Next Gen Alpha FF DSLR

[Dave_Anderson]

Ouch... just goes to show, no amount of $$$ spent on any item will ensure that you don't end up with a mfr. defect...

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Well since I didn't get to play as much as I wished to last time around my friend in deep close contact with Sony, is overnighting me a Sony a900with the Zeiss 24-70 and few Flashes to test out for a shoot that we will do for Sony after the CES here in Vegas.

For the actual shoot I'll get the entire Sony Alpha line up, so that will surely give me a good perspective on the entire system.

This is for a series of Commercial videos for Sony which I will be Directing, and not so much on what and how the camera does, even so it is for the Public, for which Sony desires attract the attention to the Alpha system, and to my understanding at list for now have shown no interested on going after the Pro market, but we know how fast that can change.

I'll be at CES all week to play with all the new toys in the Stereo 3D media for the consumer, big thing in my business what is happening now in 3D, and will also be able to see first hand what rumors are true and which are not, since Sony amongst others will have their full new line of electronics there.

For now look forward in spending some quality time with the a900 and the Zeiss lenses.

 

[Jamesmd]

We are perfect consumers for all brands , profesional or not there is something in us that makes us change equipmetn even if we love it or are happy with what we've got . In my case I was happy with my a700 and CZ glass I still look at shots and think all the money lost since I sold it , went to M8 and a lot of glass , sold it ( loved it but my sight isn't made for RF) an now with a900 , and I'm almost in the same place :-( , yes it's better , but I still don't shoot betert photos , I still only do A4 prints ,....
It's only a hobby for me ( I understand it hapens to pros but there is sone of it too)
the point is we would change all we have just to try a new camera , take the 500 same first shots of each new great camera, and look aoround to see if the next gen is out.

But , I think nobody is going to change us :deadhorse:

cheers

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

so reading this thread, I still have not understood why a MF can do without the AA, and the DSLR cannot...

I might have missed something somewhere...?

(enough with this poor horse getting a wacking)

 

[douglasf13]

It's just a matter of trade offs. No AA and you get more detail, but moire in some instances. With AA, you don't get moire, but sharpening is required to bring back fine detail. I've had cameras with and without AA filters, and neither way is perfect, IMO.

 

[Jamesmd]

Sorry about the donkey , it's only an old expresion , but perhaps you could do a poll and if it's ok for the mayority take it of the forum

cheers

James

 

[Steen]

(...) I've had cameras with and without AA filters, and neither way is perfect, IMO.

To me it sounds like nearly 'everybody' on the different photography forums would 'any time' prefer the non-AA sensor solution over a sensor with Anti-Aliasing filter (and wouldn't you yourself ?).

That's why it's a mystery to me why Leica seems so far to be the only 35mm format manufacturer who tries to derive advantage from providing cameras without AA filters

 

[douglasf13]

I'm not sure, Steen. It looks like I'm really close to going ahead and ordering an m9, but I certainly have had some frustrating clothing pattern moire with my old Hassie back that was impossible to remove, and I'm really up in the air about which method I prefer. It would be cool if it was an option on most cameras.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

To me it sounds like nearly 'everybody' on the different photography forums would 'any time' prefer the non-AA sensor solution over a sensor with Anti-Aliasing filter (and wouldn't you yourself ?).

That's why it's a mystery to me why Leica seems so far to be the only 35mm format manufacturer who tries to derive advantage from providing cameras without AA filters

Except Kodak, who sadly are out of the pro dslr business, but they showed the way with their DCS Pro 760 6mp camera which had a removable / interchangebale AA or IR filter in front of the sensor (IR only being standard) and in their later 14n(x) and SLRn camera which ditched the AA filter mainly for cost reasons.

And the Mamiya ZD MF camera also has a removable IR filter than can be replaced, using a clever casette mechanism, with an AA filter.

It is perfectly possible for Canon, Nikon or Sony to produce a pro spec DSLR with a removable AA filter if they think the cost of doing so is justified. It seems they don't think it is worth the costs and hassle.

Quentin

 

[carstenw]

Does anyone recall what the Mamiya IR filter cost? I seem to remember that it was rather pricy.

 

[Oren Grad]

Does anyone recall what the Mamiya IR filter cost? I seem to remember that it was rather pricy.

US$2,894 at B&H.

 

[carstenw]

Right, so this strategy might not work well for Canon et al. I am sure they can reduce the price, but by that much?

 

[gogopix]

Ditto!

No video PLEASE :thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

Live view. Very useful for certain work.

-Marc

Hmmmm...And on RED

No SIngle Frame?

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Right, so this strategy might not work well for Canon et al. I am sure they can reduce the price, but by that much?

I'd expect lower unit cost price for a smaller filter to cover 35mm and produced in larger quantitiies - and if offered as a option (like with Mamiya ZD), then my guess would be many would not want it. Wedding photogs and others who prioritise reduced moire might. I think the vast majority of Kodak DCS PRo 760 buyers opted for the IR filter, not the AA filter alternative.

Quentin

 

[canon5dshooter]

I don't want to steer this discussion off course but why do we not have 50mm, 35mm and 24mm Zeiss lenses for the Alpha system yet? I would love to buy the A900's successor if the high ISO performance was greatly improved (which I suspect will be) but the fast primes might keep me in Canon's camp otherwise.

I wouldn't mind having video on the A900 too. If you don't want it you don't have to use it. I think keeping video off of the A850's successor would be a good way to keep the cost down on that body and differentiate between the two future models more than the A850 and A900 are today.

 

[roweraay]

I don't want to steer this discussion off course but why do we not have 50mm, 35mm and 24mm Zeiss lenses for the Alpha system yet? .

One of the users on dyxum who has contacts with Sony beta testers (and whose predictions in the past have been remarkably accurate) indicate that 2010 will see the introduction of 8-10 lenses, including the 500mm f/4.

That is a boatload of lenses and is expected to include some Zeiss units too.

 

[douglasf13]

Unfortunately, Sony never claimed they were going to bring a full range of Zeiss primes, and, since they already have a Sony branded 35 1.4 and a 50 1.4, it seems Sony has put its priority in bringing out other lenses, like the Zeiss zooms. I suspect we'll see the 24 1.4 Zeiss this year. If a Zeiss 50 comes, I'll buy that in a second, but I'm not betting on it appearing any time soon.

I'm worried that Sony will focus on bringing better high ISO at the cost of color in the next round of fullframes. While I certainly welcome better high ISO performance, I'd prefer Sony not following Canon's path with poor color response in order to achieve it.

 

[fotografz]

I don't want to steer this discussion off course but why do we not have 50mm, 35mm and 24mm Zeiss lenses for the Alpha system yet? I would love to buy the A900's successor if the high ISO performance was greatly improved (which I suspect will be) but the fast primes might keep me in Canon's camp otherwise.

I wouldn't mind having video on the A900 too. If you don't want it you don't have to use it. I think keeping video off of the A850's successor would be a good way to keep the cost down on that body and differentiate between the two future models more than the A850 and A900 are today.

I personally don't care if they made a Zeiss 24 if it was just f/2.8 ... but a Zeiss 21/2.8 like the legendary one for the Contax system would be most welcome. 35/1.4? YES! Zeiss never made a 50/1.4 I cared about (questionable Bokeh), but a 50/1.2 is a whole other possibility.

IMO, including video is just another thing to go wrong in an already overly complicated electronic camera. I'm not a fan of "dual personality" cameras. Make the next flagship Sony tougher and more capable as a still camera ... and make it simpler, not more complex please.

-Marc

 

[gogopix]

..............

IMO, including video is just another thing to go wrong in an already overly complicated electronic camera. I'm not a fan of "dual personality" cameras. Make the next flagship Sony tougher and more capable as a still camera ... and make it simpler, not more complex please.

-Marc

Marc,
In general I would agree, for high end. There you want the best tool. No chef uses a swiss army knife!
However, Sony is a different animal. I have P65+ and M9 so a Sony for me would be a GREAT stabilized 24MP camera with Leitax and Leica R lenses. It would be for me (and for you I believe) a 'family' or 'knock around' camrera. As such, having given up on carying a separate 'toy' video, I am looking at the Pentax k7 for R lenses only because of video. Both Sony and Pentax are BODY stabilized, so I can get 1-2 stops of effective EV for wildlife. Only Pentax has video.

We all have multiple needs, and trying to make a Sony A9xx into a Phase 30+ killer doesn't make sense. However, for some special wildlife and family opportunities, it can make sense for some of us. It seems to be their market.

Put in the video!!!

A short story;

My grandson was playing baseball and I had my Contax 645, the Zeiss 250mm SA, and a Phase 65+ back. He hit a great shot to center field and I think he got a triple. I had some good images from it.

He said "Graff (my name ), did you get my hit?" I chimped the Contax and showed him his hit..

He siad, "..that's not my hit, that's only me with a bat standing at homeplate...!!!

Sometime movies are better.

Regards
Victor

 

[douglasf13]

As envious as I am of your Phase and M9, I would say that, for most users, the A900 is very much a faster/smaller/cheaper replacement for a P30+ type camera, and those users appreciate some of the trade-offs Sony has made. If one needs a swiss army knife in the same price bracket, the 5Dii seems a no-brainer.

p.s. I'm of course not saying that the A900 actually is a P30+ beater, IQ-wise.