A800 under $2K Initial List Price - FF or APS-C?

[A1000]

If you had a choice, super APS-C or lower spec'd A900? Which one would you buy? Which one do you think that Sony would rather offer? They are creating a number of new FF, not APS-C, lenses. They may eventually have both of therseodels, but I believe that A800 will be FF. I also believe that A500 will have same LV implementation as A300 series.

Under $2000 FF w/24 MP, same quality as A900 would have no competition. Hi-specced APS-C would be just another APS-C.

[Dusty]

Under $2000 FF w/24 MP, same quality as A900 would have no competition. Hi-specced APS-C would be just another APS-C.

Under $2k FF 24 MP would grab my attention, but what would we be losing from the a900?

A high-specd APS-C wouldn't be JUST another APS-C if it was 15+ MP, higher ISO rating, better DR or a lot faster FPS. Right now that spot is held only by Canon's 50D, at $1300 (street) for body only. Sony should be able to compete there.

Dusty

[bakubo]

Under $2k FF 24 MP would grab my attention, but what would we be losing from the a900?

A couple of things that come to mind that could be left off the A900 to get an A800 price down are a less than 100% vf and fewer fps. Add a built-in flash though.

[A1000]

worse viewfinder, less fps, worse quality body. The pros would still buy A900

It could even have pentamirror and Sony-type LV

It will have 24 MP, just like A900. It would be too costly to develop different electronics; the quantities sold would not make it worthwile. Canon too has the same MP No's on both FF's.

Under 2K w/built-in flash would be no problem. Sony is geering up for multiple FF bodies; that is why all the new lenses are FF. This will give them an edge over competition.

[bakubo]

worse viewfinder, less fps, worse quality body. The pros would still buy A900

I haven't seriously considered an A900 because I just don't want to spend $3k and I want a built-in flash for my rare uses of a bit of fill-flash outdoors. Put it all in an A700-like body and that would be good enough for me. The A700 build is quite good even if it is slightly below the A900.

It could even have pentamirror and Sony-type LV

With FF maybe the resulting OVF would still be quite good even if not as good as the A900. I wouldn't mind A300/A350 style of LV with a tiltable LCD.

[destrian]

keep dreaming guys. if they do do a 15mp sensor it will no doubt be some aps-c incarnation. if they do do a full frame camera it will be 12mp like the D3 and will (scratch that, BETTER have outworldly noise control like that of the Nikon D3). that would be the only logical way to bring in a full frame dslr with a fast frame rate for under 2k.

[peterottaway]

However you slice and dice it, 12 MP is still 12 MP. Sure a FF 12 MP sensor will produce a somewhat better quality outcome than an APS-C 12 MP. But in terms of the market 12 MP is where 2008 was at not 2009, so the time to introduce FF 12 MP has come and gone.

There are photographers out there who can make 12 MP work for them day in and day out and will carry on doing so for years to come - BUT in terms of Joe Punter and market perception / your average casual salesperson who was selling DIY last month ?

[A1000]

Sony will not lower MP's from 24 on FF. Higher sensitivity can be achieved by banding neighbouring pixels together in the highest sensitivity mode, by better processing, and eventually with the use of EXMOR-R.

[A1000]

Nikon did not have the expertise to make high density sensor. Not only the manufacturing, even most of the design was contracted to an OEM manufacturer. Nikon was waiting for a Sony sensor and needed to fill the FF vacuum in their line.

[A1000]

cameras - yes, sensors - no; that crown goes to Sony

[bfitzgerald]

I would like to see a lower mp FF body, with a lower spec..with a nice price.

Said it before, I don't think APS-C has much left in it for mp pumping..whoever brings FF to the mass market, is going to be king!

[bfitzgerald]

$2k sounds kinda heavy...

Looking at the specs some of it is clearly fairy land..

15mp yeah I buy that
More fps, yeah I can see that
Double cross AF on more point..yup
New metering, dunno, no idea
Wifi, maybe don't care much myself!

Def don't see how they can put a fast LV in there, back lcd job yeah, but not the ist one.
Wonder if the intelligent preview will make it over..

[KevinBarrett]

Under $2000 FF w/24 MP, same quality as A900 would have no competition.

Of course said hypothetical camera would have no competition...but if it sold like hotcakes Sony would just lose money that much faster.

[A1000]

A800 model No. is reserved for full frame; no APS-C model will be named A800.

Sony could list A800 FF body at $1.5 K and still make money on it.

There will not be any cost developing the sensor, processors; the shutter would be good for less FPS and pentamirror would be used instead of pentaprism. If they can list A200 for $500, why couldn't they list FF of similar quality for $1.000? Of course they could. At list $1.5 K they would make decent profit on it.

[alphaomega]

A1000 wrote:

Sony could list A800 FF body at $1.5 K and still make money on it.

I have always thought that even with the prices being charged now for DSLRs there must be money in it at least for high volume producers such as Canon, Nikon and now to a certain extent Sony. Look at prices for LCD TVs. You can get a good Sony or Panasonic 32 Inch LCD TV for around £350 to £400 here in the UK. There is a lot more materials, labour and transport costs in one of those compared to say an A350. I believe there is no profit in the LCDs at the moment, but I am convinced that they still make money on the DSLRs and the lenses, flash guns etc. not to forget. I am sure (as DK has hinted) that the manufacturers will try and hike prices. One way of doing this would be new improved models with a higher initial price and a tardier and slower price reduction as the models mature.

I wonder when A1000 is going to divulge the specs of Sony's next "top of the line" DSLR named A1000? I am certain that he chose the pseudonym A1000 with a specific purpose in mind.