Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha NEX

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 18, 2013, 1:58 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

JohnG- whilst you yourself might opt for a m-4/3 for a small form factor, why would you not go for an APS-C variant- in effect,and I quote- "to stretch a tiny bit for perceived extra quality..." after all,you'd have a bit mode DOF control if you so wished- and a bit more high iso noise control... the very reasons you use Full Frame..!

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a very nice/capable bit of kit- but it's quite pricey and I think you'd be paying quite a bit more for not so much gain... still,time will tell if Sony's judgement was right...

I think it might end up like the RX1- many actually wanting it,but not willing to pay the price...!

Last edited by SIMON40; Oct 18, 2013 at 2:10 AM.
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 7:02 AM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Simon - why wouldn't I choose apsc DSLR over m4/3 to eke out more quality? Because in this scenario I am choosing not based on highest quality - I already have full frame for that. In this instance I would be considering a camera with smaller form factor - say for travel photography. Again, everyone is different. And, as you say, only time will tell if Sony's approach will pay off.

However, the notion that is pricey is interesting. Canon has no problems selling it's 5d series of cameras and they are even more expensive. Price between $1-2k is a very viable market. In fact, it's probably the suite spot for manufacturers with regard to profit. Higher margin than entry level (less than pro level) but they sell more than pro so overall profit is probably very good. In addition, you're finding customers willing to buy expensive lenses. Camera companies aren't going to be profitable in such a competitive market with high R&D costs selling $200-400 lenses only. They need customers to buy those expensive lenses. Again, it's business. Chasing the value customer isn't always a sound business strategy. It's a rare company (like Walmart) that succeeds. Very often, such companies struggle and fail.

Sony is making a gamble - keep the body prices down to lure people in and make their money on the lenses. Risky business strategy, we'll have to see if it works. Again, I think they'll have to build trust. Come through on their promise to release 10 new lenses in 2015. Do that, and build trust and the gamble might very well pay off. After all, it's not like Sony is a nobody, they're the #3 ILC camera maker in market share.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 7:19 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

JohnG- I didn't suggest a DSLR over a m4/3 camera... I suggested an APS-C "Variant".... that being an NEX,Canon EOS-M...etc retaining the compact form...
However, so long as your happy with your m4/3... and you do have a decent lens choice...!

Canon sell many 5D's or such like because it's a very well established system,with lenses aplenty going back several years...

Sony is indeed taking a gamble-though I'm not sure I'd base a business strategy on a "gamble"...
Nevertheless,I hope it pays off for Sony- as any form of success will keep other companies on their toes,which can only be good for the consumer...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 7:17 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

One of the few real advantages that a 'Full Frame' sensor has over an 'APS-C' sensor is the more shallow depth of field it can provide.

So why is Sony, instead of releasing a time honored archetypical lens like a 24-70mm f/2.8, instead releasing a 24-70mm f/4.0 lens which doesn't capitalize on a strength of 'Full Frame' sensors? The same goes for their 70-200mm f/4.0 lens.

I don't get it.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2013, 7:54 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Back when I was looking for an 85/1.8 and Sony released an 85/2.8, I thought that maybe Sony was interested in trading high ISO performance for actual light. I guess this confirms it. Unfortunately, high ISO performance doesn't do anything for depth of field.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 11:55 AM   #26
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
One of the few real advantages that a 'Full Frame' sensor has over an 'APS-C' sensor is the more shallow depth of field it can provide.

So why is Sony, instead of releasing a time honored archetypical lens like a 24-70mm f/2.8, instead releasing a 24-70mm f/4.0 lens which doesn't capitalize on a strength of 'Full Frame' sensors? The same goes for their 70-200mm f/4.0 lens.

I don't get it.
It's the weight saving (important for a small NEX like camera), and size... Beside the DOF is not that much different.
-> It's a trade-off most other OEM offer the same choice - 1 stop lost which is more than compensated by the image stabilization, but the camera lens combo is now much lighter (and smaller of course)
__________________
photos (ϕοτοσ), light
graphos (γραϕος), painting

Last edited by NHL; Oct 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 12:00 PM   #27
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIMON40 View Post
... Sony is indeed taking a gamble-though I'm not sure I'd base a business strategy on a "gamble"...
IMO they don't gamble they just cemented their market share in mirrorless so no one else can get in: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42576530

Clearly Nikon and Canon are not in the game in this segment as the next two up are Olympus and Panasonic with their 4/3 in volume
__________________
photos (ϕοτοσ), light
graphos (γραϕος), painting

Last edited by NHL; Oct 19, 2013 at 12:04 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 2:04 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL View Post
... Beside the DOF is not that much different.
The difference between the DoF of a 'Full Frame' sensor with an f/2.8 lens and one with an f/4.0 lens is the same as an APS-C sensor with an f/2.8 lens. Therefore, an f/4.0 lens instead of an f/2.8 lens negates one of the few genuine advantages of a 'Full Frame' sensor. Instead of an A7 with a 24-70/4.0 lens, you might as well have a NEX-7 with a 16-50/2.8 lens, and save $1,450, not to mention size and weight.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Oct 19, 2013 at 2:29 PM.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 2:39 PM   #29
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The difference between the DoF of a 'Full Frame' sensor with an f/2.8 lens and one with an f/4.0 lens is the same as an APS-C sensor with an f/2.8 lens. Therefore, it negates one of the few genuine advantages of a 'Full Frame' sensor. Instead of an A7 with a 24-70/4.0 lens, you might as well have a NEX-7 with a 16-50/2.8 lens, and save $1,450, not to mention size and weight.
True... folks can still buy the NEX (no problem there for Sony since they already has that market locked).
But now they introduced another instrument to up sell to people who has the extra $1,450 to spare for the 'IN' thing right now which are full-frame (but not too big or heavy like a full-frame dSLR) .

Beside DOF is only one aspect of photography... The majority of full-frame are used for travel and landscape photography with the lens fully closed down to maximize the details when enlarged for prints.
-> I just went back and check all my shots with the two full-frame cameras, just a few are wide open... The rest are mostly closed down by several stop! (I think Sony has just targeted me as their potential client)
__________________
photos (ϕοτοσ), light
graphos (γραϕος), painting

Last edited by NHL; Oct 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2013, 3:01 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

True, but there are only a handful of reasons to have a 'Full Frame' sensor instead of an APS-C sensor. One, as you pointed out, is the 'Bling' value. Another is the more shallow Depth of Field, which is negated if you lose a stop with the maximum aperture of the lens.

And in truth, none of the remaining advantages benefit travel or landscape photography.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.