Sony's FF is small!! Apparently

Discussion in 'Sony' started by RichA, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    Me, Sep 5, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I'm not sneering, a small FF is inevitable. I've seen the body, it's
    not much larger than the A700.
    RichA, Sep 5, 2008
  4. RichA

    Mark Thomas Guest

  5. RichA

    Me Guest

    I'd guess that would be about right. Some Nikon D700 owners would truly
    spew green bile if a 24mp version is released too soon. There's even
    enough D300 owners spewing bile on DPReview forums about the D700, but
    apparently not noticing that the D700 is twice the price. The 24mp
    versions of the 12mp Fx models should be about the same price. If the 5d
    replacement has approximately the 50d feature set and price similar to
    the current 5d price, then it should be a pretty attractive proposition too.
    Me, Sep 5, 2008
  6. RichA

    mrbobjames Guest

    The more pixels, the more noise. Yes? No?
    mrbobjames, Sep 5, 2008
  7. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Size doesn't matter, how much will this camera cost? Sony said publically if
    they don't garner a 15% market share, they'll withdraw from the dSLR market.
    If this is priced like most of their re-badged Minolta glass or CZ lenses,
    it'll be still born! They are calling it a pro camera, but they don't have a
    significant share of the pro market.
    Guest, Sep 5, 2008
  8. It's not market share which makes something a pro camera, it's
    specification and quality. If those are present the market share will
    follow some years later.
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 5, 2008
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    Not really it's Canon and Nikon, both have "pro-service" Sony doesn't
    understand the pro market. I doubt existing pros will change their brands.
    Sony wants 15% market share in dSLR by Q4 FY2009. So not likely to happen.
    Guest, Sep 5, 2008
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Makes no sense for them to bail, point and shoot cameras make next to
    zero profits for the companies, so if they stay in cameras at all,
    they might as well keep making DSLRs. I think they'll be satisfied
    with getting the enthusiast and semi-pro market with it, depending on
    it's price.
    RichA, Sep 5, 2008
  11. RichA

    mrbobjames Guest

    Of course, density is the important factor.
    Some posters here would like to see 20 plus megapixels on a FF sensor.
    Wouldn't that pose a noise problem?
    And haven't we reached the apex of current technology where pixels
    versus noise versus whatever else affects resolution is at an optimum?
    Don't we now need a technological brekthrough to move forward?
    mrbobjames, Sep 5, 2008
  12. RichA

    Me Guest

    No - we haven't reached the end of the pixel race.
    15mp on the 50d indicates that over 30mp could be easily achievable now
    on an Fx sensor. It will come - no doubt about it.
    Me, Sep 6, 2008
  13. RichA

    OldBoy Guest

    Last year Canon made a 50 megapixl prototype CMOS sensor.
    OldBoy, Sep 6, 2008
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I love it, they act like this is some big news when it would be
    impossible to get enough sensitivity without a microlens layer.
    Unless you go with some other technology.
    RichA, Sep 7, 2008
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Due to scarcity, reputation and system type, these lenses vary
    markedly in price. A Nikon is typically $800+ on the used market, for
    manual lens. The CZs can be had for as little as $450 in Contax
    form. Pentax's T* lens costs upwards of $1500 on Ebay because of
    sheer scarcity and Contax's 60th Anniversary 85mm f1.2 is worth about
    RichA, Sep 7, 2008
  16. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    I was irked when I got a D200 & the D80 was released a few months later
    with the same sensor & viewfinder but I got over it pretty quick. I'm
    sure my D700 will look pathetic in a couple years but it works well and
    I'd need a faster computer for much more than 12MP anyways and I'm more
    interested in dynamic range than resolution. Are the current Sony models
    less expensive than Canon or Nikon? 24MP I'd expect to cost at least $3,000.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Sep 7, 2008
  17. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    The first part is just nerd humor and good Scouts don't need no
    stinking smiley, so you need to put in a couple of hours with your
    nerd merit badge manual. For the second part, it would take a
    printer that can handle 20" wide photo paper at 300 dpi. The big
    three have photo quality inkjet printers with 24" wide carriages.
    B&H lists a fair number that have 44" carriages, such as the Stylus
    Pro 9880, iPF8100, iPF8000S, Designjet Z2100 and Designjet Z3100, a
    few that are 60" and Epson's 64" wide Stylus Pro 11880 :

    Don't delay - B&H has them in stock with a $3,000 mail-in rebate.
    By using Canon's 50mp camera and this printer, you'll finally have
    an easy way to check the quality of your lenses and be able to make
    prints with barrel distortion that're larger than a real barrel. :)
    ASAAR, Sep 9, 2008
  18. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    I interpret Beschizza's article differently, that he meant what he
    wrote, and wrote it accurately. If all of the 8000x6000 pixels
    could be printed at 1,333dpi, it would cover a 4.501"x6.02" area.
    This is *much* denser than the 300dpi that what most consider to be
    the standard for high resolution prints. So he was just salivating,
    saying WOW, this sensor could theoretically provide 1,600% more
    detail in a 4"x6" print than our current super-sharp 4"x6" prints
    contain. Not that he'd actually *want* to print at 1,333dpi.
    Reading the condensed OED with a magnifying glass wasn't much fun,
    and I think that most folks would feel the same about super-high
    resolution prints that would necessarily cost much more to produce,
    with little advantage over standard res. prints unless they're
    viewed using inconvenient magnifiers.

    . . .

    Nope, I meant 300dpi, laid down on that 20" wide paper.
    Multiplying 300x200 == 6,000, the short dimension of the 6,000x8,000
    that the sensor could produce. This was for the real-world,
    non-fantasy part of Beschizza's article, where he wondered if
    technology exists that could print all of that resolution at photo
    quality. Sure thing. It just takes a wider carriage printer than
    is seen for sale in most computer/photo shops.
    ASAAR, Sep 10, 2008
  19. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    You were ahead when you said "Really don't get it..." and it
    really wasn't necessary to demonstrate it. But if you want to prove
    it beyond a shadow of a doubt, do go on . . .
    ASAAR, Sep 10, 2008
  20. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Even further more, you will probably find that your printer
    deliberately prints dots of different diameters according to the
    intensity of the colour required.

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 10, 2008
    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.