Sony's new Full-Frame A-850

There have been a lot of shortcomings in the newest canon's compared to the competition. I would expect the 7D to rise above. If it were full frame that would be awesome.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #8532312
I think DPR's test of that was when NR or DRO could not be turned off. The a900 does not have significantly more DR than other cameras similar to it.

look at the ACR best -vs- canon's. It's still ahead. So is the D700. Sony has a wonderful camera here for not much money. Take of your brand blinders and recognize it for what it is. Yes it SUCKS at high ISOs, but they traded that for 24mp and DR. All that for <$2k!?

You know who should be really nervous here if Sony's lenses improve or are good and people find out? The medium format guys, they only shoot at 800 and under anyway!!!!

picturecrazy wrote in post #8532103
$2000? Are you kidding me? The 5D2 already seemed overpriced compared to the D700, and now this makes it look worse. This is going to really shake up the scene. Prices are going to drop fast methinks. If canon/nikon don't respond, Sony will scoop up all the new photographers and canon/nikon will be left with all the old boys like us.

I don't usually disagree with your posts but this one seems, shall we say, melodramatic to say the least?

If the 5D2 were truly overpriced, why is it that I've seen so many people walking around with them? They are freakin' everywhere. Canon can't make enough to sell--they're constantly on backorder and new batches get snapped up right away.

If you think that a company with single-digit (or at most, low double-digits) dSLR market share is going to be able to influence the pricing on the rest of the market, or even exert enough economic pressure to cause people to flock to their system...you need to rethink. At the 5D2/D700/A850 level, people don't select cameras based on the body only. They look at the whole system. Yes, people do switch from time to time. But then you're talking about gearheads who spend more time obsessing about getting the best and latest, rather than taking good pictures. And to switch to Sony, with their limited lens lineup (yeah so you can use old lenses, big deal), to save $700 is not only short-sighted but a waste of time. And new consumers aren't likely to jump straight to the A850 level. They are much more likely to have come from the prosumer level, with prior experience with the mid-range bodies and lenses.

Sony isn't going to scoop up anything except perhaps their own arrogance. They don't have the loyalty of the pro segment. They bought their way into the game from Minolta. Most consumers are invested in the system they chose. A few hundred in savings now (offset by the time and cost of selling off used gear) is not enough to make people switch. If Sony really wants to compete, they should be putting out amazing lenses at 20-40% lower prices than Canon, expand their range. That would make a dent, not a camera body that will be superseded in 2 years.

That's why Canon is as popular as it is. Their lens lineup is mature, they are pioneers of lens technology (if not optical design), and while their glass may not be as tack sharp as rarefied brands like Zeiss, they generally know how to satisfy professional demands. When's the last time you saw Zeiss make a 50/1.2 or 400/2.8 AF lens?

How long until people start saying that the video mode on the 5Dii cost $700 though.

wickerprints wrote in post #8532427
I don't usually disagree with your posts but this one seems, shall we say, melodramatic to say the least?

If the 5D2 were truly overpriced, why is it that I've seen so many people walking around with them? They are freakin' everywhere. Canon can't make enough to sell--they're constantly on backorder and new batches get snapped up right away.

If you think that a company with single-digit (or at most, low double-digits) dSLR market share is going to be able to influence the pricing on the rest of the market, or even exert enough economic pressure to cause people to flock to their system...you need to rethink. At the 5D2/D700/A850 level, people don't select cameras based on the body only. They look at the whole system. Yes, people do switch from time to time. But then you're talking about gearheads who spend more time obsessing about getting the best and latest, rather than taking good pictures. And to switch to Sony, with their limited lens lineup (yeah so you can use old lenses, big deal), to save $700 is not only short-sighted but a waste of time. And new consumers aren't likely to jump straight to the A850 level. They are much more likely to have come from the prosumer level, with prior experience with the mid-range bodies and lenses.

Sony isn't going to scoop up anything except perhaps their own arrogance. They don't have the loyalty of the pro segment. They bought their way into the game from Minolta. Most consumers are invested in the system they chose. A few hundred in savings now (offset by the time and cost of selling off used gear) is not enough to make people switch. If Sony really wants to compete, they should be putting out amazing lenses at 20-40% lower prices than Canon, expand their range. That would make a dent, not a camera body that will be superseded in 2 years.

That's why Canon is as popular as it is. Their lens lineup is mature, they are pioneers of lens technology (if not optical design), and while their glass may not be as tack sharp as rarefied brands like Zeiss, they generally know how to satisfy professional demands. When's the last time you saw Zeiss make a 50/1.2 or 400/2.8 AF lens?

I never said people are going to switch to sony. I really don't think established people will. But people who are starting and looking to get serious now have a really affordable and capable offering from a third company, instead of just the two powerhouses. And at a price point $700 cheaper, it looks very attractive for people who aren't already heavily invested in one system, or not invested at all.

Yes, I agree that many people who buy their first cam buys something like a Rebel or D5000. But if they get the bug and decide to get serious, they also consider the 'other company' before making their big investment. (seriously, a rebel/kit lens is hardly an investment for someone wanting to go pro) Now it's the 'other companies' that people will consider. And to get a pro featured full frame body for $2000? You can't tell me that won't be a popular choice.

The 5D2 is selling well because there are so many established people who want it and have been waiting for it. But put the D700, 5D2, and A850 infront of someone making their first dive into a body for professional use, the 5D2 is VERY FAR from a slam dunk win.

I fully stand by my previous statement. I do not believe it is melodramatic at all.

wickerprints wrote in post #8532427
I don't usually disagree with your posts but this one seems, shall we say, melodramatic to say the least?

If the 5D2 were truly overpriced, why is it that I've seen so many people walking around with them? They are freakin' everywhere. Canon can't make enough to sell--they're constantly on backorder and new batches get snapped up right away.

If you think that a company with single-digit (or at most, low double-digits) dSLR market share is going to be able to influence the pricing on the rest of the market, or even exert enough economic pressure to cause people to flock to their system...you need to rethink. At the 5D2/D700/A850 level, people don't select cameras based on the body only. They look at the whole system. Yes, people do switch from time to time. But then you're talking about gearheads who spend more time obsessing about getting the best and latest, rather than taking good pictures. And to switch to Sony, with their limited lens lineup (yeah so you can use old lenses, big deal), to save $700 is not only short-sighted but a waste of time. And new consumers aren't likely to jump straight to the A850 level. They are much more likely to have come from the prosumer level, with prior experience with the mid-range bodies and lenses.

Sony isn't going to scoop up anything except perhaps their own arrogance. They don't have the loyalty of the pro segment. They bought their way into the game from Minolta. Most consumers are invested in the system they chose. A few hundred in savings now (offset by the time and cost of selling off used gear) is not enough to make people switch. If Sony really wants to compete, they should be putting out amazing lenses at 20-40% lower prices than Canon, expand their range. That would make a dent, not a camera body that will be superseded in 2 years.

That's why Canon is as popular as it is. Their lens lineup is mature, they are pioneers of lens technology (if not optical design), and while their glass may not be as tack sharp as rarefied brands like Zeiss, they generally know how to satisfy professional demands. When's the last time you saw Zeiss make a 50/1.2 or 400/2.8 AF lens?

It's not just about $700 (which, btw, makes it 25% cheaper than the 5dmkii) and not just about lenses. LuminousLandscape's a900 review seems to claim that the basic lenses are covered in the Sony system (according to LL, only TSE and 400m+ zooms are missing). Also, it claims IQ is the same up to ISO800. It also positions the Alpha900 (presumably the same as the a850) as being easier to use in terms of menus, etc. and having a MUCH better VF.

Maybe it's all true, maybe not. But it certainly attracts attention to the Sony. Add to that sensor IS, so you can use a wider array of lenses with IS, and then if you are moving crop to FF, you might be switching lenses ANYWAY (ditching EF-S, etc.)

People are already moving Canon to Nikon. This is yet another choice. Will the Alpha a850 cripple Canon? Not likely immediately, but it does weaken Canon's claim as the only FF option, and now lately one of two. Now it's one of three, which dilutes the market.

On market share -- you have to start somewhere. Only time will tell, but dismissing competitors based on low market share is really the short sighted view. I'm sure Google's search when it started was only a fraction of Yahoo's.

This is going to do wonders for the For Sale forum.

picturecrazy wrote in post #8532732
I never said people are going to switch to sony. I really don't think established people will. But people who are starting and looking to get serious now have a really affordable and capable offering from a third company, instead of just the two powerhouses. And at a price point $700 cheaper, it looks very attractive for people who aren't already heavily invested in one system, or not invested at all.

Yes, I agree that many people who buy their first cam buys something like a Rebel or D5000. But if they get the bug and decide to get serious, they also consider the 'other company' before making their big investment. (seriously, a rebel/kit lens is hardly an investment for someone wanting to go pro) Now it's the 'other companies' that people will consider. And to get a pro featured full frame body for $2000? You can't tell me that won't be a popular choice.

The 5D2 is selling well because there are so many established people who want it and have been waiting for it. But put the D700, 5D2, and A850 infront of someone making their first dive into a body for professional use, the 5D2 is VERY FAR from a slam dunk win.

I fully stand by my previous statement. I do not believe it is melodramatic at all.

Your response makes no logical sense. If you agree that most people who enter the dSLR market do not go immediately to the 5D2/D700/A850 level, then these people go buy something more modest. That means the impact of the A850 on this segment is small. If you also agree that people won't switch systems for this body, then who exactly is going to buy it? Those who have purchased a lower-model Sony? That's not a lot of people.

You keep forgetting that 80% of the dSLR market buys Canon or Nikon. Sony is a bit player and you ignored my previous point, which is that at the level of the A850, the consumer knows--or will soon find out--that the glass is more important, in terms of service support, image quality, price, and variety. And Sony's variety sucks. Their lenses are overpriced.

hey wicker, consider this. I have over ~$8k "invested" in canon gear right now. My 5Dii just drowned and I have an insurance check in hand. I'm considering the a900/850 along with the D700 and 5Dii again. Some of us aren't stuck on brands for whatever reasons and look for the best tools for the job. The sony has great DR and is an awesome camera if you don't need the high ISOs. Factor in sigma lenses which ARE established and you can get a killer, budget, FF landscaping rig over there for MUCH less than with Nikon or Canon.

My biggest holdup with the sony? I know *that* sensor will be in a D700x eventually. So if I like what I see there, why not get a D700 now and wait for the D700x when it eventually drops? This gives me a FF 8fps option AND a 24mp FF option. Canon only gives me one of the two.

wickerprints wrote in post #8532776
Your response makes no logical sense. If you agree that most people who enter the dSLR market do not go immediately to the 5D2/D700/A850 level, then these people go buy something more modest. That means the impact of the A850 on this segment is small. If you also agree that people won't switch systems for this body, then who exactly is going to buy it? Those who have purchased a lower-model Sony? That's not a lot of people.

You keep forgetting that 80% of the dSLR market buys Canon or Nikon. Sony is a bit player and you ignored my previous point, which is that at the level of the A850, the consumer knows--or will soon find out--that the glass is more important, in terms of service support, image quality, price, and variety. And Sony's variety sucks. Their lenses are overpriced.

Can you not make the distinction between "established, heavily invested" and "not-established and not-invested/barely invested" (i.e. rebel and kit lens). Anyone looking to get SERIOUS into photography will likely not see a $700 rebel investment as a SET IN STONE path already walked down with no chance of return.

WT21 wrote in post #8532742
It's not just about $700 (which, btw, makes it 25% cheaper than the 5dmkii) and not just about lenses. LuminousLandscape's a900 review seems to claim that the basic lenses are covered in the Sony system (according to LL, only TSE and 400m+ zooms are missing). Also, it claims IQ is the same up to ISO800. It also positions the Alpha900 (presumably the same as the a850) as being easier to use in terms of menus, etc. and having a MUCH better VF.

The A850 does not have a 100% VF, so no, it is not the same as the A900, before anyone has even bought one to see.

Second, there are LOT more than the TSE and 400+ that are missing in the Sony lens lineup. No super-fast primes, no super-fast zooms. There are many, many people out there for whom the lack of such lenses, including super-teles, is a dealbreaker. No lens IS means no stabilized image in that supposedly bright, beautiful VF.

Make of it what you will. I don't really care since I'm not interested in Sony dSLRs. But the impact on overall market prices will be minimal, if any. That is my prediction.

picturecrazy seems to bash 5D and 5D II whenever oppurtunity presents itself. I personally do not look at brand. I also have Minolta film cameras and A lenses and A200. Where Sony is not desirable at the moment is their lenses. They are expensive and cannot be found normally available on camera stores unlike canon or nikon.

Also keep in mind that the largest markets are in the crop camera arena. I think for now the full frame market is for a different group of buyers. This group realizes that investment in lenses is most important since quality lenses will generally outlast digital bodies. And of course, lenses compatible with full frame bodies fall in that lens category and are not cheap.

In time, all DSLRs may have full frame sensors with varying low light capability. As manufacturing techniques for sensors and shutters get better and less costly, so will the costs of full frame bodies.

Also,I think the 5DMKII compares with the A900. And the 5DMKII has video, which I use quite often. Canon may have another body in store to compete with the new Sony.

picturecrazy wrote in post #8532810
Can you not make the distinction between "established, heavily invested" and "not-established and not-invested/barely invested" (i.e. rebel and kit lens). Anyone looking to get SERIOUS into photography will likely not see a $700 rebel investment as a SET IN STONE path already walked down with no chance of return.

You keep ignoring my reasoning, so I'll keep ignoring yours. If you want to go with Sony, I'm not going to miss you. Bye.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8532520
How long until people start saying that the video mode on the 5Dii cost $700 though.

I don't think the video mode on the 5DII is increasing the price by $700.00, but if Canon decides to ditch the video and decrease the price of the 5DII by $700.00 I will be one of the first in line to get one.....