[shoplink 20397 ebay]
[/shoplink]
–
The Canon-Nikon FF price war is fully ongoing: Right now the Canon 6D is sold for $1,499 at [shoplink 20397 ebay]BigValue (here on eBay)[/shoplink] and the refurbished D800 sells for the first time below $2000 at [shoplink 20396 ebay]RobertsCamera (here on eBay)[/shoplink]. Sony better keeps those prices in mind when launching the new E and A mount Full Frame cameras. A sub $2,000 36 megapixel A-mount camera would be very very very welcome don’t you agree? 🙂
found via DealsRunner.
146 Responses
Andrea,
I totally agree. Though SONY may/should/could(take your pick) not get in to the price war, those prices are very hard to ignore.
+1 –
Difficult to ignore the
TOTAL VALUE either of those CANIKON platforms offer users
Their Value extends to so many factors
Support Options and Hours
Total User Community
BASE Warranty of those products
Twice the Lens options of any Sony
3000% More TTL Flash options than Sony
Extensive Accessories Vendor Network –
Used Market for Secondary purchases
Plus to Top it all off
SONY’s pricing policies are just Arrogant
As if using the words
Innovation and Game Changer entitles
Sony to charge excessive premiums for their
Camera Bodies, or Lens or Lighting or Accessories.
Strategically Sony appears to not want to work cooperatively or refuse to work with any others or partners in the imagining Community.
Especially accessory vendors, Flashes, Lens, etc
I agree. Sony will never out-do Caninkon performance-wise enough for people to jump ship in the DSLR world. Their focus should be a better price for similar performance. If their FF NEX can deliver the same or better performance than DSLR’s with the lenses to match, then people might switch from DSLR to mirrorless.
Exactly.
Canon and Nikon have, literally, generations of experience behind them as well as well-rounded selections of equipment at all prices (tourist thru hard working pro).
Sony needs to come out with something very unique and utterly compelling for buyers to move away from the Big Boys.
If Sony can’t make something compelling, what’s left to compete on but price?
While I love my NEX5 cameras for knocking around town and grabbing a few shots, when the shooting gets serious, I return to shooting my Canon DSLRs (FF and APS-C). Besides, it appears Sony can’t center it’s optics properly, neither for love nor money. 🙁
Sony and Minolta before it also have generations of experience. And Sony is bringing compelling products. NEX, RX1, RX100, A77.
“While I love my NEX5 cameras for knocking around town and grabbing a few shots, when the shooting gets serious, I return to” shooting my Canon DSLRs.”
You are comparing NEX to Canon DSLRs. That doesn’t make much sense in this context.
Perhaps Sony could take a hint when it comes to pricing the nex-ff.
🙂
Don’t worry guys if the falling prices of excellent FF cameras from Nikon and Canon make FF feel less special Sony will sort that out with a $3000 FF Nex lol that for anything above 50mm will have same size lenses as any other FF option with crap handiling
Maybe they will. Maybe it’ll only be twice the cost instead of three times the cost.
I am sure Sony will not take part in such price war – and later on wonder why they lose market share
+1
Im seriously thinking in changing to Nikon with those prices (although that one is refurbished) of d800 and d600.
Sony better get me those future FF cameras at 2500 max or im switching away and besides me many many more
you cant get $1650 d600 from Hong Kong, if you get me a FF at $1000 more it will be suicide.
Currently in Germany D800 with 50mm/1.4 costs just as much as A99 body. I am afraid that Sony’s next A-mount FF will cost as much as D800 with 24-70/2.8 . I might also change then.
It wouldn’t be a good idea to think that low prices go hand in hand with build quality. They don’t.
Anyhow, most Sony Alpha Whiners will never be happy even if the camera was $25.
The trouble with that argument is that Sony’s build quality isn’t great but they are still more expensive.
The last Nikons had severe production problems like the “left focussing problem” on the “holy” D800 and oil spots on the D600.
The Canons also had their share of problems, like bad grip rubber material on one of the later Rebels, the “light spill issue” on the 5D Mark III (a design error) and insufficient lubrication on the 1D X, leading to possible excessive wear in the driving mechanism (according to Wikipedia
In other words: Manufacturing isn’t better on those either, for whatever reason (increased incompetence, market pressure, greed).
I’ll be extremely happy to get A900 replacement with A900 OVF and A99 sensor for $2,500. But it is not available.
A sub $2,000 36 megapixel A-mount camera would be welcome, but is not going to happen. Can’t expect Sony to innovate and have lower prices. One strategy or the other and judging by Canikon’s reaction, they do seem worried.
The only worry Canon and Nikon have is Nikon and Canon. They are laughing their heads off at Sony pricing for bodies, lenses and flashes.
Doesn’t matter.
Of course it matters.
Jumping ship I did – 3 months ago, to Nikon. I had a Nex 7, but got sick and tired of their lens pricing and lack of selections in comparison. Now I’m truly enjoying my like-new 35mm 1.8g Nikon lens at $150 vs. the nex 35mm 1.8 for $450. I still have a Sony 3N as a portable back though.
No really. I was pointing out the different strategies adopted by Canikon and Sony. Whether they are worried about Sony or each other, well, anyone’s guess.
Agreed.. Sony needs to offer a FF that can compete with the 6D/D600 (price). I am really tempted to jump ship.
Because of one cheaper body?
+1
Those prices are crazy. I’m sure the FF NEX will be a lot more. It is too niche a product and being a near universal mount Sony can’t afford to sell it at a loss and make up the difference in lens sales. Even with economies of scale I wonder if Nikon and Canon are actually making a profit on those bodies. If Sony starts dropping the price on the RX1 then I’ll take that as a sign that they are feeling the pinch of competition.
Really, I feel sorry for Pentax who needs a full-frame DSLR to stay viable but can in no way compete at those prices. They just don’t have the volume!
They probably aren’t making much of a profit and won’t be able to sustain prices like this for long. And, in the end, Pentax has survived worse, not to mention making some of the best APS-C DSLRs out there.
It doesn’t matter if they are making much of a profit on their budget full frames, the lenses more than make up for it. It’s where Sony go wrong EVERY time.
I wouldn’t be so sure.
Well I am, it’s how Nikon and Canon make money and Sony don’t.
Sony don’t appear to get it, they release bodies like there is no tomorrow and for every niche, hoping something sticks, yet the money is to be made in the SYSTEM not the body. It’s not rocket science, simply build a system and people will buy the bodies.
AlphaGuy, SOny messed up when they had their great A900/700/100 cameras and for some reason decided they won’t be going that route again, i.e. competing “directly” with Canikon by making DSLRs. So now they are searching every niche, precisely. And that is a completely valid strategy. If they manage to find that niche (and I believe they did) and to explore it properly (remains to be seen), then they will have a system to make money on.
“It’s not rocket science, simply build a system and people will buy the bodies.”
Yes and no, I guess. To make Canikon users switch you must either be significantly cheaper (very difficult, obviously) or provide something they don’t. Something really special to make people sell their lenses and move to another system. The first mistake Sony made (imo) is that during the A900/700 time, they did not provide any pro support and they didn’t develop the system quickly enough. So, they did not provide anything cheaper (except the A850, but one camera is not enough), nor anything really special (as much as I like the QN or the huge VF of the A900). What I imagine happened, is that they saw sales for a year or two from previous Minolta users and then it all went downhill. At this point they could’ve still went the DSLR route and fix their marketing and pro support, but they already lost a lot of time, the market had change and people had lost their confidence. Only real solution – make something different.
Yes, that was my point. Part of the appeal of the FF NEX is its adaptability but that’s a bit of problem because it makes it harder to rely on lens sales to make up for poor margins (or losses!) on the body sales.
I guess, that is why we see a 35mm f2.8 Zeiss – it has the name to convey value, it won’t be exorbitantly expensive, but deliver good results. Cheap lenses or very expensive ones would be a waste of time.
Indeed, people will buy the body at sod-all margin and there will be very little Sony lens sales. Just stick your existing collection on it.
It’ll get rave reviews and people will love it, for all the wrong reasons for Sony though.
At MSRPs, margins on FF cameras are huge. Think about it, R&D and labor on 1Dx is no more than on Pentax k-30 – all the same components. Basically only sensor is a little more expensive, but not THAT expensive – they are made on ANCIENT factories/equipment that would stay empty if not for those sensors.
That’s not necessarily true. At least for what Sony is working on. The sensors cost more to make but also to develop. Sony also uses better and newer manufacturing tech than Canon. Canon sensor factories use “ancient” technology but Sony’s are pretty state of the art and have to be because they are the top supplier of sensors.
Also, making a camera full frame introduces a lot of small difficulties we as users overlook. The larger sensor generates a lot more heat–this is especially important for Sony’s cameras where that sensor is on all the time. Sony also uses in-body stabilization on all their current full-frame cameras (remains to be seen for the NEX) this not only adds complexity and difficulty to develop and manufacture but stabilizing a full-frame sensor in the same size mount is more difficult than an APS-C (or 4/3) sensor. Sony had to completely redevelop Minolta’s stabilization used in the DSLR designs it inherited.
My understanding is pull data off a larger sensor also takes more time and finesse if you want to do it quickly and with quality. So while I agree there is higher overall take on full-frame cameras I doubt there is actually a higher numerical margin. In other words, you will make more from a 30% margin off of a $3000 item than a $300 item even though the margin is the same.
Canon does right with Feature and Price distance between 6D and 5D3 – it’s around 1100 € here in GER (1600 vs 2700).
Nikon is going to endanger Sales in two directions. The sell the D800 to cheap, and the distance of 600 € is nearby of being too short for the differentiation of entry Level and pro (1600 vs 2200)
If they feel the need to secure their market share by outselling themselves – fine. It will finally become a shot into their own knee in the Long term.
The NEX FF does not need to care about because it will be an own class and as such defines it’s price by itself.
We will probably see an entry A-Mount next year, if rumors are right.
Still it will not sell far below 2000, because it will need to Keep distance to the advanced APS-C A79 which will likely be around 1200.
The argument about the “low price” of the D800 isn’t completely without merit but you shouldn’t forget that Nikon uses the D800e as an attempt to close the gap to the D4.
(Of course it’s massively overpriced for what little advantage it offers but people apparently love it).
DSLR sales is declining. It’s must be mirrorless that eats their pie. I don’t know, but the way they’re going crazy with the price, something’s not quite right. Good for us consumers.
A report just came out a few weeks ago saying Mirrorless had dropped off while DSLR’s had picked up.
Wrong. Both fell 18% equally.
This is it, I’m switching to Canon! A 5D Mark III Sensor for $1,500 vs The $2,800 A99 with the sensor of a $2,000 D600…!
Because the sensor is everything!
No but you also get the CaNikon support, lenses, accessories….in fact everything you don’t get from a Sony FF.
That wasn’t his point, wasn’t it?
I was merely pointing out that there may have been more to the decision than just the sensor.
I know, and actually agree with you here.
And that sensor’s not much!
Where did you see the 5d3 for $1500? That is a smoking hot deal…or are you literally saying it is $1500 for the canon sensor part?
He meant the 6D for $1500, not the 5D Mark III!
Nope this is not updated. The price now for a 6D is $1999.99
http://www.ebay.com/itm/360719529917;jsessionid=786CE7795990BA1C36BFB0F69C572720?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_fspt%3D1%26LH_CAds%3D%26_udlo%3D%26_sadis%3D%26_sop%3D12%26_sacat%3D%26_fpos%3D%26_mPrRngCbx%3D1%26_udhi%3D%26_nkw%3D360719529917%26_rdc%3D1
Definitely not a good deal now.
Those prices have little to do with Canon and Nikon, a lot with this retailer. Go check the prices at Amazon or B& H, especially for the D800.
Amazon.de offers D800 for EUR 2159 and A99 for 2498
FullFrame-NEX for US $/€ 999 and Sony’s still making a fortune by selling huge masses plus they’re taking this market impossible for Canon or Nikon to follow.
Not necessarily. They would likely lose money on each copy. For what?
Plus, at that price point how well are they going to be made? I’d love to pay $1000 just like the next guy, but I’d rather pay more for a product that is much better made. I plan on keeping the FF NEX (if it lives up to the hype) for a long time.
Economies of scale only work so well at some point the demand doesn’t keep up with the slim margin. Plus, unlike the PS3 where hardware specs stayed the same for years while costs fell, cameras require constant R&D so Sony can’t afford to lose money in the short term just for a short lived “domination” of the market.
I do think once the FF NEX and the next gen FF A-mount camera are released the A99 will stick around a while at a much better price point.
Not true. Development is causing immense costs for cameras like that, so the more got sold the more of these costs come in. But since Sony itself is the producer of the main parts, it does not cost that much more to squeeze out the factory output, so mass production comes much more cheaply. One comparatively cheap model for market share and E-Mount is established as standard for FullFrame-Mirrorless. Lens manufactures will focus on E-Mount and people will upgrade to further models with attractive upgrade features. But my guess is, Sony’s developing the FullFrame NEX as a model to switch for A-Mount Users only on advanced price levels.
And what about production costs? How much do you think FF camera would cost to make? 500 bucks? Also, the sensor division is a separate entity and the camera division buys from them.
An EVF FF camera should cost less than the A900 costs to make. No mirror mechanism, no expensive 100% coverage pentaprism view finder, no expensive alignment of that pentaprism.
Sony should be able to knock out EVF cameras cheap as chips, regardless of whether it is APS-C or Full Frame. If they used the same body they could simply swap the sensor size.
How much does that expensive viewfinder cost? He wants a “FullFrame-NEX for US $/€ 999”.
Although this price blabla Sony would sell much if price is xxx blabla makes me thick, I can’t stop posting my view. 🙂
I’d like to recommend considering three facts prior posting related to the above:
1.Every company selling products wants to earn some money with it
2.Sony is not Santa Clause
3.If you can’t efford it, don’t blame it
Sony is an innovator. As such you spend more money in R&D than others. So necessary margin on your product is higher than others, making it more expensive.
As an innovator you bring products that electrifies early adopters which are willing to pay above price for value.
The NEX FF will have more features as the RX1, and is supposed for the time being to become the flagship in the camera segment. So give me any reason why Sony shall not sell the NEX FF at 3k?
1. The margins on electronics and manufacturing are already very slim. I don’t think there’s nearly as much play in pricing as you think there is.
2. Very few goods, unless they reach commodity status, are priced in a “cost plus” fashion. They are priced as the market will bear. A Sony FF NEX will have no direct competitor except *perhaps* the Leica M which will certainly cost much, much more. So the Sony FF NEX will not be commodity item at launch and Sony will try hard NOT to position it that way. They don’t want people who will buy whatever full-frame camera as long as its the cheapest. They want the people who will buy it for the features and flexibility.
3. As Vlad pointed out you are forgetting the other costs of production like labor (the RX1 is made in Japan, perhaps the FF NEX will be too), R&D (as has been pointed out many times there are major hurdles to work with wide angle compact lenses on full-frame sized sensors), and the chip foundry process.
4. Regardless of price there is a limited market size even at $1000. Some people will never buy it because: too small, wrong buttons, not XXX brand, no OVF, etc. Plus many just won’t pay that much for any camera let alone the lenses needed to make use of it.
Look at Apple pre-iPhone they were still one of the most profitable computer makers despite being one of the smallest because they created a product that competed on something other than price. Sony has been trying to do that for a while. The A99 (largely) failed but the RX1 and RX100 (despite their respective shortcomings) have done that and they continue to command a premium price. If the FF NEX launches when rumored it will most likely do so as well.
and what about production capacity? there would be a upper limit on number of FF sensor that is able to be made, so if you price too low there will always be a shortage and you’re losing potential profit on this
Never mind, Sony’s not gonna choose home-run with their FullFrame-NEX anyway. They’ll go for a comparatively small group of users paying quite a lot for a premium product, so the development costs will become a bigger part of each camera’s price. A-Mount users are snotty enough about E-Mount, so just in case they’ll have to switch to mirrorless NEX with their lenses one day, that’s prior to the mass market, I’m pretty sure – thats why I’m looking forward to the NEX-5T, since I’m not interested in buying the first generation FF-NEX anyway for the hute price I’m expecting…
I bought my half-frame NEX-7 at about that price a year ago and the crappy plastic mount(plastic inside, metal outside, just look) is already giving in due to wear, right now some of my lenses don’t focus at infinity unless I push the lens inward towards the mount when I take my shot.
I’m not buying the FF NEX if it’s priced at $999, I’m afraid something would break within 999 shots.
Wow, first I’ve heard of this. Any one else have this problem? I’ve only heard good things on NEX-7 build quality.
“Sony better keeps those prices in mind when launching the new E and A mount Full Frame cameras. A sub $2,000 36 megapixel A-mount camera would be very very very welcome don’t you agree? :)”
Andrea, I do but there would be a good number here who will disagree with you.
I got many negative reaction the last time I posted an opinion here that the NEX FF would sell well against CaNikon if priced between $2,000 to $2,400. It would seem that many would like to see a higher price for the NEX FF!
Don’t twist things around, please.
For some reason these threads always burst out in a chorus of “I wish the things I want were cheaper, and I’ll make up a bunch of reasons and passive aggressive threats in the hope it’ll help make it happen”
There are very few facts shared though – Sony is not a major marketshare holder, so R&D is relatively expensive for them (the cost spread out over fewer devices sold), and even the major players, Canon and Nikon, are seeing their profits dwindle.
On a really good day consumer electronics make a 30% margin, and yet people are suggesting devices to be sold at about 50% of their current cost, and the only logic I see to support that price point is “Well, I would buy one if you sold it far below cost”.
So it becomes of one of those “be careful what you wish for” type of situations – if they do spend millions on research, and lose money selling those camera’s – chances are they’ll close down their camera division in no time flat.
Canon and Nikon are comming out with new products too.
Therefore they need to clear out the old models.
Sony is reducing prices on its old products too.
What “old products”? The 6D/D600 are less than a year old.
I want raw 4k video on a A mount camera with a full frame mirrorless 36mp sensor. And i want it direct to a stick forget about a external aftermarket hdmi recoreder.
If that’s what you NEED then your best bet is a F55 with an A-mount adapter. Sony RAW for video is one of the best compressed raw formats out there (Red sued them over it) but you’d need UHS-II or UDMA-7 cards at the very least. Even if Sony were to make that camera it would probably record to those weird cards found on the D4 (what are they called?) or to SxS cards.
Well… I would love it in a $3000 or less camera not a $30000 one. 😉
Seriously, A99 should be priced like D600/6D..otherwise sony are stupid. Who would by a new A99 now when you can get a “better” camera for 2/3 of the price? I dont care when they say they are “happy” with the sales of the A99, I guess they would be even more happy if they sold lots more of them even to a lower price. There is absolutley nothing that justifies the A99 price right now…Wake up sony or people start switching.
+1
Who says D600/6D are better cameras?
The street price of the a99 has dropped nearly 20% and it’s been out less than a year. It would certainly be a good value at 2k of Sony were to reduce the price that low.
If Sony were to release improvements for the camera via firmware it would be worth even more and some of the requested features/changes are technically feasible.
No it haven’t, not where I live. It have dropped a little more than 10% whereas the D600 have dropped 20%. From a already ridiculus price point as a start. But compare A99 to D600 IQ and perfomancewise, then compare prices. A99 is 50% more expensive than the D600, is it worth it? No…
Same as the D800. Is it worth it? No.
The D800 has the best sensor ever put in a DSLR,it has higher resolution than any other DLSR surprisingly good RAW video.There are many who still prefer an OVF myself included , i own the Nex 7 and 6 therefore I have a real appreciation of the advantages of an EVF.I looked briefly at the A99 the EVF doesn’t do it for me combine this with the lower MP count and light wasting SLT tech made it a poor choice for me.Whatever bells and whistles you add to a camera the bottom line is image quality that is all that matters the A99 offers no advantages over the cheaper D600 while the D800 does over the D600.
I would love a Nex FF I would hope for a better EVF though frankly I am not that bothered by size and weight that I would pay a huge premium for the Nex FF. Pricing of higher end mirrorless is becoming an issue
I’d have to again disagree. IQ is the most important part but hardly “everything”. Maybe a better example will be the 5D3. Or another one, as I certainly don’t think that the D600 sensor is 3 or 4 times better than the one in the NEX5N. You do pay for other features (other than IQ). And the A99 has them in spades, especially compared to the D600. The problem here is the lack of a cheaper FF model from Sony, not the price of the A99.
The A99 may well have extra features but the problem is for every pro there is a con, the SLT set up allows for an EVF with all the advantages they have.The SLT tech also wastes light a key advantage of FF and though they are getting better an EVF is no replacement for a 100% OVF. The video AF on the A99 is clearly better than an DSLR cameras but as a user of the D800 hand held video on a FF model is an adventure in comedy meaning to get optimum results you really want it mounted on a tripod and to prevent annoying changes of focus manual focus is best.
The 5N is a basic non sealed body with terrible C-AF & tracking with a good APS sensor no built in EVF .When compared to the D6OO you lose out on weather sealing, OVF, good C-AF/tracking , poorer high ISO ,poorer DR,poorer colour depth,poorer DOF control, poorer selection of native AF lenses.
“for every pro there is a con”
And you want to tell me that isn’t true for the D800? You have a high-res camera that will obviously see a lot of use in the studio and in landscape. Yet you have a crappy LV and no swivel screen (never again would I buy a camera without one). And, in case this swivel screen seems like a minor point to you, that is how the loss of light with the SLT looks to me. How much better the D800 actually is?
“EVF is no replacement for a 100% OVF”
For you. Other people have other preferences. The OVF also has plenty of shortcomings.
“The 5N (…) when compared to the D6OO you lose out on…”
You completely missed my point. Here, you are actually agreeing with me.
I am not a studio shooter so I will not comment on that however landscape shooting is my thing I completely prefer shooting with the OVF for this. When I occasionally use live view it is more than adequate for this purpose { why wouldn’t it be} but just as with “”all” LCD screens they are at a disadvantage in a lot of daylight situations even here in Alaska not exactly the sunshine capital of the word. Landscape is one area where if anything slow considered shooting is preferred { tripod, manual focus , etc}
36mp sensor? Haven’t we proven already that nobody will get anything near 36mp of “actual” resolution in their images?
Sure…your photo will have a frame size that shows 36 million pixels but your pictures will have no more “detail” than a 24mp image.
Can anybody name a lens out there that will resolve 36 million “real” pixels? (A lens that I can buy for less than $3000)
So, first it is “nobody will get anything near 36mp of “actual” resolution in their images”, then it is a lens for under 3000? And what precisely do you mean by “resolving”?
As far as “resolving” goes…what I mean is this:
Lets say you shot a super model and she had a tiny pimple on her nose. You shot her with a great 24mp sensor and then the same shot with a 36mp sensor and with both lenses being equal. Then in Photoshop, you zoomed in on that pimple on both images. The 36mp image will not reveal any more pimple detail or image quality than that same shot in 24mp. When zoomed in, they will literally be almost the exactly same.
This 36mp thing is literally marketing hype. There is be almost no improvement over a great 24mp. (but will have more noise because of its smaller photosite disadvantage.)
If Sony does this 36mp stunt, you will see web site after web site that does image comparisons that show this similarity.
Cliff I respectfully disagree. Zoomed it, on a well made photograph, I can tell the difference. Certainly in the side by side comparisons I’ve seen between say the D800 and the D600. Personally I think the FF NEX will lack an AA filter to improve wide angle performance which will make the difference in sharpness more noticeable if they use a 36 or 32 mp sensor vs a 24mp.
Now I will agree that you quickly hit a point of diminishing returns. Especially if you don’t print large, only shoot wide open (on all but a small subset of quality lenses designed to do that), or use truly terrible/vintage lenses.
Your “equal” lens will perform better on the higher resolution sensor.
If both the 24 36mp sensors were the same size (ff for example) then the difference in RESOLUTION would be only 10.66%.
It would indeed be somewhat difficult to see.
If on the other hand the 24mp were a crop sensor the 36mp ff sensor would be lower resolution if shot with the same lens at the same subject distance and croped to the same image it would show less detail.
Your argument is totally $tupid.
First a 36mp ff sensor is LOWER RESOLUTION than a 24mp crop c sensor .
The equivelent would be 56mp.
Secondly todays good lenses resolve in excess of 300 lp/mm .
At 36x24mm that is more than 300mp.
furthermore new high res lenses are comoing out every day.
Most importantly todays best pictures are crap.
I can see a bird and feathers.
The best 36mp picture shows a bird OR a feather.
They also wont show a tree and leaves.
A to building and bricks.
A person and hair.
Each of those examples that I can see with my own eyes would require at least 200mp.
While i do not not expect to see that big a jump right away i would certainly like to get more of what i am paying for.
FF is 2.25 as big as c size and 3x as expensive.
For that kind of money we should be seing at least 56mp.
Unless of course you only look at pictures on tv screens an like trees without leaves and birds without feathers.
“”First a 36mp ff sensor is LOWER RESOLUTION than a 24mp crop c sensor””
This is not the case Barry you are mistaking higher pixel density with detail, even the D7100 with the advantage of no PLF cannot match the D800
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100/15
I am not mistaken. You are.
Resolution is measured in pixels /mm.
Since c is 24mm and ff is 36mm we need to square the two numbers.
Ff requires 2.3x the pixels or 56mp to have the exact same resolution.
Since we use the same lenses for both and pay 3x as much money for a full frame camera there is no reason we should not have 56mp. The same resolution.
If I am paying more I want to get mote.
Not a lower resolution camera for more money.
Incedently a medium format cameta of say 80mp with a 60 or 70mm sensor is substantially lower resolution than either of these.
Pixel density IS resolution. Megapixel count IS NOT.
“Pixel density IS resolution.”
Just to respond to this specific point pixel density alone is not resolution there are multiple factors impacting this simplistic statement have a read at this article
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/res-demyst.shtml
If pixel density was all that mattered then the 20mp RX100 should match the real life resolution of a 54mp FF camera when the truth is very different it cannot even match the 24mp APS D7100 let alone the 36mp D800
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/14
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/14
You dispute my statement about resolution by substituting the eord detail.
They are two very different words with two very different meanings.
Cool ,don’t let reality get in the way of your belief but fact is the highest resolving 24mp the D7100 does not out resolve the D800. It is very easy to demonstrate the error of your statement simply download the respective RAW files from your 24mp APS model and compare it to a 36mp RAW file from the D800, turn off all NR including the ACR default sharpen each file optimally and you will clearly see that the D800 holds an advantage.From a more simple viewpoint do you think there would have been such a song and dance about the D800 resolution if as you are erroneously stating a 24mp APS camera did better, after all there are no shortage to choose from , D3200,D5200,D7100,NEX7, A65,A77.I own the NEX7 and the D800 so I am speaking from direct comparison
Your argument is totally wrong.
First a 36mp ff sensor is LOWER RESOLUTION than a 24mp crop c sensor .
The equivelent would be 56mp.
Secondly todays good lenses resolve in excess of 300 lp/mm .
At 36x24mm that is more than 300mp.
furthermore new high res lenses are comoing out every day.
Most importantly todays best pictures are totally lacking detail.
I can see a bird and feathers.
The best 36mp picture shows a bird OR a feather.
They also wont show a tree and leaves.
A to building and bricks.
A person and hair.
Each of those examples that I can see with my own eyes would require at least 200mp.
While i do not not expect to see that big a jump right away i would certainly like to get more of what i am paying for.
FF is 2.25 as big as c size and 3x as expensive.
For that kind of money we should be seing at least 56mp.
Unless of course you only look at pictures on tv screens and like trees without leaves and birds without feathers.
stupid or wrong? 😛
Both. I was unsuccessfully attempting to bypass the moderation filter.
The Zeiss Planar designs should when stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. The ZM and Contax G varieties are found for much less than $3k. I can’t speak to the ZF or ZE varieties–or really for the Minolta/Sony lenses. True, there are not many lenses that resolve that much detail (and certainly not across the frame) wide open but no everyone shoots wide open all the time. On large sensors we are not close to “out resolving” even decent lenses, stopped down to their optimal apertures, for at least part of the frame. So more than 24mp (really more that 12/16mp!) is just about giving the photographer options. Over 90% of what I shoot doesn’t even need to be 16mp but for those shots that do I am so glad its there!
That said, I’m not really with animalsbybarry and hoping for a 50-200mp full-frame sensor. I’m guess that would require some very dedicated optics as the pixel size would be close to what we see on our phones and point and shoots. Hard to maximize photosites that small.
Using a 16mp sensor, I can identify most if the limitations of all my lenses. Edge softness and CA. You certainly dont need a 24mp sensor to see them.
I think the “law of diminishing returns” strongly applies here. The higher MP count we go…the less and less increase we get for it.
There is one price we pay though…photosite size. Larger photosites collect more photons per pixel than smaller ones. More photons means more charge or “voltage” per pixel. More charge means less amplification needed to brig to nominal level. Less amplification means cleaner signal noise ratio.
That whole “resolving 36 million “real” pixels” is meaningless. Resolution is the result of the combination of a sensor and a lens. Any lens will benefit from more resolution.
Still people keep on spreading this misunderstanding of ‘outresolving’. A lens is NEVER outresolved. Maybe they should write it on a piece of paper and stick it to the fridge or something?
Cliff if you’re talking about edge softness and CA that’s a little different than a catch all “out resolve” arguement. Again, it depends on the aperture and sometimes certain lens/sensor combinations do better. I’ve heard from several users that the 85 f1.8 is a better thens on the D800 than the 85mm f1.4.
I don’t have a D800 so I can’t say personally but the NEX-5N certainly works better with many of my lenses than my NEX-3 did despite having marginally smaller photosites. The D800 and D7100 also seem to do better, on the pixel level, than their earlier and lower megapixel counterparts.
4x the pixels is 2x the resolution.
Exmor sensors are front illuminated. Exmor r are back iluminated.
This shortens the distance between the microlens and adsorbing layer, effectively reducing the focal lenghth of the microlens.
Pixel size would be the equivelent of aperture therefore the r can have much smaller pixels without any loss of light to the pixel.
The simple switch to exmor r would allow more megapixels and higher resolution.
Admin
Please fix this moderation filter.
Only my short comment get through.
I answered these people 3x hours ago.
I would like to be able to respind in real time.
It will only be fixed by a move off this crappy software.
Sony Zeiss 135 F1.8
I mean that at least Sony Zeiss 135mm F1.8 will not be outresolved by 36 Mpixels sensors. I used this lens on 24 Mpixel FF A900 and it certainly holds its own on this sensor at 5.6. It will most likely comfortably work with 36 Mp sensor, but we will not know until there is a 36 Mpixel FF Sony A-mount camera that accepts this lens.
Please..sony…Release a FF A88 for ~1600-1800 and save yourselves.
This could very well mean DOA for next SONY FF ..
It will unless they make it a LOT more than 36mp
FF A-mount yes. FF E-mount no. The FF e-mount is going to be very interesting if you can put any full frame lens on it.
I think sony will get crushed in the a-mount arena if they price any new full frames above $2500. The e-mount however, could be interesting.
That’s not necessarily true. If they bring out a 1d-X equivalent but with their tech (EVF, sensor stabilization, etc.) and with a comparable AF system (that part if a big IF at this point) plus a rugged build (weather sealing, etc.) than they could certainly charge $5000 for it.
Or if they release a 4k Raw 1D-C equivalent (which is about 10k).
it’s not nex that is a threat to the a-mount. camera industry as a whole is. it’s turning into a dog eat dog market. margins are so slim it’s hard to make a decent profit at all. sales are declining. some are bound to get kicked out. Sony decides to go for the high end, which I guess is a good decision (the Apple strategy) but I wonder if they have what it takes to make it.
A Good Start Would Be Firmware
A99:
1) Dual Raid Card Support, write alternating shots to each card, doubling the bandwidth of clearing the buffer!!! don’t say it can’t be done, you have the option to record simultaneous, 1 image to both cards, I don’t see the issue of writing 2 images in the buffer to each card!!!
2) Give the users the option to select uncompressed RAW!
3) Open source the remote software! FK your propriety bull$hit
4) Bring out a new format between RAW and Jpg, call it Medium Rare, allow $hit like supersampling and correction but store the file in a uncompressed 16bit format, use your honami BS filter, but don’t store it as a fking jpg…
5) Allow update on the display when long exposures are taken… Why da fuk do you black it out for??? For a Suprise?!?!?! Your new Bionz processor not powerful enough?
6) EVF with no flappy mirror… Why does the display BLACK OUT when I take a shot?!?!?! Can’t you hold the last frame in the display buffer, I rather a small pause than a black flicker! FUKing Hell!
7) Why is there a screen telling me that the device is recording to the memory card when I preview an image right after taking a shot?!?!?! you have the buffer of the image already available for that option of automatic preview!!!! why must I select that option to preview all images immediately after taking a shot???? can’t the user preview certain images right after taking a shot??? Why do you enforce users to either preview all the images taken immediately or wait until the image the user wants to preview gets written to the card!!! Multi-tasking Sony… It’s not new technology…
8) Previewing Movies and Pictures is still as $hit as it was in the A77!!! thanks for listening $ony.
9) Live View to Remote Software FFS!
10) Thanks for allowing us to disable the Movie button… Now its a useless button… thanks… WHY NOT ALLOW US TO CONFIGURE IT TO SOMETHING USEFUL?!?!?!? Like that Auto Portrait Framing to assist all the professional photographers in the event they don’t know how to compose a portrait properlly…. FFS!
11) There is more… but I Couldn’t be Fuked Anymore….
+1
I doubt Sony will bother to even look at the pricing strategies of the other bigger players.
Look at the next versions of the RX100 and RX1… a logical progression for the next gens would have been a lower price… instead the prices were kept high.
First service …
I think that CaNikon is playing this game intelligently.
CaNikon know that their mirrorless offering sucks and probably have nothing in the pipeline to compete with m4/3 and Sony NEX (APC-S and FF).
By lowering the prices on its FF cameras to the point of matching the new offerings from m4/3 and Sony, will make it very difficult from a marketing standpoint for mirrorless.
CaNikon have the balance sheet, marketing power, retail network, eco-system and now price to overpower mirrorless.
I believe that all mirrorless players need to step up their game to have a fighting chance.
There needs to be more than incremental improvements for these companies to charge us 1’500 for their cameras.
Better video codecs, more value for its lenses, better accessories (flash and mics) and AF tracking, otherwise……..
+2
The CaNikon is Rock solid, Tested and Proven
and the Nikon Rating are Incredible DXO – just wow
Seriously, if you think about the new blah blah
Game Changer SONY innovation yadda yadda
SONY bugs are legendary –
There are NOT going to fix them in Firmware
How long are we waiting for Firmware updates
Sony EOL – End of Lifes the camera products after 8 months
get help…
Based of the dual pixel PDAF technology introduced with the sensor of D70, Canon could introduce an EOS M camera that will wipe out all mirrorless competition including NEX and m43. If they could add a good EVF then they could meke this camera very attractive compared with their own DSLR. Therein lies the problem for Canon at the moment, but they do not have to solve this marketing problem now. They can wait and not canibalise their DSLR range.
+1
This is so, so true. The Canon 70D sensor is the best mirrorless sensor NOT in a mirrorless camera. Unless Sony’s OSPDAF is amazing Canon could steal the crown (if they care enough to try…)
I don’t know why everyone is whining about Sony pricing buy where I live the A99 is almost $1000 cheaper than the Canon 5dm3 and the Nikon D800. Feature wise the a99 is better, so stop your whining
must be nice to live inside K-mart
Bought my A99 brand new when it first came out for $2350 out the door. I love the camera. Waiting for a firmware update to correct some bugs.
The same place where I got it now sells it for $2150 out the door.
Sony FF is DOA lol. if they price it at any where above the 1800, we might even see sony employees using canon/nikon DSLR.
while EVF is nice, canon/nikon flash system and AF system is more than enough to make up the difference.
Not only that, 3rd party accessories is a the rage for canon/nikon. I can’t say the same for sony.
To. break CaNikon’s stranglehold on the FF market, Sony should price their product at break-even value, then allow advertisers to show their products on the evf of their wifi enabled FFs as you are composing a shot. This can help generate profit. Also they can solicit donations to their fanbois, who am sure is wiiling to support them:-).
They have done this before – A850. Still the cheapest FF DSLR at launch. Didn’t really works if you ask me.
Has anyone actually bought from these ebay sellers? Pretty alarming feedback over used cameras and what not. Too bad 6d isnt offered for 1500$ retail.
Thanks Shai for that bit of reason. Perhaps the 6D is being sold at a loss to bolster a failing reputation?
I just bought the D800 from the same seller but for more money. 15% restock fee for items over $2000 I believe. They changed the price to 1999 and ended quickly when I received my shipping notification. S far so good.
My days of defending Sony are about over. I was oontemplating moving over to FF at the end of this summer so I started comparing prices from the big 3. The a99 is still going for $3,700 body only here (yay Europe) – no rebates, no flash, no grip, nothing. It’s by FAR the most expensive FF camera on the market unless you’re in the market for a D3x – D4 caliber piece of equipment. I love some of the unique features Sony brings to the table, but more importantly – I love the extra food i can bring to my table by avoiding any further Sony purchases. Is the a99 good? Sure. Is it $1,000 better than the D800? Certainly not. Is it $700 better than the 5D3? Again, no.
Don’t even get me started on how overpriced and rare the accessories are, lenses, etc. Hate to say it, but I’m a bit tired of being chumped by Sony’s anti-consumer practices and have come to regret the decision to shoot Sony products. I’ll wait and see what the new mirrorless FF cameras will be before entirely jumping ship…but the new ones better at least match the performance of their market segment competitors – and I’m not willing to spend $4,000+ on a new body FF when the D800 will by then be almost HALF the price and will likely still somp the a99 successor into the ground. Sony – If you want to keep my business you’ve got a helluva lot of work ahead of you.
Took me five seconds to find the A99 for 2400 euros (3200US). The D800 goes for around 2200 euros. Hardly half the price, wouldn’t you say? If you are referring to the D800 going for 2000US (refurbished) on Ebay, then the A99 can be found for as low as 2400US (not refurbished). The not refurbished D800 is about the same price.
Same goes for most Sony lenses, btw.
Maybe you should avoid doing weird comparisons, before avoiding any purchases.
Why is it that every time a person posts something on the internet someone else always chimes in and claims the other is an idiot or doesn’t know what they’re talking about?
http://obchod.fotoskoda.cz/sony-alpha-slta99-telo/ 72,490.00 CZK = 3,746.67 USD
Took me 10 seconds to prove my point – 5 to find the website, 5 for the currency conversion on xe.com. Perhaps you should do your homework my friend before attempting to call someone out on interwebs. If you’re so inclined you’re more than welcome to browse around the site and verify all the numbers from my last post as well. Have some cake.
I should also point out that I’ve tried buying from other countries and shipping here and physically carrying new gear in…both times resulting in hours upon hours of arguing in customs. They make things artificially hard to bring things in from other countries here so you’re basically forced to pay the huge local premiums plus the highest VAT rate in the EU. Legalized and fully government sanctioned highway robbery. Still does not explain the oddball price premium Sony distributors here put on their equipment which is absent from the other guys.
“Why is it that every time a person posts something on the internet someone else always chimes in and claims the other is an idiot or doesn’t know what they’re talking about?”
…..because this is the internet…. duh!
Brian, first of all, I never said you were an “idiot”, I said that your >comparison< doesn't work. And it doesn't. You are comparing an Ebay US price with the price in a webshop in your country and claiming the D800 is twice as cheap. How does that make any sense?
In that shop you linked to, the A99 is 72490 CZK and the D800 is 64990 CZK, which makes the difference at 400US, not 1000US. Then the 5D3 is 77990 CZK. So how is the A99 the "most expensive FF camera on the market"?
I am confused here. If you are buying from the EU, you should be paying only the VAT of the seller's country and delivery, that's it. I have never had any problems with customs either.
Now, shipping from outside the EU is a different story.
My bad on the double price.
“you were just too eager to try and prove someone wrong and skipped a few key sentences in the post”
Yep, apparently, I did. Still don’t get the rest though. I hear that “Don’t even get me started on how overpriced and rare the accessories are, lenses, etc” quite often, yet when I check the prices, they seem to be in line with Canikon (most of the time).
P.P.S….
Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills too (or you were just too eager to try and prove someone wrong and skipped a few key sentences in the post). I stated that the a99 successor would likely be $4,000+ here and that the D800 would likely be nearly half that price when it comes out.
Canon 6d for 1500?
Bye bye sony
Being a non-professional photographer, I can’t justify for myself migration to rather expensive FF Sony camera from, say, A57. Which, in turn, gives everything I need from the photo gadget at the moment.
Do I want to go FF? Would say, yes, but at reasonable price. Otherwise, no.
The image quality shift will be barely noticeable at the full HD TV screen.
Thus, for A99 probably twice as much as A57 (about 1500 usd) is about yes, “ready to go”. But not more. As the camera is heavier, bulkier, less sensitive, slower. The only plus is better overall resolution. Which is already quite sufficient if photo’s are watched at the Full HD TF.
Do I want to switch to CaNikon FF because of their reasonable price? Again Not. And the reason – they lack the A57’s tiltable screen and fast liveview. These I always use in A57 and can’t afford getting rid of them.