Sony to stop making FX sensors?

"C J Campbell" wrote:
On 2010-07-26 11:36:12 -0700, Bowser said:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:27:14 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

Thom Hogan thinks it is possible.

http://www.bythom.com/

I doubt it. If Sony wants to compete with Nikon and Canon, they'll
need a FF offering, even if they aren't turning the type of profits
they want from it. They'll never crack the pro market without one.

The thing is, if Sony stops making FX sensors, then Nikon will not have
them, either, unless Nikon has something in development that no one knows
anything about.

Even if Nikon is getting it's FF sensors from Sony (which I think is
unlikely), actually manufacturing sensors is no big deal (there are lots of
fabs that can do it, given the design and masks). It's the design and the
masks, and those sorts of things Nikon does better than anyone (they're one
of the major stepper mfrs). Sensors are relatively low-tech: wide features,
boring repetitive pattern. The only problem with sensors is yield.

I myself use a D3x. But I have to admit that I don't like using it. It is
too heavy and bulky. But I use it instead of the D300 because there really
is a noticeable difference in picture quality that I like in the D3x. I
guess that puts me in the "needs a FF sensor" camp.

You need a 5D2. 12MP is sooooooooooo six years ago. (OK, so it's only 5, sue
me. But Nikon insists on being way behind in the affordable/liftable FF
camera game.)

Maybe I need a new camera, perhaps another D300.

Wrong. There is nothing so blind in this world as a blinkered Nikonista.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:


You need a 5D2. 12MP is sooooooooooo six years ago. (OK, so it's only 5, sue
me. But Nikon insists on being way behind in the affordable/liftable FF
camera game.)

Yes - it's really a no-win situation if you want 20+mp on the cheap
(well - if 2-4x the price of more capable APS-c bodies is "cheap").
The choice seems to be between another Canon high pattern noise hobbled
sensor bundled with a second rate 6 year old (oops - make it 5)
auto-focus system in a 5dII, a D700 with a mere 12mp but at least a
decent AF system, or a Sony alpha noise-box - at least while they still
make 'em.
What everyone really needs is a $399 D3x that can shoot 20+ fps, 8k
video, is the size of a D60, made of metal, and has just the right
number of buttons, levers, and command dials - no more, no less - and in
exactly the right places to suit everyone, including finger-amputees and
seven-string banjo pluckers. Until they make it, I vote that RichA and
the P&S troll should devote all their literary prowess to petitioning
manufacturers, and complaining elsewhere.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:06:09 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

I have a bag full of Minolta glass and I will be mightily ****ed off if
Sony
stop making full frame (instead of ramping up volume and dropping the
cost).


Do yourself a favour and sell it now, while it still has some residual
value. If you wait until the axe falls on Alpha, which it surely
will, your lenses will be worthless.


Well it will still work with the film back :-{

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:45:34 +1200, Me wrote:
: nospam wrote:
: In article
: 2010072610271416807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, C J
: Campbell wrote:
:
: Thom Hogan thinks it is possible.
:
: http://www.bythom.com/
:
: thom hogan thinks a lot of things are possible. not all of them are.
:
: Sure - but he's usually less "sensational" than several other
: photo-websters.
: The recently published Japanese sales figures for interchangeable lens
: camera sales are probably a reasonable guide to what's going on, even if
: there's some difference between markets.
: IIRC the largest market chunk by any 35mm sensor camera was 1.8% (of
: unit sales) with the Canon 5d. Nikon (FX) didn't make the cut-off. Sony
: only featured in the figures with the newly released NEX cameras.
: 35mm format is a very small niche - most of the profit will be in lens
: sales, including especially to APS-c users "future-proofing" by buying
: 35mm format lenses. That's why Nikon/Canon now release pro-quality
: lenses in FX format only. They are really milking the market for
: everything they can get.

They can do that only because somebody has done a very good job of stringing
APS-C users along with the vision of a future featuring dramatically cheaper
FF cameras. If you don't believe that vision (and I'm definitely starting not
to), future-proofing with FF glass is probably foolish at present prices.
That's what makes Sigma's new 17-50 f/2.8 so interesting. It will never sell
for its "suggested" price of $900+, but at $670 it could be a fierce
competitor for, say, Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S at over $1000. Sigma, which will
need an image upgrade to pull it off, wouldn't be jumping into that pool if
they didn't think it will be very profitable for those swimming there.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:


They can do that only because somebody has done a very good job of stringing
APS-C users along with the vision of a future featuring dramatically cheaper
FF cameras.
Nikon have done an excellent job of it with lenses. They make some very
optically nice "dx" lenses, but make it very clear that these aren't
"pro". I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for HD
professional quality video.
By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:51 +1200, Me wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
:
: They can do that only because somebody has done a very good job of stringing
: APS-C users along with the vision of a future featuring dramatically cheaper
: FF cameras.
: Nikon have done an excellent job of it with lenses. They make some very
: optically nice "dx" lenses, but make it very clear that these aren't
: "pro".

Yeah, but in this context "pro" may be as much a means of flattering wannabes
as a useful indicator of quality or suitability for professional use. I'd
assume (or at least hope) that true professional photographers would ignore
it. Pretty clearly, one of the objectives in using the term is to induce
well-heeled amateurs to buy more expensive equipment than they really need.

: I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for HD
: professional quality video.
: By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.

You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast enough,
bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's relevant to the
point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why present-day lenses
shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless environment. (With no mirror,
the design constraints on lenses can be relaxed somewhat, but that too is of
doubtful relevance.) Even with EVF, the big question is whether the smaller
sensor, and its associated lenses, will survive into the moderately distant
future or be effectively supplanted by FF.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...


Yeah, but in this context "pro" may be as much a means of flattering
wannabes
as a useful indicator of quality or suitability for professional use. I'd
assume (or at least hope) that true professional photographers would
ignore
it. Pretty clearly, one of the objectives in using the term is to induce
well-heeled amateurs to buy more expensive equipment than they really
need.


There are times I wonder if camera systems are designed to take
photographers, rather than photographs.

Back in my film days I purchased a "E" lens, (75-150,) which was a low cost
lens, not made to physically stand up to pro use. Indeed the bigest fault is
that it suffers from lens creep. However, the glass is sharp and contrasty
with little defects. I still use it, despite its lack of autofocus.

: I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for HD
: professional quality video.
: By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.

You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast
enough,
bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's relevant to the
point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why present-day
lenses
shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless environment. (With no
mirror,
the design constraints on lenses can be relaxed somewhat, but that too is
of
doubtful relevance.) Even with EVF, the big question is whether the
smaller
sensor, and its associated lenses, will survive into the moderately
distant
future or be effectively supplanted by FF.


For general consumer acceptance we need much lighter weight. I doubt the
average snapshooter is unhappy with the results from current sensors. I
think combining video is a strong move towards the Joe Snapshooter market.
Just one look at the smiles on their faces as they are taking snaps and
videos of little Joey, will tell you that.
I see a problem with the prosumer market upgrading to FF and discarding all
the lenses designed for APS C sensors. (At least in this economy.)

To go mirroless, I agree that no radical change in lenses would be needed,
but think we would need significantly better battery technology.



--
Peter

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:51 +1200, wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
:
: They can do that only because somebody has done a very good job of stringing
: APS-C users along with the vision of a future featuring dramatically cheaper
: FF cameras.
: Nikon have done an excellent job of it with lenses. They make some very
: optically nice "dx" lenses, but make it very clear that these aren't
: "pro".

Yeah, but in this context "pro" may be as much a means of flattering wannabes
as a useful indicator of quality or suitability for professional use. I'd
assume (or at least hope) that true professional photographers would ignore
it. Pretty clearly, one of the objectives in using the term is to induce
well-heeled amateurs to buy more expensive equipment than they really need.

No doubt the manufacturers have no problem continuing FX & DX lines of
lenses.


: I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for HD
: professional quality video.
: By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.

You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast enough,
bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's relevant to the
point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why present-day lenses
shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless environment. (With no mirror,
the design constraints on lenses can be relaxed somewhat, but that too is of
doubtful relevance.) Even with EVF, the big question is whether the smaller
sensor, and its associated lenses, will survive into the moderately distant
future or be effectively supplanted by FF.

If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:46:48 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:51 +1200, wrote:
: : I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: : the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for HD
: : professional quality video.
: : By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: : sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.
:
: You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast
: enough, bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's relevant
: to the point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why
: present-day lenses shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless
: environment. (With no mirror, the design constraints on lenses can be
: relaxed somewhat, but that too is of doubtful relevance.) Even with EVF,
: the big question is whether the smaller sensor, and its associated lenses,
: will survive into the moderately distant future or be effectively
: supplanted by FF.
:
: If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
: be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.

Interesting thought, but there's a fundamental difference: A Polaroid was a
camera that produced only a print. What you envision is a camera with a
built-in printer. There would be no reason to jettison the digital image when
the print is completed. So what's the point of the added size, weight, and
cost of the built-in printer? Wouldn't an attached printer serve just as well
without the disadvantages?

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:46:48 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:51 +1200, wrote:
: : I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: : the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for
HD
: : professional quality video.
: : By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: : sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.
:
: You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast
: enough, bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's
relevant
: to the point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why
: present-day lenses shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless
: environment. (With no mirror, the design constraints on lenses can be
: relaxed somewhat, but that too is of doubtful relevance.) Even with
EVF,
: the big question is whether the smaller sensor, and its associated
lenses,
: will survive into the moderately distant future or be effectively
: supplanted by FF.
:
: If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
: be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.

Interesting thought, but there's a fundamental difference: A Polaroid was
a
camera that produced only a print. What you envision is a camera with a
built-in printer. There would be no reason to jettison the digital image
when
the print is completed. So what's the point of the added size, weight, and
cost of the built-in printer? Wouldn't an attached printer serve just as
well
without the disadvantages?


We already have portable photo printers. It world not be a large step to put
an optional dedicated docking system on the printer.

--
Peter