Who do you think will release a FF Camera body first

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>You totally ignore the RX-1 has a darn good lens built into its price. Fuji did the same thing<br>

too, only Sony's product was I think chosen one of the best products of the year by Dpreview.<br>

Fuji is still behind Sony and if you read their reviews and their users dissatisfaction with<br>

some of the wrinkles in their designs, then Sony looks more likely to come up with the first<br>

acceptable product. That in no way is a put down of Fuji, I still use the F10 for snaps.<br>

I am with Michael, I don't care who comes up with a FF MILC first. I think that the days<br>

of Dslr are numbered except for a few pros with lots of big lenses.<br>

One more thing, going to FF would require all new E mount lenses, because while<br>

the E mount is big enough to handle a 36x24mm sensor, all the E mount lenses for Nex<br>

cameras are DX lenses. I suspect lots of Zeiss designs will appear and they will be<br>

aimed at a higher price point since DX will be the consumer line and FF will be the high end<br>

enthusiast and photographer line. This is no different than any other manufacturer who<br>

has enough business to cater to different types of customers needs.</p>

 

[mwmcbroom]

<p>At times like this, I wish photo.net didn't have their silly 15-minute edit time limit. Because I finally got curious about the new Sony Handycam NEX VG900 and based on what I've just read, I'd pretty much have not written any of what I just wrote in my previous post. </p>

<p>You know, with the trend these days of including HD video capabilities in still cams, why not the other way around, too -- have camcorders that will also operate as outstanding still cameras? And guess what? That's exactly what the NEX VG900 has the capability of doing, with its 24.3mp FF sensor, and interchangeable lens capability using E mount and A mount with an adapter. I've just finished reading through the specs on this camcorder, and it is not only a feature-laden motion-picture camera, but it also is packed with still-camera features, as well.</p>

<p>No, it is not compact. But so what? Compactness has <em>never</em> been the issue for me. Having a full frame sensor has. And at $3300 list, it's up there with the Canon 5D Mk III in terms of price and even features, but because it's mirrorless, I'd rather have the VG900 over the MkIII, and I'm a dedicated Canon user from way back.</p>

<p>So, I think my searching for a FF MILC is at an end, folks. Yes, the price is much steeper than I'd care for, but that isn't an insurmountable difficulty for me. I don't have the luxury of going further into debt, so it'll just take some extra work and a bit more effort savings-wise before I'll be able to afford one. The fact that it takes the E mount means there's already affordable lenses available for it, too. Although, it will probably have to be used in its APS-C compatible mode when using the current E lenses. Yep, APS-C compatible. Heh.</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>I can see a time when I'd want to carry less bulk and weight that I currently do with a Dslr and bits, yet still get an IQ that stock agencies will accept. For me, compactness /weight would be THE issue, given reassurance on image quality. I use so little of what my FF Dslr is capable of, so some simplification would not pose an issue for me.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>David that was the point where Leica had a following, small form factor, just few manual controls. The weight of Leica RF was pretty heavy and surprising but that was because they<br>

were all metal. I guess you have to have flipped your shooting priorities on end to get<br>

a VG900 video camera as your still camera. If you get it please post a review of how<br>

it handles as a still camera, I don't recall seeing anyone advocating getting a Camcorder<br>

as a still camera.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't care what you nay-sayers say and what reasons you have for saying it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> way to be objective. might as well stick your fingers in your ear and say "i cant hear you!"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>sooner or later, an FF MILC will be a requirement</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> why? i'm not hearing a convincing argument. also, as i pointed out, sony already makes one. so you can just buy that. oh, whats wrong? you wanted one in a rangefinder-sized body at an affordable price? good luck there. tell you what, you get 100,000 of your close friends to buy the RX1 and maybe Sony will think about putting a lens mount in the RX2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You totally ignore the RX-1 has a darn good lens built into its price. Fuji did the same thing<br />too, only Sony's product was I think chosen one of the best products of the year by Dpreview.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not ignoring it, i just dont think it's all that relevant. is the lens better than the x100's? not really. so what's the advantage of a FF compact? um, let's see, 1 stop more shallow DoF and 1 stop better hi-ISO for 2.5x-3x the cost. worth it? not for most folks. to me the deal breaker is the UI, which sort of puts training wheels on a Ferrari, by making it a point and shoot with an advanced sensor and a fast, hi-quality lens. especially when i can get a Ricoh GR for $800 (or a sigma dp1 for 1/2 that). so who's the market for the RX1? let me know when you have an answer for that, divide it by 1/2 to 1/3rd, and there's your market for a FF MILC.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that the days<br />of Dslr are numbered except for a few pros with lots of big lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, if that's the case--and im not saying it is-- the compact mirrorless cameras which are replacing them arent FF, they are APS-C or smaller-sized sensors.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Compactness has <em>never</em> been the issue for me. Having a full frame sensor has. And at $3300 list, it's up there with the Canon 5D Mk III in terms of price and even features, but because it's mirrorless, I'd rather have the VG900 over the MkIII, and I'm a dedicated Canon user from way back.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>huh? i think this thread just jumped the shark.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The full frame mirrorless camera could be a dslr replacement, not a "compact." One that addresses the traditional big lens uses, sports, action, nature, etc. It wouldn't necessarily need to be compact because little it's used with would be either. Big lenses take big tripods and big tripod heads, etc. One could have a largish rear finder that swivels, etc., and not be concerned it adds so much bulk that you can't put the camera in your shirt pocket. This could also provide for larger batteries, more robust focus drive motors, etc. There's be room for added functionality in controls and not a need to minimize real estate used and the potential for unpopular menu trees and the like. One could have proper connectivity. Sony might even work a way to easily utilize both A and E mount lenses. In the general sense of the thread title, I'd guess Sony. I think they are closer - but it wouldn't be the first time one of the apparent leaders was leapfrogged. It seems to me there have been several instances where an early standout product was overtaken and then that company struggled to get back out in front again.</p>

<p>A larger body, from any maker, might lend itself to modular mounts that allow a wider variety of lens compatibility. Sony probably doesn't mind other mfrs making adapters if it helps them sell NEX bodies. While I'm sure they'd rather sell their own lenses, slr/dslr bodies seem to turn over faster than lenses do anyways, so there is some advantage to this. Whether the manufacturers will grit their teeth and work together or whether this remains more the domain of 3rd party "adapter" sources remains to be seen. It would certainly tantalize the system owners who lust after those one or two lenses in "the other guy's" line up.</p>

<p>Even so not all of the existing ff lenses of longer focal lengths are monsters. Just as an example, the KM 100-300 APO D is rather small, it appears to be less than two inches longer than my Nikon 18-70 "kit" lens. It's screw drive and not blessed with fast apertures but given the usability of higher isos these days, that's less an impediment than it used to be.</p>

<p>Cameras like the Sony RX1 and RX100 and similar cameras from other makers show where the compact world might be heading, along with the "But I can't do..." or "It doesn't have..." discussions that go with them.</p>

<p>For most of us, these wish lists are spending someone else's money anyways. Outside of the niche cameras or engineering tours de force, there's got to be some product that sells enough and makes enough money to drive the company forward.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<blockquote>

<p>Sony might even work a way to easily utilize both A and E mount lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No maybe to it, Sony already has with the VG900. It accepts the E-mount lenses natively and comes with an adapter for the A-mount lenses. To use the existent E-mount lenses and not run into severe vignetting issues, the VG900 can be run in "APS-C Compatibility mode." This provides the user with the best of extant worlds, namely E-mount APS-C, A-mount full-frame, plus a universe of legacy glass that can be mounted with adapters. And it allows for future FF-dedicated E-mount lenses as they become available.</p>

<p>So if you don't want to go with the VG900, and I can see why people wouldn't, what's important to take away from this is that Sony has already developed and implemented this technology. So there's no reason why it can't be included in another form factor.</p>

<p>If I had to guess, I'd say that Sony will release the NEX 9 that will sell for around $2,000, maybe a few hundred more with a new E-mount FF kit zoom of a modest range, say 24-70mm. And that they will follow this model up in about a year or so, with one that has updated tech, but various features removed, which will sell for closer to $1,000. I'm using the NEX 7 and NEX 6 as possible studies for this strategy. These are perhaps overly optimistic numbers, but one can hope. I just can't help but think that an RX-1 price level won't be in the cards for this type of camera.</p>

<p>Also, one should realize that any future FF E-mount lens need not be restricted for use on a FF NEX. Just as I can mount any Canon EF lens to my APS-C EOS, why shouldn't the new E-Mount NEX lenses be the same way? Yes, the wides won't be as effective, but the teles will be more effective, won't they?</p>

<p>Sony sure seems to have the lead, from a technological standpoint, but I still say, don't rule the others out. The FF mirrorless Pentax, for example, that's been rumored for quite a long while, is now being discussed again after a recent anonymous rumor got some traction. I wonder how closely camera makers pay attention to rumors. If nothing else, it would give them some indication of pent-up demand for the new product.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>If Leica can do it with their M9, M-E and new M240, someone else should be able to do it at a more reasonable price and with wide lens mount acceptability (with adapters). A FF Nex-7 would be interesting.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for the third time, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a99">sony already has a mirrorless FF camera</a>. what's wrong with that?</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>I can only assume that they were hoping for a mirrorless FF camera in a P&S body style. Why, b/c the illusion that this small body is more compact and portable. However, this will change soon after you put a lens on it. The SONY RX1 is not pocketable while the Nikon A with an APSC sensor and a f2.8 lens is. Indeed, if you don't care for a more compact package, why bother with a mirrorless design, whose contrast-based AF is still no match with the very best using phase-detection AF. BTW, it seems that the Leica Mini M will have an APS-C sensor as well not a FF sensor.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>Leica is too expensive, and so far IQ wasn't up to the price. Compact, where did that come<br>

from? Dslr vs. mirrorless, no prism or mirror box, a mirrorless starts with a flat form factor<br>

and flange distance can be short like a rangefinder, and rangefinder lenses are tiny.<br>

I have a Voigtlander 15, 21mm and 35mm that are tiny about the size together as a mid<br>

sized Zoom. My 50mm and 90mm are about half the size of Dslr lenses.<br>

But that isn't the point. The nex 5n has I think 11fps good high iso and its APS-C,<br>

I would expect any like priced Sony FF to be at least the equal of the Nikon D600.<br>

With these 2.4mp low lag HDevf available now I don't see much advantage of a<br>

Dslr. Even Sony is thinking of discontinuing the pellicle mirror Alphas. With full<br>

time live view and focus peaking and the ability to change the aperture on the fly<br>

there is no reason not to go mirrorless in future designs. Less moving parts, faster<br>

FPS. Even legacy lenses are better handled by Nex now.<br>

Since its been demonstrated that the Nex E mount is large enough for FF lenses and<br>

sensors, the APS-c can operate in crop mode for backwards compatibility.<br>

And of course they should also on top of these advantages be smaller, lighter <br>

too.</p>

 

[cc_chang2]

<p>There is a limit of how small you can make the lenses by just taking out the mirrors. If we compare the size of the NEX lens to those used by regular APS-C cameras, the difference is very small especially when the fl increases. For example,<br>

The NEX 50/1.8 uses 49 mm filter and weighs 206g, while the Nikon 50/1.8 uses 58mm filter and weighs 187 g.<br>

The NEX 35/1.8 uses 49 mm filters and weighs 155g, while the Nikon 35/1.8 is 52mm/200g. <br>

The NEX 18-200 super zoom is 67mm/524g, while that from Tamron is 62mm/398g (The Nikon version is 72mm/560g).<br>

The lens on the RX1 is massive ...</p>

<p>So what will be the selling points for such a FF mirror-less camera? SONY is losing money in its electronic division so they are not going to make any thing unless they are sure that they can make a profit. The wish lists from just a few of us are not going to change their mind. It is interesting to note that even Leica is not jumping on making a cheaper and smaller FF mirror-less, which should tell us something ....</p>

<p> </p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>Look up a Leica 35mm f2 M , a Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 M or a Leica or Voightlander 50mm<br>

or even a 90mm tele elmarit f2.8. These are all full frame lenses from mirrorless 35mm <br>

film cameras. They are tiny.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Not to mention Contax G series lenses. Those are small, full frame and AF, and there is an adapter for E mount with AF. (I think that) if you had a VG900 or a hypothetical NEX-9 or whatever it would be called you could get the adapter and, say, the Contax G series 21, 45 and 90mm lenses and immediately have a useful set of full frame, small, AF Zeiss lenses.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>AF lenses across OEM is problematical for a adapter maker to make sure that the focus<br>

accuracy and speed is right. I don't see Sony doing it for the few G mount rangefinders<br>

out there.<br>

That is why so many like to mount fully manual Leica, Canon FD and OM Zuiko lenses<br>

sure you need AF for a few fast moving subjects, but for portraits, landscapes and many<br>

situations in street photography the small Nex at waist level (TLR style) zone focused at f5.6<br>

does an amazing job in not being seen taking your pictures. </p>

 

[mwmcbroom]

<blockquote>

<p>for the third time, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a99" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">sony already has a mirrorless FF camera</a>. what's wrong with that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true. The Alpha SLT A99 uses a fixed, semi-transparent, pellicle-style mirror. So it has the same registration distance of all the other Alpha cameras, which, for those of us who want to use MF lenses with registration distances that aren't compatible with Alpha's, is of no value.</p>