Sony: 24.5 megapixel FF sensor announced

On Jan 31, 5:06*pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:
It got a wow out of me but then they don't say what the price is, and
they don't say it's going in a Sony camera either. I don't think Sony,
Minolta, Pentax or Olympus have ever sold anything like a $7,000 pro
camera and I'm not sure they would be able to sell such a thing.

Sony has no problems selling professional video cameras that cost a lot more
than $7000.
They are talking about marketing to the advanced amateur though.
But my guess is that if you are going to see that sensor in a Sony DSLR then
it will be more in the 5D price range.
That might be nice but I still don't see amateurs wanting that many
megapixels.

This amateur decided a few years ago not to spend much on digital
cameras until sensors of at least 25MP had become well
established. It's what is needed to get into the resolution range of
medium format film cameras.


It depends on what format you are talking about, 645 is way different
then 6x9.
A 5D comes pretty close to what a 645 camera can do, but a 6x9 would
need more like 25MP to match it.

For most photos I am happy with 8MP, when I feel I need more pixels I
use stitching, at which point anything under 50MP seems like low
resolution.

Scott

In article
,
Scott W wrote:

On Jan 31, 5:06*pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:
It got a wow out of me but then they don't say what the price is, and
they don't say it's going in a Sony camera either. I don't think Sony,
Minolta, Pentax or Olympus have ever sold anything like a $7,000 pro
camera and I'm not sure they would be able to sell such a thing.

Sony has no problems selling professional video cameras that cost a lot
more
than $7000.
They are talking about marketing to the advanced amateur though.
But my guess is that if you are going to see that sensor in a Sony DSLR
then
it will be more in the 5D price range.
That might be nice but I still don't see amateurs wanting that many
megapixels.

This amateur decided a few years ago not to spend much on digital
cameras until sensors of at least 25MP had become well
established. It's what is needed to get into the resolution range of
medium format film cameras.


It depends on what format you are talking about, 645 is way different
then 6x9.
A 5D comes pretty close to what a 645 camera can do, but a 6x9 would
need more like 25MP to match it.

For most photos I am happy with 8MP, when I feel I need more pixels I
use stitching, at which point anything under 50MP seems like low
resolution.

Scott

That sounds like my thoughts....how did you do that
cropped 6x6 is really 645 so any format shorter than 6x7 or 6x9 I won't
want to compare to my D200. I look at scans from 6x6 and say gee I wish
I had that 3 grand back I spent on the 6x6 ten years ago.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...cmossensor.asp


Sony's maintenance of full frame lens lineups held up the notion of a FF
sensor, and now we're rewarded. Nobody knew it would be this big.
Expectations were in the 16 - 20 MP range.

I would bet that Nikon release a body with this sensor before Sony make
the long desired A900 (whatever they end up calling it). Most rumors
place the new body in the $3K+ range. I can cough that up, but it means
putting off a 40mm for my Hasselblad again.

The 12 bit thing is a bit puzzling, however as it's based on each column
having its own a/d (from the A700), one can see where they adopted this
compromise: "a little less noise due to this architecture is not as good
as 14 bit, but still better than traditional off chip a/d 12 bit". What
that works out to in real terms remains to be seen. However it also
leaves a chance for a 'next' flagship or pro model to go up in dr.

Sony claim the upcoming model is not a pro machine (although with the
Maxxum 9 genes, it certainly would be). Apparently in a sop to the
idiots who claim a pro camera cannot have a built in flash, it will not
have one. Forgetting entirely how useful such is for tripping studio
lights or controlling off camera flashes in wireless ttl. sigh.

This sensor will also reveal how well my better, older glass will fare
in a digital FF. I have little doubt about my 80-200 f/2.8, 100mm f/2.8
macro and (not old) Carl Ziess 135 f/1.8, but my 28-70 f/2.8, 20 f/2.8
and 50 f/1.7, may not fare as well.

Regretfully, Sony's prices in new lenses are exaggerated. While they
want to build market share in DSLR's, they aren't going to do it without
high quality, high end lenses that are price competitive with Canikon.
Their lens rollout balancing act with Carl Zeiss requires some thought
too. The new CZ 24-70 f/2.8 seems delicious for the cropped sensor and
a little short on the long end for the FF sensor.

Well, my long term (suffering) patience with Minolta, K-M and Sony looks
to be rewarded. The long term viability of the line is still not
assured, but at least they are standing on the field of battle. As
David pointed out, this will help keep Canicon in check as well.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
This amateur decided a few years ago not to spend much on digital
cameras until sensors of at least 25MP had become well
established. It's what is needed to get into the resolution range of
medium format film cameras.

Quite a few knowledgeable folks have opined that we're already there
with the full frame sensors on 35mm DSLRs.

We are in the sense of having gone beyond the best that a 35mm film
SLR could do, into what could only be achieved by a medium format
camera. But we haven't yet, in my opinion, and that of quite a few
knowledgeable folks, got as far as medium format film cameras could
go.

Knowledgeable folks disagree with each other on this. Here's one
comparison that favors 35mm digital:

http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm


For example, if you think 6MP is enough to match the best 35mm film
quality, then with pixels of the same quality by simple arithmetic
you'd need 23MP.

Medium format covers quite a range. Using the oversimplified rule
that 35mm FF is worth 6MP, to match 645 would take 16.2MP, while
6x9 is worth 32.7MP. 6x24 rates 87MP. I got my frame sizes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film


--
--Bryan