Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Who wants a Sony 25 megapixel DSLR?

iSamurai

iSamurai

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
1,024
6
ɹǝpun uʍop 'ǝuɐqsı&#
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/22/sonys-25-megapixel-alpha-a900-to-arrive-in-august-or-september

woopee, this thing is 25mp! and the price would probably be 25x the a100. and will probably take a minute to record the photo, another 2 to copy it to your computer and open it.

I just hope that this thing will have live view (preferbly with video recording - canon's gonna do that) and all the other goodies sony brought out in Feb. I'd like to see a fast burst rate (with lower megapixels of course).

I have a sony a100 and it's lovely, although I've played around with the a200 and a700 - the shutter sounds are different to the clicky/springy sound of the a100.

this camera will probably create a DSLR movement for canon and nikon - forcing them to bring out higher mp cameras.

I also hope that the 25mps will display and record clear images... probably needing a lot of light.

certainly this is a good camera to anticipate... for the price to come down. but right now i'm looking for something slotting between the a350 and the a700.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

yikes that's a whole lot of MP. Whoever buys that needs either giant prints or has no clue what megapixels actually are LOL
 
That seems way overkill who needs images that high res unless your shooting for a very large banner but even then you don't need something that high not thanks and Sony makes so not a chance in hell.
 
Techguy172 said:
That seems way overkill who needs images that high res unless your shooting for a very large banner but even then you don't need something that high not thanks and Sony makes so not a chance in hell.
Click to expand...

Anyone saying that a full frame 25mp sensor has no purpose is naive. There are plenty of applications for such a device - remember, nobody is forcing you to print all those pixels. Maybe you just crop it to a 5mp file with a 500% zoom.
 
Well people have been 99% sure that the A900 is coming out with 24 MP. A prototype has been shown. Also, Nikon will likely bring out a 24 MP as well, using the same sensor. Some may even argue that Sony would have just concentrated on their APS-C sensor DSLRs right now if it wasn't for Nikon. After all, if Sony built a 24 MP sensor (or some sort of high res sensor) at the request of Nikon, who are obviously Sony's biggest customer for DSLR sensors, then why not offer a full frame camera as well? They just need to produce them for Nikon, and keep a small portion of sensors to themselves so that they can play along. I doubt Sony will sell many of these bodies, but this is worth it just for bragging rights and prestige.
 
compuwar said:
The effective size of the scanning area on a Better Light back is 72 x 96 mm, which is *way* bigger than a 35mm-sized sensor.
Click to expand...

That was not my point. Just that 25 is not really a lot in absolute terms.
 
taylorwilsdon said:
Anyone saying that a full frame 25mp sensor has no purpose is naive. There are plenty of applications for such a device -
Click to expand...

Yes, the extra MP of the sensor captures more detail in most cases. That's the benefit.

I saw a comparison of a Nikon D3 and a Hasselblad of some sort (I think the 39 MP version) and when both images were zoomed to a particular rock, the D3 obviously became really blurry and couldn't resolve the fine detail, as it wasn't captured. The image from the Hasselblad was still fantastic. You probably could have made a nice print from it.
 
taylorwilsdon said:
Anyone saying that a full frame 25mp sensor has no purpose is naive. There are plenty of applications for such a device - remember, nobody is forcing you to print all those pixels. Maybe you just crop it to a 5mp file with a 500% zoom.
Click to expand...

I'm Not Naive it just doesn't make too much sense how many are going to buy this, Not many sony is better off try to make a camera in the Mid Range they would sell more and therefore make more money. Canon already as a 21.1 Megapixel Camera So sony already has big competition and sony isn't really a known name in the Camera business. The problem with such a high megapixel is will the picture turn out that well it requires a Massive sensor and a very fast processor and memory card to capture them especially if you want burst. I don't about this one.
 
Techguy172 said:
I'm Not Naive it just doesn't make too much sense how many are going to buy this, Not many sony is better off try to make a camera in the Mid Range they would sell more and therefore make more money. Canon already as a 21.1 Megapixel Camera So sony already has big competition and sony isn't really a known name in the Camera business. The problem with such a high megapixel is will the picture turn out that well it requires a Massive sensor and a very fast processor and memory card to capture them especially if you want burst. I don't about this one.
Click to expand...

I think the people who want this are the ones who don't want to buy a digital back and also have a limited selection of lenses. Backs are insanely expensive don't forget, but they are worth it for those who make their money from them.

If the FF 35mm is good quality for 25mp loads cheaper AND more portable than a 39mp digital back then its a no brainer. Also with digital medium format its normally limited to the studio environment and tethered to a computer or power outlet/battery/hard drive.

Basically you shouldn't compare the two when they cater to different markets.
 
25 megapixels is way over on the other side of the usability curve. Likely the compromises will be too great in terms of cost, battery life, burst rate, write times, and editing with large numbers of huge image files. There's a point of diminishing returns where the additional amount of detail you might get from such a large full-frame sensor is low enough that it's just not worth it to have.

True, there is a subset of photographers who could use such camera, but the segment of the dSLR market that would spend $8000 on such a camera is pretty small. The average dSLR buyer simply can't make use of what such a camera has to offer and would never spend the money.

Nikon's current sensor lineup is designed by Nikon. Just as they worked with Sony on the LBCAST sensor (which is a Nikon patent, not Sony), I'm sure they'll work with them on this 24 mp sensor, and the sensor that Nikon ultimately uses will be different than the one that Sony uses.

Nikon and Sony have always had a close business relationship, and everyone assumes that Sony makes Nikon's sensors, but it's never been announced as such by Nikon. CMOS sensors are far easier to fab than CCD and anybody could be baking those things for Nikon.
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
Come on Hmac, you've already exposed yourself as a Canikon homer. There are applications for a 25 MP body!

SLC
Click to expand...

If by that you mean that my opinion is that Pentax is lame by comparison to Nikon and Canon, you're correct. That is indeed my opinion. Obviously, it's an opinion that is shared by the vast majority of the dSLR-buying public.

As to 25 mp, of course there are applications....please re-read my post... that camera, however, is just not currently cost or time-efficient for the average dSLR shooter and will be a marketing niche at best. But, I suspect that there will be a 25 mp camera from Sony, Nikon, and Canon, and I suspect it will be within the next 18 months. Alpha 1000, D3X, 1DS Mk IV.....whatever....I wrestled with the concept of spending $5K on my camera. Spending $8K won't even be a tussle for me. For some small percentage of the market, however, it could be a good investment.

Anyway, I guess the question remains ... why would I buy a Sony dSLR instead of buying an equivalent camera for the same price from an actual camera company?
 
Hmac said:
If by that you mean that my opinion is that Pentax is lame by comparison to Nikon and Canon, you're correct. That is indeed my opinion. Obviously, it's an opinion that is shared by the vast majority of the dSLR-buying public.

As to 25 mp, of course there are applications....please re-read my post... that camera, however, is just not currently cost or time-efficient for the average dSLR shooter and will be a marketing niche at best. But, I suspect that there will be a 25 mp camera from Sony, Nikon, and Canon, and I suspect it will be within the next 18 months. Alpha 1000, D3X, 1DS Mk IV.....whatever....I wrestled with the concept of spending $5K on my camera. Spending $8K won't even be a tussle for me. For some small percentage of the market, however, it could be a good investment.

Anyway, I guess the question remains ... why would I buy a Sony dSLR instead of buying an equivalent camera for the same price from an actual camera company?
Click to expand...

The only way I would ever buy a Sony Camera the others would have to be terrible but otherwise no I would rather buy from somebody with more experience with cameras than sony and especially since their quality stinks.
 
Hmac said:
As to 25 mp, of course there are applications....please re-read my post... that camera, however, is just not currently cost or time-efficient for the average dSLR shooter and will be a marketing niche at best.
Click to expand...

Who said it was for the average dSLR shooter?

But then when would that stop them when people always strive for the latest and greatest. A lot of people don't need a lot of the features of many cameras but they still buy them!

AND...

Is the same photography forum which suggests people go buy L series canon glass when there is probably no need most of the time? Seems to be a slight contradiction here of what the average dSLR user needs.
 
CrackedButter said:
Who said it was for the average dSLR shooter?

But then when would that stop them when people always strive for the latest and greatest. A lot of people don't need a lot of the features of many cameras but they still buy them!

AND...

Is the same photography forum which suggests people go buy L series canon glass when there is probably no need most of the time? Seems to be a slight contradiction here.
Click to expand...

What he's saying is it doesn't make sense for a camera that will only fulfill
a very small portion of the market.
 
cube said:
That's like saying that a 1Ds Mark III makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It makes sense but that doesn't mean that people are all the sudden ready to spend 8 Grand on a camera, Sony needs to prove them selves in the camera market which means they need to sell them. but with the price tag on this thing people aren't going to buy it. People will rather buy the Canon because they are known for good cameras sony is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back