MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 24Mpix CMOS from Sony  (Read 6286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 03, 2008, 05:00 »
0


« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2008, 06:37 »
0
Looks promising. Now if only they can find a worthy camera to utilize the full potential of this sensor. Sony themselves don't have one (because their SYSTEM is inadequate to attract serious professionals). Maybe Nikon will be interested in this sensor?

« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2008, 11:08 »
0
What about the Minolta technology they acquired?  My film SLR was a Minolta and its metering system was excellent.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2008, 12:00 »
0
Looks promising. Now if only they can find a worthy camera to utilize the full potential of this sensor. Sony themselves don't have one (because their SYSTEM is inadequate to attract serious professionals). Maybe Nikon will be interested in this sensor?

I'm not sure what adequate would mean to you. Sony now has, in addition to several consumer zooms and all the "usual" primes (20, 35, 50, 100 etc.) a pro-line that consists of 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 85/1.4, 135/1.8. 300/2.8 and with more to come. If I didn't have money invested in Nikon and Olympus, I would have considered Sony very seriously for my work. A 24MP, 6fps FF camera doesn't sound all that bad, particularly not if Sony continues their aggressive pricing of camera bodies.

grp_photo

« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2008, 13:04 »
0
Looks promising. Now if only they can find a worthy camera to utilize the full potential of this sensor. Sony themselves don't have one (because their SYSTEM is inadequate to attract serious professionals). Maybe Nikon will be interested in this sensor?

I'm not sure what adequate would mean to you. Sony now has, in addition to several consumer zooms and all the "usual" primes (20, 35, 50, 100 etc.) a pro-line that consists of 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 85/1.4, 135/1.8. 300/2.8 and with more to come. If I didn't have money invested in Nikon and Olympus, I would have considered Sony very seriously for my work. A 24MP, 6fps FF camera doesn't sound all that bad, particularly not if Sony continues their aggressive pricing of camera bodies.
I agree Sony and others (e.g. Pentax) are certainly on the rise while Canon is lacking behind i would certainly not choose Canon anymore if i start from the scratch, actually i' m seriously considering a system change. I prefer in-Body Shake Reduction and i never liked the user interface of my Canons especially of the 1-Series. While Canon is great in the Tele-range but on the other hand they really suck in the regards of Wideangle it says something that my best WW is a Sigma and even the new 16-35/2.8 despite the high price is just okay but not impressing at all.
I am very curious at the price of the 24MP Sony it's good for us all to have more competition in this market.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2008, 13:06 by grp_photo »

« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2008, 13:55 »
0
My opinion is that Sony and other similar brands (Pentax and Samsung for example) suffers because they don't have enough lenses.

They need at least three different classes: Low budget, standard class and expert class.

« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2008, 14:10 »
0
I agree, and I think they need to be used by professional. Since the great days of Minolta, when there were three "majors" (Nikon as the first and Canon & Minolta struggling to be second) Minolta went down and down. Now Sony will have a huge handicap to fight. Their products seem very interesting, but their main recognition will have to come from professionals. And for now, only Canon and Nikon are side by side, all the others look far behind.

« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2008, 14:24 »
0
I agree that Sony is rising, but they have a long, long way to go still. Sony may appeal to the serious hobbyist, but not the serious professional - maybe in future. Currently they have no truly weather sealed rugged high speed camera, no super telephotos, no speciality lenses like the tilt and shift lenses, very few fast prime lenses. This is what set a truly professional camera system apart from the rest.  I can see the benefit of in-camera IS, but the consensus is that IS in the lens is still more effective. That is why you pay $$$ to have the best.

« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2008, 19:07 »
0
Am I wrong, don't all the Nikon cameras already use Sony sensors?  I thought they told me that in the store when I was buying my D200.  Nikon hopefully has the options to this new baby locked up already.

« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2008, 00:16 »
0
Let's have a quick look at realities:

Sony launched their first DSLR 20 months ago, the A100, which was basically an upgraded, re-badged KM 5D. Currently, they sell 4 different DSLR models, ranging from 10-14MP. According to the rumours, they will launch 4 more models within 2008, of which 3 will be full frame. Nobody else have that.

Currently, they have 26 different lenses in their line-up, and new ones are appearing all the time. Surprisingly many of the lenses are pro quality.

If we look at a comparable market, the pro video market, Sony has owned the top segment there more or less uninterrupted since 1982, when they launched Betacam. In other words: they know the pro market, and how to handle it.

Sony has not entered this market to be number 3 or 4. They are going for top spot, and the obvious target is Canon. If they do this the right way, and so far, it has been relatively promising, they are number two or better within 3 years.

And for those who think that electronic corporations can't get that far within the photo business: how many cameras did Panasonic, Samsung and Casio sell 10 years ago? If it wasn't zero, it was very close. And Nokia? I suppose that in reality, they are the biggest camera manufacturer in the world.

I don't think I'll change to Sony overnight, unless one of those 24MP cameras are very, very cheap, but if was going to buy my first DSLR, I would have considered it very carefully.

« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2008, 03:00 »
0
The main problem is that I don't foresee a lot of people selling all their lenses to jump into the Sony system unless they would come out with something really revolutionary (like it was the fast Canon AF that made switch all the pro news-sports shooters from Nikon).

24 MP aren't that revolutionary thing indeed because with Bayer tech with that pixels density it all comes down to how much the lenses can resolve and noise issues. That's why Nikon D3 remained very conservative on MP to excel in noise, I think a pro (and myself too) would prefer a noiseless 12 MP shot at 1600 ISO than a noisy 24 MP that need recropping anyway to become usable.

For what I'm hearing it's Kodak now that has the potential to come out with a sensor that can really turn the tables getting rid of the Bayer grid.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3040 Views
Last post August 23, 2007, 12:34
by vonkara
7 Replies
6490 Views
Last post September 03, 2010, 17:54
by cascoly
12 Replies
7458 Views
Last post December 04, 2010, 00:40
by red
6 Replies
7571 Views
Last post September 16, 2011, 02:20
by lawrencebrussel
10 Replies
8071 Views
Last post August 04, 2013, 17:31
by bspudd

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors