A New Challenge - Sony?

Kristjan Kotkas said:

At the end, its not about the tools, its the result that matters. A
pro will get his/her shot with any equipment.

Click to expand...

That is not true at all. Pros are not magicians, they cannot get their shots with "any equipment."

Kristjan Kotkas said:

You choose your tools
like any other craftsman - for what you are doing.

Click to expand...

Yes of course. And you seem to contradict what you just said. Tools need to be appropriate for the job, so they must be chosen carefully.

Kristjan Kotkas said:

Yes, there always will be those prosumers or pro wanna bees, who have
the $$$ and need the tools just for a show off (with a 500MM-L and +
1.4 + 2.0 and taking a shot of a girls nasal hair 20 feet away).

at the same time, when you have about 100K$ worth of lenses, boxes,
flashed etc you don't just jump brand.

Click to expand...

If you have that kind of money for photo equipment, you don't need to jump brand. You can own multiple brands.

Kristjan Kotkas said:

At the end of the day 99.6% of all pictures taken need to be no more
than 4MP for your lovely print in News, web or your family's 6x9
photo album.

Click to expand...

That may be so, but due to marketing forces, there are very few 4mp cameras left in the market. The camera buyers must pick among cameras that have more pixels than they need. Unfortunately, many pick the largest number of pixels they can find, even though they could have better image quality with a camera having fewer pixels. Camera makers would be stupid if they do not respond to what the camera buyers are buying.

Brian Aitkenhead said:

will Sony take a big gamble? if they price it at the D3 market, they
are almost certainly going to take a hit on the price of those FF 25
mpx sensors...the question is can even Sony as big as it is afford to
run at a loss in an attempt to capture some of the pro market....

Click to expand...

Full frame sensors are not that expensive to make. 20 of them will fit on an 8 inch silicon wafer, and the wafer costs only a few hundred bucks. Even if half of the sensors made on one wafer turns out to be bad, the cost per sensor is still less than $100. A camera that sells for $5,000 each with a $100 sensor inside is not going to result in money being lost.

Brian Aitkenhead said:

who
knows, and as many people have said, pro's dont normally change
systems without a good reason and i don't believe that the A900
brings anything particularly attractive to the table other than even
smaller pixels than the 1Ds mkIII,

Click to expand...

I agree with that. But I think the combination of high resolution Carl Zeiss lenses and a high resolution 24mp sensor may look attractive, at least on paper, to a lot of photographers.

Brian Aitkenhead said:

i may be wrong but i don't see
Sony making massive inroads until they prove that they will be a long
term player in the DSLR market, at the moment they seem to be trying
to capture a share at the lower end so that may go a long way to
determine there future.

Click to expand...

I agree. Sony may have a hard time breaking into the pro market, but don't underestimate the allure of Carl Zeiss lenses.

Brian Aitkenhead said:

still i don't think Canon can rest upon what Sony does, maybe they
should be keeping an eye on what Nikon's next move will be...

Click to expand...

Canon finally has some competition. It will need to improve its products to stay ahead of the competition.

Ronald Hall said:

Sony seems to push technology for the sake of marketing. Look at the
Playstation 3.. latest and greatest in technology, but its getting
killed by Nintendo because while there is a segment of the market
that wants the latest and greatest, there are also most who just want
something that works well and is affordable.

Click to expand...

well said. Many people do pick the lowest price products that works reasonably well.

Ronald Hall said:

Sony's new camera might attact those who want the latest and
greatest, but if you have ever looked at Sony's pricing strategy,
there is no way its going to be competitive to the 5d or 5d II. Take
a look at Sony TV's.. good specs, overpriced. Sony PS3.. good
specs, overpriced...

Click to expand...

Sony products have traditionally been more expensive. Some of them, for example the Betamax, probably lost out in the format wars because of it. Other Sony innovations, such as DAT tape recorders and mini Disc, remained too expensive for too long and eventually died because cheaper alternatives were introduced, namely the recordable CD-R.

Ronald Hall said:

While everyone is whining about Canon not being innovative enough,
they seem to be tops or darn near the top in the 1 thing that people
SHOULD be concerned about when taking a photo.. Image Quality.. Its
that consistency that pros are looking for. They KNOW if they buy a
Canon they are getting the best or damn near the best IQ of any
camera available in that range. Nikon may have SLIGHTLY surpassed
them in their latest offering, but its still EXTREMELY close.

Click to expand...

That is quite true and this has been pointed out in an article at the Luminous Landscape. Canon has been complacent in some regards.

Ronald Hall said:

If Sony does release a 25mp FF camera, I can almost guarantee you its
going to have worse IQ than the Nikon and Canon offerings.

Click to expand...

I can guarantee the same thing. More pixels does not mean better picture quality but few camera buyers seem to know this.

Ronald Hall said:

Because
Sony simply pushes technology for the sake of marketing. So, my
prediction is Canon isn't going to do a damn thing to 'respond' to
Sony because they don't have to. Canon hasn't gotten to its position
by making stupid decisions. Slow and steady wins the race..

Click to expand...

Slow and steady or complacency? There is a fine line between these two.

Ronald Hall said:

I think part of the reason why Nikon's D3/D300 is looked at as such a
great thing is that Nikon had set the bar so low that it seems like
they made some great advance in technology. In reality, they may
have just barely beat Canon.

Click to expand...

IN terms of image quality the D3 is very similar to the 5D. In fact the 5D may be a bit superior because it does not rely on heavy noise reduction at high ISO settings. However, the 5D is no match to the D3 body. The D3 really beats the 1D MKIII, by having almost the same frame rate and a full frame body with more and bigger pixels. The D300 is riding the coat tails of the D3's popularity. It isn't really a as good a camera as the 40D in terms of image quality.

Ronald Hall said:

But because Canon simply does small
calculated improvements to their already outstanding cameras, the
technology fanboys think there is something they need to do
different. I can tell you for sure that the D4/D400 or whatever it
will be called will not be nearly as big of a jump because Nikon will
not be playing catch up like they were with the D3/D300.

Click to expand...

I doubt that there will be a D400 soon. The high pixel count Nikon is called by most the D3X. It will not have as high image quality as the 1DSIII, but it may still be popular among Nikon fans.

Ronald Hall said:

But anyways I got a bit offtopic.. Canon's response to Sony will be
to keep doing what their doing, because its made them the most
popular camera manufacturer on the planet.

Click to expand...

We won't know what Canon's response will be until the price of Sony's flagship has been announced. If it is much lower in price than the 1DSIII, then Canon may need to cut prices.

many sports photographers actually like the 1.3x crop factor..........

its strange, for years people have said that FF is not a good idea for sports photographers because they would have to invest in extremely heavy lenses of 300mm and above... but now everyone (mostly Nikon users, but some Canon) are now saying that FF iis they way to go for sports,i am struggling to keep up with this.

FF in my opinion is great, my 5D produces some great (in my eyes) pictures,but i have invested in a crop camera for when i need the extra speed and the extra length that a crop camera can give me.

in response to the poster who said that a 25mpx FF with image stabilization combined with Carl Zeiss lenses, well you can get use CZ lenses on the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1DS (with adaptor) but with no image stabilization, something which i and i suspect a lot of pro's dont really care about as most will have VR and IS lenses anyway..

big question would anybody in this forum (Canon and Nikon users) swap there cameras and lens setups for this new Sony with A load of CZ lenses? a quick survey....

I do. It's a good size for hand held viewing and for small framed prints. No cropping either.

We can always use another pro choice but in reality Sony may be in for a fight. It is true that in pro video they have established themselves admirably but in still photography, with NIKON and CANON already so well entrenched in the hearts and minds of pros ther outlook may be somewhat clowdy. Let's face it. cameras have become computers with a costant upgrade process. What one must do is invest in good optics as this is where the equipment keeps most of its value. As for the ZEISS optics, we are talking at basically a name. The lenses are not the legendary ZEISS such as the Planaras on the Hasselbland or Rolley. The so called ZEISS lenses that SONY produces are not in the same league. And even then, the famous ZEISS name dis not prevent CANON and NIKON from establishing optilcal supremacy. Only LEICA
kept its aura but their production is so small as to be a non competitor.

I believe that after a number of pixels it is best to switch to medium format. Its price will eventually drop also. As for myself, I do not need so many pixels.
--
Rocco Galatioto

Brian Aitkenhead said:

Later this year it is looking very likely that Sony will release a 5D
sized 'Pro' body with around 25Mpx and presumably 1D/D3/E3 build
quality, my question is this... how will Canon react to this? i am
not looking for crystal Balls or anything just what the very well
informed (or not) members on here think will happen....

will the 5D mkII be of a similar specification to the Sony? if so
will this make the 5D mk II to expensive for your average 5D user to
upgrade too?

Click to expand...

I think that rumored 5II that box guy wrote about would be great competition against what ever sony intros. So far i have read about Sony offering a lower cost 25mp camera in the $3000 grand range. or a high end like a 1DSMKIII type camera. "IF" sony intros the lower cost version then Canon should intro the camera that was rumored to into April 22. BUT Canon cant wait until Sony intros the camera as it takes along time to actually respond. Canon has to guess or have spies that know what sony is going to do so it has a response allready ready. Or in the case of the remored Aprill 22nd annoucment a preemptive attack.

Brian Aitkenhead said:

for me it would make sense to release the fabled 3D as competition
for both the Sony and any potential new Nikon in that category and
make the 5D mk II more as competition for the D300 and the rumored
Sony A800.

how this would impact with the sales of the 1Ds/D Series? who knows
but i suspect Canon may have to start diversifying there pro sector
cameras or face losing large chunks of the pro market...

maybe you dont care, and really i dont either but i find it fun to
see what the market may bring.....

http://www.pbase.com/briandavidaitkenhead

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

Full frame sensors are not that expensive to make. 20 of them will fit on an 8 inch silicon wafer, and the wafer costs only a few hundred bucks. Even if half of the sensors made on one wafer turns out to be bad, the cost per sensor is still less than $100. A camera that sells for $5,000 each with a $100 sensor inside is not going to result in money being lost.

You are simply way off on your estimate of sensor yield and cost. I am not going to argue with you on what you have posted because it is so far from reality that it is not worth arguing about. Full frame sensors are and will always be very expensive to produce. The cost of a fully processed wafer is closer to $5,000 and not as you state $100. A non processed wafer today costs a lot more than $100 and that wafer is of no value unless the $4,900 in processing costs has been added to it.

Why wouldn't Sony do a true pro level camera as opposed to some 5D size camera. I doubt Canon would bring that big a sensor with their 5D update. Nikon obviously will bring the D3X with it's needed bigger sensor. Sony needs to learn how to build a pro level camera or even a prosumer level camera. The stuff they have produced to date certainly doesn't even rival the D300 or 40D or 5D build quality. It still resembles old Minolta top level stuff which certainly isn't anything to rave about build wise.

Brian Aitkenhead said:

in response to the poster who said that a 25mpx FF with image
stabilization combined with Carl Zeiss lenses, well you can get use
CZ lenses on the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1DS (with adaptor) but with
no image stabilization, something which i and i suspect a lot of
pro's dont really care about as most will have VR and IS lenses
anyway..

Click to expand...

Okay the Alpha Flagship may well not have a full pro spec, with it being aimed at the C5D segment of the market, but I'm sure pro's will use it, if it gives results comparable or better than the 1Dsmk3, with it being priced several thousand of dollar less.

A big selling point and advantage Sony will have over both Canon & Nikon will be that you can use an AF 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4 & 135 f1.8 all with IS thanks to the inbody AS.

Rocco Galatioto said:

We can always use another pro choice but in reality Sony may be in
for a fight. It is true that in pro video they have established
themselves admirably but in still photography, with NIKON and CANON
already so well entrenched in the hearts and minds of pros ther
outlook may be somewhat clowdy. Let's face it. cameras have become
computers with a costant upgrade process. What one must do is invest
in good optics as this is where the equipment keeps most of its
value. As for the ZEISS optics, we are talking at basically a name.
The lenses are not the legendary ZEISS such as the Planaras on the
Hasselbland or Rolley. The so called ZEISS lenses that SONY produces
are not in the same league. And even then, the famous ZEISS name dis
not prevent CANON and NIKON from establishing optilcal supremacy.
Only LEICA
kept its aura but their production is so small as to be a non
competitor.
I believe that after a number of pixels it is best to switch to
medium format. Its price will eventually drop also. As for myself, I
do not need so many pixels.
--
Rocco Galatioto

Click to expand...

There are few true Zeiss lenses still manufactured in Germany, but the Sony Zeiss ZA's are designed by Zeiss & manufactured in Japan under Zeiss QC. They are top class & even class leading lenses.

Have a look at the link below which is a recent test on the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 & then compare it to the Canon 85mm f1.2, oh & remember when the Sony ZA is fitted to the flagship it will have IS.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Sony%20/%20Minolta%20Lens%20Tests/47-sony-alpha-aps-c/374-zeiss_za_85_14

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/163-canon-ef-85mm-f12-usm-l-test-report--review

the A900 or whatever it is called looks to be 5D sized, the images of it seen so far show it with a detachable grip, that is the only images i have seen of it....

they are big
and they make sensors

but they don't make cameras and they bought minolta for that.

since they are the new kid in the block they obviously don't care about the definitions or marketing protections of the different models (yet).
They have a body and they put in the best sensor they can give.

Canon will have to balance the offers (1ds @ 8K and 5D @ 3K), but Sony only has 1 body .

Nikon took several years to get in the FF segment. I seriously doubt that they'll introduce a new model soon. In 2-4 years maybe. Also they'll have to get the sensor from somebody before they can do that...

what's remarkable is that Sony made the leap to the best sensor (ever) also thanks to the fact that they don't have to "protect" any other current model.
And that's good for us.

Still Sony (once they get a position in the segment) will most likely do what canon is doing now (little improvements and renew every year or so): only Sony will (most likely) do it more. After all they do just that: produce many (many) models to offer basically the same thing with little improvements (like Canon does, now).

but for now Sony has the highest resolution offer (ever seen in the DSLR): and that's a fact. It may hurt the canon's feelings (and the 1DsIII feelings as well), but still that's how it is..

markleh said:

what's remarkable is that Sony made the leap to the best sensor
(ever) also thanks to the fact that they don't have to "protect" any
other current model.
And that's good for us.

Click to expand...

competition is good but BEST SENSOR (EVER) is a pretty silly statement given the body hasn't been released. Increased MP certainly doesn't define a better sensor as we all know.

The Canon 1Ds mark III is real, its shipping and people are using it right now. Its a proven camera. Extremely well designed and built.

Nothing touches it.

The Canon system is also extensive. From lenses to accesories like the wireless transmitter and remote releases + external flashes. This is as important as the camera itself.

The Sony is yet to be officially introduced in final form and far from being shipped and proven. From the photos shown its a "semi-pro" model. The top lcd looks like an afterthough.

Its great that Canon will finally have some competition.

How the Sony affects the market greatly depends on its price point and performance once tested and used thoroughly.

still.. it will be tough when it will come to choose between a 21MP @ 8K and a 25MP @ 3k (that's just an estimate, of course)

very tough.. regardless

Sony doesn't have a good 20mm (that's true too) but it will be stabilized

again, it may be tough , we have to admit it..

Whatever it brings, one thing is for sure-- competition benefits everybody.

Cheers to Sony and Nikon for entering the full-frame arena. I hope their FF cameras kick some butt.

From ZEISS website...

http://www.zeiss.com/photo

The Zeiss ZA to Sony Alpha System is like the other Zeiss lenses, the ZA is designed and supervised for ZEISS.

markleh said:

still.. it will be tough when it will come to choose between a 21MP @
8K and a 25MP @ 3k (that's just an estimate, of course)

very tough.. regardless

Sony doesn't have a good 20mm (that's true too) but it will be
stabilized

again, it may be tough , we have to admit it..

Click to expand...

The majority of the Sony lens range are old KM designs, but there will shortly be a 16-35 f2.8 & 24 f1.4 Zeiss lenses

The CZ 85mm and 135mm is differents to Minolta and old Zeiss (manual) lenses.

The cooperation between Sony and ZEISS is so importan for ZEISS than CZ 85mm f/1.4 and CZ 135mm f/1.8 was the firsts ZEISS AF for reflex system.

The CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.6 was the first zoom ZEISS AF and the first APS-C lens.

The CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM, is the first SuperSonicMotor ZEISS lens.