Does NEX FF make anyone question the price of the current crop mirrorless?

Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by wt21, Oct 16, 2013.

  1. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    At the body price point of the NEX FF (and the pixel count and features), does anyone else find suddenly that the current selection of cropped mirrorless (APS-C and m43 included) look generally overpriced?

    edit: I mis-titled my post, so I retitled it. I didn't mean the value of the cameras you have in your hands, but the price of the current offerings on the market. Sorry for the confusion.
     
  2. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    I have the opposite response. These prices reinforce for me what a good value crop sensors represent.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  3. pictor

    pictor SC All-Pro

    Jul 14, 2010
    Why should we?
     
  4. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    Well the question then has to be asked: of how much practical value is a larger sensor given the performance of current APS-C and Micro 4/3 sensors? For instance, these new Sonys are both more expensive than the most highly specced (and priced) mirrorless camera (Olympus E-M1) yet they can't match it's feature set.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Just innovation and the passage of time. When the X-Pro 1 debuted in April 2012, it was about the same price as the A7 is about to be. The A7 will be a better camera for the same price, just as the X-Pro was a better camera for the same price than some high-end (at the time) mirrorless camera was 18 months before that. And I suspect any additional APS bodies Fuji comes out with will be a good deal less than this price now. When the RX1 came out, as expensive as it was, it didn't seem unreasonable. These are expensive bodies, but very reasonable, a bit lower than somewhat comparable full frame DSLRs. And now you can get a Fuji XM1 for, what, $600? And in a couple of years, comparable full frame models will probably be under $1000.

    It's ALL good IMHO. I see nothing but crazy good values all over the place right now.

    Yay!

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    No, because the Sony offerings in general simply don't float my EQ boat. Too much computer, not enough camera.

    Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Different things to different people. I really questioned the value of the full frame sensor in the RX1 at first too. Then I used one. And for tough DR shots and low light shots and pulling the most out of the files in processing, turns out it makes a hell of a difference. Everyone will have their own definition of good ENOUGH, but there's definitely more than a subtle difference. And in a couple or few years, APS will probably match current full frame, but where will full frame be then? This stuff is getting unimaginably good and at some point it may all be too good to matter, but I don't think we're there yet...

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    Another issue is that all of the announced lenses are relatively expensive, and none of them are especially fast. Would have been good to see a couple non-Zeiss Sony prime options in the $500 range.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    I agree Ray! But this line "I suspect any additional APS bodies Fuji comes out with will be a good deal less than this price now" is what I'm talking about. Does the presence of FF body only at $1700 put pricing pressure on crop bodies. I think it will. Heck, I think it will on the Canon 6D and Nikon D610.

    The camera market is shrinking, not growing. More premium offerings at cheaper prices I think will pressure the current more expensive cameras.
     
  10. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    I think this is pretty key, though the kit zoom is a reasonable price. Will Sony even do consumer grade lenses? But isn't NEX an open mount? Couldn't Sigma and others come in with NEX-mount lenses at lower prices?

    edit: I just saw that the 70-200/4 is $3,000?!?!?! That's out of bounds, it seems to me. Bodies are nicely priced, but that's a silly lens price. Who would buy that? OK, I have NO desire to replace my 6D now, lol.
     
  11. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    I know a number of better-heeled parents, and they are pretty drawn to shallower DOF. The FF DSLRs put them off because of bulk/size. They might never need anything more than the kit lens, but the images will look good, and it's a pretty simple positioning to show a FF shot of a baby vs. an APS-C or even an m43 crop.

    oops: I see that the 70-200/4 is $3,000. Many of these wealthier parents I know would not be interested in a $3K 70-200, especially since the size of the lens would put the whole kit in Canikon territory, and you can get a 2.8 for less.
     
  12. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    I'm sorry Ray, but when you have to pull back the processing on single-shot APS-C and m4/3 images to avoid making them look like HDR, the argument of needing even more goes right over my head. Pulling the additional data out of the best FF sensors takes them well into the realm of the unreal.
     
  13. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I would be VERY cautious about attributing RX1 performance to the unreleased A7 camera bodies. Half (or maybe more) of what makes the RX1 the amazing image making machine is that lens made of ground up unicorn horn dust.

    Here's a simple question for forum members. What is the single most important part of the camera?

    If you think you can take a shortcut and buy that $1700 body and throw some of the regular Sony offering on there and get RX1 magic, I think you may be sorely disappointed. Spring for the 4 digit Zeiss lenses and you may get close or all the way there. But there is NO substitute for great glass.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    Amin, I think you are right. The more I look at the lens prices and sizes, the less interesting this becomes, though it might still be very compelling for legacy glass users.
     
  15. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Well, OK, matter of taste. Low light is demonstrably better without looking like HDR. Again, better ENOUGH is an open question for each to consider. But clearly better.

    I personally enjoy shooting with and processing the files from the RX1 more than anything I've used. For street I want more DOF than I'd get with full frame and am more than happy enough with APS or m43 image quality. I'm not sure whether I'm gonna want an A7 or not, mostly because I just haven't had any desire to shoot with a lot of different focal lengths for quite some time and, for the little I use them, my Fuji wide angle and Olympus telephoto are more than adequate. But I'm definitely going to check out the A7 and I'm not promising I won't buy one sooner or later - probably later but no guarantees. It's actually pretty likely that I'll buy one or some descendent of it at some point... But perhaps not until there are more and more reasonably priced lenses that are more in my wheelhouse...

    -Ray
     
  16. zapatista

    zapatista SC Regular

    132
    Jul 28, 2012
    Denver, Colorado
    Mike
    The 70-200mm listed is the new f2.8 A mount lens. No price yet on the E Mount F4 version (that I've found anyways).

    My general take on the stuff: SOS, Sony produces great bodies and not so great lenses. There's not one E Mount lens that blows me away (well maybe the 30/60 Sigmas) and I used the 24mm Sony/Zeiss a lot--it's over-priced and so seems to be the new 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8 Zeiss lenses. If they both have exceptional IQ I guess they (35mm & 55mm) could be considered bargains compared to the Leica equivalent lenses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. wt21

    wt21 SC Hall of Famer

    Aug 15, 2010
    I was going off Ming Thein's notes "Lens prices: $3000 for the 70-200/4? What are they thinking? That’s Leica territory." from http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/10/16/sony-a7-a7r/ but your comment would make more sense.
     
  18. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    NYC
  19. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    Yes, I think it's potentially VERY interesting for manual focus, legacy glass folks. I wonder whether I'd enjoy my Leica M lenses as much on an A7 / A7R as I do on my M9, and they're both a lot less expensive than a used M9. Will be interesting to see whether one of them (A7 or A7R) is better suited to wide angle rangefinder lenses (microlens issues, etc).

    Certainly a personal thing. When I'm actively using a camera like the D800 or DP2M, I marvel a bit at the image quality. When I'm not actively using those cameras though, I don't find anything lacking in the image quality of my other cameras (currently EPM2 and M9).
     
  20. Livnius

    Livnius SC Veteran

    475
    Jun 3, 2012
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe
    This is certainly not the kind of system I would ever get into for fast ultrawide and long tele zooms, simply just WAY too big imo.....the wide-normal variable aperture zoom is really not all that unreasonable in size I think, but my main interest in something like A7 or a future A8/9 would be for a couple of hand picked primes.

    I'm MORE than happy leaving my excellent EM5 to do the ultrawide and long tele zoom work and the super compact GR to do the street stuff on those 'jeans pocket' minimalist kit days.