Photoclubalpha

Canon has unveiled a 15.1 Megapixel 500D "T1i" with HD video capability...I'd say the pressure is on for Sony. Canon has introduced their video-capable SLRs beginning with their entry-level full-frame model and followed with their high-end amateur model, obviously covering their bases with volume leaders for both formats. Nikon, placed their video D-SLR at the higher end entry-level, as well, though not yet at full-frame.

It remains to be seen how Sony will meet the demand for this new niche in the D-SLR market. The newest body is still the FF a900, and least likely to see replacement. The oldest is the a700, most overdue for replacement, but if Canon and Nikon's decisions are any indicator, it might not be the wisest choice to introduce HD video in the "advanced-amatuer" segment...or could it? There seems to be a gaping hole in the market for mid-level HD video capable DSLRs. Five frames per second still-shooting AND 1080p video? That's a no-compromises solution if I ever heard one.

KevinBarrett wrote:It remains to be seen how Sony will meet the demand for this new niche in the D-SLR market. The newest body is still the FF a900, and least likely to see replacement. The oldest is the a700, most overdue for replacement, but if Canon and Nikon's decisions are any indicator, it might not be the wisest choice to introduce HD video in the "advanced-amatuer" segment...or could it? There seems to be a gaping hole in the market for mid-level HD video capable DSLRs. Five frames per second still-shooting AND 1080p video? That's a no-compromises solution if I ever heard one.

Sony can, of course, do anything it wants to in this field, but here are a few possibilities. The A710 or 750, an update to the A700 with live view, a few tweaks/controls from the A900 set, and maybe HD.
The A800, a FF companion to the 900, but with lower resolution, 16 -18MP, live view, pop-up flash, maybe HD, but cutting features from the A900 so that it's still a few steps below.
The A1000, a FF, full Pro camera with LV, HD, and maybe even more MP. Bells and whistles to match anything Nikon or Canon has.
The A500, an A350 with HD and a few tweaks, but still not all the other features of a 700.

Which ones do you put in play if your Sony? That's the real question! In this economy, you would think an A1000 would be dead meat, but consider that Sony is the price/performance leader. Adding to the A900 LV ad HD, and maybe even giving it a MP bump, would let Sony have the world's best DSLR, and they should be able to do so for $5000. That would turn a lot of heads.

A replacement for the A700 would be good, especially if built on the same chassis. Cheaper to do than almost anything else, except maybe for the A500, which might make the most sense.

The A800, in my opinion, makes the least sense of all. While it would have a lower MP count than the 900, with LV and HD it would be too tempting to go for instead of the 900. You don't want to have a really great #2 camera that will steal sales from your #1 camera!

Maybe we'll find out which direction they're going this summer.

Dusty

I think an a500 would make the most sense for Sony. Ultimately the profits from the entry level segment will support the R&D for higher-end models, giving all of the new entry-level owners something to aspire to, even if less than 1% of them will get a flagship/halo camera.

An a500 would be very similar to a Nikon D90, possibly with an articulated display, and hopefully with main-sensor LV and a better viewfinder than the a350. At the pricepoint where this camera would hit, experienced Alpha users would reject it if the veiwfinder were as small and useless as the unit in the a350.

A good starting point would be to make a mid-grade plastic body with much of the a700's functionality, not necessarily the speed, but definitely front and rear control dials and a more reassuring grip. There would still be room in the nomenclature for more expansion above it (a550, a600, a650) and more entry level models below it (a250, a400, a450), whatever those models might be.