Sony A750, FF 14.6 MP's

Mike Fewster said:

I don't think this is the point being made. APS-C will continue of course. The question is whether or not there is much future for a camera of the A700 ilk at the top end of the aps-C tree.

Click to expand...

Which was nicely addressed a few posts up:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=33557252

Not only APS-C, but "advanced amateur to professional" level APS-C continues to be vigorous sector. Canon and Nikon have both recently upgraded the top of their "APS-C" lines with fairly high performance models of higher specs in many ways than the A700, including weight:

• A700 768g (with batteries in all cases)
• Canon 7D 860g
• Nikon D300s 938g

One weight factor is the OVF: a good "APS-C" DSLR needs a high magnification pentaprism viewfinder (higher actual magnification than a 35mm format VF, to make the most of the smaller image on the ground glass of the VF), not a lighter but dimmer pentamirror VF as in lower end DSLR's. Ability to survive frequent and sometimes rough usage, including some professional usage, is a reason for a bit of extra bulk too.

If anything, the smaller, lighter DSLR's with small, dim pentamirror VF's might be the ones that fade away, in favor of mirror-less LCD/EVF systems like Micro Four Thirds and Samsung NX.
--
Smaller lenses, better in low light, more telephoto reach: choose any two.

domk275 said:

Phixel said:

Unless Sony makes a FF DSLR with less MP, less noise at higher ISOs, better motion AF , and with some modern features like Live View, they may as well throw in the towel and leave full frame to Canon and Nikon. At least they can do it right.

Click to expand...

You'll have to make that just Nikon, Phil, since Canon don't have the camera you describe.

Click to expand...

You might be right as Nikon is the "Low Light King". OTOH, I have never seen a review of a Canon full frame DSLR that said this:
(This is a quote from Imaging Resources review of the a850),

• Some image noise even at ISO 200
• At anything above ISO 200, noise limits maximum print size before resolution becomes an issue.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA850/AA850A.HTM

-Phil

No reason in a year or so after introduction that the A850 might not be selling for $1500 - 1700 so you probably don't have to long to wait.

A700 was $1400 now $900.
--
tom power

You say that you like shooting with high ISO in natural light and will not upgrade to A900 because it is a poor performer at high ISO.

Just curious - how good was your film camera in low light compared to the capability of the A900? As good, better or not even close?
--
tom power

Phixel said:

You might be right as Nikon is the "Low Light King". OTOH, I have never seen a review of a Canon full frame DSLR that said this:
(This is a quote from Imaging Resources review of the a850),

• Some image noise even at ISO 200
• At anything above ISO 200, noise limits maximum print size before resolution becomes an issue.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA850/AA850A.HTM

Click to expand...

Dear Phil,

back to text posts again? And even worse, regurgitating text you used here before?

I liked your pics much better than this dimming down after lighting up a bit.
Oh well.....
--
Ralf



http://ralfralph.smugmug.com/
10.000 slides still to scan........

Hi Tom,

I don't think it's fair to compare the performance of a 20 year old film-based camera with the new digital sensor-based ones. By any standard, what can be done today with high end digital SLRs is extraordinary. And there is no doubt that the choice between an old Maxxum and an Alpha 900 is a clear one. But it's not a fair one. 20 years on, I don't expect to simply replicate what I did with film. I expect to do much more, of course. This is why I am eagerly anticipating the new rumoured FF SLR from Sony.

PRE.

Ralf Bliesener said:

Phixel said:

You might be right as Nikon is the "Low Light King". OTOH, I have never seen a review of a Canon full frame DSLR that said this:
(This is a quote from Imaging Resources review of the a850),

• Some image noise even at ISO 200
• At anything above ISO 200, noise limits maximum print size before resolution becomes an issue.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA850/AA850A.HTM

Click to expand...

Dear Phil,

back to text posts again? And even worse, regurgitating text you used here before?

I liked your pics much better than this dimming down after lighting up a bit.
Oh well.....
--
Ralf

Click to expand...

It's known as "multi-tasking" Ralph! Sorry to disappoint you, but IMO Sony deserves to be heaped with criticism for giving full frame users only one choice in a sensor(but in two cameras?), that is very limiting due to noise issues. Sony needs to give potential customers a reason to buy their full frame cameras besides a lower price tag. Sony needs to give them better image quality at the higher ISOs many amateur and professional DSLR owners frequently need want. ISO 200 or 400 does not cut it anymore, like in the old film days. If Sony did nothing more than put a 14.6 MP sensor in the a900 it would double or triple sales in weeks and few would miss the24MP sensor at all. I think it is likely to happen too.
-Phil

Except it's not FF as the OP suggested, the VF hump is way too small for that.

tompower53 said:

You say that you like shooting with high ISO in natural light and will not upgrade to A900 because it is a poor performer at high ISO.

Just curious - how good was your film camera in low light compared to the capability of the A900? As good, better or not even close?
--
tom power

Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

Your point is easily, more than correct, if the comparison were only to PRE's older Minolta film cameras. But for me, when the professional competition is shooting with a Nikon D3 and a Canon MKII-whatever, my Sony A700 sensor simply doesn't keep up. And neither does the A900 sensor. Although a great performer, it's just not the hi-ISO monster that Sony needs in their arsenal. With my lens family that consists of the Minolta 85 1.4, the Minolta 300 2.8 SSM, and the Minolta 70-200 SSM glass, I am more than content to wait for the next Sony offerings. I'm just hoping it's high ISO performance is a much bigger priority, than potential amateur video capabilities, or even more pixel density.

--
Sol
http://solarviewphotography.com/

'There would be so many more happy digital photographers in the world,
if the 100% zoom button on their computers, was permanently disabled.'
. . . . where is my 100% Lupe, anyways ??' -Sol ;-)

Okay, I join the "multitasking".

Phixel said:

Phixel wrote:

Sony deserves to be heaped with criticism for giving full frame users only one choice in a sensor (but in two cameras?), that is very limiting due to noise issues.

Click to expand...

If one source (or a few?) repeatedly voice(s) their personal concerns that is not heaping criticism but noise IMHO.

Phixel said:

Sony needs to give potential customers a reason to buy their full frame cameras besides a lower price tag.

Click to expand...

Uh, like class leading resolution? CZ, G and legacy A Mount lenses with AF and SSS?

Phixel said:

Sony needs to give them better image quality at the higher ISOs many amateur and professional DSLR owners frequently need want. ISO 200 or 400 does not cut it anymore, like in the old film days.

Click to expand...

I just submitted a challenge entry from the A900 at ISO 800 (multitasking... )

Phixel said:

If Sony did nothing more than put a 14.6 MP sensor in the a900 it would double or triple sales in weeks and few would miss the24MP sensor at all. I think it is likely to happen too.

Click to expand...

I agree on the market potential for the 14 MP FF variant (count me in, Sony!). Please note "variant". I and many others would miss the 24 MP if the 14 MP would suddenly be the only choice. No clue if the second sensor variant will happen.
Again, count me in, Sony, and imagine me buying back-up bodies while at it!

I confess I am a happy A Mount 24 MP full framer who would appreciate more options.
--
Ralf



http://ralfralph.smugmug.com/
10.000 slides still to scan........

RubberDials said:

jesus.

Click to expand...

sure, it's fake, but does it matter? what we're talking about here is how we think Sony should go in replacing the A700
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4

WaltKnapp said:

Graham Best said:

digititus said:

If they replace the a700 with a FF model, there will be a lot of advanced amateurs, myself included, who if faced with replacing their APS-C lenses that cost $1500, will simply abandon Sony.

Click to expand...

What $1500 APS lens are you referring to?

Click to expand...

In english the es on the end of the word lens makes it plural. Plural means it's more than one lens. I don't know what he has but let's see, I have the 11-18, 18-250 and CZ16-80. That adds up and there are more APS lenses than those.

Walt

Click to expand...

Walt, What do you think of the 111-18? I hust read a strong review of it in a Pop Photo from two years ago.
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4

Ralf Bliesener said:

Okay, I join the "multitasking".

Click to expand...

Ralf B said:

Ralf B said:

If Sony did nothing more than put a 14.6 MP sensor in the a900 it would double or triple sales in weeks and few would miss the24MP sensor at all. I think it is likely to happen too.

Click to expand...

I agree on the market potential for the 14 MP FF variant (count me in, Sony!). Please note "variant". I and many others would miss the 24 MP if the 14 MP would suddenly be the only choice. No clue if the second sensor variant will happen.
Again, count me in, Sony, and imagine me buying back-up bodies while at it!

I confess I am a happy A Mount 24 MP full framer who would appreciate more options.

Click to expand...

Would not it be nicer if Sony offer Canon 5d mk2 like option to scale RAW files of Full Frame cameras and instead of doing 14MP camera they opt for 36MP camera that can do:

1. Fast (6 or 7 FPS) and low noise, high ISO shooting in 9MP mode with may be ISO above 100,000

2. High Res top quality shooting at 2 FPS, low ISO (1 600 max) and 36 MPs

I think it is better and would boost sales further. One cam that does it all.

That would be nice, but expensive.

--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

I am also glad it's beeing developed. That's for sure. I am waiting for a way better ISO performance, and better white balance. AF let's hope it's gonna be better to.

I am thinking for going FF but Sony is not an option for the work I do.

I just saw a wedding shot with Canon 5d (Not Mk II) and you just can't get that with Sony a900 / a850. All was shot at iso 400 and above. Most of them 800 -1600, few 3200. and everything was pretty clean, as a matter of fact very clean.

And I am talking at about 600-1200 shots/ wedding so no way I'm gonna process that with DXO. LightRomm is pretty good and from what I've seen most of them were not postprocessed at all so no correction of WB, exposure, etc.

That would be for me a great improvement in time wasted on doing what Sony forgot to do. That time I can allocate to do something else.

Currently I am spending 1-2 minutes in LightRoom to pp every picture(basics). So think about the time wasted when let's say 50% of the shots are not right.

All of this are expected from a new Sony camera FF or croped sensor.

If not, I'll be crying after those beautifull lenses I have CZ 24-70, Minolta 85 1.4 and many others or the colors but first of all I need clean,good high iso shots with good white ballance and will go wherever this is avalable no matter the brand.
I am willing to wait until the end of the year, let's say february latest.
--
http://www.fotoevents.ro

Are you saying that a 12MP camera has better noise in real prints lets say A4-size (so no pixel peeping) than a 24MP camera with double the number of pixels??? I find it hard to believe.

--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

domk275 said:

Phixel said:

Unless Sony makes a FF DSLR with less MP, less noise at higher ISOs, better motion AF , and with some modern features like Live View, they may as well throw in the towel and leave full frame to Canon and Nikon. At least they can do it right.

Click to expand...

You'll have to make that just Nikon, Phil, since Canon don't have the camera you describe.

Click to expand...

1DIV isn't FF but it's close -- 1.3 crop -- and probably just as good at high ISO as Nikon D3.

CleverPhoto said:

1DIV isn't FF but it's close -- 1.3 crop -- and probably just as good at high ISO as Nikon D3.

Click to expand...

How can you say a 1.3 crop sensor is close to FF?. It's certainly closer than 1.5 or 1.6 but I woudn't say it's close.

Phixel said:

Unless Sony makes a FF DSLR with less MP, less noise at higher ISOs, better motion AF , and with some modern features like Live View, they may as well throw in the towel and leave full frame to Canon and Nikon.

Click to expand...

Presumably at the same price point? Really, how many people do you think are going to lay out nearly $5k for a Sony camera? At the moment, there is no way Sony can hope to compete in the pro FF market. What they have done is given us affordable FF DSLRs which for the majority of users, it seems, are perfectly up to the job. If you really are prepared to fork out that kind of money - and I can see only professionals or the idle rich doing it - then I agree that Canon and Nikon are probably a safer option.

Phixel said:

(This is a quote from Imaging Resources review of the a850),

• Some image noise even at ISO 200
• At anything above ISO 200, noise limits maximum print size before resolution becomes an issue.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA850/AA850A.HTM

-Phil

Click to expand...

Here's another quote from the same review: "What's sure is that the Sony A850 plays well against the field, holding its own even against cameras costing up to four times its breakthrough $1999.95 list price. I really enjoyed shooting with the original A900, and had almost as fun looking at the images afterward. The new A850 does indeed appear to offer very similar (if not quite identical) image quality as the original A900 and a virtually identical user experience, save only the slightly cropped viewfinder and somewhat slower continuous shooting speed. That it manages to do so at a list price that's $700 less is pretty remarkable....Shooting with the Sony Alpha A850 can be summed up in one word: Satisfying."