waiting for a full frame Sony alpha

[orensztajn]

Sorry in my expresion, I didn't wanted to say Sony has to stop making CCD, but for a FF I think a CMOS will do that Sony can make a competition in price to Canon.

[james_frater]

Give it a couple of years and full frame sensors will be the norm for digital SLR's. It's only common sense and logical.

 

Prices will always come down, as more and more people buy digital SLR's and the price will come down.

 

Only a couple of years ago, plasma & LCD TV's were in some cases 4 to 5 times the price now.

 

A long time will in reality be about 2 or 3 years, but more like 2.

[ricardovaste]

I'm not really familiar with DSLR's but the A100 or the next Sony DSLR will probably be the camera i'll be picking up second hand in a few years down the line, when i decide to/have the money to buy one. If its a Full-Frame DSLR will i be able to use the older Minolta AF lenses without any problems on one of these cameras? or will there be an issue when the 'AS' [or whatever its called now] is used?

 

Should I, instead of buying some of the high quality minolta lenses, be buying some of the third party lenses that are designed to be used with DSLR's aswel?

 

Im probably not making much sense but that's because my 'digital knowledge' is fairly low for obvious reasons. I'd appreciate anyones input/advice on this. Thanks, Richard

[nate_macdonald]

I'm well aware that the vast majority of K/M lenses are full frame lenses. I'm not saying Sony won't release a full frame sensor camera,

assuming their dSLR line is going to be succesfull, it's quite likely that they will...eventually.

 

Given that they've just entered into the dSLR market, it would be a considerable risk to release a camera with an expensive full frame sensor right off the bat. Sony has the luxury of being able to absorb the loss if the camera floped, and they'd probably still be ok by selling the sensor to Nikon/Pentax regardless. I do think Sony is quite capable of releasing a FF camera, I'd be quite surprised if they didn't have such a sensor in development or maybe even ready to go. I still don't expect it to be coming anytime soon, but I'd be very happy if it did.

[robert_paul1]

Nate, why do you assume that a full frame sensor has to be expensive? With the advances in technology and manufacturering techniques, as well as producing items in China, prices drop all the time. In the wonderful world of electronics, you never know what the future will bring.

[andrew robertson]

"How LONG are you talking about?"

 

Not only has Sony never expressed any desire to make a full frame DSLR, but they don't

have the chips for it to boot!

[orensztajn]

Well, to prices to go down you need demand, who is buying the D5 for 3.500 Euros (or somenthing like that), no many.

I think the majority are happy with the result of their APS-C sensor (at least I am).

So the prices of 10 FF are not the same as a volume market, that is why we are seeing plasma TV going down.

Demand and competition will do a FF sensor cheap, while we have only Canon the FF will be expensive, I just hope Sony will come with a FF to compite.

 

At the end it will be good for us.

[craig_gillette]

Robert,

 

Given that Canon has successfully brought a full frame sensor to market, if my sole goal in life were to have a full frame camera, I'd sell everything I had or needed to and buy a Canon. If my sole goal in life were to have a Sony-sensored Maxxum mount dslr, I'd wait until Sony delivered one.

 

But you are likely to have to wait a long time for a variety of reasons. You've been presented with what I think are the reasons. Others have pointed out many of the same reasons and other reasons as well. You don't like them. I'm not even sure you understand them.

 

I'm not going to work through every single lens out there to listen to you explain that it must mean Sony has a full frame camera ready for release.

 

Keep digging, there must be a pony in there someplace.

[cmphoto1]

" why do you assume that a full frame sensor has to be expensive?"

 

Real-estate costs money. If you buy 2 acres of land, it will cost you more than 1. All else being equal, an APS-c sized sensor will always cost more than a FF sensor. And, just because Sony makes it and develops it, that does not mean it will be free, or even cheap.

 

One question I have that I am not sure anybody here has a real answer to is relative to the cost to make an entire dSLR, how much is the sensor?

 

I think you still need to go back to the Canon D5/KM 7D comparison. Similar specs and build quality, close to the same camera forgetting the sensor. D5 was twice the price at introduction with just the larger sensor. Admittedly, there is a LOT that goes into that price aside from the sensor and the comparison is by no means perfect, but that is a big jump. What that says to me is that the sensor is a bog part of the cost of a dSLR.

 

That could be part of the reason why Sony developed a different 10.2mo sensor for the A100 instead of using the D200 chip.

 

I still think that, if Sony does not come out with a FF camera at Photokina, or PMA, it is not a sign of the Apocalypse. And, I have a feeling that it will also not be the sign that Robert will unload his Minolta glass.

 

chad

[jamesdak]

All this talk about a full frame sensor! I for one could care less right now. I'm still trying to master the art of photoshop. But, even my meager skills are providing me with prints up to 13x19 inches which is larger than I ever printed from my 35mm slides. In fact I'll be doing a show next spring with images I'm printing at home on my Epson R1800. So, just image what an individual who can really use photoshop can do with an image from a 7D.

[nate_macdonald]

I'm not assuming they're expensive, I know they're expensive.

Of course they're coming down in price as the technology moves forward, but with roughly the same number of pixels per square inch, a full-frame sensor is still going to cost more than an APS sensor. Same as a medium format sensor is still going to cost more than a 35mm full frame.

[._._z]

Oh great, now someone's going to post a "waiting for a medium format digital Sony alpha" thread next....

[andrew robertson]

The only company with an even halfway affordable full frame sensor is Canon, and it's only

because they refined their production technology over the course of the past few years since

the 1Ds came out. Kodak's camera wasn't really very good, and I don't think Contax sold

more than a handful of their N digital. Producing a full frame digital camera is tough, even

for respected and innovative multi-billion companies like Kodak and Kyocera. Saying that

Sony can easily make a full frame DSLR (with anti-shake!) is like saying Sony can easily go to

the moon. Sure, a company can create a full frame DSLR, but can they sell it and make

money? Kodak and Contax couldn't.

[cmphoto1]

The Contax was pulled almost immediately after release because it was either plagued with problems or it was so incredibly bad (dont remember which).

 

As I recall, the Kodak was widely panned. I know one person who had one. She replaced the sensor once. It developed another problem requiring another replacement, but it was out of service at that point. It was also far too slow to be anything but a studio camera.

 

chad

[ilkka]

Canon has made three full frame bodies. 1Ds and 1DsII are basically USD1000 film bodies with digital modifications. Is the difference the price of the chip? Or is Canon making an extraordinary profit from these cameras, being the only manufacturer? Kodak was quite a lot cheaper (but poorer as well). 5D is very competitively priced, compared with both 1Ds versions. Is Canon making less profit from 5D or has the price/technology ratio improved so much in a couple of years? If Sony, or someone else, develops a full frame sensor now, another year later than 5D, how much cheaper would the chip be?

 

Sony is one of the largest electronics companies in the world and produces chips already. To say that only Canon can do full frame CMOS chips and others have to learn to fly to the moon first is more of this silly Canon idolation. My point has been all along: it would be best for Canon users, Nikon users and all other camera users as well if there were more manufacturers of high quality and full frame chips and cameras equipped with them so that we, the customers, would have a choice and Canon would have to keep improving their products and competitiveness instead of being in the enviable position of holding a virtual monopoly as they do now.

[robert_paul1]

It's amazing how many 'canters' there are on this forum. Sony can't do this, Sony can't do that. It's no wonder Minolta/Konica/Minolta is no longer in the photo business. Too many users who can't believe that something new can and will be done. Too many users who thinks Sony is a follower and not a leader.

 

I was reading about when the steam locomotive were first developed and man was able to move faster than they could on horseback. Some people said that man couldn't travel faster than 30 mph, as they wouldn't be able to breathe. Then it was that Man couldn't go faster than the speed of sound. They were quieted by men who had the Right Stuff. Or when man started to try and go to the moon. Some people said it couldn't be done, because they couldn't survive the trip thru the Van Allen Radiation Belt surrounding the earth. I'm beginning to believe that after it was shown that man could go to the moon, these people then bought Minolta cameras and said Minolta/Konica/Minolta can't do this or that. Now these people are Sony's problem. Sad, very sad.

[chris_harley1]

I'm sure Nikon would love to get hold of a Sony FF sensor.There's one market. Canon is making a tidy profit selling FF at pro and prosumer level.Why would Canon make it a cheaper FF camera if there was no demand? If Sony wants to compete then FF would be a natural development.

 

As has been said before I'm sure the Alpha is aimed at P+S users wanting to upgrade and those Minolta users who hadn't gone digital. It's not enough of a change to tempt most 7D users or recent 5D purchasers.

 

If Sony can sell enougth of these cameras then other developments will take place.

[bill_thorlin]

I recently attended a Sony Alpha launch ( see my post of 2 August 2006 ) with Sony personnel present and at the risk of boring you I will quote from that post -

 

" I angled a number of my questions towards the Full Frame aspect of the future. I made it clear that that would be the thing most likely to make me change. I also said that I felt that if they were going to match Canon they would need full frame - this was greeted with mock surprise. Then I mentioned the fact that out of some 20 lenses announced only about 4 were not 35mm ( i.e. of the DT variety ) and only 1 out of 3 0f the Zeiss lenses. The response this time was "Umm yes" with raised eyebrows. Having used up a fair bit of their time I thanked them for their attention and as I left I received a sort of parting shot of "See you at the product launch in about a year or so then !?". Was it a sales promotion effort or was there more to it than that - I cannot of course say for sure but I would not now be surprised."

 

I put the above under a speculation heading but I would also point out that the initial Sony release said that their attentions would in the beginning be focused on the less expensive market - this does NOT preclude them from moving up market thereafter. I do not believe/have not seen any comments at all from Sony ( either yea or nay ) about full frame.

 

Over the years I have seen things that were said to be impossible come about within a matter of a few years and the pace of change is ever more rapid - time will tell.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I'm sure Nikon would love to get hold of a Sony FF sensor.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Sure, but Sony is now in the DSLR business, and, current sensor contracts aside, will likely keep any FF sensor to itself ... especially if it is serious in its stated intentions to become the #2 worldwide seller of DSLRs.

[chris_harley1]

But Nikon already have a big market, it makes more sense in the short-term to spread development costs with Nikon as a customer.

[._._z]

You really think Sony would prefer to offer a jewel like a FF sensor to competitors mere months after it announced it intended to strangle said competitors in the marketplace? I doubt it. Sony has contracts with Nikon and Pentax for sensor chips for an unknown time period. After that it is far more likely that Sony will do precisely what Canon does and keep sensor designs to itself.

[bill_thorlin]

Much depends upon exactly what the contracts between Sony and Nikon and Pentax cover and exactly how much longer they have to run. They could cover :- a) full frame sensor development for Nikon and/or Pentax whereby those companies have exclusive rights to the end product, b) joint venture between all 3 whereby they all have rights to the end product, or c) Sony have gone it alone on such a development with a view to having sole rights.

 

It does seem Sony are in a cannot lose position really because if it is - a) they have the knowledge paid for by others which they can tweak a bit to look different enough to not be infringing any contract or Nikon/Pentax (copy)rights, - if it is b) they have the product with the costs of development shared and the ability to update perhaps for their own use, - or if it is c) they have a product which will give them the edge over Nikon/Pentax and if those two really want it to compete they are over the barrel somewhat as to price and date.

 

At the product launch of the A100 I attended it was hinted ( repeat hinted - which may have been "sales-speak" ) that it might just be that the sensor in the A100 was just that little bit more up to date than the one Nikon have been using. I have seen it said somewhere else ( sorry cannot remember where ) that the sensors were not the same.

 

Oh to be a fly on the wall :)

[nate_macdonald]

Robert, how about reading the posts and responding to what was actually said instead of putting words in people's mouths and drawing your own illogical conclusions?

 

No one is saying Sony can or can't do anything. Everyone is aware of the further potential of digital imaging technology. We all know that as technology advances costs tend to drop and performance improves. We are speculating on what we think we can expect from Sony in the near future, no one has drawn any absolutes because no one here knows what the future holds.

 

Thank you.

[robert_paul1]

"Not only has Sony never expressed any desire to make a full frame DSLR, but they don't have the chips for it to boot!"

 

Nate, one poster made that comment. Another made a comment about how a full-frame sensor would be "expensive" because someone else's full-frame is expensive.

 

All this negative comments adds up to a 'can't do' attitude.

[robert_paul1]

A full-frame DSLR would only be marginally larger, if at all, than an APS-C sensor based DSLR. The majority of 'glass' out there is for a camera that can ultilize a full-frame sensor and have used on 35mm film cameras. The owners of these lenses are used to using them on a camera that ultilizes the larger image circle.

 

The only people that would be at a disadvantage if Sony came out with a full-frame DSLR would be those who bought a 'digital-only' lens. These people are only a small percentage of the 16 million Minolta 'legacy' lenses out there. As I've mentioned in the past these people can be accomodated if Sony came out with a full-frame senor with enough pixels. The problem of seeing a circular image in the viewfinder caused by using a 'digital-only' lens can be solved by putting a magnifying lens that is flipped into position when these lenses are put on a full-frame DSLR, the same way if you put the K/M right angle finder on a SLR and switch to 2X.