Sony reportedly shifting focus to full-frame cameras

Right, lenses' selection drive the camera market.

Canon is slowly getting into the mirror-less market as well, and Canon will go for the world market once Canon is ready imo.

Right now, Canon is already beating the mirror-less maker that sitting in the bottom of the food chain such as Fuji and Panasonic in its homeland.

I hope something like the A6000 endures in the future. I don't want to have to deal with the size of full frame lenses for the marginal increase in capability they offer.

Are you ready to carry around large bazooka like lenses on your back? then go ahead FF is way to go. But we are happy with APSC. thank you.

Back to a question, what do you expect from FF if nowadays APSC size can fit almost all of your requirement? Including for pros?

Buying FF isnt that simple, due to bigger and bigger size. Compare to real FF (Film analog), the size isnt that bigger than today's FF. Bringing 80-200 in analog, now looks like bring bazooka. Not only body, but all the system.

And for me, its looks like dejavu with Sony when they shift from Alpha system to NEX and back to Alpha again. Playing with their existing user. This is the reason why i quit from Sony's gear.

They could also reduce the lag and make it so short it's unnoticeable.
An EVF shows you the picture how the sensor sees it, it's beneficial.

It was a miniature format...when it was invented...in 1909.

You sound upset that you don't own a full frame sensor.

35 mm has nothing to do with the actual size of the full frame sensor; its size is 24x36 mm . 35 mm is s reference to the width of film that carried this frame format in the film days. I guess it is "full" by tradition.

When I bought my last Olympus, it was a choice between it, Nikon's D810 (very good price on one) and Sony's (at the time) A7II. The Nikon was too large, and the lens costs prohibitive, if you wanted to get the most out of it and too large a kit for wildlife. I just couldn't being myself to spend $3000 on a Sony, it just didn't "look" like it was worth it, though I could have gotten the unstablized A7R for $1500. So I stuck with Olympus. Perhaps I'd have re-thunk it if I did a lot of shooting in dim lighting.

^ watch out we got a badass over here

Anastigmat - the big factor you've left out there is lens price and size.

The original A7 is now a very appealing price (especially from Hong Kong) but the lenses are very big, and only the kit lens and the 28mm are remotely affordable.

I remember why I got my first mirror-less - because I'd just been on two adventure holidays and was sick of lifting a DSLR up mountains. The Sony A7 looks very much like going back to those days, once a lens is attached.

M4/3 is actually becoming more appealing to me, because you can get a great lens for not too much money and even on the larger bodies the whole package is far smaller than Sony FF.

...and some people won't use electronic viewfinders because they prefere optical ones.

FF yes, mirrorless no. Advcanced amateurs and pros will always favor the real time images of reflex mirror cameras, not the electronic viewfinders used in mirrorless cameras. Besides the removal of the mirror does not offer any additional compactness, because most lenses, including the wide angles, made for mirrorless models are unable to take advantage of the shorter registration distance of mirrorless models. Wide angles designed for mirrorless cameras could have been more compact, but they are not because they are still reverse-telephoto designs just like the lenses on cameras with the mirror. One of the reasons is vignetting. Cameras like the Leica M9 has more compact wide angle lenses, but Leica has to tilt the micro lenses at the edges of the sensor to reduce vignetting.

In fact, telephotos designed for mirrorless models have to be longer than their FF counterparts because the lens has to be extended to compensate for the reduced flange to sensor distance of mirrorless cameras

P.S. They're not going to exit the market for APS-C anyway. Their best seller is the A6000 by a long way. Check Amazon ranking.

As good as the a7 series of full frame cameras are, Sony will have to come up with something that can compete with Canon and Nikon at the high end, (above $3,500), of the market in order to even play on the same ball field as the big 2. IMO, relying on the low end of the enthusiast market for sales dominance in full frame ILCs won't get Sony to where it wants to be, but it'll be fun to watch them try just the same. Right now, anything Sony can do to make their camera business more profitable is a good idea for them. Of course, much depends on how long this worldwide economic slump remains in effect. Its been too long already.

This shows how clueless Sony is about marketing! You are not going to attract users to full-frame by expanding your wedding and studio presence. Contrast the appeal of that with the appeal of a sea of white lenses at every major sporting event in the world.

That's not really clueless.

Sony can't compete at making a sports/events camera.
A optical viewfinder is highly desireable in that field. Then the high dynamic range of sony sensors isn't really used.

For wedding photographers and small video makers that's where the strength of their new system. And those are the users they wanna bring over.

It says Sony wants to "raise the popularity of full-frame cameras". They are only going to do that by bringing in users not using full-frame. It sounds like they want to get full-frame Canikon wedding and studio photographers to switch, which is doable to a point, and use that to get non full-frame users to upgrade. It's a convoluted announcement no matter how you look at it and I doubt they have a real strategy.

Im sorry but APS-C is still very popular in market today. Even 4/3 is full popular in market from Olympus/Panasonic. Pentax still with APS-C so Canon and Nikon still going make them. They are not going to give up just yet. If Sony want to stop making APS-C sensor, then Pentax/Nikon might jump ship and go for Toshiba/Samsung sensor making. That will leave Sony out in the cold and lose profit rapidly.

You cannot "just use the crop mode" 18MP is less than 24MP, the "reach" is smaller with 18MP compared to 24MP.

he is talking about Canon (FD)
or about Olympus (4/3, OM)

If he is talking about lack of interest in A-mount i would suggest looking at the Canon EOS M system. That never got any love whatsoever.

Ehmmm what system are you talking about? To my knowledge they stil produce borg compact, bridge, mirrorless aps-c and Full frame, as well as SLT aps-c and Full frame.

What is it that you want from Sony? A new lens every quarter? A new SLT? Whats wrong the cameras they allready supply?

Oh this one is always hilarious and usually comes from the committed m43's or Fuji or whatever fanboys who 'read on the Internet' that Sony dumps a new system every quarter.

Here are some interesting facts for those playing at home:

Since the introduction of digital Sony have 'dropped' exactly 0 systems.

Fuji, Samsung, Panasonic and Olympus have all 'dropped' their first digital mounts. Completely and utterly left those markets.

Olympus have made one vague attempt at backwards compatibility on one model, nearly 4 years after they stopped making four thirds gear. Fuji, Panasonic and Samsung have never bothered.

IF Sony do eventually 'drop' A-Mount they have been catering to A-Mount adaption for years before that occurred with the best backwards compatibility around, long before any major change.

But hey let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story shall we?

The difference is that Canon an Nikon outsell Sony by 7 to 8 times when it comes down to numbers.

The money is not made by selling camera's but by lenses and accessories.

People that are still interested in photography buy themselves into a system not into a camera. Sony still fails to be a complete system. Instead its a camera manufacturer that needs to lean on 3rd party lenses and adapters for the camera to operate.

"The difference is that Canon an Nikon outsell Sony by 7 to 8 times when it comes down to numbers"

False.

A) Looking at imaging as a whole, the difference between Canon and Sony is a factor 2 in terms of sales value.
B) Looking at ILC's, the difference is less than a factor 4 (11% share for Sony, Canon 38-40%).

I was talking about the trend in the numbers, which tells us something about the current market shift too.

Financial reports from both companies, just released and the percentages from last year's IDC reports and this year's Sony report.

Nice one Troj that will shut him up. (Just a retard)

More proven lies. You claim to quote Sony, but you're making it up as you go, as usual.

Sony never said they are gonna sell anything.
They just announced/released 3 cutting edge products that can do things no camera from another brand can do.

Vanitas the point is Sony often get's blamed for this while they have never dropped any camera format.

Yes they might drop A-mount in the future which is a mount that dates back to the first AF SLR in 1985. But will support it with fullframe bodies with adapters that maintain full capability.

Which unless you were married to a OVF isn't a bad thing

Just the bad taste in my mouth that I got when Sony first dumped the optical viewfinder just to dump the A mount shortly afterwards.

Nikon might not be very "futuristic" but at least they still support their vintage glass and allow people to create characteristic images with it.

Dump a mount? Im sure a mount is still alive

'Nikon might not be very "futuristic" but at least they still support their vintage glass and allow people to create characteristic images with it.'

Really? Pretty sure a good chunk of their cameras don't work with their vintage lenses. I don't think any work with the aperture on the AF lenses (AFAIK), most won't work with non AI lenses, low end models won't AF non Nikon G lenses etc.

In fact many Nikon 'vintage' lenses probably work better with Sony than they do with Nikon for creating 'characteristic' images with those lenses.

So far Sony has not completely abandoned any system

Olympus has done it twice (OM and then 4/3rd)

Canon left their FD users in the dust in the 90's when they made their EOS system

So far Nikon Sony and Pentax have the longest running mounts.
Sony took over the minolta A-mount which they still support to some degree.

@BarnEt in an era of entitlement, not getting a camera update every 12 months (regardless of whether they're going to buy it or not) counts as "abandonment". Boohoo we are all so abandoned...

Olympus sells adapters both for the OM system lenses and for the 4/3 lenses to be used on micro4/3 cameras.

OM lenses get the 2x crop factor of course which can make them awkward to use. But with an adapter on a A7 from Sony you get the angle it was design for.

(Not officially Olympus stuff, but there are also plenty of 3d party adapters as well, including Metabones that via optics in the adapter gives back some of the crop factor and brightens the aperture).

The last 4/3 Olympus body came out in 2010. In 2013 Olympus presented the micro4/3 camera E-M1 which still is in production, it can via an adapter autofocus 4/3 lenses really well and have the same crop factor.

Maybe not perfect transitions but rather okey I think.

This is also a route I think Sony might take as well. The new A7R2 is officially shown by Sony using A-mount glass via adapter.

The F-mount (APS-C) lenses still works on the FE cameras in crop mode, which on the A7R2 is 18 Mpix.

Latte,

Just a Photographer said
"They'll drop systems on the fly and if you have invested into one of their systems you will never know how long Sony will support that system.

To me Sony is not a trustworthy company."

And so far Sony has a clean record not abondoning anything.
Yes they might be in transition from A-mount to E-mount.
But unlike Olympus they already have the AF system and adapters in place to cover their existing users. For both Apsc and fullframe.

So i don't understand that feeling towards Sony one bit.

I think the day will eventually come when Canon and Nikon needs to have mirrorless options as well for their FF programs.

And it will be really interesting to see if they will use the shorter possible flange distance for a new mount and adapter for the old lenses or stick with a bulkier depth of the camera body to keep compatible to the current lenses. So far they have gone with adapter for their small sensor mirrorless systems.

Once you get your systems electronically and autofocus wise compatible you can start to combine sensors and mounts with the same internal components in the cameras.

So Sony could continue to make A-mount only cameras that basically internally would be the A7RII components with a "fixed adapter" to get the correct flange distance that has the A-mount and some redesign of the body to better use the longer forced flange distance.

And they can as well use the same internal components and pair them with an APS-C sensor and gain a smaller body.

Latte,

Another exciting possibility for the Apsc variant of the Mirrorless A mount would be a selecteable focal reducer.

Say a built-in speedbooster that automatically get's turned on when you mount fullframe glass.

BarnET you are correct. But it comes down to the same thing.
Sony just 'forgets' about updating systems and lenses, leading to bleed them to death and leaving customers in the cold.

That's even worse then just telling their customer base that they have invested in a dead system.

'am currently a Fuji guy...

They'll drop systems on the fly and if you have invested into one of their systems you will never know how long Sony will support that system.

To me Sony is not a trustworthy company.'

Fuji abandoned F mount. Fuji system abandonment 1, Sony 0. Logic is clearly not a strong suit of yours.

The answer to 'listening' to their customers is: NO.

Really? How can you make such a conclusion? Because they do emidiately make everybody's wishes come true?

Experience.

Experience in what way? To me youre claim is empty and has no real weight based on history.

A6000 was on the market. People loved it's autofocus and speed. then the A5100 came with Xavc-s people complained that the a6000 didn't have it. Sony responded somewhat late maybe but added Xavc-s. RX10 same story.

Then people loved the RX100 mk1/2 but didn't like the menu system. Sony overhouled it. They asked for 24mm equiv. and possibly faster aperture. Sony delivered.

Panasonic started making 4k products. We would love to have that in the RX10. Well Sony made a new model with 4k rx100 too.

Sony made some A7's and we started wondering. What if Sony combines the video quality of the A7s resolution of the A7r and stabilisation of the A7II that would be something right.

Ok that might take a while but that would be something. It will be here soon. The A7rII. They even made a world's first fullframe BSI Cmos sensor to do the honors.

The very fact that sony has IBIS tech on some of their cameras, yet all of the A7 don't seem to have it... smells a bit like cash grab??? The tech wasn't new to them

Oh yeah, same company who made memory stick. No wonder

According to DXOmark mtf measurements, the 24-70 f4 is optically similar to the Canon 24-70 f4 (similar sharpness uniformity at 24mm, better between 35-50mm, a tad worse at 70mm) but smaller in volume and weight.

You are confusing the lens I mentioned with some other model. Perhaps you are thinking of the f/4.

If you can not take a decent pic with a Sony A7 and 24-70 f4 zoom, the problem is not with the gear...

I'm talking about the 24-70 intended for mirrorless cameras (see the first posting being about mirrorless cameras). The 24-70 ZA you're talking about is designed for cameras with mirrors.

So no, I'm not confused.

Both points were made and I already refuted the heavy and huge part in my first post. The Canon 24-70 of comparable brightness is almost 30% larger in volume and >40% heavier than the Sony 24-70mm for the E mount.

Have you guys ever seen an FE lens in real life? They're very small - not as small as M43 but much smaller than modern Canon and Nikon lenses.

But then why did you bring that lens up in a reply to Thomas?
He said

"Problem is, Sony does not have a single decent standard zoom for any of their mirrorless systems."

Sony doesn't have any F2.8 lens for their mirrorless system.

TN made a reply that the FE 24-70mm F4 is better then some think especially in the 24-50mm range.

TN ARgs wrote:
"TrojMacReady, which part of my post saying f/2.8 and one kilogram did you think refers to the f/4 lens? LOLOL what a joke."

Which part of *mirrorless systems* in the post you replied to did you find hard to grasp?
The lens you keep talking about, is for bodies with mirrors. Get a clue.

I have owned the following 'standard zooms':

Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S
Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
Olympus 12-40mm f2.8
Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4
Canon 24-105mm f4 L
Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8

The FE zoom I would rate as top 2-3 in that list. Those who bag it have never tried it (nor probably half the lenses in that list). The Oly was maybe a tad better, but I definitely preferred the images I got out of the Sony combo most of the time. Fuji and Tamron both smack down the woefully inadequate 'big two' zooms which are in my experience steaming piles.

The Fuji was ok, certainly better than my old L and the Nikon. But it never really offered me the sharpness I have managed out of the others. I also felt like the aperture values were rather 'optimistic', though that may be more the ISO values.

Were you using adobe camera RAW?! becouse that severely limits detail with fujifilm camera's.

Fujifilm overstates the ISO values more then other brands.
ISO 200 is more like ISO 125. Which is the main cause of Fujifilm files looking cleaner then the competition.

Thomas Ritcher@ what are the 16-70 Zeiss and 24-70 Zeiss then? The 70-200 F4 isn't bad at all. The problem with most who participate in these discussions, is that they rely on web reviews rather than picking up the gear and trying it out for real.

True, but an EVF has the BIG advantage of seeing what you get before taking the picture instead of chimping afterwards.

With an EVF you see it all. Depth of Field, color rendering and most important aspect of all, you see it beforehand when you make a usermistake like under or overexposing an image.

There is less error with an EVF and therewith you will have more keepers.

But you are right that battery consumption is a problem with mirrorless.

my old nokia phone can go a week without recharging and my new phone maybe a bit over a day, would any of us go to old phones?? no do not think so ...