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
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. :-)
You're the one taking exception to things. I'm not in a mood to care much myself.
Do don't know my work history but it's long and broad and I've worked at the highest level. So if you take attitude with me it won't get you far.
For the record I'm doing my masters at the moment in web technologies but I owned one of the top advertising studios here for 20 years, and my experience with computing goes back to punch tape. My X partner does that now I have other interests.
Further all my cameras get serviced and the internals of the lenses clean every 1-2 years in the case of pro gear. Good on you for not needing too. Obviously you have different environmental conditions but that is what I do to be sure leaf shutter don't freeze on the job or splatter bits of guff inside the lens.
I hardly think throwing away, or giving to kids old digital cameras is an issue. There are whole photo labs that have gone to the dump here.
But please prattle on about being disrespected and be sure that at 2am I care.
Gentlemen, I would recommend that we stop this thread at this point as this is becoming a two person conversation.
I would also like to remind you of the netiquette and would greatly appreciate if you could adhere to it.
Thank you
Agreed.
Disagree. I don't have to agree with the moderator to play do I? It's not a tennis match where the lines of the court are clearly marked out.
What is the reason for moderation here? It's very iffy. I've seen far more robust debates on Corel forums and the only moderation required has come from the crowd. Far better to let a conversation fissle out than put a cap on it. In fact I've never seen moderation occur in any circumstance except from the crowd. This feels more like "Corel has a new car please wear a shirt and don't sweat on the seats".
Sets a dangerous precedent where people will expect to be saved by the moderator if they claim their feeling are injured for some quirky reason. We have a saying here 'toughen the # up' . Who knows where that conversation would have ended up. But I doubt if it was anywhere very dangerous. And really suggesting that people shouldn't replace cameras for environmental reasons is risiblly fallacious. Clearly assisting Rikk in a paradigm shift here is of international importance as is the presentation in here of true knowledge and serious debate. Else we may well end up with such things as Corel using astrology to make decisions on which features need serious consideration. Which naturally would be all the Capricorn ones.
Seriously Mr Moderator we have had heated debates on these forums that have lead to strong virtual friendships. Moderation needs to come from the crowd. And the crowd wheels a much more powerful punch.
That said issues of vilification on the grounds of race, sex and religion are a special case.
Let me just look back at the thread from another browser... "But please prattle on about being disrespected and be sure that at 2am I care."
I think that is about the most 'serious' comment made. You better be careful here if you start moderation on this basis as some of us practise disrespecting each other as a matter of course. That is how we stop heads from exploding. The only respect you get from the crowd here is rightly that which you earn from making quality contributes that inform and assist. Some have tried to earn respect through prattle but we deal with those as a group and move them to a enlighten position.
Yani, this thread has not been moderated (you wouldn't see it online anymore if that was the case). A health debate and discussion is great, and we are all for it. Please don't misunderstand the previously made comment. Having an opinion and sharing it / providing arguments for it is great. Having two members debating in a thread in public is fantastic, as it gives the opportunity for others to provide insightful information. The only request from our side is to do this is a respectful and professional manner. This comment is not directed at anyone in particular in this thread or in the community, but much more a general comment for everyone.
The power of the crowd bring people into line real quick around here. And even some of the best of us have copt the paddle from the crowd on a bad day when everything is going wrong.
But it is good to say 'be nice' and refreshing to know that we are not moving to moderation which is only a stones throw from censorship.
Being sensitive won't get sensitivity from me. It just comes across as ineffective use of control processes. Poor me, aloof, integration, intimidation they don't substitute for rational explanation. Here's a nice little piece on reasoning that is worth making a local copy of. It could well be rewritten into a Corel context and poked in a box as a reminder that poor argument is transparent.
I'll do one as an example...
Straw Argument
1. People who argue that Australia should become a republic are seeking to change completely Australia's system of government. (Note the simplistic summary and the lumping together of & quotall" those calling for a republic.)
People who argue that Corel should introduce release candidates are seeking to completely change Corel's management structure and undermine profitability.
;)
Reasoning Fallacies
Sweeping Generalisation
1. By and large, All Aborigines are likely to abuse drugs, and commit crimes
2. There's a few exceptions, but they only prove the rule, I still say most Aborigines are likely to abuse drugs and commit crimes. (Even worse - a sweeping generalisation pretending that it is not!)
False Cause
1. Since 1975, Australia has had a liberal immigration policy; and since that time, there has been more ethnic violence in Australia - therefore it is this immigration policy which causes the violence. (One thing happening after another does not equal a cause.)
2. If there wasn't so much sex and violence on television, our young kids would not be the delinquent hooligans they are today. (Simplistic causal link when things are more complex.)
Circular Reasoning
1. Socialism is not a workable economic system, because an economic system in which the means of production is collectively owned cannot work. (False categories here - "socialism" and "an economic system in which the means of production is collectively owned" are the same thing!)
2. You should not be given an extension on your essay because no-one should be given time past the due date for assignments. (Only holds if the latter claim is true - but no argument is made that it is true.)
Ad Hominem (against the person)
1. Allen argues that rationality is a discourse, but he wears shorts and t-shirts a lot; Therefore Allen's argument is wrong. (Note the gap for an implied premise- People who wear shorts and t-shirts a lot generally don't know much about abstract concepts.
2. Allen argues that rationality is a discourse but he looks so you; young academics know less than older academics; therefore Allen's argument is wrong.
3. Allen has researched discourse theory for four years; if he has studied it then he probably knows what he is talking about; therefore Allen's argument is probably right.
False Dilemma
1. Either interest rates will come down or there will be a world disaster. In either case, I will not have to worry about selling my house. If there's a disaster, ownership of property will come to an end and if interest rates fall, then I can easily sell my house. Therefore although my house is not selling well at the moment, I have nothing to worry about.(Either interest rates will come down or there will be a world disaster - but surely there are other alternatives?)
Golden Mean
1. It is unfair to citizens already in Australia to let all the refugees and immigrants who want to come here from overseas settle in Australia. But it's also unfair to not let anyone come in, since Australia is a large, prosperous nation. Therefore we should let people migrate to Australia but not come as refugees. (While the first two sentences are important in their own right, they are hardly adequate grounds and may not be strictly relevant.)
2. [Imagine an academic is arguing that she will oppose a small, specific part of a proposed new accounting system - her opponent says:] It is impossible to make changes around here when everything that we want to do with the curriculum is always being opposed. (Taking a specific argument out of contxt is also creating a straw argument.)
Slippery Slope
1. Letting students have unit representative will cause students to think they should have a say in how Curtin's schools are run. If they have a say in how schools are run this will cause them to try and gain influence over the whole unversity. Once students are influencing the whole university, no decision could be taken without their approval, which would cause the university's standards to slip and its academic integrity to be questioned. Moreover, the power thust gained by students would cause them to try and take control of all aspects of university policy, thus destroying the institution. Therefore, we should not let the students have unit representatives.(Note how the conclusion is reached from the first sentence via a long slide down the slope of bad consequences.)
2. I accept that as a student with a severe illness and whose parents are getting divorced, you are individually entitled to an extension on your essay. BUT to be consistent, I would have to give it to someone who was well, but whose parents are divorcing; and then, if I granted that extension, I'd have to give in to someone whose cat had just died, and then, if I gave in there, to be consistent, I'd be obliged to give it to someone who had eaten a bad breakfast. Therefore I am not going to grant you an extension. (False appeal to consistency.)