bfitzgerald wrote:There is no real draw, it's just an experiment.
The general Full frame pull is partly marketing, and some reality.
I know some APS-C users who desire or have gone FF because they wanted: better IQ, shallower DOF, be able to use their FF Lenses as intended, and better low light. FF will always have some attraction for people as those points are valid and yes that is a general FF appeal.
Yes, there is a small niche market.
On the other hand the actual benefits of FF v APS-C cost wise are quite poor really. Yes you get all that but is it worth the fairly big outlay to get there? In the case of the A99 most will say no it's not worth 3-4x the cost of an APS-C body.
I agree. As you move up the scale, it's a case of diminishing returns. When you move up from 1/2.5" sensors, anything is going to look a lot better, particularly in poor light. But, you could say that moving from m43 to APS-C is not a huge jump. What's great is that there's almost no price-penalty for going with APS-C. You can get a Nex for the same price as competitors with smaller sensors.
Sure, I'll take FF for free, but at the prices that are still going around, forget it. Really, the Nex sets the IQ bar high anyway. For those who feel that they want/need FF, they can feel free to pay the premium. I don't mind.
Canikon have it a bit better as they have more affordable bodies, but again the gap/benefits/cost of APS-C to FF isn't worth it for most (at this time)
In the case of NEX we will have to wait and see what these bodies are offering in terms of design and functionality. But you are correct relatively few FF Canikon users are going to consider a FF NEX, unless they have specific needs such as more compact bodies/travel etc etc.
Well, sure. If the goal is to steal away existing FF DSLR users, you have to give them something compelling to pull them away. I think this is a very valid strategy, though. I have a friend with a FF Nikon and huge f2.8 lens who would consider a Nex (even APS-C) for more casual and travel use.
FF NEX Isn't likely to appeal to many a Mount users either if there is no IBIS, it might to some but with a costly adaptor and more bulk less so.
The problem with NEX is just as Phil Askey said years ago.."small bodies with not that small lenses"
Eh, it was a bit of a stretch then, and maybe less so now. (The 16-50 is very compact, and if anything, it seems too small on the Nex-6.) Somehow both the camera and lenses like the 18-55 are smaller than my DSLR equivalents (particularly when factoring the adapter to make up the registration distance). Maybe that's just me and other people have DSLRs with only pancake lenses (which would be come normal-sized once adding the adapter for the Nex).
Sure, the 18-55 looks a bit big sticking out from such a small camera, but it's partially because it's such a small camera! Put something like the Sigma 30mm on it, and it looks quite normal, like rangefinders of the past. Then again, the Sigma doesn't have OSS. What do you want? A large sensor, tiny lenses, OSS, and keep the quality up? Oh, and a cheap price.
You have options with the different brands; each are going to have their plusses and minuses.
Situation will only be worse with FF NEX lenses, those Zeiss lenses are not small and are not suited to a small handling body (maybe one reason an OM-D type body is on the cards?)
Which Zeiss lenses? The Touits? They are probably fine for a small Nex body. I suppose it comes down to personal preference. Anyway, the 24-70 isn't a big range, and it will be interesting to see how small it can be made.
Until these ILC makers work out that they are targeting an entirely different customer than the average DSLR user, then they will continue to live in a bubble devoid of what's really going on.
Sometimes, particularly with the ILC cameras, I think there's been a bit of throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. With the release of the A3000, Sony must think people like the DSLR ergonomics.
There is nothing wrong with making FF cameras, they do have some appeal and some benefits. It's about making the right FF cameras for the market at appropriate price points. Anyway I think most A mount users find FF too expensive right now, and largely irrelevant for their needs. After looking at the A99 price fiasco it convinced me of the huge cost savings staying with APS-C, which is probably good enough for many people anyway. Unless this NEX turns up at a super low price point it's not going to generate much interest bara niche market or those who want bragging rights to FF
What A99 price fiasco? I haven't been watching since the days of the A900, which at the time seemed to really undercut the competition, then they did it again with the A850.
But of course, most people are going to stick with smaller sensors. There's not a strong need for most of us to go FF. I think it's a bit silly myself.
Even the DSLR users (primarily over on DPR), to justify their need for FF, they cite things like photographing nighttime rodeo, and need low-noise. Ok, I could go up a stop in ISO and have more noise, but no, that would not be tolerable. And of course, no OSS/IBIS means that you might have more shake late at night. So, no doubt, there are other combinations that are going to have an advantage in certain situations, but still, it strikes me as an unusual case.
Anyway, I agree with you that FF is not interesting to me, not at this kind of pricing.