joeisayo wrote:
The much respected Contax never did much in the pro market with a complete Zeiss line up. What makes you think Sony, known for consumer electronics will do anything in the pro market?
I guess that would be true if you only equated "pro" with sports and newspaper photography. Outside of those specific genres, Contax had a strong professional following. And of course, the Contax 645, had a primarily professional clientèle, and even now, out of production or 2 years, is still sought after by professionals.
Sony video cameras are the high end of SD and HD cameras, and AFAIK, no one makes better ones. I have a JVC Panasonic GY-500 standard def. camera for documentary and corporate video work, but I did trial the Sony equivalent before I bought it; the Sonys are about 50-70% more, cost-wise, matching performance to the Panasonic equivalents. The majority of the best DV newsgathering and HD-for-cinema or advertising cameras in this country are Sony too—so there is no doubt that they can make the best stuff. On this forum, it seems that Sony is only seen as 'consumer' oriented, but it's a different story in the pro video world. .
That DSLR won't win any prizes at the beauty contest though, that's for sure. The competition is welcome for sure.
Any company typically makes high-end and low-end products, or pro-grade and consumer-grade. A lot of Canon's lenses and even some of their bodies are pretty cheesy plactic pieces of crap. Yes, they may function well most of the time, but try doing something outside their design limits and see what happens. However, they also make tank-like pro-bodies that perfectly functioning after being dropped under water with weather sealed lenses.
Sony used to have AIWA (not sure if they still do) and AIWA became the crappy end of Sony products (in my opinion anyways). Now it seems they've dropped that name and went back to all Sony and several classes, again.
Point is, if you pay big money for a higher end product, that's most likely what you'll get (with rare instance similar to Canon's famed 1Dmk3 fiasco). If you buy low end, that's what you'll get.
I'd be willing to bet a Sony Pro body would perform as well as a Canon pro body, but as someone said before, it's also the interface, the marketing, etc that sell a camera and make repeat customers.
Leon Noel wrote:
I hope Sony do well in the noise control (in order to directly compete with 5D replacement body if it ever comes out), since no way Canon is cramping that high count of pixels on their next 5D successor, allegedly 14-16MP with 14bit.
The interesting times predicted have arrived, it would seem. Glad I didn't rush into the Mk III.
This year will certainly see – for the first time – some fascinating choices in the hi-res pro market. Canon's sole occupation of the DSLR high ground would appear to be officially under threat. However, regardless of Sony's excellence in other sectors, they don't have the reputation or – more crucially – the system support to make major inroads into the dominance of more established marques – yet. And that is one ugly camera.
But when this sensor materialises in a high-spec Nikon body, the terrain will shift significantly. Canon's perverse system architecture will be sorely tested by the competition in 2008. They're already on the back foot, having staked their hopes on a flagship that may be looking dangerously dated by the end of the summer.
I foresee a horribly one-sided competition between the 5D II and 'that' sensor in a second-tier Nikon body come autumn (the fall).
Similarly, the 450D is a fine product at the lower end of the market, but is that enough to distinguish it from all the other fine Pentax and Nikon products competing with it?
In every way Canon shows disturbing signs of complacency. I'm not about to switch brands yet, but in a few months time, the only thing giving me pause about doing so might be the 85 L II.
the thing that i dont get here is this
i dont own a 5DFF but this much Im aware of
if your needs are like mine you need to shoot with good DoF on UWA lenses
now it would be common to b in the zone of F8 if your lucky, F11-F16 if your not on 5D to get the same DoF as me with E3 from F4 to F8. At this point for me diffraction is ok, but Im starting to get into the coc zone and going any further wont give me any more gains. Diffraction is a slow slope down for 4/3rds.
So a big FF sensor with 24Mp is going to have diffraction occur all that much earlier than 5D. In the rough sample set were you are already getting close to coc with 5D, just how much closer are you with 24Mp? It seems to me, that one of the attractions of such a sensor is for landscape shooters, but if you should have to so seriously stop down the lens, Im not sure you have much operable F stops to work with.
So has anyone worked out where diffraction kicks in with this thing ?
ccarroll05 wrote:
Are you saying the A900 will hit the market at a price point of $2000? That seems to be where the 5D is now.
No I'm not saying that. The camera will be in the C5D segment, but I exepect its price to be in the region of $3 to $4k. You will be paying a premium for the 24.6MP sensor & SSS.
