Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony NEX system - Full-frame too on the way ?  (Read 24367 times)
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2010, 02:39:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I would contend that NEX is "fullframe," because its mount and lenses are designed for APS-C. I'm always for bigger sensors, but, when you have a system designed with small size in mind, there must be a balance struck between size and IQ. NEX seems to do that well.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2010, 05:34:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
The NEX 16mm f/2.8 ...
Most users of interchangeable lens cameras want more than one slowish prime lens offering a single wide-angle focal length. Look at a typical kit with a standard zoom (say 28-105) and a telephoto zoom reaching 300mm (though I for one much prefer the "400mm equivalent" of my 4/3 50-200mm); that is where the size and weight difference between 35mm format and the new smaller mainstream digital formats comes in.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2010, 06:02:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
You forgot to add (with your classic deceptiveness and sneering approach, that is visible both here and also in DPR) that the "ten to one" ratio is of course fueled on by the cheap-as-dirt 1.6x Rebels, the 1.5x D40s, the D60s, the A200s, the A300s, the 2.0x lower-end 4/3 products, the 1.7x Sigma products  and a variety of such mish-mash formats,
Wow, you accuse me of a sneering approach and then describe mainstream DSLRs with words like "cheap-as-dirt" and "mish-mash"!

Stripping the insulting language aside, what you are saying is something that I completely agree on: that cost is a major reason for the difference in sales volume. I have never hidden that at being a major facto, so I do not see why you accuse me of being deceptive. Perhaps it is more precise to say that price/performance balance is the reason: the great majority of SLR users find that the mainstream DSLR formats can offer high enough quality that any improvement from going to 35mm format would not be enough to justify the substantially higher cost.

And the cost gap applies not only to the "cheap-as-dirt" models you mention: for example, even the good quality, well built models at the top of the Canon EF-S line continue to cost substantially less than Canon's cheapest 35mm format option. Even Canon, overall the most aggressive promoter of 35mm format DSLRs, has not managed to get it down to a price vaguely close to what most SLR buyers find worth paying.

In case you are confused, I am not at all denying that 35mm format has an important place towards the high end of digital photography, and in the bottom line for Canon and Nikon. I am only skeptical about the persistent prediction that 36x24mm format will ever get close to the dominance it had in the film era, when the lower resolution and lower sensitivity of chemical emulsions compared to electronic sensors forced the use of a larger format than with digital to get comparable image quality.


P. S. Being old enough to remember $300 was an above-average price for a (film) SLR, it is strange to read any DSLR described as being "cheap-as-dirt".
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2010, 06:08:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
12000 x 12 x $4000 = 5.76 Billion USD (rough estimate)
Try 576 million USD ... if this production volume of 12,000 was sustained for a full year, not just during the initial months of satisfying pent-up demand from Nikon users. [Edited: this was the prediction from Rob Galbraith.]
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 07:16:18 AM by BJL » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2010, 11:01:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Most users of interchangeable lens cameras want more than one slowish prime lens offering a single wide-angle focal length. Look at a typical kit with a standard zoom (say 28-105) and a telephoto zoom reaching 300mm (though I for one much prefer the "400mm equivalent" of my 4/3 50-200mm); that is where the size and weight difference between 35mm format and the new smaller mainstream digital formats comes in.

I agree that more primes are needed for NEX ( and they are surely coming.) However, I personally think that using zooms on such a camera defeats the whole purpose. Once a lens is big enough to make the camera non-pocketable, I might as well just use a 35mm. I would never even consider a zoom on NEX or m4/3. Until more NEX primes come, I'm going to use M lenses.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2010, 03:13:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Try 576 million USD ... if this production volume of 12,000 was sustained for a full year, not just during the initial months of satisfying pent-up demand from Nikon users. [Edited: this was the prediction from Rob Galbraith.]
Weigh in there that they amortized their development of the D3 body and mechanicals, and the volume manufacturing costs, across the combined D3/D3s/D3x models.  This was a profitable venture for Nikon.

With all the benefits of small sensors, the 24x36mm sensor is a live product.  As such, the idea of putting a full frame sensor into the smallest possible form factor while retaining lens interchangeability cannot be resisted.  Any number of backpacking landscape photographers will welcome the prospect of being able to get D3x quality images out of a package that weighs 500 grams.  PJs will welcome the possibility of being able to work quickly and easily in any confines.  It will have a niche.  And since the development of the camera body will be amortized across any number of consumer offerings (NEX3/5 for example), I don't think the costs of bringing the product to market will be prohibitive.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #46 on: July 19, 2010, 05:44:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LKaven
Weigh in there that they amortized their development of the D3 body and mechanicals ...

With all the benefits of small sensors, the 24x36mm sensor is a live product.
You seem to misunderstand me; while correcting that over-estimate of D3 gross retail sales revenue, I am not disputing that very high quality professional 35mm format DSLRs like the $4000 D3 are worthy and profitable; or high quality advanced amateur models like the $2,500 5D2. My skepticism is about frequent claims for about a decade now that 35mm format will ever spread much beyond its high end 10% or so of the interchangeable lens digital camera and become a majpr part of the mainstream of the interchangeable lens camera market place.

Quote from: LKaven
Any number of backpacking landscape photographers will welcome the prospect of being able to get D3x quality images out of a package that weighs 500 grams.
Total kit weight is what matters, not the weight of a body without a lens, and a working interchangeable lens 35mm camera including lenses with total weight 500 grams seems unlikely, except perhaps for someone who wants neither telephoto reach nor more than one or two focal lengths available.

Quote from: LKaven
PJs will welcome the possibility of being able to work quickly and easily in any confines.
Yes; and PJ's already have the D3, even though Canon has for whatever reason not yet made a full 35mm format digital camera aimed at the PJ market. Mirrorless systems have some major speed disadvantages (AF, VF lag) to overcome before they can serve the PJ market.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2010, 04:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
You seem to misunderstand me; while correcting that over-estimate of D3 gross retail sales revenue, I am not disputing that very high quality professional 35mm format DSLRs like the $4000 D3 are worthy and profitable; or high quality advanced amateur models like the $2,500 5D2. My skepticism is about frequent claims for about a decade now that 35mm format will ever spread much beyond its high end 10% or so of the interchangeable lens digital camera and become a majpr part of the mainstream of the interchangeable lens camera market place.
You might be right that 35mm will never spread beyond a certain segment, not where the more cost-effective APS-c will do the job, which is the case for most people.  But I think it has been a special segment with its own dynamic.  It doesn't compete with the huge stampede of P&S offerings, and certainly not with the iPhone.  And it's profitable, partly because the competition is narrow I suppose at this point.  It could be blown further open.  The potential is right there for full frame cameras to move into the $1700 DSLR price sector.  That would disrupt the high-end APS DSLRs pretty well.  Beyond that, I don't know.
Logged

Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2010, 05:16:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LKaven
You might be right that 35mm will never spread beyond a certain segment, not where the more cost-effective APS-c will do the job, which is the case for most people.  But I think it has been a special segment with its own dynamic.  It doesn't compete with the huge stampede of P&S offerings, and certainly not with the iPhone.  And it's profitable, partly because the competition is narrow I suppose at this point.  It could be blown further open.  The potential is right there for full frame cameras to move into the $1700 DSLR price sector.  That would disrupt the high-end APS DSLRs pretty well.  Beyond that, I don't know.
It's happened already.  The Sony A850 is now available in New Zealand for $2,600NZ, less than some DSLRs with smaller sensors, which really makes me think hard.

Looking further ahead, we may end up with a situation in which mirrorless cameras make small sensor SLRs all but redundant but larger formats will keep the mirror.  I say this because few smaller format cameras have a good enough viewfinder anyway (except the ones which cost the same as the A850!) so the EVF route is no big disadvantage.  Likewise, I don't see the big lenses needed for 35mm working well in a compact, mirrorless system.

Great times!

Don.
Logged

Don
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2010, 08:21:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Deep
It's happened already.  The Sony A850 is now available in New Zealand for $2,600NZ, less than some DSLRs with smaller sensors, which really makes me think hard.

Makes me think they aren't selling.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2010, 08:22:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is some possibly disruptive news: Fuji has introduced an image sensor with phase detect AF built in, so with the potential to offer the AF speed advantages of an SLR, and full use of SLR lenses in a camera without a mirror. That would leave electronic viewfinder performance (lag, resolution etc.) as the only reason for staying with the SLR approach, and the digital video industry seems to be working hard on improving EVF/LCD performance. Actually, it merges phase detection and and contrast detection measurements, to give potentially better performance than either alone can.

For now this is in a compact with 1/2" CCD sensor, the FujiFilm FinePix F300EXR, but I have read that other camera makers have patents on similar ideas, so maybe it will move up to interchangeable lens cameras. What might that do to the evolution of 35mm format digital cameras and EVIL cameras?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 08:23:37 AM by BJL » Logged
AlanG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 22, 2010, 05:00:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
...but I have read that other camera makers have patents on similar ideas, so maybe it will move up to interchangeable lens cameras. What might that do to the evolution of 35mm format digital cameras and EVIL cameras?

If they can get the AF to be fast and EVFs to be acceptable to most users, then the sky is the limit. I'd think it would be interesting if a company like Sigma, that knows how all the lens interfaces work, teams up with a company like Panasonic or Fuji to make an EVIL system that via adapters can fully utilize all the features in existing lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.

But I'm dreaming...

In the short run, even Canon and Nikon to Nex fully functioning electronic adapters would probably be a big seller for someone.

Logged

Alan Goldstein
Goldsteinphoto website

I have a new fine art project. Please take a look:
Fine art site

Galleries of images at Photoshelter:
Galleries
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #52 on: July 22, 2010, 05:13:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Here is some possibly disruptive news: Fuji has introduced an image sensor with phase detect AF built in, so with the potential to offer the AF speed advantages of an SLR, and full use of SLR lenses in a camera without a mirror. That would leave electronic viewfinder performance (lag, resolution etc.) as the only reason for staying with the SLR approach, and the digital video industry seems to be working hard on improving EVF/LCD performance. Actually, it merges phase detection and and contrast detection measurements, to give potentially better performance than either alone can.

For now this is in a compact with 1/2" CCD sensor, the FujiFilm FinePix F300EXR, but I have read that other camera makers have patents on similar ideas, so maybe it will move up to interchangeable lens cameras. What might that do to the evolution of 35mm format digital cameras and EVIL cameras?

 Sony patented something similar over a year ago:   link
Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2010, 07:08:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
My skepticism is about frequent claims for about a decade now that 35mm format will ever spread much beyond its high end 10% or so of the interchangeable lens digital camera and become a majpr part of the mainstream of the interchangeable lens camera market place.

I've never heard of such a claim; but judging by the success of the Canon 5DII, a 35mm, affordable, non-SLR digital camera might be marketable, and mainstream isn't really neede for a success .
It's not going to be the NEX, due to the poor view finder design, but there is hope .

On the one hand, a large part of photography is shown on the internet only, not requiring quality cameras; on the other hand, there might still be a sizable market for a silent, unobtrusive and small high-quality camera .
One that isn't the Leica M9  .

Remember the Mamiya 7 ? Huge hit amongst photo journalists and lots of other pros and amateurs .

Quote
Yes; and PJ's already have the D3, even though Canon has for whatever reason not yet made a full 35mm format digital camera aimed at the PJ market. Mirrorless systems have some major speed disadvantages (AF, VF lag) to overcome before they can serve the PJ market.

Mirrorless designs do not have a speed disadvantage; electronic view finders do .
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2010, 08:35:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Fritzer
Mirrorless designs do not have a speed disadvantage; electronic view finders do .
So far, the mirrorless systems have slower AF than good SLR systems, due to the speed disadvantage of CD AF compared to PD AF. At best, maybe some mirrorless systems are comparable in speed to consumer level SLR and lens combinations, but not as fast as high end SLRs with fast lenses (brighter lenses help PD AF speed.)

And since the mirrorless digital systems must use a video VF to offer the TTL viewfinder that almost everyone wants theses days, "video viewfinder lag" is in practice a speed disadvantage of those systems so far.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2010, 11:41:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Interestingly, two rumored Sony cams coming this year have only LCD/EVF viewfinders, and they use phase detection af via a pellicle mirror. We'll see....
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2010, 11:44:11 AM »
ReplyReply

How successful has the 5DII (or even the 5D) been?

Quote from: Fritzer
I've never heard of such a claim; but judging by the success of the Canon 5DII, a 35mm, affordable, non-SLR digital camera might be marketable, and mainstream isn't really neede for a success .
It's not going to be the NEX, due to the poor view finder design, but there is hope .

On the one hand, a large part of photography is shown on the internet only, not requiring quality cameras; on the other hand, there might still be a sizable market for a silent, unobtrusive and small high-quality camera .
One that isn't the Leica M9  .

Remember the Mamiya 7 ? Huge hit amongst photo journalists and lots of other pros and amateurs .



Mirrorless designs do not have a speed disadvantage; electronic view finders do .
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #57 on: July 26, 2010, 12:00:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Try 576 million USD ... if this production volume of 12,000 was sustained for a full year, not just during the initial months of satisfying pent-up demand from Nikon users. [Edited: this was the prediction from Rob Galbraith.]

Yes, that is true.  $576 million and not 5.76B.....of course just including the camera body sales alone and not factoring in the secondary demand for expensive lenses, which I would opine would have been 3-4 times that of the camera body sales numbers in dollar terms.  Yes, the sales backlog was sustained till the D700 was announced, at which time the demand shifted from the D3 to the D700.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #58 on: July 26, 2010, 12:11:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Total kit weight is what matters, not the weight of a body without a lens, and a working interchangeable lens 35mm camera including lenses with total weight 500 grams seems unlikely, except perhaps for someone who wants neither telephoto reach nor more than one or two focal lengths available.

I would say the FF body alone in such a NEX type product, would weigh in at less than 350gms, including the EVF, the built-in flash etc.  And if one were to take a Leica M9 type of approach of using such products, where the usage is primarily focused on the wider-end and upto say 135mm or so,  you can have a pretty light overall kit in such a NEX based kit.  Of course a 300mm f/2.8 (or 600mm f/4 etc) is a large lens, regardless of format, and is just the nature of the beast.  And in case of a 600mm f/4, whether you use a D3X or whether you use a NEX5, the camera functions essentially like a lens-cap.

Also, if we are talking about effective FOV etc., where we are playing with pixel density and pretending that a 300mm FL has magically become a 600mm and so on, that game can be played with a FF sensor too, with adequate/equivalent pixel density, and then cropping as needed.....while masking off the electronic view-finder via some kind of a firmware adjustment and allowing the user to choose whatever format or "magnification" he needs while composing or shooting....and then switch to the full-view when needing to shoot wide and so on.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #59 on: July 26, 2010, 12:16:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
P. S. Being old enough to remember $300 was an above-average price for a (film) SLR, it is strange to read any DSLR described as being "cheap-as-dirt".

True, but $300 in those days, when translated into today's dollar terms is a pretty hefty chunk of cash.  Of course once we factor in the price of the Film (especially for a prolific shooter), which comes "free" with such digital SLR products, that difference gets narrowed even further.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad