Photoclubalpha

Just humour me for a minute.....
Look at the body size a DX sensor can be shoehorned into (D3100) compared to a D300 for instance.
I know the D3100 is very limited on buttons and features but just think for a moment.

How small could you package an FX sensor.
Why do the FX bodies need to be so big i.e. "pro spec, size and feel"?

What I'd be tempted to go for would be the equivalent package size of the Sony A700 with the FX sensor.

I'm a happy A700 user but don't feel I want the extra weight and bulk of the A900.
Strip out some metal and loose a few buttons and what could Sony really do?

Anyone else feel that way?

Mike

I was hoping and still hold some hope that the NEX will be released as a full frame camera. it sort of has me stalled for the time being.

I'm not so keen on the NEX system concept, maybe too stuck in my ways.
Maybe it will win me over in time.
I don't like ultra small bodies; the film Dynax7, 7D and A700 are ideal for me.
A100 was just about ok.

I like a good optical finder, hated the electronic one in my wifes Z3 and make do with the A100.
I'd rather use the finder in the compact than the LCD but that's due to me needing reading glasses.

Mike

Not trying to be facetious, but isn't the Leica M9 full-frame? It's fairly small. Shows it can be done in a non-slr body.

Yes the Leica M9 is FF alright, but the sensor is a 'special' developed by Kodak just for that camera and it's lenses, the sensels are progressively angled towards the lens the further you get from the centre to avoid sensel shading and microlens diffraction issues. I don't 'get' why anyone would want a FF sensor in a small bodied camera like the NEX, apart from being restricted to using A-mount lenses on an adapter with no AF (no E-mount lenses exist for a FF sensor), just what is it that a FF NEX would do ( apart from obtaining vignetting and edge distortions on a whole bunch of extra lenses instead of just the A-mount ones) that an APS-C one can't? I'm hoping someone can illuminate me on that one because I've seen it crop up here and there before and I'm still as mystified as ever.
Greg

When the market is ready, I am certain we'll see lighter, more compact full-frame bodies. A year ago I would have guessed we'd see entry-level plastic-bodied full-frame cameras, with puny viewfinders and pop-up flashes, slow maximum sync and shutter speeds, and no dedicated AF illumination. Now I'm not so certain. The expense of including those features and functions is probably very small compared to the expense of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor.

I admit that Full frame sensor in very tiny body accepting my Alpha lenses sounds very sexy. But my mind is hesitating if I prefer a 40mp sensor in my A900 body before this little body option.

And what about a kind 12MP FF very at 500$ ? when you need full frame field of view but with no need of high resolution (mostly to play at large aperture with crazy fast lens (where detail and sharpness are not all there to feed high pixels). And I'm telling my dream about having the feovon tech in a FF of at least 12MP .

Frank

KevinBarrett wrote:When the market is ready, I am certain we'll see lighter, more compact full-frame bodies. A year ago I would have guessed we'd see entry-level plastic-bodied full-frame cameras, with puny viewfinders and pop-up flashes, slow maximum sync and shutter speeds, and no dedicated AF illumination. Now I'm not so certain. The expense of including those features and functions is probably very small compared to the expense of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor.

If the FF price remains where it is (2000 to 2600 USD), no one will want a plastic body -- the cost of dropping it will be too much. After working with SLRs for close to 40 years now, I can admit they do get dropped, banged, rained on, etc. No matter how much care you take.

I think for some the issue of lens weight comes into play too -- the A850 feels right with a heavy lens like the Minolta 28-135. A really light camera would not. By the same token, the a850 does not feel heavy with a light lens like the Minolta 24-85. Thus, I do not know how big a market there is for a light FF camera. I wouldn't be in the market for one.

I also think the constantly improving point and shoot cameras -- are closer to filling the need when you want something small. I have a Nikon S710, 14.5 mp for the times when I want a camera in the pocket. Interestingly, there have been a couple of times when I looked at pictures I've taken with it, and had to check and see if the picture was taken with the a850. The images seemed that good!

mikeriach wrote: How small could you package an FX sensor.

I will love a FF "NEX9" for everyday stuff. But for work, the A900/A850 size/buttons/felling and specially viewfinder is just perfect (they still have to improve flash metering and wireless system, AF speed, etc)

mikeriach wrote: Why do the FX bodies need to be so big i.e. "pro spec, size and feel"?

What I'd be tempted to go for would be the equivalent package size of the Sony A700 with the FX sensor.

if you were comparing the A900 against the A380 I could understand your statement, but IMHO the A850 is just a little bit bigger or heavier than the A700..

Birma wrote:Not trying to be facetious, but isn't the Leica M9 full-frame? It's fairly small. Shows it can be done in a non-slr body.

Hi,
I don't find the Leica M9 specially small or light. I don't find any Leica M small or light, just slim... the only really small Leitz was the CL (the Minolta CLE) In other hand, I'm dying for work on a good M9 RAW file and see what Kodak did for them.

Regards

I don't want large bodied, full frame bodies. Current APS-C sensors are so good it should be enough for most usages (certainly good enough for me).

I wouldn't mind even a MF one, say a Pentax 645...

Looks like I will have a long wait then!
Never mind we'll see what comes in the next month or so.

It's always good to see other peoples thoughts.

Mike

Hey Doc, you changed your photo!

bakubo wrote:Hey Doc, you changed your photo!

We have to, once in a while.