A source told me what Sony plans to launch as next high-end fixed lens camera:
They are planning a rz version with 24-70 f2 zoom
Well, that sounds like a very nice lens! But the source did not tell me what the sensor size of the camera will be. My guess is that it uses an 1 inch sensor. Full Frame sensor would make little sense as such a lens would definitely be huge.
–
Stay tuned on SAR and subscribe the newsletter to get info when it matters:
[wysija_form id=”1″]
To not miss any rumor quickly subscribe our social network:
RSS feed: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sonyalpharumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonyAlphaRumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/104216500156717934391/posts
If you have some “rumor” to share just send me an anonymous messages here:
at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com or use the contact form you see on the right top of this site.
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
98 Responses
Probably the RX100 V which already has a 24-70mm f/1.8-2.8 lens with a 1″ sensor.
Sounds wierd. At that sensor size, they could put 24-200mm f2 and still have fairly compact size, like lumix fz series.
Not if the sensor is bigger tho.
The R1 was a epic camera, but something more compact would be even greater.
A 24-200mm constant f/2 would be huge. I’m guessing the Lumix is not constant f/2.
Have you seen the size of the 24-200 f/2.8 lens on the RX10 II? Now imagine a constant f/2 version.
No, its not. Fz200 was constant f2.8 with a smaller sensor though. Fz1000 is 2.8 on a 1 inch sensor, 24-400mm i think. Still not so huge. But still, i think both options, superzoom or 24-70/2 on 1″ sensor are too similar offers to rx10. They should instead build compact 50mm f1.4 on that sensor size.
FZ1000 is f/2.8 – f/4, big difference.
rx10 is 24-200 f2.8, fyi
Who says anything about rx10?
It gives you an idea of what the physical size of your theoretical lens must be larger than.
Thats why i said “fairly compact”. For a lens of that range, rx10 is still a compact camera. Compare it to a full frame 24-200mm lens. It is all relative. The compromises between sensor size and lens coverage/aperture is probably what makes the biggest single difference between cameras.
When you take all variables into account, like DOF and equivalent sensor noise to compensate with ISO, RX10 Lens would be comparable to a FF 24-200 with f-stop at around f6.3 constant.
Do you have such a FF lens, so that we can compare? I sure dont.
just to put numbers into perspective, you are not going to get a ‘fairly compact’ camera with ur theoretical lens by any means of measure, unless you are more than 2 meters tall and have big hands to go with. If you want a 24-200 f2 equivalent on a 1″ sensor size, your lens diameter at the telephoto end needs to be at least 1.5 times the size of rx10’s lens at telephoto, >1.5 (probably 1.8-2 times) times the lens diameter at 24mm (which essentially moot my previous point) and more bulbous elements to correct for wide field coverage, and not to mention, thicker and heavier elements along the way.
So, don’t be over-greedy with what you wish for. Physics is your biggest dream-crusher.
I have never seen a full frame 24-200 f2. All I know is such a lens would be not insignificantly larger than the rx10 lens.
Doesn’t make any sense to use a new naming.
But if it is a 24-70 equiv. on APS-C with compact design, it’s more than welcome.
Unfortunate a zoom lens. I was hoping for a stripped-down RX1 with APS-C sensor or a different RX1 with a 50mm or 28mm prime.
gotta be a bigger sensor than 1 inch. We already have rx100mk4. apsc maybe?
Probably gonna be RX10 sized. If they can stick that lens in a RX100 body I would be extremely impressed.
Hmm.. just wondering if this is going to be like the Canon G9X – a reduced size stripped back version of the RX100. The RX100 is a bit ‘flabby’ now, with the tilt screen, built in EVF etc. I own one and it only just squeezes into my jacket pocket (and it’s a heavy lump).
The rumoured RZ specs sound very similar to the G9X (which has an f2.0 28-84mm zoom) and it also uses the Sony 1″ sensor. Clearly Sony and Canon and marching in lock step with some of their products at the moment. So my guess is that the RZ will be like an RX100 but with a reduced zoom range, no tilt screen and no built-in EVF.
That is f2-f4.9 though.
Sure, but there has been no mention of the upper end f-value for the rumoured RZ. Could be f2-f4.9, could be f2-f2.8, or could be f2 all the way. We just don’t know yet.
Usually, when only one f stop is given, it means that the zoom has a constant aperture.
He was talking about this canon. it’s not a constant f2, as you’ve mentioned, but is rather f2-f4.9.
That would make sense. A more direct replacement for the original RX100 to compete with the G9X.
Presumably this means f2 the whole way; which would make the long end a lot more tempting at the long end. So I’m guessing it’s upmarket from the RX series which is 1.8 – 2.8?
I don’t know anything, but it would be great, if they make it the lil’ brother of the RX 100 mk IV. That thing is quite expensive, but has a lot in it. So, let’s see if the remove the EVF (add a hotshoe instead) make a slightly slower lens, maybe a mic input, and you have the ultimate vlog camera for the masses. With the same sensor and proccessing, it could stand up in bigger rigs also. Put some brushless 3 axis gimbal under it and a proper mic preamp, and you’re good to go!
If you want to play fancy, add an external recorder or so….
What if it is FF with that notorious curved sensor?
Curved sensor can only work with a fixed focal length.
Fixed curvature of the focal plane is just another constraint. I guess it could be satisfied even for a zoom if some other constraints are relaxed.
How bout a flexible curved sensor, that flexes with the zoom?
Videodrome!
nope, not a problem at all. The focus plane of a lens is naturally curved instead of being flat, optical engineers also have to work hard to make it flat. A curved sensor, even not flexible, would only make everything easier.
Making a focal plane curve the exact same way across a zoom range would, in fact, be very hard. At least there’s a lot of conventional optical theory around making a planar focal plane.
Yeah, but don’t forget that focal plane flattens as you zoom in. How do you make your sensor un-curve itself to compensate?
So…which one is more high-ended, RX or RZ?
RT
I suspect RZ, coz Z is usually used in flagships for sony products.
xperia z, vaio z, etc.
x is usually just behind z.
Perhaps, but what would the price point be for the RZ? Can’t see it being higher than the RX cameras since that would put it squarely up against the a7 cameras.
Maybe RZ will become an APS-C compact?
APS-C? Yes, please.
4K? Yes please.
It would be the almost perfect ENG cam (bar sound capture)
A rumor based on a typo.
I would rather have a 24-120mm (equiv.) f/2.8, or even f/3.4 Assuming 1″ sensor, with APS-C a 5x f/2.8 zoom would be a monster 😉
Oh, and put some threads on it so I can mount a polarizer please!
Take away EVF, add mic-in and touchscreen and BAM – you have camera for vlogs, casual shooting, walkaround etc. Will be best-selling cam of the year for sure.
Why would you remove the EVF?
If this is the RX line, the EVF on the RX100 is TINY and it’s almost unusable.
I didn’t find that is the case at all when I tried one out.
I wear glasses and found the EVF extremely usable even with them on.
There are many things I don’t like about my RX100iii, including having to popup the EVF, but I find the EVF quite usable.
Both my Super 8 cameras have CONSTANT 1.4 & 1.9 apertures on their zooms, and the quality is pretty good considering the format. I’ve always thought it was a sham that P&S cameras can’t achieve fast apertures. In fact Olympus should have a whole range of professional f2 zooms at this point. If you have a small sensor you gotta make up for it with a faster lens.
Olympus did have f2 zooms, but their size was equivalent to a 2.8 FF lens. Then again, the quality was, arguable, better than the Canon or Nikon counterparts (apparently) but their depth of field was f4 equivalent in FF so… compromises still.
In terms of DOF (for the same AOV), an f/1.4 zoom on Super 8 would correspond to an f/3.2 zoom on 1″ (eg, RX100); we already have that with with the RX100 III (& IV) and the RX10.
Actually, F/1.4 with Super 8 is F/8.7 FF eq. and F/2 with a 1″ sensor would equal FF with F/5.4, F/2.8 would look like F/7.5.
It appears like last year’s proclamations that P&S’s are dead was a bit premature. They are not dead they just smell funny, and they tripled the prices on all these…cough, hack, wheez…..
P&S is shrinking because of smartphones. But there is still the sub-group of premium P&S. Looks like this sector is growing. But it is still too small to play a role in the overal P&S statistic.
I get it, i was a humorous observation, We all know about P&S’s and phones. Meanwhile I can’t bring myself to drip $1000 on an RX100Vi, no way
Sigma 24-70 f/2 lens sounds more interesting
Come on, Nikon is working on D5… screw “compactness”, bring out the big guns Sony!
this could be the rumored ‘high end’ camera, a high end compact camera instead of a99ii.
Perhaps Sony will put their 4/3 sensor on it?
Saw that Nikon is preparing themselves for the D5. Where is Sony answer? We need another speed demon like the ILCA-77M2 but Fullframe (and instead of 79 AF points with only 15 cross-type points, we need a full cross-type module for speed and OSPDAF points for precision)
D5 is going to be $7,000 still camera, Sony doesn’t compete in that very small niche market.
They should give options to everyone. And so far, Sports photography is a big thing everywhere. Even in my country I have seen so many photogs with expensive 500/4 and 300/2.8 lenses matched with D4S and I’m not in a developed country.
The point still stands that Sony has never made a camera that competes against Nikon D (3-5) or Canon 1D series. Whether they should do it in future or not, is a different story, It’s highly unlikely Sony is concerned about D5 series cameras at this time. They need to release A6000 upgrade and cheaper FF cameras and lenses.
They also never made an Alpha camera with a pricetag above 3000USD yet they have just done that, twice in less than 6 months.
So they could easily release something to compete against a Dx series or 1D series.
How likely do you think is it that these photographers suddenly sell all their Canon gear and switch to Sony A mount? Why should Sony waste time and money with that?
What people expect from Sony now is a DSLR-like mirrorless pro body to mount all their heavy lenses on it. It will be rather a D810 not D4S. Taking it slower and going the high MP/DR race is a battle they can win (like with Canon 5DS) and it gives them time to develop competitive highend AF.
This pro-body needs to do two things:
1. Those who are already using a A7 camera with lenses need to be pulled deeper into the system. They should let loose of their remaining Canon and Nikon bodies, which they keep for certain situations, and use their great E mount lenses in any occasion.
2. To convince the last remaining hesitaters to try out E mount with different ergonomics as a second body too. There are a lot of photographers out there who heard the fuss about E mount and Sony and are curious but the small bodies don’t make any sense for them because they only use huge lenses.
4th phase of the Sony world domination plan (phase 1 = introduction of a revolutionary technology (A7 series), 2 = maturing the technology to high user satisfaction (A7MII series), 3 = broaden your product range (A9 pro body)) is than to make these last switchers a 100% Sony customer by offering them head-to-head performance with Canon/Nikon. They make their Sony body their primary tool and maybe use an MILC as a second support body.
If it was APSC with a collapsible lens then yes.
I pressume that ‘RZ’ is a typo & it should have been RX ? If so why hasn’t this been corrected ??
RZ? Sounds like a new flagship, since Z tends to be used in top tier products (vaio z, xperia z, etc)
Probably ff. 4/3 might be possible of it’s a 24-70 f.2, for size reasons…
“Probably ff”
Full frame?
With a fixed lens…still possible? Maybe it doesn’t have to be too much bigger than the 24-70/4 therefore still managable?
If it has fixed f/2 aperture, FF or even APS-C sensor would be unlikely and indeed m43 sensor would be more realistic. However, adding yet another sensor size to the many Sony camera lines sounds confusing. Smaller (1 inch sensor) wouldn’t make sense because they already have that with RX100-III/IV, although with slightly different lens.
But I can imagine a ‘zoom’ version of the RX1RII (FF) with variable aperture zoom. That would sure be a new flagship.
Medium format f/2 zoom, top tier indeed!!! hahaha
(I dream… but I haven’t hit the gym enough to have the guns needed to carry around such a camera)
RZ 24-70 f/2 E-mount lens.
Sony already has a compact camera with a fixed Zeiss zoom and a 1″ sensor. My guess is it’ll have an APS-C sensor, which would be awesome.
Maybe to bust the bulle of some but there is a physical limit to the minimum first lens diameter related to the apperture, focal length and sensor size.
It is for a reason that the big zooms have such huge front lenses.
for F2.0 at 70mm following minimum front lens diameter is neccesary
1 inch 56mm
APS 100mm
FF 152mm
To compare that for F2.0 at 24mm following minimum front lens diameter is neccesary
1 inch 19mm
APS 34mm
FF 52mm
This also is the simple physical explenation for the zoom objectives getting worse apperatures with increased zoom.
But I agree the RZ is likely a high end camera, but eighter not as Compact as the RX100 or a smaller sensor if the lens characteristics are right
What math are you using here?
The limiting factor here is the aperture size. Front elements can be a variety of sizes depending on FOV and optical design.
For a 1″ system with a constant f/2.0 aperture, the aperture at 70mm equiv. is ~13mm and at 24mm equiv. is ~4.5mm.
Where the heck do you get those figures from?
I thought you needed to divide the focal length by the aperture, so for 70mm at f/2 the aperture minimum would be 35mm.
Also sensor size doesn’t make any difference here. Remember on 1 inch sensors, 24mm equivalent is really 8.8mm or something.
It isn’t the front element as such, but it does factor in to an extent. And yes, it is a ratio to FL, so 1:2 would mean the physical apparent aperture would need to have HALF the diameter of the FL, not double like this guy is suggesting.
A 1″ sensor with 2.7x crop factor means it needs approx 26mm lens to be 70mm equiv, which means it would need a 13mm aperture. On FF it would need a 35mm aperture.
Observing from the optical axis at infinity, apparent aperture does determine the minimum diameter of the front element (otherwise you would not see the whole aperture from the front element). But in practice you need somewhat more to reduce vignetting (so light could come off-axis too). How much more depends on focal length/AoV (wides need much more while teles just a little, because on wides light can come more off axis) and vignetting target.
The aperture is behind glass, which goes through a magnification process, which can make it look larger than it physically is. But yes, generally speaking there is a limitation that it needs the front element to be bigger than the apparent aperture.
But still, the guys math is backwards.
Of course. f/N rule is about the diameter of the apparent aperture, not the real one.
First, check your math. You are way off. A FF 152mm was supposed to tell you that. Here is an A mount 135mm zeiss with f1.8 – SAL135F18z. And guess what, it’s filter thread is 77mm, so the front element is about 75mm.
I want to say something bad about your stupidity, but nothing comes to mind, because of how outrageous your calculations are….
Interchangeable lens body with a set of fast micro lenses would be really nice!
A fixed lens with the Sony made m43 20 mp sensor found in the GX8 would be nice. Even if they used a portion of the sensor like the lx100.
Uhm considering that wouldn’t really be any better than 1″ I’m not sure why they’d bother.
Cropping 20-25% of a MFT sensor would still give you a much larger sensor than the 1″, and larger pixels.
1″ sensor = 116 mm^2
M43 sensor = 225 mm^2
That’s why they bothered with the LX100.
Yet the LX100 doesn’t perform any better than the RX100 IV.
Haven’t shot with either one not have I come across a head to head.
I have extensively used the IV and own the LX100. There is little advantage to the LX100, though it’s controls are somewhat better (but lacks in other areas). IQ is similar from a sensor standpoint and you can compare using DXO if that helps.
Not interested in either camera. They are both seriously flawed for my use.
I’m just saying if Sony were to design a new fixed lens compact the 20 mp m43 sensor is prob an option.
Well I was just pointing out that there is no advantage with going that route with ‘cropping’ the sensor, especially as the 20MP 1″ is a more capable and advanced design.
I kind of disagree with that statement but we can agree to disagree.
What is there to disagree with?
You have no factual basis to back your statement. Sony makes both sensors, and they are both state of the art. All else equal, I am taking the one with larger pixels and more area to achieve a better raw file.
Sensor technology in the LX100 is worse than in RX100IV. LX100 does offer a shallower DOF though.
Make it be multi aspect ratio like the GH2
What if curved sensor, then 24-70 lens with FF sensor may be achievable in compact design?
Is an APSC fixed lens 🙂
RZ is not RX. While RX already covers 1″ and FF.
We are both saying the same thing. My comparison was using 1″ as the reference point, with f/2 and f/3.2, as the camera rumoured here could quite likely have a 1″ sensor (an f/2 zoom on 1″ would be 1.5 stops ‘faster’ in terms of DOF than this f/1.4 zoom on Super 8).
And your comparison uses FF as the reference point, with f/5.4 and f/8. But the relative difference is naturally the same, a 1.6x factor, regardless which reference format one uses.