PMA round up

[WaltKnapp]

I myself want to use the old FF wides as WA lenses, and not buy new ones, so I would be happy to see sub $1k FF cameras.

Dusty

That, by itself is a argument from Sony's perspective to put out new high quality APS oriented lenses and cameras and make more profit. If you are not buying new lenses but only the FF bodies you are not a very profitable customer.

Walt

[peterottaway]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a " plastic " version of the A 850 appearing even in 2011 for about $ 1495 to set a new baseline price. Once the cost of the sensor etc has been written off the books then all Sony would need to cover is the production and distribution costs. The 24 MP sensor should be good enough for several tweeks and the next 2 - 3 years as the basic FF sensor, whatever else they may introduce above it.

At that sort of price then it becomes a matter of product strategy as to whether an A 6xx / A 7xx family fits in with their plans for the EVIL product range. I would hope that they do continue by mixing the electronics from the new range with a shutter/mirror/prism to create a continuing upper level APS-C SLR, but whether that survives for more than 3 - 5 years is beyond anyones crystal ball.

It would add complexity to both their product development and production plans but I don't see them abandoning all the small frame SLR until the EVIL range is well established.

[Greg Beetham]

Well as far as my crystal ball is concerned, what will survive the EVIL onslaught is what sells, if it doesn't sell then it'll fade away. I also think that those camera companies that offer a full featured DSLR, APS-C and/or FF, without glitches, and features uncompromised by the LV and the Video fad will sell 'that' model in their range well.
Greg

[Dusty]

I myself want to use the old FF wides as WA lenses, and not buy new ones, so I would be happy to see sub $1k FF cameras.
Dusty

That, by itself is a argument from Sony's perspective to put out new high quality APS oriented lenses and cameras and make more profit. If you are not buying new lenses but only the FF bodies you are not a very profitable customer.
Walt

That's the balance they have to tread - create new products to get people to buy, and yet realize that many people have bought into a system and if you screw that up, you could lose them for everything. If I were a Pentax instead of Minolta man, I could still use my old manual lenses. That's system backward/forward compatibility!

Don't forget that besides bodies and lenses, there are other accessories - albeit Sony thinks all theirs are gold plated, judging by their prices. However not everyone is as cheap or poor as I am! There's also the fact that Sony isn't the only source of good lenses, so a new body doesn't mean new Sony lenses on any purchase unless it comes with a kit lens.

FF will always come at a premium price, just because it's FF not crop, even when sensor tech and the prices of the electronics start to converge on the price scale. That means they should always make more profit on them.

If I had no source of FF wides, I might be tempted to stick with APS-C and buy a good crop wide. However, adding that cost to the cost of a new super APS-C camera, I might be more tempted to go with an 850. Most of the new 'wow' tech doesn't interest me, just quality. I wouldn't mind better high ISO, as long as it doesn't cut out the low ISO, and HDR may be a good thing, but I don't want any video or other gizmo compromising my SLR.

Dusty

[WaltKnapp]

If I had no source of FF wides, I might be tempted to stick with APS-C and buy a good crop wide. However, adding that cost to the cost of a new super APS-C camera, I might be more tempted to go with an 850. Most of the new 'wow' tech doesn't interest me, just quality. I wouldn't mind better high ISO, as long as it doesn't cut out the low ISO, and HDR may be a good thing, but I don't want any video or other gizmo compromising my SLR.

Dusty

You get video in FF too, and no one cares what we think on that. Sony at PMA hardly mentioned still photography with DSLRs. Same with many reviewers of the show.

I still use old manual lenses with my a700s. All my macro beyond 1:1 depends on bellows lenses. And my T/S and some of my long tele also are manual lenses.

Walt

[Winkler Prins]

As sensor chips and internals get cheaper and better, the gap between FF and APS-C gets less and less.

I don't agree, you seem to forget that FF is about more than the camera body. What about lenses? Wide angle and standard lenses cost two to three times more, apart from the obvious size and weight differences.

I myself want to use the old FF wides as WA lenses, and not buy new ones

Did you ever try your old lenses on a new digital camera? When I did, I was very disappointed. Maybe you are lucky to own some of the best lenses available at the time, and full frame sensor is a good option. If you don't, you are choosing between mediocre image quality on FF, and high quality on APS-C.

[bfitzgerald]

I've tried lots of old lenses with my digital SLR bodies, and frankly I think there are some damn fine ones out there!
And some FF digital owners are suggesting some of these oldies are rather decent on FF digital too.

I'm not so sure I get the poster above and his point.

Not seeing APS-C lenses being cheaper either, I can give many examples on that one too.

[WaltKnapp]

I've tried lots of old lenses with my digital SLR bodies, and frankly I think there are some damn fine ones out there!
And some FF digital owners are suggesting some of these oldies are rather decent on FF digital too.

I'm not so sure I get the poster above and his point.

Not seeing APS-C lenses being cheaper either, I can give many examples on that one too.

For the most part APS-C and FF use the same lenses in the better lenses. There is no such thing as a lens specific for FF, though there are some (pretty much in the lower end) that are designed specifically for APS-C.

I do try and replace my older lenses with newer ones that are at least a little redesigned for digital. The world changes and our photo system evolves with that. FF is part nostalgia, folks that can't seem to make the full transition to digital, and lens choices show that. I know my lens system by what it does on the a700 (and earlier what it did on the RD-175). I don't pick a lens out of the case by what it did on film, which for me is more than 15 years ago.

Walt

[pakodominguez]

I do try and replace my older lenses with newer ones that are at least a little redesigned for digital. The world changes and our photo system evolves with that.

I do agree with that. I'm looking forward for the spec (and constraints) or the new Alpha Slimline cameras and the adapter form A-mount lenses...

FF is part nostalgia, folks that can't seem to make the full transition to digital, and lens choices show that.

By FF you meant film, didn't you? otherwise your statement doesn't make sens. At all.

Regards

[bfitzgerald]

I think it's actually got more to do with the availability of s/h lenses, which obviously are FF based. Still to this day, the majority of lenses are full frame in A mount, by some margin.

Whilst some FF lenses are less than optimal on APS-C, some are of interest. More to the point..they are inexpensive, and some just have no equivalent from any maker. It's not about not making the transition to digital, it's about long term planning. I don't mind APS-C, but I'd want to avoid stacking up on loads of APS-C only lenses.

[Greg Beetham]

I wouldn't mind a FF camera, A850 (or A900) myself, there are subject types that FF can do better than APS-C I think. But there is a clear and present danger buying a FF (digital) camera, it's lenses, I have a small collection of fairly late model KM lenses I bought niew just before KM pulled the pin, the KM17-35, KM28-75, KM24-105, KM100 Macro, KM100-300APO, all FF lenses, (and a KM18-200DT lens as well). If I was to buy a FF (digital) camera these FF lenses might be ok up to a point, (David used the KM17-35 and the KM28-75 on his A900 and said they performed very well, but the KM24-105 not so well, bad distortions, flare), but how long woud it be before I began to wonder how this shot or that shot would look if taken with a CZ lens? a modern designed for digital lens, CZ too boot and priced accordingly....that's the big danger for me, and how long can one hold out against such allure...
Greg

[Vidgamer]

As sensor chips and internals get cheaper and better, the gap between FF and APS-C gets less and less.

I don't agree, you seem to forget that FF is about more than the camera body. What about lenses? Wide angle and standard lenses cost two to three times more, apart from the obvious size and weight differences.

I myself want to use the old FF wides as WA lenses, and not buy new ones

Did you ever try your old lenses on a new digital camera? When I did, I was very disappointed.

I've tried a few older lenses on my A100, with pretty good results. Some of them are more prone to flare and such, probably because of the coatings, but here I have to agree with Barry -- it's an impressive bang-for-the-buck. Sometimes it's a matter of being careful if using it at full wide aperture. I suppose from a pure technical standpoint someone would not think as much of these lenses as I do, but I don't know -- at full "new in box" price, I probably wouldn't be interested in some of the same lenses. Maybe I just have measured expectations?

Then again, I got a 100-300 APO on purpose to take better photos at airshows, and it does a fine job of that. No complaints.

Maybe you are lucky to own some of the best lenses available at the time, and full frame sensor is a good option. If you don't, you are choosing between mediocre image quality on FF, and high quality on APS-C.

From what I've read, FF is not as demanding on lenses. In other words, the smaller the sensor, the better the lens needs to be in order to support the higher pixel density.

[WaltKnapp]

I do try and replace my older lenses with newer ones that are at least a little redesigned for digital. The world changes and our photo system evolves with that.

I do agree with that. I'm looking forward for the spec (and constraints) or the new Alpha Slimline cameras and the adapter form A-mount lenses...

FF is part nostalgia, folks that can't seem to make the full transition to digital, and lens choices show that.

By FF you meant film, didn't you? otherwise your statement doesn't make sens. At all.

Regards

No by FF I mean digital. Folks hard stuck in shooting just like they did with film. Unable to adapt.

As far as the E mount cameras, that looks to be a plug in mount with no locking bayonet. Now put your 70-400G on an adapter, hold it out at arm's length (the early ones only have the back LV) and take your photo. While the 70-400G pops out of the mount and travels to the ground....

It's a pipe dream that such a small camera will make a platform for anything other than the very lightest and smallest A mount lenses.

Walt

[WaltKnapp]

From what I've read, FF is not as demanding on lenses. In other words, the smaller the sensor, the better the lens needs to be in order to support the higher pixel density.

FF is actually more demanding. The image has to be perfect over a much wider circle.

There is only a small difference in pixel density between the a700 and the a900. The a700 does have the edge on resolution.

Walt

[stevecim]

As far as the E mount cameras, that looks to be a plug in mount with no locking bayonet. Now put your 70-400G on an adapter, hold it out at arm's length (the early ones only have the back LV) and take your photo. While the 70-400G pops out of the mount and travels to the ground....

Walt

I could be wrong (normally am) but those mock-up shown at PMA , looked like they where from very early in the design stage, (1 step after clay mock-ups )
I could not even see contacts for the lens. I sure the final product will have some sort of locking system.