per unit down a bit, I think it ended up lower than USD 15,000 each. This was around Y2K, so it's not ancient history yet, either. Whether this is representative of the cost of making D2X bodies in a prototype run, I don't know, but it gives an indication of just how expensive such small numbers can be.

Just making the moulds is a pretty expensive affair, depending on what you make, of course, so manufacturers tend to reuse moulds for standardized parts (e.g. battery compartment doors).

Quote
What I would love to do is work in the units they use for testing car safety. Imagine purposely totalling cars worth tens of thousands of dollars every day and then  saying 'nah, we'll have to run that one again', now that would be real fun!    
Yes, there were some remarks to the joy/sadness of crashing a brand new Aston Martin DB9 or a Koenigsegg CCR ... (They only crash one of these each, unless there is a requirement to test two different crashes.)

But these cars aren't fully featured, so they are not only at factory cost for a regular vehicle, but also at a somewhat lower price point.

Still hideously expensive, though. And you'd not be happy paying for one of those crash test dummies out of your own pocket! ::
Logged

Jan
BobMcCarthy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2005, 09:59:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Pom, the camera does have a hot shoe. It's on the handgrip.

I going to make a couple of assumptions. First is that there will be a number of copycats, exactly like there was with the 8 mpxl camera series from Nikon, Canon, Oly, K-M.

The camera as I said has flash capability. Will it interface with the Nikon TTL setup (or Canon, etc.), then its a big plus.

The sensor being "much" larger should be very low noise in comparison to other P&S's.

Being a longterm Leica user, I can assure you the limited range of the zoom is not a problem for the vast majority of outdoor shooting.

I'm convinced its going to be a success, for everybody but the studio shooter, and will put pressure on the manufactures to get the selling price of DSLR's down. It will impact the lower end initially, but ultimately the whole lineup.

And I agree with all that hate (hate) the lcd viewfinders.


bob
Logged
Nemo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2005, 01:53:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The aperture and shooting velocities are controled by menus in the camera?
It is only my opinion but I find these cameras more toys than real cameras.
The new Sony digicam is big, heavy and a bit ugly.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2005, 04:21:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... the big issue with the p&s cameras is the shutter lag.
A good point, and I am waiting for the "lab. rat" reviews on that one.

SLR's have better shutter lag partly because they use phase difference AF whereas P&S camera use contrast difference AF. Phase difference has speed advantages such as knowing which way the lens is out of focus, reducing hunting. Does anyone know what the AF system is on the new Sony mega-EVF?

Another aspect of AF speed is lens aperture size: the bigger the maximum effective aperture diameter, the stronger the OOF effects that the AF system has to measure (like the ease of manual focusing with shallow DOF.) The new Sony has bigger aperture diameters than compact digicam lenses, so it might have an AF speed advantage there.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad