bjornthun wrote:
I think so too. The 85/1.4 GM, the 100/2.8 T5.6 GM and a 135/1.8 could easily be considered a trio for portrait/fashion or wedding pros to choose from. I think we could even add a 200/2 to that for some at least. Then we need a 400/2.8 and the TCs you mentioned, to also cater for sports and wildlife shooters, at least initially. Sony could then provide a road map that says 300/2.8, 500/4 etc after that. I think that adding a 200-500/5.6 to the 100-400mm FE should be done early, if only as a stop gap solution until a 500/4 is in place....Show more →
I think you guys are too locked into film era lenses, the future is a huge increase in sensor density which will allow cropping to any tele length. Isolation of subject will be be SW driven.
mogul wrote:
I think you guys are too locked into film era lenses, the future is a huge increase in sensor density which will allow cropping to any tele length. Isolation of subject will be be SW driven.
You may be right, and I also think that zooms will play an increasingly important part. Maybe Sony should do a 200-400/4 +1.4x TC early?
I have thought about the A7R II and the cropping capabilities it will give. But, yes old habits are hard to shake off.
I work for clients they are as unpredictable as rats you never know what there going to do next. I've been burned by this . Clients will not only crop the heck out of your images they will also go way beyond what your files is capable of producing. I had a client take a M8 file 12x30 ft and it looked like shit. So cropping maybe nice for web and smaller prints but if your working for clients it can be a really big issue. That was also a really big client and I did not look good. So we do have to think about this odd stuff that happens. I rarely shoot with air around a certain subject or product for this reason. At least from the working side we have to think about end usage. Even a great sports shot could wind up as ad campaign,billboard and such. Honestly I never crop unless I really have to which is rare.
retrofocus wrote:
I agree with your estimate - the tricky question is how would this fit into future Sony FF sensor development actions. I am really afraid that they are going to do what Canon miserably did in the past - to push lacking sales of the A9 series, put in better sensor technology there first and wait quite a while to tickle it down to the A7 series and below. I complained exactly about this in the past within the Canon forum, too. Sony was shaking up the market several years ago with the introduction of the A7 series which was great. But now it seems they might just follow the broken path from Canon and others which makes them less standing out regarding innovation IMO. I was afraid that this might happen, so I never vested too much into the FE system and lenses. Regarding the prices you mention - and I agree! - Leica becomes a better and better and price-wise comparable option for what I prefer to use to be honest. ...Show more →
I'm not so sure that Sony is following in Canon's track. Sony appears to me to have a more modular camera body design than Canon, which is A7S, A7, and A7R, with different sensors and capabilities. They do something similar with their APS-C line A6000, A6300 and A6500, but here all the bodies are 24mp but different capabilities. I think they will continue the A7 line the same way with three bodies. This allows relatively similar user interfaces, similarities in body parts, leading to reduced design and maybe even manufacturing costs. Also the fact that there are fewer mechanical parts than in a DSLR, and that the camera relies much more on software, makes the situation better than for Canon, I think. "Trickle down" can work better under these premises, I think.
bjornthun wrote:
Nikonrumors has already picked up on the part about Sony not selling certain sensors to third parties, Link. The tone seems a bit worried.
Likely the former Sony-Nikon sensor arrangement is going to expire, and for Sony it might no longer be beneficial to sell their technology to Nikon as it was 4-5 years ago. The way Sony is moving, they might decide simply to keep the new sensor technology in their own cameras first before selling the 2nd and 3rd generation sensors to third parties.
In this case, Nikon might also start to work on their own mirrorless cameras in the next couple of years to come (which they likely were restricted to do so in the current Sony-Nikon arrangement with sensors)
retrofocus wrote:
Likely the former Sony-Nikon sensor arrangement is going to expire, and for Sony it might no longer be beneficial to sell their technology to Nikon as it was 4-5 years ago. The way Sony is moving, they might decide simply to keep the new sensor technology in their own cameras first before selling the 2nd and 3rd generation sensors to third parties.
In this case, Nikon might also start to work on their own mirrorless cameras in the next couple of years to come (which they likely were restricted to do so in the current Sony-Nikon arrangement with sensors)
Sony still sells sensors to Nikon, the new 500 uses the old 58 sensor. Who is left? Toshiba sensors are a division of Sony. Do you think Nikon will buy Canon sensors? Samsung obviously can fill the void but Japanese companies don't seem to use Korean parts very often.
bjornthun wrote:
Nikonrumors has already picked up on the part about Sony not selling certain sensors to third parties, Link. The tone seems a bit worried.
---------------------------------------------
bluloo wrote:
Strange, anyone else getting a 404 when clicking on the OP's link (or searching for it via Google)?
Check out the article at nikonrumors, that I linked to.
mogul wrote:
Sony still sells sensors to Nikon, the new 500 uses the old 58 sensor. Who is left? Toshiba sensors are a division of Sony. Do you think Nikon will buy Canon sensors? Samsung obviously can fill the void but Japanese companies don't seem to use Korean parts very often.
Well, there are other powers in Japan that have a say in who gets what. Mitsubishi comes to mind. Matsushita is another.
mogul wrote:
Sony still sells sensors to Nikon, the new 500 uses the old 58 sensor. Who is left? Toshiba sensors are a division of Sony. Do you think Nikon will buy Canon sensors? Samsung obviously can fill the void but Japanese companies don't seem to use Korean parts very often.
If Nikon can't make their own competitive sensors, they either need to buy 2nd or 3rd generation ones from Sony in the future or use any other manufacturer of sensors out there. I wouldn't say that Canon is not an option, but it seems unlikely. There are some other less known sensor manufacturers - Leica for example purchases its CMOS FF sensor from CMOSIS in Belgium.
retrofocus wrote:
If Nikon can't make their own competitive sensors, they either need to buy 2nd or 3rd generation ones from Sony in the future or use any other manufacturer of sensors out there. I wouldn't say that Canon is not an option, but it seems unlikely. There are some other less known sensor manufacturers - Leica for example purchases its CMOS FF sensor from CMOSIS in Belgium.
Sure a boutique manufacturer is a possibility but at what cost? Scale is very important with consumer products to be price competitive.
Intriguing. I wonder why it's gone? To much evidence of A9? The implication that Sony will keep their best camera sensors for themselves (which may or may not have been what Tanaka-san was saying)
Speculation mode: ON
Maybe Sony doesn't want to sell full frame sensors with on sensor PDAF and certain video capabilities to third parties. This could be a problem for Nikon, when/if going mirrorless. Or something else.
Speculation mode: OFF
Fuji X-T2 uses a Sony APS-C sensor with on sensor PDAF and 4k video.
Repost of my comments on NR regarding its story about Sony's plan to no longer sell its camera sensors to third-parties:
I believe this may be a misinterpretation of Tanaka's answer. I think he was referring to Sony's vertical R&D integration and how that adds value to their company by not having to rely on technology from other companies, whose pace of development may be slower. This becomes more apparent when you read the follow-up question+answer:
DE: So Sony's invested billions of yen in sensors...
KT: Yes.
DE: ...that applies to many areas, and now for cameras, you can draw on that. So it's sort of like that investment has already been made or is being made, and you can draw on that and have proprietary sensors just for Sony's cameras.
KT: Mmm-hmm.
DE: Yes.
KT: And the sensor is one aspect. Another one is the lens, yeah? And the same as the sensor, we invested a lot of money for the development of our lenses. So the point is that we have a key technology, so we invest in-house. We don't just think to buy something [from another company].
snapsy wrote:
Repost of my comments on NR regarding its story about Sony's plan to no longer sell its camera sensors to third-parties:
I believe this may be a misinterpretation of Tanaka's answer. I think he was referring to Sony's vertical R&D integration and how that adds value to their company by not having to rely on technology from other companies, whose pace of development may be slower. This becomes more apparent when you read the follow-up question+answer:
DE: So Sony's invested billions of yen in sensors...
KT: Yes.
DE: ...that applies to many areas, and now for cameras, you can draw on that. So it's sort of like that investment has already been made or is being made, and you can draw on that and have proprietary sensors just for Sony's cameras.
KT: Mmm-hmm.
DE: Yes.
KT: And the sensor is one aspect. Another one is the lens, yeah? And the same as the sensor, we invested a lot of money for the development of our lenses. So the point is that we have a key technology, so we invest in-house. We don't just think to buy something [from another company]....Show more →
I think there is a good chance you are be right about that.
But I doubt if that's the reason they pulled the interview: it would have been easy to edit.
