A New Challenge - Sony?

Well, you could try to compare it to the 1DsIII, but all that would get you is the Sony being 4-5K less in price. And then people who don't like that point will scream the 1DsIII is a better build and has a built in grip therefore should not be compared with the 1DsIII, but should be compared against the C5DII which then closes the price gap up. But then people will point out how the Sony has 9MP more than the C5DII so such a comparison is not fair.

In the end it looks like sony is planning a camera to crash the market as we know it. Not unlike how the Canon 5D did that to the market a few years ago by inserting a model out there that didn't fit in any category and left people torn as it offered a 1DsII type option, but much cheaper, though loosing many things to get that cheaper point.

If one believes the 1DsIII exist to be a medium format contender but over a smaller size and less price, than the Sony is just an extension of that. But offers more pixels than the closest comparison (Maymia ZD), and more than the Canon, but gets you even smaller package and even less price.

It just disrupts things more. And mainly messes up Canon as a great number of people who would be looking at the 1DsIII or upgraded will say "the heck with the canon, I don't need the grip built in or as good of seals, I will go for the Sony plus 3-4 Zeiss lenses for the same price". I have to believe there are a lot of pro's who have been thinking about going the Canon route, maybe as a jump to digital from film, or looking to scale back their Medium Format Rig have decided to park it for a bit and wait for the Sony and see what it is in the end and for how much. And even a good number of 1DsII or 1DsI owners doing the same. 25MP and Zeiss lenses has a very medium format sound to it.

People will jump to the "A900" for the same reasons people went to the C5D. Cheap FF. But for the next round, between "A900" and "C5D" the Sony will have more pixels, and stabilization in the body plus the zeiss options. For folks already in Canon, the C5D is the obvious option. But for others, the Sony is the obvious option. If the pixels aren't their thing, the SSS or Lenses very well could be the reason to go that route.

A big question will come down to the build levels of both. Logically Canon should make the C5DII a build similar to the 1D line to make it a backup type camera. But many logical things canon doesn't do, so who knows. If the current C5D is the baseline, then the replacement might now be a very tough built camera. The Sony on the other hand will be at least as good as the A700, so that's a very good starting point. And figure they do a bit more to it since it is their top body for now. That might give the Sony a better Built than the Canon too. If both Cost the same, say 3500. That could be a problem for Canon. Afterall, they can't make the build of the C5DII so good it becomes a gripless 1D, that would kill 1DsIII sales. Sony on the other hand has no reason not to make it as tough and rugged as they can as they have no body to cut into sales above it.

Another issue faced by Canon is price. A C5DII should cost 3500. That's what the original was. But they might see backlash from C5D users wanting an upgrade who bought their camera as the price got into the low 2ks, many of them falsely think it's a sign the price of FF is coming down and are looking for a body to replace their C5D in the 2K range. Miffed by the 3500 price, they might consider a ship jump. Sony doesn't have to deal with that much. But of course at this point if it comes in over 4K, a bunch of folks will be let down. At the same time what other options do they have, the Canon? well, it might only cost a bit less than the Sony.

How about a price war? Well, we know Canon can really drop the price of a FF body when they have to. How much will they be willing to go this time. If they give the C5DII a body of more pro level build, compared to the very cheap build of the current model, it's going to cost them a lot more, thus less room to cut price with out going negative on margin. And they no longer have Nikon users to entice over as Nikon has FF, so loosing money to gain users from nikon is no longer a good option. Sony again doesn't have existing bodies or models higher, so they could bring the build in at just about any level. How much they could reduce the price is unknown. But there is a good chance they have taken their time to get FF chip production really cheap. But also the body is pulling parts from the A700, which will help prices. And Sony in a master at production and getting the price down on things. As has been seen with all their bodies so far, they bring them out at very low prices. So they most likely will be able to beat Canon in a price war before taking a loss. But further, who is more likely to go take a Loss if needed. Sony for sure, Sony is trying to gain market share. They will do exactly what Canon did with the C5D and sell it cheap to get new users in hordes. And if the Sony isn't selling well, they will definitely bring the price down. Sony may not sell a lens cheap, but they will sell a body cheap. Plus Sony has mountains of money for such a goal. I don't think Canon would be able to afford such a war against Sony. DSLRs are the last big market for Sony, as they have Pro Video, Consumer Video, Consumer Still, now time for Pro Still. So they will spend the money if they have too.

Sony wants to get to number 2 in the market, and I don't think they are planning on Canon being #1 when they get there. They are fine with Nikon growing as that is money for them too. It's Canon they seek to take market from. And if their mockups have been hints, they aren't planning on messing around just on the low end for long. Those Gs and ZAs need a body to put them to good use. And you don't tool up for all those new lenses unless you plan on moving a ton of bodies. They have built up all new manufacturing in Japan for all their new models. They make more A700s a month than they made A100s a month (with the A100 plant running 2-3 shifts). They aren't even using the old KM plant anymore. How much capacity they have build up is unknown, but one could guess Sony has taken some time to build some massive production capability. If Sony is going to get in a price war for marketshare, the Cheap FF line is the perfect place for it.

One thing is for sure. It will be interesting to see what happens. And users of both systems will win. In some way, Canon users will probably win more from the Sony than Sony users. As it will bring C5DII prices down, and more importantly, it will bring 1DsIII prices down. The Sony will be Canon's first real head on FF attack. The D3 goes against the 1DIII which isn't FF, but the D3 cost more. So not a hard thing for them to manage. But a Cheap FF from someone, that will be much harder for Canon.

You are right, I should have factored in better LCD, 2 more Mp,
less crop factor, better ergo (I think you are right but that is a
very arguable/subjective point). Low weight is a plus for
me but perhaps not for others.

Build is also subjective, DPR felt the 40D was better. What matters
more is a low rate of malfunction, at purchase and after heavy use,
and it's not really possible to answer that without looking at statistics
over time. Viewfinder, I think they are about the same?

As for high ISO I prefer the look of the Canon ISO 1600+ and so did DPR.

I don't agree Canon's lenses are their weakness. Just read e.g. Photozone
and see that they have many excellent lenses. There are some dogs
amongst the cheapest ones, but there are not that many cheap lenses
for Sony, and they've got weak lenses too.

Having many lenses to choose from means the chance of finding one that
suits you (price/weight/performance) is higher.

Analysing this in depth would probably be too off topic. Let's agree to disagree.

As I said, maybe the A700 is worth its price, dependnig on your preferences,

but it's hardly aggressively priced. The A200, maybe, if you are ok with what it's
lacking, the K10D was a good candidate, the 300D in it's time, the D70
in a way - those were aggressively priced cameras. Some would say the Canon
5D too.

So if the A900 is sort of barebones, like an A700 with a 35FF sensor
and 3fps, then just maybe around $3000 but if it's more ambitious than
that, which it should be to make balance, $4000+ is more likely.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden
--
CA is a chromatic abbreviation

PhotoTraveler said:

But many logical things canon doesn't do, so who knows.

Click to expand...

agree with you here

too many ifs and buts on the other stuff though. Likewhat if Sony comes in at $4999 + grip and Canon lowers the 1Ds price (it would be a year and reasonable).

You're right their moves benefit Canon customers dramatically (which will only entice new Canon customers).

sony at #1 is just not happening, #2 would be improbable but more dependent imho on what Nikon does (screwing up) than what Sony does.

Be honest, chinch. How cheap would the Sony 24.6MP fullframe have to be for you to buy it?? $10, $100, $500, $2000, $4000.....??? My buy it now price is $4000 or less, but I already have some Zeiss lenses, so I'd like to hear what it would take from Sony to get a down-in-the-trenches Canon guy to add a Sony to his current lineup for some uses.

The latest news from Japan is that, Sony now double their market share in JDM market with their new release A350

http://www.asahi.com/business/update/0327/TKY200803270388.html

As I remember correctly, Sony is trying to aim for 2nd place in 5 years, and challenge #1 in the future (however, they also mention that which is a very difficult run).

And I agreed most of the thing you guys mentioned but like to make one more point. If Sony want to enter and secure it's place in Professional market. They have to build a very strong back support and accessories line. That is as important as to have go camera body and lenses.

But if a long run, Sony can take advantage of their electronic integration and also their relationship with Zeiss.

--
--
Marvin
http://www.lamiso.com
http://www.14stop.com

------------------------------------------
Minoltan lives in Canon land.

I think the problem is we are so used to Canon's pricing and product positioning.

From my point of view is Sony really do priced A700 aggressively. 20D, 30D, 40D is pretty much the same body. Canon already can save some cost with no internal AF motor, the body is arguable less well constructed (cheaper feel). And most of the other parts are either software program. On the other hand A700 have way much more mechanical parts which is not as easy and low cost as one click to upload the software.

Back to the A900/A9 or whatever, in many source (the latest one is from Rangefinder magazine) they are all indicated that A900 will be around $3000USD. Let say which is not accuracy, lets give it $500-800 range, I think that will be pretty close. The thing is Sony aimed A900 to super amateur and independant Pro. Which mean they do know they are under dog in this stage. As a big company like that (have $$ to burn), use a lower price body to get people aboard the ship and cut their throat with high price Zeiss lenses does make way much more sense than use the already establish Canon method. Sell overpriced body + expensive lenses.

Just my 2 cents.

--
--
Marvin
http://www.lamiso.com
http://www.14stop.com

------------------------------------------
Minoltan lives in Canon land.

hi all

today i was in the Jessops store in Glasgow, its the biggest of the 3 in the city centre and is unfortunately now the only 'proper' pro store in the city (that i know off) mainly due to Jessops buying up all the competition and... sorry i not going to get on to that...

Any ways this store has always had three large cabinets in which they display all the DSLR's that they have to offer, One Canon, One Nikon and normally one with a mixture of Pentax, Olympus etc, however i noticed today that the Third cabinet is full of Sony gear, with a Pentax DSLR hidden behind a Large Sony flash gun! (Absolutely no sign of Olympus..)

the point i would like to make is that in this store Sony seems to be putting in a huge effort into its promotion in the same arena as Nikon and Canon and it will be interesting (if this is the same in other stores) how this promotion of Sony's equipment will affect the market.

hopefully this will not hurt Pentax or Olympus to much...

http://www.pbase.com/briandavidaitkenhead

headofdestiny said:

Be honest, chinch. How cheap would the Sony 24.6MP fullframe have to
be for you to buy it?? $10, $100, $500, $2000, $4000.....??? My
buy it now price is $4000 or less, but I already have some Zeiss
lenses, so I'd like to hear what it would take from Sony to get a
down-in-the-trenches Canon guy to add a Sony to his current lineup
for some uses.

Click to expand...

honestly....

first....

1DsMKII (16MP) is in great shape can be found for $3500 (USD). I could dump my 5D/1DmkII and pocket $500+ and get one. Don't want to. Don't want every RAW file 16MB. Don't need them (most don't).

second....

I DO NOT believe this $1700+ demographic will accept Sony or 40D level AF systems any longer. Thanks Nikon for the D300!

So before the Sony is even released, depending on what Canon announces alone, the 1DsMkII could be $3300-ish used from reputible seller with mack used warranty.

I would never use the Sony. No desire, no need. Maybe in 3-4 years if PC speeds increase 10 fold. I'd rather have clean, pristine ISO 12800 first.

I know ONE dSLR owner (out of several dozen) who would have any use for it. He is a College Professor (not in real world) with limited budget and lots of old toys in his art dept to do 8-foot prints every few years for a gallery in NYC. Would need no lens and a $50 adapter from ebay to take Nikon or other glass... not exactly how to get to #1.

Well, clearly you are married to Canon forever, so congratulations. It sounds as if your few dozen DLSR friends don't have any fashion magazine spreads coming up soon, so I'm not surprised any of them wouldn't be interested in such a camera. Funny thing is, if Canon came out with a 24MP fullframe camera in a smaller package with body IS and a price around 3K, I'd jump on it in a second, although admittedly it would be hard to loose the Zeiss glass. I have very little brand allegiance to Sony or anyone else.

Ultimately, bragging about Sony, Canon, or Nikon is pretty ridiculous, as they all are pretty much Toyotas compared to Hasselblad's/Leica's Ferraris.

I think the DSLR age, and the age after that (EVIL age?) will show that history of a company has nothing to do with anything.

Pentax and Minolta have/had massive camera history, one could argue fairly well they have more than Canon. Yet canon today is bigger.

But if you look at Sony, they are showing you can step in, maybe buy up some existing bits/folks and make a go at it and do very well. Since it's not about your history, it's about what you make today. If you bring out killer lenses, and they are better than the other brands. It doesn't matter if 5 years ago you made no lenses and the other brands have made lenses for 50 years, in the end of the day, you now make the better lenses.

So those basing everything on "historical camera maker companies" as those being the ones who will continue to lead, are not looking at a very realistic picture.

A company just has to have the desire, the cash, and implement to be a big player.

And that is were Sony's history with video begins to come in. They decided to get in that market and go for it. Now they are the leader.

Their position there will help them with the DSLRs. One can really see Sony approaching news outlets in a few years as their pro stuff is established and saying

"Hey, you got Sony Video Gear, why not Sony still gear instead of Canon or Nikon. Have all your support handled through one company. We will even make you a deal for doing both Video and Still".

They are clearly already to bring ties there as they have launched pro video cameras that offer adapters for A mount lens support. Just like Canon has done. Probably not a big market, but it is a link between the too, and probably beginnings of many.

A900 = A350 x 2 in a700 body?

looks like the A900 gets
+ the same live view as the A350,...
+ A700 LCD
+ A700 shutter
+ a quad chip for sensor readout
+ a bigger prism, since it's FF
+ a new Flash
+ a new grip,

• no tilt LCD ?

needed:
?- lens focus adjustment

anybody heard of price and availability ?

thoughts:
might need the grip/batteries, to run all the extra chips
more noise, due heat ?

I know there is a translated interview somewhere about the "A9" getting the A350 live view, but I am highly skeptical of this. Some of those that have handled the camera deny this being the case. Also, the "A9" body looks more solid than the A700. It has a metal back and metal port covers on the side. I bet it'll be D300-ish in build.

Robert Schultz said:

A900 = A350 x 2 in a700 body?

looks like the A900 gets
+ the same live view as the A350,...
+ A700 LCD
+ A700 shutter
+ a quad chip for sensor readout
+ a bigger prism, since it's FF
+ a new Flash
+ a new grip,

• no tilt LCD ?

needed:
?- lens focus adjustment

anybody heard of price and availability ?

thoughts:
might need the grip/batteries, to run all the extra chips
more noise, due heat ?

Click to expand...

The "A900" does not have LV.

Further the A350 type system isn't even possible on a penta-prism camera.

It's an A700 XLT, bigger sensor, bigger view finder, probably better seals

headofdestiny wrote:
I bet it'll be D300-ish in

headofdestiny said:

build.

Click to expand...

I'd be astounded if it weren't. Or at least, better than the 5D.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Yeah, the 5D isn't exactly the most robust camera in the world. Sony is saying that this fullframe camera isn't competing in the fully professional market, and it looks like the new camera will sit somewhere in between the A700 and 1D III in build (albeit closer to the A700, I'd imagine.)

Skip M said:

Skip M said:

build.

Click to expand...

I'd be astounded if it weren't. Or at least, better than the 5D.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Click to expand...

to talk about your Sony...?

Well, this forum is about Sony and it was started by a 1Ds owner. I've been impressed by the civility and balanced posts from most of the posters in this thread, and I feel that some Sony info from a Sony user is pertinent to the discussion. I spend a lot of time reading the 1Ds forum, because it is the top of the heap IMO, and if the upcoming Sony FF isn't what I'm hoping for, I will no doubt pick up a 1Ds. Brand loyalty is for forum nerds, and since I shoot about 3-4 different brands of cameras right now (Sony being my only current digital,) I could care less what the camera says on it. I like all good cameras

johtuomi said:

to talk about your Sony...?

Click to expand...

I still think that Nikon is Canon's closest rival. Maybe when we all move to video will make Sony a solid contender but not in the immediate future. The move to 25MP will definitely satisfy landscape and studio photographers but I am more curious about its high ISO performance. I know SSS works but for movement I still prefer a Canon sensor anytime.

Cheers,

José

Brian Aitkenhead said:

Right before i go any further, this thread is not a slur in any way
towards Canon, more an idea towards the Future of the Professional
Camera market,its just for fun....

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?

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...

--
Feeling it from downtown with the 1D-Trey and hitting the quadrupLe-doubLe
Recent work:
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/treina_1diii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/heather_1diii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/cris4_1diii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/kim_m_1diii

Agreed, Jose. If you're into high ISO, I doubt the 24.6MP will be for you (whether it be in the Sony or a Nikon.) I rarely shoot above ISO 400-800, so gimme the resolution.