Wilbus wrote:
Naaaa not garbage Paul but like I said before, most people won't care if it's 5 or 8 fps for this camera. Most people won't use it as an action camera. Nikon and Canon holds the throne there and I expect they will for a couple of more years.
Now that the A7rII is out of the way, will be interesting to see if the rumored pro A9 has the build quality and processing speed to compete with a 1DX2 or D5. I would love to see what Sony could do without the size constraint that ML has seemed to pigeon hole itself into.
Matt Grum wrote:
If they can get anywhere close on performance (and usability/build quality etc.) with the 1DX / D4 then expect a $4000 price tag...
That would be welcome price competition as the 1DX2 and D5 will push $7000.
I'm not so sure the 4k video will be as good as the A7s with it's 'native' non line skipping 4k output but I'm curious enough to have put off buying the Shogun until it's been proved........
Matt Grum wrote:
I think you're massively underestimating the length of the development schedule for a camera, I'm pretty sure the specs would have to have been finalised long before the 5Ds announcement.
The competition is the 5Ds, and since Canon set a high price for that it's left the door open for Sony.
If they can get anywhere close on performance (and usability/build quality etc.) with the 1DX / D4 then expect a $4000 price tag...
I think you're massively underestimating how many prototypes and models never see the day of light-- and the role of producing multiple lines with multiple near-interchangeable parts (notably so when there's no mirror involved and we're dealing with something that has evolved away from mainly mechanical towards something mainly consumer electronics-based). The body was chosen long ago. The main features were too. Which sensor was chosen to drop in (and with all the things that come along with said sensor), and what price to charge, are things that can be decided upon in a matter of months IF the prototyping is done in a way to make this simple. There's a reason this is getting announced now, at this price, with this sensor, and a reason it won't be available until August, and why the mythical A7r replacement kept getting bumped backwards.
Sony released the initial A7-series with 12, 24, 36mp FF sensors. We can assume that they had half a dozen other FF sensors that they could have used instead, with various resolutions and imaging qualities, most of which never saw the light of day.
I don't believe that Sony made the decision to release this exact camera, with these exact sensor-based features, at this exact price... 12 or 24 months ago. I think they've been running prototypes in parallel, developing a host of sensors (some of which we'll never see in any commercial goods), and playing a game of being a commercial insurgent trying to drink the milkshake of the slower moving legacy brands. This is Sony imaging... the same brand that appears to raise and drop whole lines, strategies, etc, every 6-12 months looking for whatever it is that's going to stick; they've played this game much to the chagrin of many people who complain that NEX, A-mount, whatever is no longer getting attention.
No, I think Sony gamed this one, tweaked a few things (sensor choice and price), and it could pay off very, very well for them.
shirozina wrote:
I'm not so sure the 4k video will be as good as the A7s with it's 'native' non line skipping 4k output but I'm curious enough to have put off buying the Shogun until it's been proved........
A7s does full sensor readout, it should have superior resolution and better moire/aliasing along with better DR from the larger pixels - but you do need the external recorder for 4k. The A7rII should be close in S35 mode, in FF not so much. Though most will never notice a difference. There's not any real motion to judge rolling shutter as well. I'll wait for tests, but the A7s is probably still better when the ISO's go above 6400 as well. Presumably the A7sII will add 5-axis and 4k internal - hopefully we see it later this year.
Personally, I can't stand the ergonomics and the AF of the original A7's, the new bodies are a major improvement ergo-wise and it looks like the new AF is a big step forward. I've owned a number of E-mount cameras over the last few years, but could never use them as my one system. This may be the camera that pulls me into the E-mount for good.
But we agree Matt: At $2,700, with magical DR improvements, the 5Ds would have been competition for an A7r/2. Hard competition, because it would force a trade-off for buyers: You want the AF or the Size?
GMPhotography wrote:
Price is price pay it or not. Leica in my mind is overpriced but others buy them like buying a bottle of water. Good for them. There really is no argument here buy it or not, it's a personal call. I happen to think for the specs and the feature sets plus the ability to now take on canon glass with AF, Sony A glass with AF with speeds and full AF points is priceless. I'm buying not quibbling on this stuff. It's a camera that checks a lot of boxes for me. It's what I have been waiting for and I'm first in line. ...Show more →
Mostly agree what you stated only that Leica investments have some better consistency regarding their value. I mean that Sony camera prices historically tend to depreciate quite quickly, much faster than Leica camera investments. That's why I am a bit cautious with Sony sales price of $3200 - in one year it might be only "worth" $1600. When I bought the A7R for $2K, I was well aware that in one year the value would decrease by 40-50%. For a higher upfront sales price of the A7R II, this depreciation might be even quicker especially if Sony releases an A9 eight-twelve months afterwards.
At this price, the camera is still too expensive for me (I currently have no mirrorless; once had a NEX-7 briefly).
What would be nice is to have an APS-C cam with the same technologies (IBIS, etc.) -- a success to A6000, and under $1000 (body only). That would be a very attractive light-weight travel/street photography camera.
shirozina wrote:
I'm not so sure the 4k video will be as good as the A7s with it's 'native' non line skipping 4k output but I'm curious enough to have put off buying the Shogun until it's been proved........
No, it wont be quite as good as the α7s, especially in low light if they are throwing half the pixels away. But 4K from the α7ʀ II downsampled to HD in post certainly ought to be better than internal HD video from the α7s!
Also the "full frame" video from the α7ʀ II should be slightly "fuller" than the α7s, which only uses 90% of the senor width when recording 4K, i.e. it gives you a 1.1 crop.
Having DSLR focus speed with canon lenses is, with the 5Dr about to be released, hugely significant in opening up choice to the higher end of users to whom these megapixel counts will appeal. As a previous poster has mentioned, aside from a small resolution difference, the IQ, even from the lossy compression of the sony, is still going to significantly superior in a cheaper, smaller body with the ability to AF, fast, with Sony FE, A mount and Canon EF lenses, as well as a double rated shutter life, silent shutter and in body stabilisation. The opportinuities opened up by the A7r were always wide ranging but with this newer version it has become significant far beyond the world of Alt users. I'm wondering whether others would agree that all that Sony is now lacking is the pro service to truly take it's place among the big two.
shirozina wrote:
I'm not so sure the 4k video will be as good as the A7s with it's 'native' non line skipping 4k output but I'm curious enough to have put off buying the Shogun until it's been proved........
According to Sony's press release the A7rII does full sampling in Super 35mm mode. The demonstration videos posted seem to support that. Throw a SpeedBoster on it and you'll get back the FF framing and the extra stop of light.
I am starting to think the most impressive part is the BSI tech. Everything else has been seen in another camera, but no Sony sensor outside of a cell phone has used it. Samsung's implementation has been impressive, but a ff body? Are we looking at usable ISO12800? Clean images at ISO1600 at 1:1 viewing?
Very intriguing tech, and something that could be distinctive. Is this tech behind the increase in megapixel count?
I also find it encouraging that this sensor has not been found in a Nikon camera. If Sony starts to outpace Nikon (should be very doable) in camera production, we could see the better sensors start in Sony and then trickle down to Nikon (with suitable refinement and improvement).
snapsy wrote:
According to Sony's press release the A7rII does full sampling in Super 35mm mode. The demonstration videos posted seem to support that. Throw a SpeedBoster on it and you'll get back the FF framing and the extra stop of light.
I love this thought merely for the contortions!
Who would have thought we'd be discussing putting FF lenses on speedboosters in order to mount to FF cameras in order to use the APS-C part of the sensor in order to replicate FF full-sensor sampling!
retrofocus wrote:
Mostly agree what you stated only that Leica investments have some better consistency regarding their value. I mean that Sony camera prices historically tend to depreciate quite quickly, much faster than Leica camera investments. That's why I am a bit cautious with Sony sales price of $3200 - in one year it might be only "worth" $1600. When I bought the A7R for $2K, I was well aware that in one year the value would decrease by 40-50%. For a higher upfront sales price of the A7R II, this depreciation might be even quicker especially if Sony releases an A9 eight-twelve months afterwards. ...Show more →
Its a valid point, but one that each user simply needs to assess for themselves. There are no universal good or bad buys, just personally subjective ones.
Some cameras can lose a lot of value in a short period of time. Buying a camera and expecting it to be a store of value is kind of risky as modern electronics aren't exactly blue chip stocks.
I think the reason we see so many "value" threads is because people over extend themselves, buying a camera they can't afford, but thinking its really not that expensive because its going to hold so much value and that they can always turn around and get that money out of it.
I think its better to assume a camera is going to lose at least half its value in the first year, and determine if that opportunity cost is still worth it to me.
So lets say the A7rII is worth $1500 one year from release. Do I want to still pay $3200 for it now ? Is one year of photography with this camera worth $1700 to me ?
Will it generate revenue greater than $1700 ? Will I get what I determine to be $1700 worth of enjoyment out of it ?
Its a totally unique answer for every person, and its especially hard to put a price on enjoyment.
Case in point, buddy of mine loves to rent sports cars when on vacation. I go with the cheapest sub compacts I can get for $30, but he pays hundreds to have the fun of driving a Vette around for a weekend. He finds that extra money well worth it, I don't.
Everyone simply needs to determine their own value for things
justruss wrote:
I think you're massively underestimating how many prototypes and models never see the day of light-- and the role of producing multiple lines with multiple near-interchangeable parts (notably so when there's no mirror involved and we're dealing with something that has evolved away from mainly mechanical towards something mainly consumer electronics-based). The body was chosen long ago. The main features were too. Which sensor was chosen to drop in (and with all the things that come along with said sensor), and what price to charge, are things that can be decided upon in a matter of months IF the prototyping is done in a way to make this simple....Show more →
I don't think it's as modular as you suggest, the choice of sensor impacts so many other components, they can't just chose each bit independently from a list of options. But say they had a load of very mature prototypes in different configurations. They still need to come up with production plans, components ramp up, QA procedures, plus they have to produce a whole load of things like manuals and marketing materials which wont be done for any of the prototypes (I know the manuals seem like they're written by kids on work experience but I assume they're not). I'm always staggered by how long seemingly simple things take in industry.
In any case it seems to me like they made the camera they wanted to make, not a camera designed to compete with the 5Ds - if that were the goal then they could put a 64MP sensor in the α7ʀ body and sell it for much less. Great head to head 5Ds competitor.
Instead they chose to use a BSI sensor to increase sensitivity and they chose 42 megapixels to do 4K video (precise 2x skipping/binning/sampling ratio). They're not going to win any sales from the 5Ds with these features as potential 5Ds customers aren't going to be interested in video/low light.
justruss wrote:
There's a reason this is getting announced now, at this price, with this sensor, and a reason it won't be available until August, and why the mythical A7r replacement kept getting bumped backwards.
As for the replacement getting bumped backwards, this is only based on a lot of wildly inaccurate rumors, for all anyone actually knows this was the intended release date for the α7ʀ replacement all along.
TheEmrys wrote:
I am starting to think the most impressive part is the BSI tech. Everything else has been seen in another camera, but no Sony sensor outside of a cell phone has used it. Samsung's implementation has been impressive, but a ff body? Are we looking at usable ISO12800? Clean images at ISO1600 at 1:1 viewing?
Clean ISO1600? I'm afraid not. I'm predicting less than 1 stop improvement in noise. There really isn't much more room for improvement these days, we're already getting 50% quantum efficiency in some cases. Once you get 100%, that's pretty much it, you can't do anything to reduce photon noise (in low light), you could reduce electrical noise but that's already swamped by photon noise so gains are marginal.
The original 2008 press release for back side illuminated sensors claimed a 1 stop improvement, but that was for very small sensors, where the wiring takes up much more of the photosite.
TheEmrys wrote:
Very intriguing tech, and something that could be distinctive. Is this tech behind the increase in megapixel count?
The choice of megapixel count seems closely tied to 4K video to me, it's almost exactly twice the width of a 4K frame. It's that or someone at Sony has been reading The Hitchiker's Guide a bit too much...
retrofocus wrote:
Mostly agree what you stated only that Leica investments have some better consistency regarding their value. I mean that Sony camera prices historically tend to depreciate quite quickly, much faster than Leica camera investments. That's why I am a bit cautious with Sony sales price of $3200 - in one year it might be only "worth" $1600. When I bought the A7R for $2K, I was well aware that in one year the value would decrease by 40-50%. For a higher upfront sales price of the A7R II, this depreciation might be even quicker especially if Sony releases an A9 eight-twelve months afterwards. ...Show more →
Cameras should NEVER be viewed as a investment but agree Leica does hold its value better. But if your putting out 3 times the cost out front for 3 years think of that interest in the bank or somewhere smart.
TheEmrys wrote:
I am starting to think the most impressive part is the BSI tech. Everything else has been seen in another camera, but no Sony sensor outside of a cell phone has used it. Samsung's implementation has been impressive, but a ff body? Are we looking at usable ISO12800? Clean images at ISO1600 at 1:1 viewing?
Very intriguing tech, and something that could be distinctive. Is this tech behind the increase in megapixel count?
I also find it encouraging that this sensor has not been found in a Nikon camera. If Sony starts to outpace Nikon (should be very doable) in camera production, we could see the better sensors start in Sony and then trickle down to Nikon (with suitable refinement and improvement). ...Show more →
BSI is in the 1" sensor in the RX100 II, III, and now IV, along with the RX10 I and II, and Panasonic cameras and a Canon camera that use the same sensor.
Samsung put their version in an APS-C sensor (about twice the area of the 1" sensors), and now Sony has put it in a full-frame sensor.
Of course, we all knew this was coming- the only question has been as to when. Canon has patents for this type of tech too.
millsart wrote:
Its a valid point, but one that each user simply needs to assess for themselves. There are no universal good or bad buys, just personally subjective ones.
Some cameras can lose a lot of value in a short period of time. Buying a camera and expecting it to be a store of value is kind of risky as modern electronics aren't exactly blue chip stocks.
I think the reason we see so many "value" threads is because people over extend themselves, buying a camera they can't afford, but thinking its really not that expensive because its going to hold so much value and that they can always turn around and get that money out of it.
I think its better to assume a camera is going to lose at least half its value in the first year, and determine if that opportunity cost is still worth it to me.
So lets say the A7rII is worth $1500 one year from release. Do I want to still pay $3200 for it now ? Is one year of photography with this camera worth $1700 to me ?
Will it generate revenue greater than $1700 ? Will I get what I determine to be $1700 worth of enjoyment out of it ?
Its a totally unique answer for every person, and its especially hard to put a price on enjoyment.
Case in point, buddy of mine loves to rent sports cars when on vacation. I go with the cheapest sub compacts I can get for $30, but he pays hundreds to have the fun of driving a Vette around for a weekend. He finds that extra money well worth it, I don't.
Everyone simply needs to determine their own value for things...Show more →
I don't disagree with this at all. This is a very general statement which applies pretty much for anything which we purchase. My point was more in regard to Leica vs. Sony value over time. Just to add to this my personal view in regard to the A7R II: If some of its features convince me to upgrade, I could see myself vesting $2500 at max.
