will Sony need a 645d?

[Michaels7]

Remember, Pentax has both 35 mm and medium format. Anyways, I don't see them getting into this market because it's more of a niche market geared toward the professional industry. Fashion, product etc.

I believe we won't see one because Minolta didn't have a MF division...? SONY's SLR division was based on Minolta's legacy and that is 35mm film and NOT MF. If SONY were interested in pursuiing this line of thought, they would have skipped Minolta altogether and created a new MF format without any LEGACY "baggage" to worry about...

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with Pentax to know if they had an existing line of MF glass and bodies to develop from but clearly Minolta did not...

I am surprised that more folks are asking this same question. They obviously have not seen some of the images coming out of the digital medium formats that are currently out there. My friend just purchased the Hasselblad H50 and the images are beyond breathtaking. I shoot with the A900, but they aren't even in the same league as these Medium format digitals. If you have not yet seen one of these images, you need to go find one and have a close look see.

--
-Alex

From the minds of Minolta to the imagination of Sony, Alpha, like no other.

http://www.pbase.com/lonewolf69

 

[Franka T.L.]

and of course lens to match the FF high performance need , and keep that 100% view OVF in the A9XX

The DSLR+SLT+ILC need to be seen not as seperate but continous chain of product in a system, and well we need the DSLR alright

--

• Franka -

 

[Anastigmat]

I am ver intrested to know if youo guys interested in MF cameras from Sony at 7k or around the same price range as the Pentax is in (8k).

I like the Kodak sensor but I wonder if Sony can make it even better?

I am sure Sony can make better medium format sensors than either Kodak or Dalsa, the two major medium format sensor makers, and at the same time cheaper too, since both Kodak and Dalsa rely on more expensive CCD technology. CCD sensors larger than 1.3x crop (35mm) have to be stitched together, but it is much more time consuming to stitch together multiple exposures of CCD sensor, because the multiple exposures have to line up perfectly. CMOS sensors need only connect the multiple exposures electrically.

The current CCD medium format sensors are pretty noisy at high ISO settings, i.e. above ISO 400. Sony and perhaps Canon can do better. If either of these sensor makers decide to get into the medium format sensor business, they can conceivably take over the market with cheaper and lower noised sensors.

 

[goetz48]

I am 60+ and just joined a 10 days archaeologic bus tour through Anatolia with 14 participants. Had to carry my A700 equipment, it's heavy enough. Two of us where shooting DSLR, the rest P&S or even film. Was quite heavy. And I have a small P&S on my belt together with my cell phone for cases when somethig happens unexpectedly.

I think we always have to make compromises between picture quality and ease of use. No doubt that a Linhof can make better pictures, but would you take it out of the studio? And it's the same with MF shooting. How many of us are shooting for magazines like GEO ? And for a travel guide a DSLR is good enough, even APS-C.

 

[Gionni Dorelli]

I am surprised that more folks are asking this same question. They obviously have not seen some of the images coming out of the digital medium formats that are currently out there. My friend just purchased the Hasselblad H50 and the images are beyond breathtaking. I shoot with the A900, but they aren't even in the same league as these Medium format digitals. If you have not yet seen one of these images, you need to go find one and have a close look see.

So how big does the print have to be before the MF picture looks better than the A900? (when viewed with 20-20 eyes). Just curious, since I have only APS-C.
Bert

Magazine spread is large enough to show some difference .
It is not just the details, it is the whole thing.

Anyway the kodak sensor on the Pentax is not as well implemented as it is on an Hasselblad or a Phase. Experience counts, those two brands got longer experience with large sensors than Pentax. Said that, the Pentax deliver outstanding results that are tangibly better than DSLR's.

 

[Klips1]

... Zeiss have been making lenses for Hasselblad and others for decades, and adapting a lens to a different mount isn't impossible. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina do it on a regular basis, and Zeiss probably don't use different optical formulas for lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts.

Are you suggesting re-releasing Contax 645 lenses in a hyperthetical Sony MF mount to save them the bother of designing new lenses?

I'm suggesting nothing, but I'm saying that with the Sony-Zeiss co-operation on A-mount lenses, and Zeiss' manufacturing of lenses for different mounts, getting medium format lenses for an eventual Sony medium format body would not rely on Sony/Minolta having previously made such lenses or not. Rumour has it that Sony's Zeiss lenses are assembled by Cosina (a long-time Zeiss partner), so no problem there.

There's still the issue of the fact that no lenses exist in such a mount, giving nobody any incentive to buy into the new system. Pentax, on the other hand, can count upon a fair few previous 645 owners who've been crying out for an MF body for a while now.

And that's the Achilles' heel of not just Sony, but any potential new manufacturer. Still, Sony (and others) could enter the market with medium format digital backs instead of entire cameras with lenses.

I've never heard of a 1st party lens-conversion service, and while 3rd party services do exist (and I've done it myself), such users count for tiny %ages of the overall market - even amongst such a small and knowledgeable userbase as potential MF buyers.

Neither have I, unless you count Sigma - but they went from being third party to being both that and first party in one, so that's a different story.
However, that wasn't my point. I simply meant that

Regarding licencing lens designs for different mounts - there's a hell of a lot of c*(p spouted about this on forums. I'd love to hear an insider's perspective on why e.g. Zeiss don't release ZFs in A mount. I bet it's nothing to do with licencing - they never released them in 4/3 mount either, but I don't see any licencing conflicts there...

Zeiss get to make AF lenses for Sony (or rather the optical system, while Sony take care of the electronics), and in return they don't "have to" make manual focus lenses (in reality, they'd probaly lose a profitable contract if they did.

Neither Minolta nor Sony has up to this point never released an MF or LF lens, so anybody who bought a Sony MF DSLR would be taking part in the creation of an entirely new lens system. It's just not a goer - if you want MF or LF images then buy something already established. Apart from possible compatibility between cables and flashes, a Sony MF system would offer no advantages to an Alpha shooter over one of the established ones.

The same could be said about full frame or APS-C, but of course those markets are big enough to make even a five percent share worth the while. The MF market would be very hard to penetrate, because hardly any "beginner" is looking for an "entry level, medium format" camera.

I don't understand what you're saying - what do you mean when you say that the same could be said about FF or APS-C?

When I upgraded from my Minolta Dimage 7Hi to a Dynax 7D, the only "good" reason for not going Nikon was compatibility with my existing flashes, not least the macro ring and twin flash, that I use to this day.

To the people who bought APS-C cameras and APS-C lenses before Sony released the A900, the only advantage of a Sony full frame would be the possible compatibility of accessories like flashes and cables. If they wanted to go full frame, Canon already had what they needed at a comparatively low price (for the point in time), namely the EOS 5D.

I'll save you the trouble of pointing out that there were lots and lots of full frame lenses available, and, like I said in the subject line, I don't disaggree with your conclusion.

The market is too small, and unless they make it Nex-like (i.e. compatible with lenses in other mounts via an adapter) the sales figures will be close to zero. However, as the Nex has shown, there is a larger potential market for such a camera than for a "closed" system.

 

[tbcass]

In broad terms, the lenses produce a much more pleasing backgound blur than there 35mm counterparts. A braod statement, I know, but have a look around on Flickr, and you will see what I mean.

I have a medium format back, and it is at the bottom of the food chain for a 22 MPix back, and it simply blows away a D300, and gives a D3X a run for it's money in terms of measurable IQ, but the bokeh and tonality of my B&W conversions smoke anything that I can get out of 35mm, and this is true at 8X10.

I'd love to see a sony with a big chip!

Never happen. MF is great within a narrow range of uses. The problem is MF cameras are not good at all as all around versatile cameras which is what 95% of us are looking for. Add to that the high price of such cameras which makes it unaffordable for most of those 5% and what you have is a camera that very few can afford to own. Sony is not interested in such a limited market and neither are Nikon and Canon.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[3systermuser]

thanks for all comments here.

I personally think sony can just use Mamiya or Phase one mount I mean licensing it and just produce some sensors.

Or just join Pentax mount it is quite cheap since Pentax is not as big as Phase One.

But it is kind of interesting to see CMOS MF sensor from Sony , maybe ISO3200 usable without lowered low ISO IQ?

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

maybe you are right but Sony is a sensor producer before a camera producer so Sony just can design and produce some sensors for Phase or Mamiya or Pentax.

and then, Sony will be able to just join in any of these mounts without producing its own lens line.

I am quite interested in this kind of thing because I fiound Pentax 645D old film lenses are quite up to the digital task and cheap.

Most of 645F lenses can take resolution of 40000 at ease and my be able to outsolve the KAF4000 Kodak sensor.

In broad terms, the lenses produce a much more pleasing backgound blur than there 35mm counterparts. A braod statement, I know, but have a look around on Flickr, and you will see what I mean.

I have a medium format back, and it is at the bottom of the food chain for a 22 MPix back, and it simply blows away a D300, and gives a D3X a run for it's money in terms of measurable IQ, but the bokeh and tonality of my B&W conversions smoke anything that I can get out of 35mm, and this is true at 8X10.

I'd love to see a sony with a big chip!

Never happen. MF is great within a narrow range of uses. The problem is MF cameras are not good at all as all around versatile cameras which is what 95% of us are looking for. Add to that the high price of such cameras which makes it unaffordable for most of those 5% and what you have is a camera that very few can afford to own. Sony is not interested in such a limited market and neither are Nikon and Canon.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

I saw 1m x 65cm prints from the A900 and 645d at CP1 show in MArch and I compared them , well IMO, the Pentax MF was marginlly better not dramatically.

but color depth and way it renders red or blue are more natural to my eyes than anything from 35mm D-SLRs.

And to be honest , why this 645D is so special and importnat to me is this one is affordable MF , only one really reacheable MF camera for me can be in my budget range since I kept my old Pentax 645 lenses.

But I am not intrested in any of Hessy or Phase One or even Mamiya since they are not in side of my budget range regardless of their output quality or DR or overall IQ.

Thanks for reply.

I am surprised that more folks are asking this same question. They obviously have not seen some of the images coming out of the digital medium formats that are currently out there. My friend just purchased the Hasselblad H50 and the images are beyond breathtaking. I shoot with the A900, but they aren't even in the same league as these Medium format digitals. If you have not yet seen one of these images, you need to go find one and have a close look see.

So how big does the print have to be before the MF picture looks better than the A900? (when viewed with 20-20 eyes). Just curious, since I have only APS-C.
Bert

Magazine spread is large enough to show some difference .
It is not just the details, it is the whole thing.

Anyway the kodak sensor on the Pentax is not as well implemented as it is on an Hasselblad or a Phase. Experience counts, those two brands got longer experience with large sensors than Pentax. Said that, the Pentax deliver outstanding results that are tangibly better than DSLR's.

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

Hassy is better but depends on which H?

H4 latest model with 65mp is deifnitly in a different class but H3 39 or like that are not much better, in fact its sensor tech is quite old and read noise level is quite high.

And as I see many pritns from Hassy and Phase One , I 'd have to admit I was more impressed with Phase One P65.

But to my surprise the A900 is not that bad even compare to the Hassy H4.

But in may opinion , the Phase one P65 rules the world.

I am surprised that more folks are asking this same question. They obviously have not seen some of the images coming out of the digital medium formats that are currently out there. My friend just purchased the Hasselblad H50 and the images are beyond breathtaking. I shoot with the A900, but they aren't even in the same league as these Medium format digitals. If you have not yet seen one of these images, you need to go find one and have a close look see.

That's quite interesting since when the A900 first came out more than one Pro Hasselblad user said that the A900 was almost as good vs the 39mp Hasselblad. The samples I saw seem to bare this out. Was the Hasselblad better? Certainly when blown up to gigantic sizes but not in different leagues at all. Besides what does that have to do with whether Sony comes out with a MF camera or not? Your response doesn't have any relationship to the OP's question. The answer I would give is a flat no. Sony will not enter the MF market as the market is too small.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

--
derek.

 

[barri]

--
Sony Alpha 900 user...

see some of my images at
http://christianriedel.com

 

[3systermuser]

what about making them some sensors and Sony will join in there with PA mount lenses?

in this way , sony does not need any new line of lenses for its MF........

I think it will sell a lot more than niche like Leica S2 or Mamiya , not as good as Phse One but I dont need that high and expensive level of cam.

As make it as CMOS and as produce it as many as Sony and Pentax can sell them , it becomes cheaper and cheaper and eventually come down to current FF price level like 5k.

High volume sells make it much cheaper.

Remember, Pentax has both 35 mm and medium format. Anyways, I don't see them getting into this market because it's more of a niche market geared toward the professional industry. Fashion, product etc.

I believe we won't see one because Minolta didn't have a MF division...? SONY's SLR division was based on Minolta's legacy and that is 35mm film and NOT MF. If SONY were interested in pursuiing this line of thought, they would have skipped Minolta altogether and created a new MF format without any LEGACY "baggage" to worry about...

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with Pentax to know if they had an existing line of MF glass and bodies to develop from but clearly Minolta did not...

I am surprised that more folks are asking this same question. They obviously have not seen some of the images coming out of the digital medium formats that are currently out there. My friend just purchased the Hasselblad H50 and the images are beyond breathtaking. I shoot with the A900, but they aren't even in the same league as these Medium format digitals. If you have not yet seen one of these images, you need to go find one and have a close look see.

--
-Alex

From the minds of Minolta to the imagination of Sony, Alpha, like no other.

http://www.pbase.com/lonewolf69

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

I forgot the Contax one , thanks for reminding me and I think it is a good idea.

Contax zeiss and Sony, maybe even better than the Pentax mount.

... Zeiss have been making lenses for Hasselblad and others for decades, and adapting a lens to a different mount isn't impossible. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina do it on a regular basis, and Zeiss probably don't use different optical formulas for lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts.

Are you suggesting re-releasing Contax 645 lenses in a hyperthetical Sony MF mount to save them the bother of designing new lenses? There's still the issue of the fact that no lenses exist in such a mount, giving nobody any incentive to buy into the new system. Pentax, on the other hand, can count upon a fair few previous 645 owners who've been crying out for an MF body for a while now.

I've never heard of a 1st party lens-conversion service, and while 3rd party services do exist (and I've done it myself), such users count for tiny %ages of the overall market - even amongst such a small and knowledgeable userbase as potential MF buyers.

Regarding licencing lens designs for different mounts - there's a hell of a lot of c*(p spouted about this on forums. I'd love to hear an insider's perspective on why e.g. Zeiss don't release ZFs in A mount. I bet it's nothing to do with licencing - they never released them in 4/3 mount either, but I don't see any licencing conflicts there...

Neither Minolta nor Sony has up to this point never released an MF or LF lens, so anybody who bought a Sony MF DSLR would be taking part in the creation of an entirely new lens system. It's just not a goer - if you want MF or LF images then buy something already established. Apart from possible compatibility between cables and flashes, a Sony MF system would offer no advantages to an Alpha shooter over one of the established ones.

The same could be said about full frame or APS-C, but of course those markets are big enough to make even a five percent share worth the while. The MF market would be very hard to penetrate, because hardly any "beginner" is looking for an "entry level, medium format" camera.

I don't understand what you're saying - what do you mean when you say that the same could be said about FF or APS-C?

--
Please visit my galleries at:
http://www.jaggerbramley.com

--
derek.

 

[tbcass]

maybe you are right but Sony is a sensor producer before a camera producer so Sony just can design and produce some sensors for Phase or Mamiya or Pentax.

and then, Sony will be able to just join in any of these mounts without producing its own lens line.

It cost a lot of money to develop and produce an MF sensor from scratch. Since Kodak already fills the need the market could be cut in half if Sony joined the frey. Since so few are sold to begin with I just can't see it happening unless Sony could develop either something a lot better than Kodak or be able to produce it a lot cheaper. Even then the small market makes it iffy.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[3systermuser]

... Zeiss have been making lenses for Hasselblad and others for decades, and adapting a lens to a different mount isn't impossible. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina do it on a regular basis, and Zeiss probably don't use different optical formulas for lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts.

Are you suggesting re-releasing Contax 645 lenses in a hyperthetical Sony MF mount to save them the bother of designing new lenses?

I'm suggesting nothing, but I'm saying that with the Sony-Zeiss co-operation on A-mount lenses, and Zeiss' manufacturing of lenses for different mounts, getting medium format lenses for an eventual Sony medium format body would not rely on Sony/Minolta having previously made such lenses or not. Rumour has it that Sony's Zeiss lenses are assembled by Cosina (a long-time Zeiss partner), so no problem there.

are you sure about Sony Zeiss are also made by Chosina?

I thought Tamron made these lenses by Ziess standard.

There's still the issue of the fact that no lenses exist in such a mount, giving nobody any incentive to buy into the new system. Pentax, on the other hand, can count upon a fair few previous 645 owners who've been crying out for an MF body for a while now.

And that's the Achilles' heel of not just Sony, but any potential new manufacturer. Still, Sony (and others) could enter the market with medium format digital backs instead of entire cameras with lenses.

Right and can use just already existing mount lenses such as PA or others.

I've never heard of a 1st party lens-conversion service, and while 3rd party services do exist (and I've done it myself), such users count for tiny %ages of the overall market - even amongst such a small and knowledgeable userbase as potential MF buyers.

Neither have I, unless you count Sigma - but they went from being third party to being both that and first party in one, so that's a different story.
However, that wasn't my point. I simply meant that

Regarding licencing lens designs for different mounts - there's a hell of a lot of c*(p spouted about this on forums. I'd love to hear an insider's perspective on why e.g. Zeiss don't release ZFs in A mount. I bet it's nothing to do with licencing - they never released them in 4/3 mount either, but I don't see any licencing conflicts there...

Then , what was the reason why Zeiss did not get these ZF Zeiss primes out for Sony?

Zeiss get to make AF lenses for Sony (or rather the optical system, while Sony take care of the electronics), and in return they don't "have to" make manual focus lenses (in reality, they'd probaly lose a profitable contract if they did.

But it does not have to be MF but just has to be as good as the 100f2ZF2 prime in Nikon and Canon mount.

Neither Minolta nor Sony has up to this point never released an MF or LF lens, so anybody who bought a Sony MF DSLR would be taking part in the creation of an entirely new lens system. It's just not a goer - if you want MF or LF images then buy something already established. Apart from possible compatibility between cables and flashes, a Sony MF system would offer no advantages to an Alpha shooter over one of the established ones.

The same could be said about full frame or APS-C, but of course those markets are big enough to make even a five percent share worth the while. The MF market would be very hard to penetrate, because hardly any "beginner" is looking for an "entry level, medium format" camera.

I don't understand what you're saying - what do you mean when you say that the same could be said about FF or APS-C?

When I upgraded from my Minolta Dimage 7Hi to a Dynax 7D, the only "good" reason for not going Nikon was compatibility with my existing flashes, not least the macro ring and twin flash, that I use to this day.

To the people who bought APS-C cameras and APS-C lenses before Sony released the A900, the only advantage of a Sony full frame would be the possible compatibility of accessories like flashes and cables. If they wanted to go full frame, Canon already had what they needed at a comparatively low price (for the point in time), namely the EOS 5D.

well, the 5D original was a low mp cam nothing like the A900 or not at all as good.

I'll save you the trouble of pointing out that there were lots and lots of full frame lenses available, and, like I said in the subject line, I don't disaggree with your conclusion.

The market is too small, and unless they make it Nex-like (i.e. compatible with lenses in other mounts via an adapter) the sales figures will be close to zero. However, as the Nex has shown, there is a larger potential market for such a camera than for a "closed" system.

Small but highly profitable , MF is a premium product , indeed.

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

not selling alot but at high profitability , and I dont think they need a new line of lens but just use some other mount lenses such as Mamiya or Pentax or old Contax.

thanks for reply.

If the FF cameras like the A900/A850 weren't selling in large enough quantities, then imagine the even smaller quantities a medium format camera would sell. And then Sony would need to develop another line of lenses. If Sony can't produce enough of a range of lenses to satisfy the APS-C, Full-Frame, or NEX camera users, imagine what would happen if they add another line of lines?

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

not selling alot but with high enough profitability , and I dont think they need a new line of lens but just use some other mount lenses such as Mamiya or Pentax or old Contax.

thanks for reply.

If the FF cameras like the A900/A850 weren't selling in large enough quantities, then imagine the even smaller quantities a medium format camera would sell. And then Sony would need to develop another line of lenses. If Sony can't produce enough of a range of lenses to satisfy the APS-C, Full-Frame, or NEX camera users, imagine what would happen if they add another line of lines?

--
derek.

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

you misunderstand MF size and weight issue , the MF lenses are mostly or all primes and not so bright fast ones , so they are not that big or heavy.

the Pentax DFA55f2.8SDM is about 659g.

i never used an MF camera (besides my Duaflex for TTV photography). my interest in a Sony digital back is pretty small at the moment because

• i don't know what i'm missing when i don't have a MF camera.
• i'd have to buy a whole new system, i.e. a body and lenses, maybe flashes.
• digital MF backs are way to expensive at the moment for me to buy one "just to see if i like it or not"

and to answer your last question: i prefer high end 35mm equipment to low (or high) end MF equipment as it is in my opinion more portable and flexible. an a900 with, say, 7 high end lenses is quite heavy on your back, but you can still carry it alone...

--
derek.

 

[3systermuser]

why? you can have boh and on MF cam they may be able to make crop mode for your A mount lenses or for mine.

--
Sony Alpha 900 user...

see some of my images at
http://christianriedel.com

--
derek.