d_g5 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 At 24mp, a Full Frame Sensor, Anti-Shake, and reports of an entry price of about $2,700 like the full frame Canon 5D... <b>Will you be looking to buy this camera?</b> <b>Why exactly?</b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardovaste Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Because there just isnt a high quality APS-C wide angle/practical lens out there. Nothing fast wide angle either. Those are my main reasons, they are valid and partly why i still shoot 35mm. However, I would not use it at 24MP. My PC couldnt deal with those sort of files. And I'm not buying a new one, I just did! We can assume it will have the option to shoot at a lower resolution... 18MP?16MP?12MP? Who knows, anything smaller than 24 will do me fine please! And all the other bells and whistles are always nice. Sturdy construction - die hard in fact. Oh and another BIG reason would be the viewfinder. BIG AND BRIGHT please. Only then can i use MF lenses properly or atleast MF with ease. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_brotherton Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'll have my credit cards paid off in about 6 weeks and will be saving about $700 a month as a kitty for things like this. I am not sure I really want the full frame but I will want to try it "hands-on" to be sure. I have bought my last 4 cameras based on reviews and user reports but this one will require the certainty that only comes with actually using it. I also expect it will be over $3500, closer to $4000 and will blow all of the competition away, especially the Canon 5D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardovaste Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Canon are updating and releasing the new 5D (7D) at the same time remember, so that may not be 'blown' away as such. I too believe it will be around the $3500 mark. So about 2 million here in the UK. Far too much for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmorgan Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 At a price around $2700, for sure, as it goes up from there, I would have to think harder. <br><br> The reason is: I have a bunch of Minolta lenses that I like, and I would like to have the use of my wide angles back. <br><br>    ...Tom M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timb196 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 me! Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drjedsmith Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 At some point I will probably be investing in a FF DSLR - either when they quit making slide film :-) or when it just is no longer feasible cost wise for me to shoot it. Hopefully that will be many years beyond the first "A900" or whatever it will be called.<BR> On the other hand, I'm sure my wife will be interested in trying to scrape enough funds together for one of these as soon as possible. FF really does have advantage over APS-C...a larger format has always been more desireable in certain circumstances.<BR><BR> Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_g5 Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 The only 3 reasons I'll spring for it is Full Frame (so my Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 will mean something again and I can for continue to scoff at the Ziess 24-70 F2.8), Low Noise! Hopefull it'll have a frickin 10gig internal Buffer so that it'll be able to do 5.5fps up till 36 shots (just like the film Maxxum 9!). Pray that the grip will have a built in wireless transmitter for files and an internal 10gig SSD (keep prayin and dreamin DG)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_paul1 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I have been waiting for 5 years, if not longer, for this FF DSLR. The reason is due to the fact that I like shooting ultra-wide angle scenes. I have a Sigma 14mm f/2.8 rectilinear lens, and a Minolta 20mm f/2.8 for that reason. And from what I've heard, the camera will be named the 'Alpha 9', which is the same name of that Minolta named their top of the line film camera in Japan. (In other parts of the world, it was the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 9.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_frater Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I would buy it, if I could afford it, but I think the price will be simply out of my price range. I think you buy the best quality you can afford. A700 will be all I can afford and saying that just afford. That's the camera for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_redmann Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 <I>I also expect it will be over $3500, closer to $4000 and will blow all of the competition away, especially the Canon 5D.</I><P> If it costs that much, then the Canon 5D will <B>not</B> be the competition, because it will be selling for about half that much by then.<P> I salivate over a FF DSLR. It's what I've always wanted. In large part for the prospect of a bigger, brighter viewfinder, and in substantial part for getting the wide end back on my FF lenses. But I can't see buying one for $4000, or even $2000. Really, I think I will be on the sidelines until FF goes under $1500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_frater Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I think it will probably match the Nikon D3 in price. Maybe just a touch cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardovaste Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Its not meant to have any better noise control than the 700. But that clearly isnt its target here. But either way, downsizing a 24mp file at high ISO is going to look good anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_g5 Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 I'm sorry Richard... I'm ultra sure that the A900 will have better High ISO noise control than the A700. Even with a hulking 24MP chip. If they are gonna call it a flagship... it better be about more than just Megapixels and full frame! I know $3,500 isnt a lotta money compared to the Canon 1DS Mark III but gotdarnit... if its in price range of the D3 it had better provide AWESOME noise control up to ISO 6400 for my tastes! I'd better see ISO 6400 look as good as A700's ISO 400 for me to buy it. You know what... thats the only thing that'll make me just plain olde pass on that Hulk. If the hulk has horrible noise like th A100 at ISO 1600 and up (up to a reasonable 3200) I dont know if it would be the camera for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardovaste Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Wells yes any 24MP ISO 6400 full frame downsized is going to be pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_g5 Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 Put it this way... i want low noise iso 6400 at 8x10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djcinsb Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 At $2700, I probably would -- though that is pushing my budget quite a bit. It does depend on the other features for the camera as well, including frame rate and noise characteristics. But I'd like better wide angle options, so the full frame sensor -- and much denser pixel count for images -- are strong selling points for me. That might change if an interesting option (e.g. an A750) also shows up at a nicer price point. Until then, I'll keep using my KM 5D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I will most likely buy it. I have 8 lenses for it. I want full frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I currently have a Canon 5D and three lenses, two of them "L." If the next 5D doesn't incorporate anti-shake/Image stabilization in some form, YES, i am seriously considering a switch to the Sony 24MP cam, if it comes in well under $4000. Where did you get the $2700 price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_ferling Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 The new fullframe is meant to compete with the NEXT 5D, not the current one. The current 5D was in the $3400 range when it was new, and I'm expecting around the same price with the Sony FF. This camera is NOT meant to be a fast, high ISO shooter like the D3 or 1d III. This is a high resolution, landscape/studio type camera. Essentially, if you dream of the 1Ds III and it's resolution, then this is for you. If you dream of the D3 and it's low noise, wait or buy the Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_g5 Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 From my new info... Dougs right... its gonna be more like a 35mm DSLR hassleblad! Not ultra fast but ultra image quality- sonys gonna aim to say it could compete with higher end blads - image quality wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_redmann Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 <I>The new fullframe is meant to compete with the NEXT 5D, not the current one. The current 5D was in the $3400 range when it was new, and I'm expecting around the same price with the Sony FF.</I><P> Yes, the A900 will have to compete with the 5D Mk. II or whatever they call it. But given the pattern, I would expect that when this Canon appears, presumably late this year, it will list for $2999 and fall relatively quickly to $2500 - $2700, with the current 5D, as long as available, going for $2000 or so. In my view, if Sony can't get the initial list price under $3000, it is going to have a problem competing. But that's just my personal view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_ferling Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Yeah, Dave, we'll have to see. I really think this camera is gonna draw a line in the sand. The next 5D will have better noise control, and the "A9" will go for resolution. I know that a lot of people will pay a premium for the latter, because the only other option is the $8K 1Ds III. Shhhh....don't tell Sony, but I'd probably pay freakin' $5K for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_g5 Posted March 4, 2008 Author Share Posted March 4, 2008 Doug... dont ever type on a public forum that you'd pay $5,000 for anything. :) Next thing you know you'll actually be paying $7,000 for an A100! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francoisspenard Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Hi, I'm not certain I'd go for a 24mp camera at more then $1700.00, will it last over 30 years like my Minolta SRT-101 and 102? What I've been looking at, is the new (coming soon) A350 at 14mp with live view and posable LCD screen, now we are talking. I've had my A100 for 2 years now and the quality I'm getting from this camera is fantastic. If I was to invest, I'd go for the Carl Zeiss lens for Sony instead, it's not the camera that make the picture but the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now