With a Thursday announcement about a flagship SLR due later this year, Sony has become the third manufacturer to bet on the full-frame camera market.
LAS VEGAS--The heyday of 35mm film SLR cameras is long past, but one foundation of the technology is staging something of a comeback with new help from Sony.
The vast majority of digital single-lens reflex cameras today use an image sensor that's smaller than a full frame of 35mm film, which means lenses behave somewhat differently than on a film camera. For years, only Canon sold SLRs with a full-frame sensor, but Nikon entered the market with its top-end D3 late in 2007. At the Photo Marketing Association trade show Thursday, Sony announced its forthcoming "flagship" Alpha-branded SLR will follow suit.
"We will commercialize this model by the end of this year," said Toru Katsumoto, senior general manager of Sony's digital imaging business group. "This model uses a full-frame size, 24.6 megapixel, CMOS censor with Exmor technology"--specifically, Sony's full-frame sensor, he said.
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13951_1-9860915-63.html
Sony's new 24.8MP sensor could help make the relative newcomer to the SLR market become a force to be rekoned with.
In a surprise announcement that underscores how dedicated Sony has become to its digital camera division, the company says that it has developed a full-frame, 35mm-format 24.81-megapixel CMOS sensor. As if a high-rez, full-frame sensor isn't good enough, Sony says that the new sensor will be able to yield an impressive 6.3 frames per second. By contrast, Canon says its 21.1MP EOS 1Ds Mark III can shoot up to 5fps. The strange part about the new Sony sensor is that it only offers 12-bit output, while higher-end SLRs, such as Canon's 1Ds Mark III and Nikon's D3, already offer 14-bit output.
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9865553-39.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e703
LAS VEGAS--Two's company, three's a crowd, and Canon's Chuck Westfall is a lot less lonely these days.
Canon once was the sole camera company offering a digital SLR whose sensor is the size of a full frame of 35mm film, a technology that can increase the performance advantage and price penalty that SLR cameras already have compared with compact cameras. In November, though, Nikon began selling its full-frame rival, the D3, and last week Sony said it will launch its own full-frame competitor by the end of 2008.
It's not the size of the sensor it's what you do with it.
Here is some more reading on the Mega Pixel race and it's applicability to the mass of photographers. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/tea-leaves.shtml
After using the Sony F828 I was going to make the Sony my next SLR but when I had a play with it is seems 'tinny' compared to the Nikon. Perhaps part of the Minolta inheritance. So maybe with this camera Sony will come up with a more solid design.
None of the current lot are as sharp on wide angle as the F828 which lacking a mirror doesn't need retro focus lenses. There is at least a 2-3 pixel difference in sharpness.
Maybe in the digital stakes the high end non SLR cameras can be put into the class of Hasselblad Super Wide. I kinda like the non SLR as I don't have to look for the glasses to see the screen on the back and can review via the LCD viewfinder. My only real complaint with those cameras is that they are impossible to focus manually.
One of the features of the F828 that is a stand out in the studio compared to the Nikon D200 is that you could use the toddle control to move the focus point to any position in the viewfinder. Which when you have the camera mounted on a stand is a right pain with the D200 as manual focus is yuck and you have to move the camera to get a focus point.
There is a lot of options to consider. I've been holding off buying a new camera for a bit, I doubt I can wait till the end of the year. Most likely it will be a Nikon between me and the boys we have a bit of a Nikon lens collection.
I'm still open to suggest on this.
Yani
<Yani> wrote in message news:13613@coreldraw.com... After using the Sony F828 I was going to make the Sony my next SLR but when I had a play with it is seems 'tinny' compared to the Nikon. Perhaps part of the Minolta inheritance. So maybe with this camera Sony will come up with a more solid design. None of the current lot are as sharp on wide angle as the F828 which lacking a mirror doesn't need retro focus lenses. There is at least a 2-3 pixel difference in sharpness. Maybe in the digital stakes the high end non SLR cameras can be put into the class of Hasselblad Super Wide. I kinda like the non SLR as I don't have to look for the glasses to see the screen on the back and can review via the LCD viewfinder. My only real complaint with those cameras is that they are impossible to focus manually. One of the features of the F828 that is a stand out in the studio compared to the Nikon D200 is that you could use the toddle control to move the focus point to any position in the viewfinder. Which when you have the camera mounted on a stand is a right pain with the D200 as manual focus is yuck and you have to move the camera to get a focus point. There is a lot of options to consider. I've been holding off buying a new camera for a bit, I doubt I can wait till the end of the year. Most likely it will be a Nikon between me and the boys we have a bit of a Nikon lens collection. I'm still open to suggest on this. Yani http://community.coreldraw.com/forums/p/3708/13613.aspx#13613
Actually I saw some Olympus E510s with 2 lenses for <$700. So I might go that way yet. After all any electronic camera is junk within a year or so. You're probably better off buying down market and updating more often.
Actually I saw some Olympus E510s with 2 lenses for <$700. So I might go that way yet. After all any electronic camera is junk within a year or so. You're probably better off buying down market and updating more often. Yani http://community.coreldraw.com/forums/p/3708/13686.aspx#13686
Nothing I can't deal with in Noise Ninja. Should we give them another plug... I think so.
http://www.picturecode.com
I think I will take exception to the 'junk within a year or so' comment. That mentality is not only wasteful from an economic sense it is environementally irresponsible. I routinely use cameras that are three and four years old and produce much saleable work and many billable labor hours from these 'junk' cameras.
As to 'dealing with it with Noise Ninja', that is another dangerous mentality. Software correction can never be a substitute for getting the image right in-camera. The good reason for buying a camera is that it produces superior image quality. With the exception of special niche shooting (Fast Burst Modes comes to mind) there is no single quality of any camera that is meaningful other than the quality of the image it produces. Noise is an indicator of poor image quality which can be due to a variety of circumstance including low light, poor exposure, high ISO and signal to noise ration from a low quality sensor or a densely packed photo-sites on a small sensor.
As photographers-legitimate photographers-we need to strive to produce and image that software can enhance-NOT an image that software can save. That starts with your choice of camera and ends with your technique to capture-not with the prowess of an image editor and a plugin.
Rikk Flohr said:I will take exception to the 'junk within a year or so' comment.
Take it anyway you like but it's not like an RB or a Blad (film) where a camera lasted 10+ years.
Nikon don't even keep a world supply of parts for electronics that go awall. If they end up with some common fault at appears after the camera is out of production you can just throw it away. Even before digital it was like that. I've got 2 dead Nikon FEs here which they didn't have parts to repair shutter electronics.
The toy camera Nikon 5700 blew the sensor after 1 1/2 years. Not just mine either as they fixed any cameras out of warranty for nicks.
The Sony F828 had the wire to the electronic viewfinder tear after 2 years when a tripod fell over. Sony literally laughed at the idea of repairing that.
I think you need to face up to reality on this issue. You might get 4 years out of a digital camera. Or should I say they might live for 4 years. But you are going to look like a TA when you got the an agency with a 6MP file and the competition is offering 30MP.
I've never seen so much photo technology go to the dump as has happened in the last 10 years. I've got a great Durst 138 here with a colour head. Do you think I'll ever use that again?
Get over it Rick, NN is just software like the camera is driven by like what is PS like what drives the printer. No one gives a damn about anything but the result.
A little vitriolic, Yani.
By the way, my name is spelled Rikk - not Rick.
I give a damn about things besides the result. I care about the amount of processing time I have in an image. The customer cares about the result. If I produce a higher image quality to begin with, the time I spend getting the result the customer wants is markedly less. That means I make more money and can afford a better camera sooner-though I don't really need one. I get the good result at the time of the shutter click and spend hours less on an image making it client-ready.
If I can go on a little rant here. The ease of mediocre digital photography has caused a marked lowering of standards and a certain devil-may-care attitude regarding the quality of capture vs the repair capabilities of software. I own Noise Ninja. I have used it maybe 4 times in the last year and considering I shot in excess of 35000 images during that time, noise must not be too large an issue. Do you know why? Because I take care to buy quality equipment, expose properly, use prudent ISO and compensate with lighting, tripods, mirror lockups and remote releases.
As far as I am concerned mentalities espousing a continued attitude towards little emphasis on proper image capture and greater emphasis on software recovery, I will make a very lucrative living. Do you know why? Because I will spend a third of the time the others do on delivering an image for the same price.
I have never sent a camera or a lens in for repair in 25 years of shooting. I have never had a camera fail other than the one that was involved in a fall and had the housing bent. It still worked but I replaced it because I didn't trust the weather seals any more. In fact, I just fired a shutter and the exposure was perfect and the focus was sharp.
I have digital cameras ranging from 1.3 MP - 7.1 MP ranging in age from 1 to 8 years old. They all work and work well. I have DSLRs ranging from 1-4 Years old covering MP ranges into the 13 range. They all work. They don't need repair. I sold two images this week from that lowly four-year-old 8.2 MP DSLR in a 20x30 inch size to a high-scale decorator client who only cared about results. Would you like to know the funny part? Neither image had to go into an image editor. RAW images processed in lightroom were sufficient to achieve the result. Do you know, the decorator who purchased the images didn't ask how many megapixels I shot or even if I shot digital. She liked the pictures and bought them.
As long as there are people out there who think their image editing suite and this year's only gear will make them a cutting edge professional, I will make a lot of money and break a lot less sweat.
You are entitled to your opinion but please curb the attitude. Perception is reality. "Facing up to the reality on this issue" is facing perception. Calling an issue reality does not make it so. It is merely your perception. I choose to disagree: respectful and friendly disagreement of course. :-)