Sony A100 to A700

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Fred McKenzie
<fmmck.TakeThisOut@aol.com>], who wrote in article <fmmck-3ECBE1.23354528052008.TakeThisOut@nntp.aioe.org>:
> Why would I upgrade? The A700 is what I consider a slight improvement
> over the A100, not enough to justify getting the new body. It has
> nothing I can't live without.

AFAIK, a100 is a toy. a700 is reported to be "a real camera".

E.g., one upgrade report I saw yesterday (on dpreview) is 10% focus
accuracy with a100, which goes to 90% with a700. (The same subjects
shot: little league football.)

[I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
*incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.]

Hope this helps,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse.RemoveThis@ilyaz.org> wrote:

> I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
> *incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

Ilya-

I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi body.
The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either for
handheld shots in low light.

The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy" category,
is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it when I read
about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be just a euphemism
for "mirrors".

In article <1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:

> LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the year open.
> The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,

Frederick-

Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body this
fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level models come
out with it.

I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other hand,
a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than an A900,
I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

On May 29, 4:08 pm, frederick <l....DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:

> There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

Never is a long time. Five years ago, you couldn't get any DSLR for
under $1,000. Now there are plenty. I would expect that within a few
years, sub $1,000 full-frame equivalents of the Nikon D80 will be
fairly common. Whether they'll go to the bottom of the consumer
market is another question. At that level, the compact size of the DX
DSLR may win out.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

Fred McKenzie wrote:
> I'm waiting for a model with a 24 mm X 36 mm sensor with at least 16
> Megapixels, and a price in the $1000 range. I wouldn't be surprised if
> this fall brings a crop of cameras that meet my requirements.
>
LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the year open.
The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000, Nikon D* -
who knows how much - but probably more than Canon. Samsung/Pentax - who
cares - as they haven't made a decent APS-c format sensor yet?
Methinks it will be a long wait for prices to drop by 2/3.
If you're desperate for a 35mm sensor format camera, then the current
run-out discount on the 5d might be as good as it gets for a while -
although the discount strictly isn't US$300 for the camera, but US$300
rebate on printer - and with the price of ink and the income stream
generated from ink sales, massive printer discounts aren't exactly unusual.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Fred McKenzie
<fmmck.RemoveThis@aol.com>], who wrote in article <fmmck-E18492.14292429052008.RemoveThis@nntp.aioe.org>:
> > I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
> > *incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.

> I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
> light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi body.

Well, maybe my 7xi is/was a fluke (to the good side . Or maybe
your experience with lenses with different wide-open f/numbers. Mine
is with f/3.5 and darker lenses... (Identical lenses on 7xi and a100...)

Yours,
Ilya
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

Fred McKenzie wrote:
> In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse.TakeThisOut@ilyaz.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
>> *incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.
>
> Ilya-
>
> I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
> light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi body.
> The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either for
> handheld shots in low light.
>
> The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy" category,
> is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it when I read
> about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be just a euphemism
> for "mirrors".
>
> In article <1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the year open.
>> The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,
>
> Frederick-
>
> Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body this
> fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level models come
> out with it.
>
> I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
> frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other hand,
> a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than an A900,
> I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.
>
Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not identical
if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC Sony have made
some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the Nikon logically
would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The "5D II" is rumour.
I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame dslr, but it either
isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be featured to compete
with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers at DP review forums have
talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it
will be a long time before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps
though they will make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but
not a cheap or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot
themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

frederick wrote:
> Fred McKenzie wrote:
>> In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>> Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse RemoveThis @ilyaz.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
>>> *incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.
>>
>> Ilya-
>>
>> I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
>> light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
>> body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either
>> for handheld shots in low light.
>>
>> The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy" category,
>> is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it when I read
>> about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be just a
>> euphemism for "mirrors".
>>
>> In article <1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost RemoveThis @sea.com> wrote:
>>
>>> LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
>>> year open.
>>> The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,
>>
>> Frederick-
>>
>> Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
>> this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
>> models come out with it.
>>
>> I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
>> frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other
>> hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than
>> an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.
>>
> Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
> The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
> configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not identical
> if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC Sony have made
> some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the Nikon logically
> would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The "5D II" is rumour.
> I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame dslr, but it either
> isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be featured to compete
> with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers at DP review forums have
> talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it
> will be a long time before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps
> though they will make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but
> not a cheap or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot
> themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.

$3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
compete with the 5D on some level.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

Paul Furman wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> Fred McKenzie wrote:
>>> In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>> Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse.RemoveThis@ilyaz.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
>>>> *incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.
>>>
>>> Ilya-
>>>
>>> I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
>>> light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
>>> body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either
>>> for handheld shots in low light.
>>>
>>> The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy"
>>> category, is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it
>>> when I read about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be
>>> just a euphemism for "mirrors".
>>>
>>> In article <1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
>>>> year open.
>>>> The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,
>>>
>>> Frederick-
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
>>> this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
>>> models come out with it.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP full
>>> frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the other
>>> hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less expensive than
>>> an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.
>>>
>> Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
>> The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
>> configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not identical
>> if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC Sony have
>> made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the Nikon
>> logically would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The "5D
>> II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame dslr,
>> but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be
>> featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers at
>> DP review forums have talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using some
>> strange logic - IMO it will be a long time before Nikon make a
>> "budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will make a D3 type camera -
>> but without integral grip - but not a cheap or under-featured model)
>> Companies don't deliberately shoot themselves. There will never be
>> profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.
>
> $3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
> compete with the 5D on some level.
>
Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What
features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed
by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it also
comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used both
5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage doesn't make
up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs, and ymmv.
Even when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price, good
cameras cost good money.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

frederick wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> frederick wrote:
>>> Fred McKenzie wrote:
>>>> In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>>> Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse DeleteThis @ilyaz.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
>>>>> *incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.
>>>>
>>>> Ilya-
>>>>
>>>> I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
>>>> light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
>>>> body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than either
>>>> for handheld shots in low light.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy"
>>>> category, is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it
>>>> when I read about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be
>>>> just a euphemism for "mirrors".
>>>>
>>>> In article <1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
>>>>> year open.
>>>>> The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,
>>>>
>>>> Frederick-
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
>>>> this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
>>>> models come out with it.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP
>>>> full frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the
>>>> other hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less
>>>> expensive than an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.
>>>>
>>> Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
>>> The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
>>> configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not
>>> identical if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC
>>> Sony have made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and the
>>> Nikon logically would cost not less but possibly more than a D3. The
>>> "5D II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price full-frame
>>> dslr, but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't going to be
>>> featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The rumour-mongers
>>> at DP review forums have talked themselves in to a Nikon "D10" using
>>> some strange logic - IMO it will be a long time before Nikon make a
>>> "budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will make a D3 type camera -
>>> but without integral grip - but not a cheap or under-featured model)
>>> Companies don't deliberately shoot themselves. There will never be
>>> profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.
>>
>> $3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
>> compete with the 5D on some level.
>>
> Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What
> features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed
> by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it also
> comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used both
> 5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage doesn't make
> up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs, and ymmv. Even
> when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price, good cameras
> cost good money.

I was real tempted by the D3 for low light & wide angle and since I have
a bunch of full frame lenses but frankly I'd be embarrassed to be seen
with that big beast. And yeah it's a whole lot of money. If Canon can
make a 5D, Nikon can make a D70 body with full frame and a couple more
features for $3,000 easily. I can see how a full frame D200 might be
more than $3,000.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

Paul Furman wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>> Fred McKenzie wrote:
>>>>> In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>>>> Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse.RemoveThis@ilyaz.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm familiar with 7xi and a100, and the autofocus of 7xi is
>>>>>> *incomparably* better, although the body is physically 17 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ilya-
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the A100 focus to be quite adequate except in extremely low
>>>>> light. It is on a par with my 8000i body, and better than my 9xi
>>>>> body. The image stability feature makes the A100 better than
>>>>> either for handheld shots in low light.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing about the A100 that might put it in the "toy"
>>>>> category, is the fact it does not have a true prism. I bought it
>>>>> when I read about its having a "roof prism", which turned out to be
>>>>> just a euphemism for "mirrors".
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <1212034289.442695@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL - if you'd said "fall" than at least that could have left the
>>>>>> year open.
>>>>>> The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,
>>>>>
>>>>> Frederick-
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
>>>>> this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
>>>>> models come out with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP
>>>>> full frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the
>>>>> other hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less
>>>>> expensive than an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.
>>>>>
>>>> Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
>>>> The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
>>>> configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not
>>>> identical if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC
>>>> Sony have made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and
>>>> the Nikon logically would cost not less but possibly more than a
>>>> D3. The "5D II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price
>>>> full-frame dslr, but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't
>>>> going to be featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The
>>>> rumour-mongers at DP review forums have talked themselves in to a
>>>> Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it will be a long time
>>>> before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will
>>>> make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but not a cheap
>>>> or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot
>>>> themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.
>>>
>>> $3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
>>> compete with the 5D on some level.
>>>
>> Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What
>> features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed
>> by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it
>> also comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used
>> both 5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage
>> doesn't make up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs,
>> and ymmv. Even when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price,
>> good cameras cost good money.
>
> I was real tempted by the D3 for low light & wide angle and since I have
> a bunch of full frame lenses but frankly I'd be embarrassed to be seen
> with that big beast. And yeah it's a whole lot of money. If Canon can
> make a 5D, Nikon can make a D70 body with full frame and a couple more
> features for $3,000 easily. I can see how a full frame D200 might be
> more than $3,000.
>
I think a lot of assumptions about full-frame are made on the basis that
APS-c sensor cameras ceased to improve after the D70 or 20d. For me,
sure I'd like a full-frame D300 - but not a full-frame D70. I used 5d
and 17-40L and D300 with Sigma 10-20 - and even the "w/a advantage"
really wasn't there... perhaps with a Nikkor 14-24, but then the old
price thing comes back to bite one on the butt. (The 17-40L offered
similar edge performance to the 10-20 - worse extreme edges - yet cost
twice as much) So even if the 5d II has 20mp, Canon doesn't yet have the
lenses to interest me (except the 200mm f4 IS - the lens Nikon needs to
also make when they replace the 70-200)
Sony might be the one to come up with a killer system. Take a look at
the MTF for the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4 at Photozone - tested on
APS-c. If they hold up even close to as well on the full-frame a900,
and they can make that quality in wide angle and do a couple of pro
quality standard and telephoto zooms, then Nikon and Canon have some
serious competition.
My guess is that Sony has these Zeiss primes also in mind for high
resolution cine "Red One" type developments. That looks to me where
this is all heading.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

frederick <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> frederick wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>> Fred McKenzie wrote:
>>>>>> In article <g1lg1q$1k3q$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,

>>>>>>> The Sony A900 looks like being $3,500, Canon 5d"II"> $3000,

>>>>>> Perhaps I'm optimistic about the $1000 price for a full frame body
>>>>>> this fall, but it is just a matter of time before the entry level
>>>>>> models come out with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't seen any data on an A900. If it turns out to be 16 MP
>>>>>> full frame, I might not wait for the price to come down. On the
>>>>>> other hand, a 5D II at 20+ MP might sway me. If it was less
>>>>>> expensive than an A900, I could afford a couple of Canon lenses.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well - some of the "rumours" are safe bets.
>>>>> The Sony a900 and Nikon D3x are 99% certainty in name and in sensor
>>>>> configuration. Both 24mp cmos sensors - though possibly not
>>>>> identical if history is a guide. Prices are guesses - though IIRC
>>>>> Sony have made some indications that price will be ~US$3.5 k, and
>>>>> the Nikon logically would cost not less but possibly more than a
>>>>> D3. The "5D II" is rumour. I guess it could be the lowest price
>>>>> full-frame dslr, but it either isn't going to be 20+mp, or it isn't
>>>>> going to be featured to compete with the pro-level cameras. The
>>>>> rumour-mongers at DP review forums have talked themselves in to a
>>>>> Nikon "D10" using some strange logic - IMO it will be a long time
>>>>> before Nikon make a "budget" Fx camera (perhaps though they will
>>>>> make a D3 type camera - but without integral grip - but not a cheap
>>>>> or under-featured model) Companies don't deliberately shoot
>>>>> themselves. There will never be profit in a $1000 full-frame dslr.
>>>>
>>>> $3,000 without a grip would be nice. One would think they do have to
>>>> compete with the 5D on some level.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps. But a D3 without a grip won't be likely to be $3k. What
>>> features should be "left out" to save $1500? I guess I'm underwhelmed
>>> by the concept of Fx - particularly high resolution Fx - unless it
>>> also comes with the feature set that helps to get the shot. I've used
>>> both 5d and D300 long enough to know that the small Fx advantage
>>> doesn't make up for what you don't get - but that's probably my needs,
>>> and ymmv. Even when the sensor (film) wasn't part of the camera price,
>>> good cameras cost good money.
>>
>> I was real tempted by the D3 for low light & wide angle and since I have
>> a bunch of full frame lenses but frankly I'd be embarrassed to be seen
>> with that big beast. And yeah it's a whole lot of money. If Canon can
>> make a 5D, Nikon can make a D70 body with full frame and a couple more
>> features for $3,000 easily. I can see how a full frame D200 might be
>> more than $3,000.
>>
> I think a lot of assumptions about full-frame are made on the basis that
> APS-c sensor cameras ceased to improve after the D70 or 20d. For me,
> sure I'd like a full-frame D300 - but not a full-frame D70. I used 5d
> and 17-40L and D300 with Sigma 10-20 - and even the "w/a advantage"
> really wasn't there... perhaps with a Nikkor 14-24, but then the old
> price thing comes back to bite one on the butt. (The 17-40L offered
> similar edge performance to the 10-20 - worse extreme edges - yet cost
> twice as much) So even if the 5d II has 20mp, Canon doesn't yet have the
> lenses to interest me (except the 200mm f4 IS - the lens Nikon needs to
> also make when they replace the 70-200)
> Sony might be the one to come up with a killer system. Take a look at
> the MTF for the Zeiss 135mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4 at Photozone - tested on
> APS-c. If they hold up even close to as well on the full-frame a900,
> and they can make that quality in wide angle and do a couple of pro
> quality standard and telephoto zooms, then Nikon and Canon have some
> serious competition.
> My guess is that Sony has these Zeiss primes also in mind for high
> resolution cine "Red One" type developments. That looks to me where
> this is all heading.

I think this approaching point where the full-frame sensors have
medium format film resolution is one of the critical elements in a
number of impending developments which will make a radical change in
digital camera design possible. The first important change, as you
mention, is that in order to take full advantage of the resolution a
completely new range of higher precision lenses will be required.

The second point is that it is easier and cheaper to design high
resolution lenses if you can get the back of the lens closer to the
sensor than the mirror allows. The only reason we still need the
mirror is to get the optical viewfinder, and the only reason we need
the optical viewfinder is because EVF isn't yet as good as a good
optical viewfinder. But like sensor resolution, that too is simply a
matter of waiting for the technology to get there at an affordable
price. Just as with the sensor resolution improvement, there's no
inherent physical barrier to making EVFs as good as optical
viewfinders, it's just a case of waiting for the well-established
technological development bandwagon to to get there. The only question
is how long we'll have to wait. We need higher resolution small
internal LCDs, and faster processors capable of translating the larger
amount of sensor "pixels" into the larger display at a fast enough
speed.

It could all be done now in fact, but it just costs too much for the
digital camera market.

The point is that once you have a good enough EVF, you can then design
a range of new high resolution lenses for an exchangeable lens camera
which doesn't have to be reflex. You no longer need the mirror so you
can make significant savings in the costly new lens range.

So the new kind of camera made possible by combining these
developments would be the DSL non-reflex exchangeable lens camera with
through-the-lens (and through the sensor) viewing. They could be
supplied with an extension widget so that people with lots of old
expensive DSLR glass could still use it. For someone with a lot of old
glass it would be like having an upgraded DSLR which could be upgraded
to medium format resolution and quality simply by using one of the new
lenses.

I suspect that's exactly where Sony are going. It's an excellent
opportunity for a company with excellent vertical integration in all
the necessary technologies to steal a march on its rivals in the high
end digital camera marketplace.

--
Chris Malcolm cam DeleteThis @infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

Ron and Gail Smith wrote:
> Hi All
> Thinking of upgrading from Sony A100 to Sony A700 and wondering if anyone
> has done
> that and what your thoughts are?
> I'd been interested to know

It's a very modest resolution gain (~10%) for the money. I'd wait or
perhaps (perhaps, mind you) consider the A350.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700 

In article <6a9v4rF36336nU1 DeleteThis @mid.individual.net>,
Chris Malcolm <cam DeleteThis @holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think this approaching point where the full-frame sensors have
> medium format film resolution is one of the critical elements in a
> number of impending developments which will make a radical change in
> digital camera design possible. The first important change, as you
> mention, is that in order to take full advantage of the resolution a
> completely new range of higher precision lenses will be required.

Chris-

There are existing lens designs for film cameras in formats ranging from
110 film to 8" X 10" sheet film. There is likely to already be lens
designs for any sensor format you can propose.

At present, my 10 megapixel APS sensor's images are approaching the
resolution of lenses designed for 35mm cameras, but they aren't there
yet. Looking at actual images, I estimate the break-even point to be at
least 24 megapixels, where the image becomes lens-resolution-limited
instead of pixel-limited.

Once you reach either limit with any given format, the only way to
increase image resolution is to increase the format size, so less
magnification is required for a given print size.

Don't kid yourself. If you say full frame sensors are approaching the
resolution of medium format film, you are really saying that you are
satisfied with 35mm images. You can't change the laws of physics.

What we are seeing now, is that most people are satisfied with what they
are getting with the common sensors, whether they be APS or the 4/3
system. Most people don't blow up images to poster size prints, or crop
poster images to 4" X 6" prints. In other words, current digital
cameras are "good enough". And they have been since the one megapixel
sensor was developed!

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: Sony A100 to A700