Sony's new 24mp FF will make 2008 very interesting

Sony really put on a show at PMA 2008 with their new 'Flagship' full frame DSLR. While I have never been much of a Sony fan per se, it is obvious they are poised to raise the bar and 'attempt' to take on Canon and Nikon.

http://www.news.com/2300-1041_3-6228624-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13951_1-9862334-63.html?tag=more

This annoucement has sent shock waves through both Nikon and Canon camps, especially for those looking for higher end, higher resolution, FF cameras like landscape shooters.

While I am not planning on selling my Canon gear anytime soon, this definately changes thing in the near future for both of the big players.
* Nikon: Sony makes their D series sensors and many current Nikon users are now looking forward to a D300/D3 with this 24mp CMOS FF sensor.
* Canon: Many Canon owners at the higher FF end have been disapointed in their delay to introduce their next 5D II. Also there have been some major blunders/problems with their top of the line $8000 1DSIII.

Now if Sony's 24mp FF DLSR targets the 5D owner market in terms of price point things are really going to get interesting. Think 1DSIII resolution at a 5D price. Combine the new 24mp CMOS sensor with Zeiss optics and you now have something which will make people(landscape shooters) stand up and take notice.

When Nikon puts one of these high res sensors in one of their exceptional new bodies (D300/D3) Canon's top dog FF position comes into question. The D3 has already been plucking Canon shooters from its FF ranks recently, and that camera is only 12mp. Double that resolution and Canon needs to respond or started losing market share.

I think the next 5D is going to be critical for Canon to step up their game or stand back and watch Nikon and Sony really come on strong.

No matter how the chips fall 2008 is shaping up to be great year for high resolution FF DSLRs. Competition is good for *all* consumers bottom line - and it is heating up to a boiling point. The stage is set.

I just recently switched from my Minolta film SLR to the Sony A100 due to the comapatiblity of the lenses. I was very surpised to see the 24mp at their booth last week. I was just starting to envy their new A700. It's nice to see their commitment to DSLR after taking over Minolta's stalled camera division.

Even though I'm very impatiently waiting to see what Canon replaces the 5D with, I also wish they'd undertake an aggressive campaign to give us lenses that will mesh with all this new technology. Megapixel boasting aside, they could really clean up if they were to design lenses that blew away the competition. Right now it's really a hit-or-miss proposition to buy lenses from any manufacturers. Taking a clear and indisputable lead in this area would do wonders for their digital SLR body sales.

But back to the Sony issue, you're right, competition ultimately helps Joe Consumer in both the quality and price arena. Way to go, Sony! Thanks for the help!

Todd,

I agree about Canon's lenses especially at the wide. I think they took a black eye when the new Nikon 14-24/2.8 was shown to outresolve their newest 14L II which is supposed to be sharper than the new Canon 16-35L II. When Canon's wider angle lenses and bodies come into to question it makes it hard for even the faithful to not look at what the competition is cooking up.

Hopefully Canon has got a great new FF DSLR they are justing waiting to spring on us and wow everyone. My plan up until now has been to stay with Canon and augment my lenses with manual Zeiss/Leica optics. Even though I like my Canon 70-200L I could potentially part with it and other Canon lenses if I could gain better quality and resolving power at the mid to wide end. I have no aspirations of being a sports shooter.

While the new Nikon D3 looked initially appealing, I think the real question is next gen high resolution Canon, Nikon and possibly dare I say 'Sony' DSLRs with lenses that can resolve/outresolve the new 16mp+ sensors. Canon tried that already in the 14L II & 16-36L II. I just don't know if I can buy into that line. They are very expensive and make the Nikon 14-24/2.8 look more appealing. Sony is allegedly putting out a 24mm Zeiss and a 16-35 2.8 Zeiss for their new flagship DSLR which could prove to be interesting as well.

I totally agree with Todd and Derek, after Nikon's new super wide toasted everything Canon has to offer, I'm more interested in better lenses -- I have what I need as far as megapixels. If the Sony's price point is in the neighborhood of the next 5D or even lower, it would be hard to ignore it -- given the aforementioned Zeiss glass. But in the end, its great for us, it should drive quality up and cost down (in theory).

I certainly have no allegiance to Canon beyond the fact that their lenses fit on the camera I already own, and I already own a bunch of their lenses. The link to that test at 16-9.com recently posted here made me think seriously about getting that Nikon 14-28. What a magnificent piece of glass! But I hope by the time Canon replaces the 5D, they'll have something to match it.

So what's up with the 16-35 II? I haven't been following the reviews of it, but I thought that was supposed to be a pretty good performing lens at the ultra-wide end. I realize that its not as good as Nikon's 14-28, but I thought it would be an admirable performer for the 1Ds III and upcoming 5D replacement. At the not so ultrawide lens, I've always thought the 24-70 f/2.8 to be a superb lens.

I don't think the 16-35L II is a bad lens by any means. I am just not convinced it is a great lens especially for the price tag. I think 'most' Canon users find it to be better than the previous version and also a better performer overall than the 17-40L. And for many that will be enough to fork over the extra $$.

But when we are talking about ability to resolve fine detail form edge to edge across the entire frame it still comes up wanting in zone c. And this is obviously more noticable in landscape images with a lot of detail from foreground to background.

Here is one good test which illustrates this point:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html

Does this mean the 16-35L II isn't still a good lens for the money? Well you can draw your own conclusions. But obviously successfull landscape photographers are using it as well as the 17-40L. I guess the question really is can you do better for your hard earned $? And the follow up question how large do you want to print and what level of detail would you like to achieve at those sizes?

Todd also made a good point about the evolution of the digital sensor. As 35mm DSLR sensors begin resolving levels of detail once only achieved by high end MF digital backs can our current lenses keep up? That is why many Canon FF DSLR users who demand the highest level of detail use alternative glass such as the Zeiss Distagon 21mm - the current undisputed champ for resolving power at the wide end from *any* 35mm lens manufacturer. That the new Nikon is even close the the Zeiss prime is a major milestone in lens technology, especially for a zoom lens. And the price of a new Nikon is much less than that of a used Zeiss 21. This alone even without Canon comparisons makes the lens desirable for demanding landscape work.

How will the new WA Zeiss lenses Sony releases compare? That will be interesting to see. But looking at Sony's latest sensors (Nikon D3)and lenses it appears they are agressively and effectively breaking into the high end of digital photography. They already dominate the video market. And if they are in fact serious they definately have the finanacial resources to go after this market segment. The aquisition of KM will help there engineering efforts along with their Zeiss partnership.

Some say if this new Sony 24mp sensor is even close to the 1DSIII it is going to sell like hotcakes in both Nikon and Sony bodies. And then maybe *finally* Canon will have competition at the high end and be forced to lower that $8000 price tag.

Minolta user here! YAY go me! lol Only one of the boards lol

I have been waiting and waiting to select my upgrade path from my Minolta 5D dslr, and I think I MAY finally have gotten it with the release of the new Sony a350...I will buy one shortly. I wanted the a700 but the price is just to much at the moment and the features....well..the a350 seems to cover many of them at 1/2 the price. Now about the upcoming a900 Pro Model.....

This thing is a total BEAST of a camera and the price point which has been talked to death on dyxum.com (the site for all things Minolta/Sony) is that it is going to come in cheaper than the 5D.What is funny is that Sony doesn't even consider this upcoming camera a "Pro" model as they have stated, which has lead to a lot of speculation that something even bigger and more powerful is yet to come.

Samsung/Pentax is also working on a FF sensor at the moment fr an upcoming pro level camera...it's going to be a very interesting year in the camera world. And one has to remember that Sony has said that they wish to be the #2, knocking off Nikon, within 3 years. I think they are pretty serious considering we will have sen a total of 5 new bodies released in under a year (counting the upcoming a900)

What frustrates me the most about the Minolta/Sony system these days is the cost of glass.....and I mean VERY frustrated. Everything went skyward the minute Sony came to town, and in big ways. It used to be the Minolta G glass was on par with pricing with Canon L and often cheaper when comparing IS lenses which Minolta doesn't have due to in cam stability. Sony came to town and lens prices have gone into the 'nutso' zone. At the moment on B&H, a Sony 70-200 f2.8 G is $1979.95.....more than Canon L IS glass.....a lot more. I just hope prices drop soon....after all that was the big thing about in body IS---you don't have to spend a lot on lenses....oh, really? lol Glad I can use some of my 25 year old legacy glass still......

Yes,

And those old Minolta high quality lenses are going to worth a premium on the used market. But they may still be worth a second look for many entering the Minolta/Sony arena.

I have been reading several of the forums about the cost of glass issue. While folks aren't happy about the lens prices in general, one arguement I find interesting is that the 'quality' of these new Zeiss built Sony branded lenses are very high. Some would say the quality is even higher than the Canon equivalents.

Also as you have stated 'other' glass will work including third party lenses. So for example the well received and affordable Sigma 70-200 2.8 can be used as an alternative which even some Canon users prefer. The one complaint about this alternative is that it is not stabalized! But it will be automatically stabalized when used with Minolta/Sony bodies. Suddenly 'all' lenses are stabalized even older Zeiss/Leica manual lenses. I am hoping for more adapters. I have not investigated the current availablity of KM/Zeiss adapters. I currently use a Zeiss/EOS adapter for my manual Contax Zeiss 35-70mm lens.

If these new lenses are as good or 'better' than the Canon equivalent one can pick and choose which lenses they use the most and buy those. For example the new 16-35/2.8 Zeiss that is said to be in production may be worth the cost especially if it bests the Canon 16-35L II and provides resolving power closer to the new Nikon 14-24/2.8.

Lastly Sony has been known to take a loss to gain market share. They have an 'very' aggresive strategey currently to Win. So if the bodies continue to be much more affordable than Nikon/Canon I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for certain Zeiss glass, especially if I will keep these lenses for much longer than the ever evolving bodies.

In my mind this scenario is acutally an ideal one for the consumer. Make a very high resolution, fast, low noise, stabalized, semi-pro body for a reasonable price. Then pay a bit more for very high quality glass. This makes sense at least in theory. Of course we know nothing is perfect. But either way Sony and Nikon will send Canon to the mat unless they launch an affordable high quality come back. I don't think Canon will take this sitting down. Its about time they had some competition at the high end!

... Also there have been some major blunders/problems with their top of the line $8000 1DSIII...

I obviously haven't been following the 1DsMkIII closely enough. Other than the price, what problems does this model have?

I'm looking forward to Sony sensors shaking up the market.
Without any competition, Canon was certainly free to maintain the high end price point at $8,000.

Many early adopters over on the DPReview's Canon forum have been complaining about their new 1DSIII auto focus systems not working properly. Some even got rid of them in disgust with Canon's denial of the problem. Canon eventually acknowledged that a problem exists with their new top of line camera. Here is one reference to the problem and Canon's attempt to fix it:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9264

Not all users have noticed this problem. So I am not really sure if it is an inherent design flaw or another example of poor Canon qc. But either way I know that I would be upset if my new $8000 camera didn't work as advertised.

I think Canon, like any company really that doesn't have competition, can and will charge whatever outrageous (for many) price they want. Is it price gouging or simply good business? For many consumers it seems like the former. But from Canon's perspective why not charge $8000 if they can? As time and technology march on they won't be able to get away with that, especially with Nikon picking up steam on their heels and Sony's recent agressive business moves into this segment.

This could be interesting :)

Derek, I was not aware that the autofocus issue extended to the 1DSmkIII, as I thought it was only on the 1DmkIII bodies. Many sports shooters were the ones missing their focus on shots.

Derek, the 1DsMkIII does not appear to have the focus issues that are documented for the 1DMkII. One wildlife pro, in fact, considers it consistently better than his "fixed" 1DMkIII. Of course, it doesn't need to deliver the same frame rate.

Bill, you are right. I stand corrected, it was a problem of the 1DIII and fixed in the 1DSIII release.

So I guess the only problem for me would be the $8K price.

In my mind this scenario is acutally an ideal one for the consumer. Make a very high resolution, fast, low noise, stabalized, semi-pro body for a reasonable price. Then pay a bit more for very high quality glass. This makes sense at least in theory.

This certainly has worked well for inkjet printer manufacturers! Think of how much more your Epson/Canon/HP/Lexmark printer would cost if you didn't have to keep paying for ink cartridges for the life of the printer. So I think your look into the future might be pretty accurate, Derek.

Minolta user here! YAY go me! lol Only one of the boards lol

Not the only one, John. I've been using Minolta gear since 1995.

I totally agree with you about the cost of Sony branded lenses. The process of silk-screening the Sony logo onto the 100mm macro adds $100 over the price of the Minolta branded lens even though they are the exact same under the hood. I have high hope for the upcoming Zeiss "Wide Angle Large Aperture Zoom" in terms of performance. I'll bet that it's at least as expensive as the Nikkor 14-24 though. I just hope the performance matches the price.

I'm excited about the A900, I just hope it comes in at a price I can talk my wife into.

I would be tempted by the Sony camera for about 10 seconds. The last two Sony items
I have owned, have been orphaned by Sony going out of the business at the peak of
the demand curve.The 1st item was a couple of PDA's. The last example was 2 Sony xm radio units. Imagine how proud you would be with a nice Sony DSLR, and 2 years from now they have left that business also..

I don't see that happening Arthur, not with all the Minolta folks they inherited, honestly I would much more concerned about Olympus going bye bye than Sony. Ya have to remember, that while they have been only in the dslr market for a few years, they are #1 in compact sales. Not to mention all the sensors that they provide for camera makers, including Nikon

Sony is like the Microsoft of consumer electronics. They are so large and into so many products that it is really like a number of smaller companies in one larger company. Because they dabble in just about everything under the sun some of the products are not so hot and fall by the wayside. But when it comes to products involving pictures (plasma TVs, video and cameras) the quality and longevity of the products are higher IMO.

Sony has been doing digital cameras for as long as I can remember. An engineer friend of mine has an 'Old' DSC-707 that he refuses to part with because he has always been happy with its quality and results. Geesh, the thing is ancient now, but has 6mp with a 5x zoom which opens up to f2.0. He onced asked me what a DSLR equivalent would cost him. ... Lets see a Canon 38 - 190mm zoom that opens up to f2.0 would cost how much. Hmmm... Probably about $5,000+ if it even existed?!? LOL

And while some of their cameras have had some warts along the way, their latest batch of DSLRs (eg -a700) seem to be rated very highly. Minolta engineering has helped out a lot here I'm sure.

That said obviously not everyone is going jump out and buy a 'Sony' DLSR. Nikon and Canon will continue to have a strong following as always. But I would be willing to disregard the label in this case if Sony can provide the best tool for the job at an affordable price. If Nikon can trust Sony to produce sensors for their newest Cameras I am willing to give them a go. But they will still have to *earn* my business to make a switch worthwhile.

Speaking of high quality Minolta glass that will work on Sony DSLRs here is a very good thread on fredmiranda disussing this with some nice samples:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/615115

Here is a pretty cool youtube from Calumet photo discussing the new FF camera at PMA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnWcWmHP1K0