PMA 2009

[peterottaway]

It may be better to go a high quality and medium expense 28 - 90 lens than go for a more problematic 24 - 105. Especially if the 16 - 35 is up to scratch and there is a recalculated 70 - 200 waiting for release.

Now that Sony is beginning to establish itself as a genuine contender, performance rather than gee whiz will sell to the enthusiast and pro market. And it won't hurt if Sony can shave a hundred or two from some of the prices.

[PhotoTraveler]

Problem is soon as you go from 24 to 28 the purpose of the lens becomes lost. You buy a 24-something on a FF body to basically eliminate buying a lens like a 2.8/16-35. Your trying to reduce your lens count, and lens weight when going with something like a 4/24-105. It means you just need a zoom tele, like a 4/70-200. And then if you need something wide, you just get something like a wider Prime. But 24-105 covers you very well all around for range.

Not everyone wants a set of 3 F2.8 zooms.

Lenses like the 17-35D come up just short for going wide enough on APS. A 24 on FF gets you a hair wider, but still gets you into that just there enough range that a 28 does not. It also is a good point for use with something like a 14-24 zoom much like Nikon has done. No overlap, and you can pick on that day if just something like a small prime is all you need just in case, or do you need a crazy zoom like the nikon.

I find a hard time seeing how to make a 16-35 lens work. Unless they bring out some sort of light weight 35-70 (F4 maybe), or a 35-105 it's hard to work with it, you just get a lot of overlap unless you are say using it with a 50mm and then the next step is your 70-200. But still your carrying 2 lenses all the time.

In a dream world for me. Sony would have a 4/14-24, 4/24-105, 4/70-200 (with maybe a 4/24-70 in there for some folks). I would always carry the 24-105 with a FF body, and then pack either the tele or the wide depending on what I think will happen. A 24mm TS, and then maybe 1 special lens like a fast 50 or a 100macro if I think there is opportunities. But at the very least I could go with just the 24-105 and 24 TS and be good to go. If they made a 20mm TS, even better, but lets not get carried away.

A wide TS would reduce the need for the lens to go to 24, but not going to 24 would be a major draw back for a lot of people. I don't think there is any real issue for them making them good, they just haven't pushed it hard yet. Still I think nikon and Sony have managed with their new 24-70s.

[peterottaway]

I do understand what you are saying about the 24 - 105 lens range because I bought one with my Minolta Dynax 7 for those reasons. However it has not really worked in practice for me, if you are OK with the 24 - 105 range then you don't need to look past the new lens out hopefully shortly.

I grew up photographically speaking with an old MF 28 - 85 lens and I find that whether I use the 7 with the 24 - 105 or the A700 with the CZ 16 - 80, I rarely go wider than 28mm or longer than 85 - 90mm and I do it is most likely at the 80 ( 120 ) mm end. At the wide end I prefer 16 - 20 rather than 24 mm and at the longer end I prefer 120 - 150.

So to me neither the CZ 24 - 70 or a Sony G 24 - 105 is all that wonderful. If Sony do come out with a 24 - 105 at the same price as the Canon 24 - 105 then to me I am paying largely for frills rather than performance.

[A1000]

How about a good 28-135? It may be easier to make and maybe just as popular as 24-105 and if you can have one lens only, it may be the best solution.

I would actually like to see a good 24-200 mm FF lens. I never carry around two lenses.

[peterottaway]

Yes a quality 28 - 135 on a FF that does its stuff at 800 to 1600 ISO would do quite well although I would still like the 16 - 35 to go with it. That's why I was appealing for a 2.8 / 50 - 150 mm a couple of posts ago.

But given the weight of the 16 - 35 I think I will need to buy a couple of new pairs of braces to make the thing pocketable.

[PhotoTraveler]

There is various combinations that would work. I think it's a good plan to make F4s with the same FL as the F2.8s.

So maybe someday Sony would have 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 both in F4 and F2.8, and then have the 2.8/16-35 and the 4/24-105 has stand alone ones. Now folks can swap out one for the other and have the same coverage. Some of the F2.8 users would probably go for a 4/24-70 as a filler lens to go with their wide zoom and tele zoom. With this people have a very plug and play setup. But there is nice stand alone options like a 24-105 do all 1 lens option, and the 16-35 to go with a 70-200 and a 50mm as another option.

Canon has somewhat got there. They have complete F2.8 and F4 lens lines, though they don't poke the wide end as hard, 16-35 and 17-40.

I really have a hard time picturing folks walking around with both the 2.8/16-35ZA and 2.8/24-70ZA in their bag. That's some crazy overlap with crazy cost and weight to go with it. But surely their will be many folks who do exactly that. This is where Nikon makes a bit more sense with the 2.8/14-24 and 2.8/24-70. It's expensive and heavy, but at least there is no overlap.

I can see the F2.8 ZAs as some good studio lenses, or standing next to car lenses, but Sony needs some FF lenses people can carry around with and vacation with, take hiking, bounce off a rock and not cry.

[A1000]

How about F2.8 12-24, 24-70, 70-200

and slower, but excellent quality 14-28. 28-135, 135-400, and universal 24-200

[FramerDave]

Actually I wouldn't mind a bid of overlap at the wide end. With the 24-70 and 70-200, I could have gotten just the 16mm and would have
good coverage since 16 is as wide as I care to go due to it's VERY specific characteristics. I would like to have 24mm and 35mm to "fall back" on
when the situation changes slightly without having to change lens. I would rather shoot 2 pictures than see such a distorted view of 12mm.
Also, with the popularity of 24-70ZA with FF, there should be a market for the 16-35ZA for the APS-C crowd hence the 16-35 not 12-24.
The 24-105mmf4 would be an ideal travel/walk around lens (in fact I was using just the 28-105 with 7xi film) but only if IQ is almost as good as the 24-70ZA.
On the subject of LV, the general public with their mini P&S is used to 2.5" LCD. As long as the dslr is not too heavy, camera maker will be featuring LV for the upgraders. In order to cut down the weight they might also use EVF to please this crowd. People who have used SLR's for years like me don't even shoot video with the 3.5"LCD let alone Live view on DSLR. You just can't hold the A900 with 70-200Gssm AND the 58AM flash steady for long at arms length unless you are Governor Arnie.

[peterottaway]

From some window shopping that I have been doing this afternoon, a number of camera stores look decidedly on the weak side. There were 5 general photographic outlets and 2 specialist retailers in and around the CBD this time last year and now it's down to 3 and 2. The 2 smallest general outlets have closed in the last few months. And when you consider that Western Australia has an unemployment rate under 3% and a plus GNP figure.

There are another 5 or 6 stores in the largest suburban shopping areas and these seem to be holding on better as they have an " exclusive " local catchment area.

From looking in the 3 general retailers I could have purchased off the self a Sony A700 kit with the 16 -105 lens, several Canon 5D Mk 2 kits with the 24 - 105 lens or a Canon 450D kit. In camera only sales I could have had a Canon 50D or a Nikon D300/ 700 model. But NO pro or enthusiast grade lenses and what branded lenses there were, like the selection of Sigma and Tamron lenses gave the impression of being remainders from last year. Asking about several lenses I was told that they would have to be ordered in.

The only thing that was in good supply were Olympus P & S. Otherwise the stock has been shifted around to make the shelves seem less empty. It would seem that like the specialist Hi Fi retailers, they are suffering a real cash flow problem. Whether that's all sales related or a shortage of bank finance, they are not likely to discuss over the counter with me.

So even if we do get some nice surprises at CES 2009 or PMA 2009 in new models or lens releases, I think this is going to hurt all the companies R & D and development cycles for the next couple of years.

[PhotoTraveler]

Any wise company is going to look at it as there will be a time after the downturn. They will make some guess on when that happens and what things will be like. And base their R&D on that and keep going. If they scale back now, it will be hard to get going when things get better.

A smart sony might not release all that they might have. But they will be actively developing behind the scenes so when things get better, they are more than ready. Remember, when downturns get over, people buy very hard. Since they have gone without for a while and really want to buy something new (this is what car companies bank on, as the downturn ends, people notice they have an old car now cause they put off buying a new one, and thus go buying).

Sony should be prepping for this. And since Canon and Nikon aren't going to be selling much during the downturn either, it's a huge opportunity for them. If Sony uses the next 2 years or so to prepare all their pro gear stuff, lets say 2 bodies and a fleet of lenses, when the time comes, they can hit them on the market and possibly make a big in-road on nikon and Canon. Especially if Sony goes a new route and gets themselves set up with all the latest and greatest stuff that is a step ahead of Canon and Nikon. Afterall, those 2 have most their pro stuff established and is what it is. Sony could leap frog them by planning on what is next, not what is today and use the downturn in the market to get ready for when the demand comes back. If they can be ready, and have what Pro groups want when it's time for them to replace their gear, Sony could capitalize. Maybe it will be an EVIL pro body, maybe it will be something different still, we don't know. But with smart planning, sony could use the downturn to their advantage.

Cutting back R&D right now could be disastrous for any company. It just means when things get better, they aren't ready. Sony should keep working the consumer side very actively. Even if it cost them during it, it will help them the long run. I think we will see them keep bringing consumer models at a regular pace along with lenses. The more Sony can do to build up during this time, the more market they can gain.

Nikon isn't going to be able to act the same. Nikon is too small, and their income is over half from camera sales. They may simply not have the cash on hand to behave that way. So Sony can gain on them.

[KevinBarrett]

Who can resist a thread like this?

Sony has a significan stake to protect in HD video cameras, but I think the market will push them into introducing an HD video capable DSLR. I would not expect it to be in a body as sophisticated or rugged as the a700, but rather share a less expensive chassis with the next generation of entry-level models. This will allow the greatest room for mark-up and profitability in a product that will essentially steal sales from another of Sony's divisions. I don't pretend to know how it will be implemented, but I know that it won't have to be very great in order to sell like hot-cakes. You and I and many nay-sayers will each buy one just to make videos with our favorite lenses and use a manual zoom ring. A guilty pleasure, we'll call it the a500 for now.

The a700 replacement will be a more important player for serious photogaphers. In a perfect world this camera would offer only a modest increase in resolution with a more handsome increase in ISO/noise performance. At the very least we should expect a900 levels of functionality, including micro lens adjustment, a brighter pentaprism OVF, and inteligent preview. In keeping with Sony's model of integrating their brands for a more seamless interface, expect the new camera to offer wireless connectivity for HD photoviewing on Bravia TVs or bulk file transfers.

Lenses are the least pedictable side of things, and most of what has been tossed around falls into two very different categories: Lenses we'd like to see, and lenses Sony is likely to make. I do not think Sony is interested in muddying the waters with too many lenses of the same niche, so do not expect another lens in the 24-70 or 24-105 range. There is not yet a Sony-branded FF super-zoom, so we may see a 28-200 or 28-300.

For APS-C I think we might see a Sony engineered version of the Tamron 10-24 ultra wide angle zoom. Sony's own 11-18 isn't particularly competitive these days. Though I highly doubt Sony will be wholly replacing any lenses before they fill out their line-up more significantly, I think this one would be a first, obvious step.

[Greg Beetham]

I still think we might be setting our expectation levels a bit high at present, thinking of new camera bodies and lenses etc. The world economy is not in good shape, good opinion has it that it's about 40% smaller than it was a year ago, so that means it is probably struggling too afford it's own overheads, there might be some severe downsizing and restructuring yet to come.
Otoh, adopting my eternal optimist mindset, if shareholders and financiers think it's a good move too spend a bundle on R & D and new camera models in the middle of a worldwide recession then anything is possible. Personally I would like to see someone build a good 24-105, someone has too, it might as well be Sony, a good 24-105 is a very desirable lens, 24mm is 1X on APS-C which is perfect for natural perspective pans, (in the digital age we no longer have to put up with perspective distortion in a wide angle view), ditto for 50mm on FF, then at the long end it is a good portrait lens either head and shoulder or full length, maybe a tad short for head and shoulder on FF though, but still an all-round useful lens, IMHO even more so than a 28-75, personally I'd rather a very good 24-105 f4 over a good 28-75 f2.8, maybe even ahead of the CZ24-70 2.8
Greg

[youpii]

If Sony releases an affordable FF camera like A800, they need cheaper alternative to ZA 24-70/2.8 and the other F/2.8 zooms.
I see a ZA 24-85/4.0 SSM
A good 24-105/4.0 would be more expensive.
And maybe 17-40/4.0 & 70-210/4.0 (updated Beercan)

But I heard that Sony is selling more ZA 24-70/2.8 than it can produce, so cheaper lenses might not be a priority ...

[peterottaway]

Once the pent up demand for a Sony FF has been meet by the A900, year in and year out they are going to sell many more A700 type cameras ( half the price ) than they are A900 types.

Even having said that I would be surprised if Sony has not been utilizing their complete lens design group on redeveloping their quality end 35mm lenses around digital FF - this is where you make your reputation or lose it. There are enough OEM designers and producers to fill in their requirements at the lower price points.

I have tried to make a case to myself for buying an A900 but can't quite do it at this time. And unless Sony can produce a absolutely marvelous 24 mm T/S and say something like a 60 - 120 zoom macro then that is not going to change. After all if the 70 - 400 turns out OK, I can use this on the A700 and get even more at APC-C sensor size.

So from my own self interested point of view, I would ask Sony to in the next year or so to go beyond rebranding the Tamron 10- 24 and either the Sigma 50 - 150 or the Tokina 50 - 135 lenses. I would like to have the ability to buy APS - C specific designs at a Sony G level of the following FF lenses

1. 16 - 35 or 14 - 28
2. 24 - 85 or 28 - 90
3. 70 - 200
4. 100 - 300

These would not necessarily be cheaper than their FF version but would be a lot more convenient. Also although not such hot sellers as such lenses as the 18 - 250, but again for the brand reputation. And to sell A700 price point cameras rather than A200 style cameras.

Also given the price point/performance level Nikon has achieved with the 16 - 85 and the 18 - 105 then new standard zooms are required and I mean now. The old bit of plastic has not been up to any of the last generation of cameras and Sony doesn't need to set itself up to the Canon and Nikon fanboys on websites or in the media ( some I could mention who only reviewed the A900 using JPEG ).

[A1000]

I wonder why is Sony not coming out with more lenses as they have the CZ and Minolta teams as their resources. They may just shock us with a totoally different system, where their resources may be concentrating, or maybe they design now Sony G lenses for video cameras. Previous prosumer Z1 had an excellent CZ lens; the new Z5 has a better Sony G lens. These Sony cameras usually sell in the hundreds of thousands range, and cost around $4-5K. What is interesting is that right after Matsushita sold JVC to Kenwood, the new JVC camera used Konice-Minolta branded lens; K-M still makes cell phone and point and shoot lenses. Sony makes cell phone OEM lenses, so this too may be where the K-M lens designers are utilized.