Sony really are serious after all

[peterst6906]

When Sony announced a while back that they were aiming to be #2 in the SLR market, I almost laughed and didn't even think they'd be a serious contender to be #3, which is a long way behind the big 2.

But with the new pro camera due out before the end of the year, maybe I'll have to eat my words.

It seems they are serious. At 24.8 megapixels, full frame, built-in image stabilisation and a new processor, this new alpha 900 could be a contender:

Electronista | Sony’s range-topping Alpha DSLR spotted

Anyone else have links to articles on this?

Regards,

Peter

[cyclohexane]

I've only seen this, which is where the images originated from.

Sony looks more serious with each new model, but they've still go a lot of ground to cover...

[peterst6906]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Sony looks more serious with each new model, but they've still go a lot of ground to cover...

Absolutely, but with a new range of flash units and lenses to accompany the alpha-900, it looks like Sony are at least trying to cover the ground (and competition is good for us all).

I guess the lucky thing for me as a Nikon user is that if Sony have this sensor in their stable soon, it's likely that Nikon may have something similar as well.

Regards,

Peter

[cyclohexane]

Sony's lenses are still awfully expensive (compare their 70-200 with Nikon, Canon), and the key Carl Zeiss-designed attractions all lack SSM, Sony/Minolta's version of USM/SWM/HSM.

I guess the lucky thing for me as a Nikon user is that if Sony have this sensor in their stable soon, it's likely that Nikon may have something similar as well.

Yep, yep. =)

[fjbyrne]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Sony's lenses are still awfully expensive (compare their 70-200 with Nikon, Canon), and the key Carl Zeiss-designed attractions all lack SSM, Sony/Minolta's version of USM/SWM/HSM.



Yep, yep. =)

You are correct about the Sony 70-200/2.8 SSM and the 300/2.8 SSM. These are expensive compared to the competition. These are rebadged Minolta lenses that are still produced by hand at 1/day according to people who have talked to Sony. I should say that these lenses are at least as good as those available for Canon or Nikon and by many accounts better. However they are not "better enough" to justify the price premium IMO.

Sony's other lenses are pretty competitive and it is a good sign that the newest entries are pretty well priced IMO. The 70-300/4.5-5.6 SSM is a "G" (comparable to Canon "L") lens for list of $800. By accounts from PMA this is a well built high-quality lens (if not overly fast). Also the new Carl Zeiss 24-70/2.8 SSM lists for $1750 and is right in there with the new Nikon 24-70/2.8 at $1700. Quality of the Sony appears to be at least as good if not better than the Nikon. Also the Sony ends up being stabilized due to the in-body SSS.

So overall I think Sony is pretty competitive. They have some holes to fill but I think it will happen over time.

[cyclohexane]

I should say that these lenses are at least as good as those available for Canon or Nikon and by many accounts better. However they are not "better enough" to justify the price premium IMO.

Agreed on both counts here. I've always been impressed by the optical quality of the Konica Minolta 70-200mm f/2.8, but I don't think it's nearly half-a-grand (USD) better than the Nikon or Canon offerings.

Also the new Carl Zeiss 24-70/2.8 SSM lists for $1750 and is right in there with the new Nikon 24-70/2.8 at $1700. Quality of the Sony appears to be at least as good if not better than the Nikon

Good news. =)

How's the in-camera processing for Sony improving? I remember the original Alpha tanking at high ISO when shooting JPEG.

[fjbyrne]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Good news. =)

How's the in-camera processing for Sony improving? I remember the original Alpha tanking at high ISO when shooting JPEG.

I think the NR has improved dramatically. I wouldn't say it is better than Canon or Nikon but it is close. The A100 is an excellent low-ISO (400 or less) camera with extremely high resolution. Sony opted for resolution over high-ISO performance on the A100. You could get some good results at higher ISOs on the A100 if you are willing to shoot RAW and do some post processing.

Sony are closer to Canon/Nikon with the A700 and A200/A3XX cameras IMO. Not as much resolution at higher ISOs but the noise isn't as pronounced. They seem to differ from Nikon in that Sony goes after the luminance noise at the expense of color noise where as Nikon attacks color noise and leaves a higher but more film-like "grain". According to one report I read the Sony method makes for better prints and Nikon is better for on-screen viewing. To my eyes I think Canon is still the best at handling noise but the gap between them and others has closed.

I would not typically push the A100 over ISO 400 if I could help it. I have no issues with ISO 800+ with my A700. I even took some shots with ISO 6400 with my A700. Not the best shots but they could produce acceptable 4x6 prints. So I think Sony is moving in the right direction - good news for everyone because competition helps all photographers.

[cyclohexane]

You could get some good results at higher ISOs on the A100 if you are willing to shoot RAW and do some post processing.

We shoot JPEG and print daily on newsprint. With an extremely resistant IT staff, we'll never get any RAW processing software installed, not to mention that our server fills up really fast with smaller files due to the volume of shooting/shooters. In an ideal world, we'd buy more computers, and add storage (storage is cheap), but it's not happening. I won't be here after another two years anyways.

According to one report I read the Sony method makes for better prints and Nikon is better for on-screen viewing

Luminance noise prints better than color noise, in my experience, though a lot of the color noise disappears automatically. If the color noise is particularly egregious, it looks absolutely awful, even on newsprint which is forgiving of noise, while luminance makes most people go "Oh, grain," and move on.

So I think Sony is moving in the right direction - good news for everyone because competition helps all photographers.

Exactly; and that's what matters. =)

[Imagesgranted]

Never see sony as being a serious contender and have never seen any pro use one (certainly going by the ratio of earning pros canon still wins that one) , wouldnt switch from Canon to Sony the most dramatic switch would be from Canon down to Nikon.
i.m.h.o. i would say Canon, then Nikon, not Canon then Sony.

[fjbyrne]

Originally Posted by Imagesgranted

Never see sony as being a serious contender and have never seen any pro use one (certainly going by the ratio of earning pros canon still wins that one) , wouldnt switch from Canon to Sony the most dramatic switch would be from Canon down to Nikon.
i.m.h.o. i would say Canon, then Nikon, not Canon then Sony.

You might be right but don't forget Sony has a very big professional presence in the video market so they know what it means to serve professionals. Also remember Sony absorbed Minolta so there is a heritage there. Minolta was one of - if not the most - innovative camera companies. If Sony can keep the Minolta mindset but apply their production and marketing muscle there might very well be a "big 3" before too long. I remember when Nikon had virtually all the pros locked up - even in sports. Canon changed the landscape by introducing products the pros wanted - specifically USM focusing lenses for the sports photographer. Does Sony have any revolutionary technology to get the pros to switch? Not yet IMO. Competitive technology yes but not revolutionary. However it is still early in the game for Sony. The A100 is less than 2 years old. Perhaps the 24MP Full-frame sensor with Zeiss lenses will get the attention of some pros. The A700 is very competitive IMO. The live view of the A300/A350 seems to be very appealing to the P&S crowd. Either way another competitor is certainly something to be happy about - more innovation at less cost.

[Nikonfreak]

Let's hope their camera is better than their playsation 3. Ours died a few weeks ago after 3 months of ownership. It won't read discs ... none that we put in, no matter what kind... probably why the 80 gig model is off the market now and there's a "new introduction" coming... Nice spin on things. The 80 gig model disappeared off shelves everywhere and it's not because they sold them. They were pulled back. I've called numerous times for the endless hold sessions ... one time 45 min. only to be advised that due to call volume they couldn't take my call that day---click---. Meanwhile, this customer of theirs has a $500 brick in the living room and a bunch of blu ray movies I can't watch and PS3 games my son couldn't play over his spring break. Not that it's earth shattering to play games but it's a customer service issue that creates frustration. I realize it's not a camera, but it's a Sony product and Sony is big enough and their camera division is small enough to be ignored.

There is something to be said for the first entries into a market. Later entries don't seem to do as well as those that are accepted, by consumers, into the marketplace as industry leaders in a particular category of product. It's difficult for any manufacturer to come in and say "We're going to take a hell of a market share away from Canon and Nikon" because, frankly, there aren't many professionals that are going to stake their reputation on a new entry, nor will you get a professional to drop a ton of cash into a camera system that you don't know if it will make it or not and how long it will be supported if not. Technology moves on and you really don't want to just toss away thousands of dollars into gear that may turn into someone's "Edsel".

The corporate appetite, especially in today's economy, for losing money on a product introduction that doesn't take off is going to be slim. Sometimes you can even have a better product and it's doomed from the start if the market doesn't accept it. Sony would have to give professionals a really strong reason to come on board to their system if that's the market they want.

I don't know if this is possible, but they can increase their potential / hedge their bet by introducing a camera system that can work with a competitor's brand lenses. Generally speaking, a pro or high end amateur could try a Sony DSLR pretty much risk free as their lenses would work and it would reduce the cost point of entry into the Sony system. Ah, just a thought ...

Julio

[sean_buerger]

That idea about the lens mount, also could apply to the Sigma SD camera. I feel Sigma is shooting into their own foot there...

Let's hope that they can make a more reliable cam, than the play station (different OEM anyway). S.

[fjbyrne]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

The corporate appetite, especially in today's economy, for losing money on a product introduction that doesn't take off is going to be slim. Sometimes you can even have a better product and it's doomed from the start if the market doesn't accept it. Sony would have to give professionals a really strong reason to come on board to their system if that's the market they want.

I don't know if this is possible, but they can increase their potential / hedge their bet by introducing a camera system that can work with a competitor's brand lenses. Generally speaking, a pro or high end amateur could try a Sony DSLR pretty much risk free as their lenses would work and it would reduce the cost point of entry into the Sony system. Ah, just a thought ...

Julio

You are quite correct IMO that Sony has to offer the pro - or anyone else for that matter - something extra or special for them to choose Sony over anyone else especially the 2 overwhelmingly popular front runners.

To me the best thing Sony has going for them is the in-body stabilization (SSS) that KM pioneered in the 7D. The live-view of the A300/A350 coupled with SSS makes a pretty impressive package for the P&S upgrader.

SSS works very well in my experience. I have used it quite successfully out to the 300mm range. Others have said it works well out to 500+mm. Is it as effective as in-lens? I would think sometimes yes and sometimes no. There really hasn't been a definitive test that I have seen. But it works on all lenses - primes, wide angle, etc. And if in-lens turns out to have a great advantage at some focal lengths or situations then Sony could simply add that to their lenses.

The near-term hook for pros IMO will be the 24MP sensor with the Zeiss optics. By all accounts the new CZ 24-70/2.8 SSM is every bit as good or better than the offerings from Canon and Nikon - and don't forget that it's stabilized via SSS. This could make for a great studio/wedding camera. If the 21MP 1DsIII is a competitor to medium format than the Sony offering certainly will be. There are other lenses of this caliber currently available and in the pipeline by all accounts. Is this enough to woo pros to Sony in significant numbers? I'm not convinced but it's a good start IMO. I think Sony needs to address the support structure before many pros will take them seriously. Do they have what it takes to meet/beat Canon or Nikon? That's hard to answer at this point. I'm very glad they are trying.

But I think they are the only company at the moment that could make inroads but I'd like to see Pentax/Samsung turn up the heat as well.

Finally I doubt we would ever see a universal lens mount. It's simply too profitable to lock-in your user base. I'd love to see it but I'm not holding my breath.

[cyclohexane]

I doubt we would ever see a universal lens mount. It's simply too profitable to lock-in your user base

Olympus, Panasonic, and Sigma joined together to try to produce a "Four Thirds Standard", with Olympus and Panasonic making the bodies, and Sigma porting its lenses over to the 4/3rds mount, but it doesn't seem to be making much headway.

The big problem here is that Olympus and Panasonic have failed to convey to the general public that there are significant advantages to be had from the 4/3rds format. The sensor is a little smaller than APS-C, which should theoretically allow for smaller cameras and lenses (one of the marketing points) while maintaining image quality at the sensor level, but there are APS-C cameras as small as the 4/3rds cameras, and their slightly larger sensors give them a slight edge in dynamic range, noise, and most other performance factors associated with pixel density.

[sean_buerger]

It's an interesting topic in my opinion: camera size vs image sensor size. I think Olympus has some very cute cameras out there. The E3 however adds a bit more bulk again.

The Nikon D40 / 40x / 60 have a very good ratio there, I'd say. Or if we dig deeper into our pockets the Leica M8 is very(!) intersting in this respect.

Sean.