Sony FF DSLR's now officially dead?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, May 30, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Mike Guest

    Mike, May 30, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 31, 2011
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 31, 2011
  6. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    The a900, the a850's "bigger brother" (same sensor and essential
    performance) is still available. Whether it's still being made is unknown.

    Rumour mill says the next Sony FF will not have a reflex mirror but a
    "pelicle". Great speed improvement, but there have been some issues
    with the first models of Sony pelicles. (image artifacts in some
    Alan Browne, May 31, 2011
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    The Alpha 900 was always a very slow seller. Sony thought that price
    was the problem and developed the cheaper Alpha 850 with the same
    sensor. But that didn't sell either*.

    Even though the camera was discontinued a couple of years ago, there
    are thousands of unsold Alpha 900 bodies, so I expect they will be
    available for some considerable time to come.

    There's a very slim chance of an "Alpha 99" but that would be an SLT,
    not an SLR. The Alpha 77 SLT will make more sense, with 25 MP on an
    APS-C sensor.

    * Price wasn't the problem; Nikon had no problem selling vastly more
    D3X bodies - at vastly higher prices. The problem was that the Sony
    sensor in the Alpha 900 and 850 was intolerably noisy. A camera that
    only really works at base ISO - and even then not especially well - is
    never going to be popular.
    Bruce, May 31, 2011
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Be nice if the price dropped. As a 25 megapixel FF at low ISO for
    under $2k, it would be an attractive option for landscapes, studio
    Kind of begs the question at to why the company that made both sensors
    did such a poor job on one versus the other?
    RichA, May 31, 2011
  9. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    I'm very curious to see the next APS-C model, supposedly named the a77.
    Maybe Sony has found a way around the ghosting? I really like the
    pellicle mirror concept and always wondered why Canon (remember the
    Pellix?) didn't at least try it.
    Bowser, May 31, 2011
  10. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Because of their past experience with the "1n RS", perhaps?
    Alan Browne, May 31, 2011
  11. RichA

    Mike Guest

    Perhaps Canon can recall issues they had with the Pellix system?
    Mike, May 31, 2011
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    The A77 is definite and should be equipped with a 24-25 MP sensor.

    Perhaps they should call Ghostbusters. ;-)

    But Canon *did* try it again after the Pellix.

    There was the Canon F-1 HS of 1972, followed by the EOS RT of 1989 and
    the EOS 1N RS of 1995. All were designed specifically to allow the
    use of fast motor drives. After 1995, conventional reflex mirrors
    were sufficiently developed to allow the fast frame rates to be
    achieved with a moving mirror, so there was no need for any further
    development of the pellicle approach.
    Bruce, May 31, 2011
  13. Sony made other choises than Nikon even with the same sensor that may give other
    results. If you see how good those Sony sensor work in the top-dslr from Pentax.

    Do you have a D3X? No?

    Oh dear... You don't know what your talking about - you're a poor student
    reading the nikon booklets and knowing them by heart...

    If you don't have an A900 stop talking about it - it's a very capable camera at
    an affordable price.

    intolerably noisy??? You must be joking!

    DxO tells me it's not the way you're selling this nonsense. The A900 and 850
    share the same sensor - there's a very very tiny difference between those cams -
    and the A900 is still doing fine.

    The D3X may have in fact the same noisy sensor built in! Bad news for you it
    seems? And isn't it weird that all those larger than full frame CMOS sensors all
    seem to stop around 800 à 1600 ISO? Why do they do that for???

    It's a poor reaction from somebody who likes to replace religion by Nikon (the
    same way apple fans react) - and in this case a competitor must be dragged
    through the dust... It says more about you than about Sony.

    It causes more harm to nikon than to sony - i always tell to people asking me
    about what camera to buy - skip advises from those who push you to ONE certain
    BRAND. It's not about brands it's about what you want/need.

    Well - maybe we should talk about the OS that's inside the camera. I heard about
    Nikon it's even older than MS-DOS? And awfull. Do you have some info to share on
    that one?
    mutley-the-nikon-killer, Jun 2, 2011
  14. RichA

    DanP Guest

    You should channel all that energy into something more useful.

    DanP, Jun 2, 2011
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    It is cheap junk. I'm glad you like yours.

    The noise is the main reason it doesn't sell. The A900 was
    discontinued more than two years ago and there are still thousands of
    unsold examples ... go figure.

    They are both equally noisy, yes.

    You are deluding yourself. As DxOMark makes abundantly clear, the
    sensor in the D3X performs very differently to those in the A900 and
    A850. As any intelligent person can see, when it comes to image
    quality there is really no comparison:
    Bruce, Jun 3, 2011
  16. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    If you could mount other lenses!
    Paul Furman, Jun 6, 2011
  17. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Nothing wrong with the better (not necessarily expensive) Sony/Minolta

    And I do mount my Hassy lenses on the a900 as well - though that is
    stop-down metering land...
    Alan Browne, Jun 6, 2011
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    But who would want to, given that the Nikon D700 produces better
    quality images, particularly (but not only) at high ISO?

    On the subject of lens mounts, Minolta carefully chose a lens flange
    to film plane distance for its AF SLRs that prevented owners of the
    excellent Minolta MD lenses from ever using them on Minolta AF bodies.
    It was a deliberate act to ensure that buyers of the new AF cameras
    would also buy new AF lenses. It also had the benefit (to Minolta) of
    preventing the use of most other brands of lens on Minolta AF bodies.

    Two years later, Canon made a similar decision that ensured Canon FD
    lenses could never be used on EOS SLRs. However, the lens flange to
    film plane distance was sufficiently short to allow many other brands
    of lens to be mounted with an adapter, which is why keen photographers
    use superior Leica, Carl Zeiss and even Nikon glass on EOS bodies.

    All other DSLR manufacturers have offered some degree of compatibility
    with legacy lenses from their 35mm systems.

    There are limitations, however, most notably with some Nikon DSLRs
    that won't focus with AF Nikkors that don't have built-in motors, and
    other Nikon 35mm and digital SLRs that won't meter with manual focus
    lenses. As with Minolta, the intention is to force buyers of new
    cameras to buy new AF lenses.

    From the manufacturers' and resellers' points of view, that's
    understandable, because the profit margin on camera bodies is very low
    compared to lenses. It's nice to sell someone a DSLR but the real
    profit is in selling lenses and accessories. A typical subsequent
    lens purchase - say an 18-200mm or 70-300mm VR - will yield more
    profit than a dealer made on the camera.

    The best margins of all are made on accessories such as flashguns.
    Anyone who gets upset about their latest Nikon DSLR not supporting
    legacy lenses will be near apoplectic when they find their Nikon
    Speedlight won't work in auto mode on the new camera. Customers
    frequently complain that they have twice had to renew their Nikon
    flash equipment since film days ... :-(
    Bruce, Jun 6, 2011
  19. RichA

    Guest Guest

    wrong. canon made two adapters for fd lenses, one without an optic and
    one with (which acted a weak teleconverter). third parties also made
    them, for a lot less money.
    canon is one of the most adaptable mounts (other than 4/3rd and micro
    Guest, Jun 7, 2011
  20. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    The converter with an optical element gave atrocious results. Without
    that element, infinity focus could not be obtained. The results are
    that (1) only a very tiny proportion of owners of FD lenses have ever
    used them on EOS cameras, and (2) a very high proportion of owners of
    FD lenses have expressed varying degrees of outrage about Canon's
    callous abandonment of a large and very loyal customer base.

    I just said that. Thanks for agreeing. ;-)
    Bruce, Jun 8, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.