-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why is everyone so insulted by the DT previews?
- Thread starter 05_GD7
- Start date
I very much regret the choice for DT-lenses (I have the A300).
I expect FF-technology to become very, very superior to APS-C. And affordable. Looking at the development of APS-C this size might be near the end of its technical life-cycle. Compared to the old 110-format (analog, which is the same size negative as the APS-C), the market is that large that the commercial life-cycle will be much longer, maybe "ever" lasting.
Anyway, I expect I have to make a serious choice when upgrading in a couple of years, between FF and APS-C.
Regarding to Sony's choice to put DT-lenses in the market, I think there might be a strategy. When upgrading from APS-C to FF, you also must replace the DT-lenses. Twice buy a lens.
Right now I am not affected. My only wish regarding the near future is a 100mm macro, Sony's. But I wil never ever buy a DT-lens.
Ladybug
I expect FF-technology to become very, very superior to APS-C. And affordable. Looking at the development of APS-C this size might be near the end of its technical life-cycle. Compared to the old 110-format (analog, which is the same size negative as the APS-C), the market is that large that the commercial life-cycle will be much longer, maybe "ever" lasting.
Anyway, I expect I have to make a serious choice when upgrading in a couple of years, between FF and APS-C.
Regarding to Sony's choice to put DT-lenses in the market, I think there might be a strategy. When upgrading from APS-C to FF, you also must replace the DT-lenses. Twice buy a lens.
Right now I am not affected. My only wish regarding the near future is a 100mm macro, Sony's. But I wil never ever buy a DT-lens.
Ladybug
Not to speak of price, weight, size and cost of film.
Full frame SLRs are no bigger than their APS-C counterparts, nor are their lenses. If you look at prices 8-9 years ago, the A900 is a bargain.
Here's the listed price for a Canon EOS D30 with its APS-C sensor of 3 Mpix:
US: US$2,990 - body only, exc. taxes
Europe: €2,800 - body only, exc. taxes
Allowing for inflation, the A900 is actually cheaper.
I think a lot of 35 mm owners had a dream of owning a medium format, but few could afford it. Of course, even though the A900 is no more expensive than the D30, it is much more expensive than, say, an A300, which will be what it's up against.
Well, it's really not a big deal, but I think Sony could have done better. They could have made it a FF lens to offer a cheaper option to FF/film users. The 50/1.4 isn't really unreasonable - expensive at $350 for an old design 50/1.4 that doesn't exactly trounce the competition - lack of a cheaper 28-35 and 85-100 is a bigger deal.
But given that Sony did choose to go the APS-C route and produce what's basically a short tele for APS-C only, presumably to improve contrast over a FF design, they could have produced something unique to the system that would have given them an advantage over other brands by making it a 60/1.8 or 70/2.
So it's not "bad" that Sony has produced this lens (or the 30/2.8 macro, which is an interesting 'normal' for APS-C but still leaves APS-C users without a fast normal). It's just not good, either. It doesn't inspire confidence that Sony knows what photographers want.
In-lens focussing is suggested; whether SSM or a cheaper variant is TBD.
No, but they have the FF alternatives. You can buy Canon 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 for $700 for full frame. You can buy a FF Nikon 35/2 as well as an APS-C 35/1.8. And 35/1.8 for APS-C makes sense - it's roughly "normal". 50mm for APS-C is just a weird choice. They have less to complain about.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Agreed. Are there really more APS-C users in need of a 30/2.8 macro than a 30/2 fast normal ? If designing a short tele for APS-C from scratch, is 50mm ideal ? In film days, we liked shooting 85 & 100mm short teles and I don't see any FF users asking for a 75mm lens.
The 18-55 kit lens makes sense; a sharper lens was needed and 18-55 pairs up nicely with 55-200. 55-200 redo makes sense for in-lens focus motor assuming Sony has a motive for a lineup of APS-C lenses with in-lens focus motors (whether for video enabled cameras or a D40-like SSM only body).
The 28-75/2.8 is an odd duck. Some argue Sony needed a cheap alternative to the 24-70, but while it will likely sell, you don't see Canon & Nikon offering cheap rebadged 3rd party zooms to compete with their $2000 lenses.
Maybe the 'strategy' will become clear down the road, but right now it just makes you scratch your head.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
TCav
Senior Member
The A900 is a half inch wider, a half inch higher, and almost a half pound heavier than the A700.
The Sony 75-300 (FF) is an inch and a half longer and a half pound heavier than the Sony 55-200 DT (APS-C). And it's not nearly as good. I could compare the 55-200 DT to the 70-300 G, but I think I've made my point.
A better comparison, I think, would be to the A700 (same pixel density, very similar features, etc.) For the little bit extra the A900 gives, it comes with a lot more restrictions, and it costs three times as much. That's what it's up against.
Kenneth B
Senior Member
Well I obvously didn't make my statement all that well. And reading it this morning I can see that.
Not granted this is just me, but I made a decision to buy (invest if you will) in full frame glass so that I have more options down the road. I will be buying the A900 shortly. I did notice that as you mentioned they were making APS-C lenses that didn't appear to be any samller than an FF version with the same focal length. In the case of the 50/1.8 why not make it a FF lens. We already know the cost and weight isn't that much in the first place.
I do think APS-C is here to stay for a long time. I think that is what will rull in the A200 - A500 range of camera for a good while.
I seriously doubt that the FF sensor cost as much as people think, I think the cameras are priced the way they are because the camera manufactureres know they can get that premium for the camera. Its kind of a chicken or the egg scenario. If Sony introduced a 12-1500 FF body then volume goes up which brings the cost of the sensor down. So that's why I don't think its that far off. As far as the file size and weight argument I expect to see a lower MP FF sensor come from Sony at some point. Maybe mid year maybe next year. We all know that there's a market for a low res High ISO body. Nikon has proven that.
Now what has me disappointed in what Sony had at PMA is that they showed some DT primes. Again I question some of the logic especially on a prime but okay. What I didn't see was a solid story. Here's a cheaper FF standard zoom as an alternative to the CZ 24-70, there's a big hopefully fast telephoto and a smattering of DT primes.
If I were running the show you would have had something more like this. Rebadge the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and get them to design a 50-150 f/2.8 also go after something like the 10-24 but get it a little faster. Give the APS-C shooter the equivelent coverage that the FF shooter gets with the Zeiss Zoom + G lenses. Then definately get some more macro primes in there, a nifty 50 and maybe even an APS-C fisheye.
But again that's just me. ;-)
--
Kenneth Berntsen
Jogger
Veteran Member
Cropped cameras are basically 95% of the DSLR market. It pretty clear where the ROI is greatest potential. The FF lenses will come, but, they are not a priority at the moment for a co. looking at gaining market share quickly.
What are the differences between a Nikon D300 and a Nikon D700?
The 35-100 mm from Olympus is bigger and heavier than Son's 70-200.
The A900 has twice the resolution for a given framing. That's not a little bit.
TCav
Senior Member
The Olympus also has a full f-stop on the Sony. That doesn't come free.
All other things being equal, and they are, a front element of the same size should make a 100 mm f:1.4 when a 200 mm is f:2.8.
But you are touching Olympus' other major problem: shallow depth of field - or rather lack thereof. For identical fields of view, you need to open up Olympus lenses by two f-stops to get the same defocused effect. It's not a problem if you want maximum depth of field, but it is if you want minimum depth of field.
Of course, for sports and other action, it's an advantage, but so are higher ISOs.
Did you forget the question about the D300/D700 ... or did you just choose not to answer?
But you are touching Olympus' other major problem: shallow depth of field - or rather lack thereof. For identical fields of view, you need to open up Olympus lenses by two f-stops to get the same defocused effect. It's not a problem if you want maximum depth of field, but it is if you want minimum depth of field.
Of course, for sports and other action, it's an advantage, but so are higher ISOs.
Did you forget the question about the D300/D700 ... or did you just choose not to answer?
Kenneth B
Senior Member
I think APS-C is here for good. It will just be an economics reason. Its a cheaper sensor and give great performance and will probably always be in A200 - A500 range of camera.
--
Kenneth Berntsen
TCav
Senior Member
I concede depth of field, as did all the people that switched from 120 flim to 35mm film.
I concede the failings of the Olympus system as well.
My point is that APS-C dSLRs are smaller, lighter and less expensive, and have a larger selection of lenses than FF dSLRs, and used the A700 vs. A900 to make my point. It is still true of the D300 vs. D700, but certainly to a lesser degree. So I don't feel the need to argue against another example that supports my point.
To successfully negate my argument, someone would have to point out a FF dSLR that was smaller, lighter and/or less expensive, and/or have a larger selection of lenses than an otherwise comparable APS-C dSLR. Does anything come to mind?
Gregory King
Veteran Member
I specifically asked this question, and was told "SSM". But then, the reps didn't seem like technical guys. They were sales guys, so take it with a grain of salt.
Greg
Thanks Greg ... any indication of what's to come that's going to need in-lens focussing ?
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Alpha Jack
Senior Member
Reading all of these posts has my head spinning and shaking at the same time. Let me start by saying I have an a700 and would love to have a 900. For that reason I tend to immediately dismiss any DT lens, but if I will be brutally honest with myself, I likely will never own a FF body…but that is not to say I won’t own a better camera. All any of us should care about (whether pro or wannabe) is if the camera can do the job. If a cropped sensor of tomorrow gives me what the best FF sensor does today (and it will) I will be very happy…of course then the FF will be better too, I will dream of owning that and so it goes.
Cropped sensors will continue to get better to the point that the advantages of the FF sensors will fade. Pros will adopt them more and more. Could it be that Sony R&D knows more than we do? They are a good enough sensor maker for Nikon so they must know a bit about what is coming next in sensors. They are also pretty good at marketing. Could it be that they are developing and showing what they believe will support what the market of tomorrow wants?
That said, I too am perplexed by the lack of true (or I should say traditional) normal and portrait lenses for the APSC format.
--
Carl Zeiss taste...Beercan budget!
Cropped sensors will continue to get better to the point that the advantages of the FF sensors will fade. Pros will adopt them more and more. Could it be that Sony R&D knows more than we do? They are a good enough sensor maker for Nikon so they must know a bit about what is coming next in sensors. They are also pretty good at marketing. Could it be that they are developing and showing what they believe will support what the market of tomorrow wants?
That said, I too am perplexed by the lack of true (or I should say traditional) normal and portrait lenses for the APSC format.
--
Carl Zeiss taste...Beercan budget!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum