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

[wt21]

Just watched the TSV video posted here. You can use ANY glass, including getting af with a metabones speed adapter. That makes trying the Sony if you are a Canon or nikon user way too easy. Sony is looking like a genious here.

 

[serhan]

A7r seem to have an advantage over the A7 as it has "off-set microlenses". Also it lacks the AA filter which might cause astigmatism.

A7r with Zeiss ZM 18/4:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Chinese site reports a slight red shift with the ZM21/2.8 on the A7r, which is not bad as ZM 21mm is a biogon:
SONY A7R使用体会及样张（一贯的多图！）_美图摄影日记-张千里_新浪博客

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).

 

[pictor]

Yes, adorama listed at $3000:
Sony 70-200mm f/2.8

That's a different lens: Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G-Series II (Alpha) Mount Digital SLR Zoom Lens.

 

[Armanius]

For once I find myself in the non-complaining and non-critical side of a new camera!! Putting aside the good enough or not good enough argument, the price point of the A7 bodies is well below the latest semi-pro/pro full frame cameras like the 5D3, D800 and even Sony's own A99 (~$3000).

Granted the lenses are pricey, but that's again nothing new for the latest and greatest gadget, especially for something that is clearly not targeted towards the casual point and shoot kinda guy (or gal). However, relative to the best G and L lenses, they seem priced within the market standard. 35/1.4 in G and L are about $1500+ and they are big ol' pieces of glass (although they are f1.4 vs the f2.8 on the new Zeiss). The Zeiss ZM 35/2.8 Biogon, which is an excellent manual focus lens for M cameras, is $860. So if the new Zeiss is anything like its ZM counterpart in optical quality, $800 isn't bad at all.

Relative to the RX1's $2800 price, the A7's don't seem all that pricey either. The A7 plus Zeiss 35/2.8 combo will run $2400. The lens is a stop slower, but the camera itself has the built in EVF that many wanted, tilt screen, allegedly faster and more accurate AF, weather seal, and customizable controls. Not too shabby for $400 less than the RX1.

Exciting times for photographers (and/or gear lovers)!

 

[Lightmancer]

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

Good question, simple answer. The most important link in the entire optical chain - that which has the greatest influence on the end result - is actually the nut that holds the camera...

 

[serhan]

Yes, Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS lens is $1500 so prices are not that bad if you are coming from rf/dslr side, not for P&S upgraders where nex was initially aimed or maybe not even for second system shooters... If you wait, they will be cheaper in the second hand market like it happened w/ other mirrorless eg Nex-6/7/Fuji/EM5/RX1, etc.

For once I find myself in the non-complaining and non-critical side of a new camera!! Putting aside the good enough or not good enough argument, the price point of the A7 bodies is well below the latest semi-pro/pro full frame cameras like the 5D3, D800 and even Sony's own A99 (~$3000).

Granted the lenses are pricey, but that's again nothing new for the latest and greatest gadget, especially for something that is clearly not targeted towards the casual point and shoot kinda guy (or gal). However, relative to the best G and L lenses, they seem priced within the market standard. 35/1.4 in G and L are about $1500+ and they are big ol' pieces of glass (although they are f1.4 vs the f2.8 on the new Zeiss). The Zeiss ZM 35/2.8 Biogon, which is an excellent manual focus lens for M cameras, is $860. So if the new Zeiss is anything like its ZM counterpart in optical quality, $800 isn't bad at all.

Relative to the RX1's $2800 price, the A7's don't seem all that pricey either. The A7 plus Zeiss 35/2.8 combo will run $2400. The lens is a stop slower, but the camera itself has the built in EVF that many wanted, tilt screen, allegedly faster and more accurate AF, weather seal, and customizable controls. Not too shabby for $400 less than the RX1.

Exciting times for photographers (and/or gear lovers)!

 

[wt21]

Yes, Canon 70-400mm f/4 IS lens is $1500 so prices are not that bad if you are coming from rf/dslr side, not for P&S upgraders where nex was initially aimed or maybe not even for second system shooters... If you wait, they will be cheaper in the second hand market like it happened w/ other mirrorless eg Nex-6/7/Fuji/EM5/RX1, etc.

List price on the Canon at B&H is $1350, with rebates its $1150 (of course, used, it's <$1,000)

Non-IS is $630 after rebates (which is an option if you are shooting sports).

vs. possibly $3K (w/IS)

 

[Luke]

Good question, simple answer. The most important link in the entire optical chain - that which has the greatest influence on the end result - is actually the nut that holds the camera...

which is EXACTLY why all of my shots are garbage.

 

[serhan]

Sorry typo, I meant 24-70 f/4 IS... I never looked 70-200 due its size as I had 135L instead and I have 70-300 IS ($300-400 used) which af on nex but most probably I will keep my m43 for the tele...

List price on the Canon at B&H is $1350, with rebates its $1150 (of course, used, it's <$1,000)

Non-IS is $630 after rebates (which is an option if you are shooting sports).

vs. possibly $3K (w/IS)

 

[wt21]

lol. I just notice your post said "70-400 f/4" which actually might be well priced at $3k!!

 

[Boid]

Good question, simple answer. The most important link in the entire optical chain - that which has the greatest influence on the end result - is actually the nut that holds the camera...

I beg to differ. I think it's the nut that buys the camera.

 

[serhan]

I wish for a $3000 70-400 f/4 esp when Canon 200-400IS is selling for $12,000

lol. I just notice your post said "70-400 f/4" which actually might be well priced at $3k!!

 

[Boid]

I'm just back from lugging around about 10 kilos (22 pounds?) of gear through temples at Angkor Wat. It wasn't fun. To make up for it I just bought myself a Ricoh GR and the D800e will just have to get better acquainted with the back of my cupboard.

These Sony cameras seem exciting. It's the first "all rounder" full frame yet. 'Good enough' for me nowadays are unfortunately D800e files, so if the A7r delivers, out goes the D800e.

As a walkaround kit - Body the size of a OMD + Zeiss 35mm (or Contax G/Leica lenses through a metabones adapter)

On a tripod - Any Canikon lens again with an adapter.

These are indeed exciting times.

 

[Jock Elliott]

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

Besides, Ray, we all now belong the the camera-of-the-month club. The game is: constant innovation creates constant potential dissatisfaction with what we have now . . . right?

Cheers, Jock

 

[Armanius]

Besides, Ray, we all now belong the the camera-of-the-month club. The game is: constant innovation creates constant potential dissatisfaction with what we have now . . . right?

Cheers, Jock

I'd rather see it as "additional satisfaction" with what we don't have!

 

[Andrewteee]

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?

No. For what you get I think they are all good values. I do not expect bargain basement pricing on capable cameras. And one can assume that, for example, the Olympus E-M1 is not much cheaper to produce, if at all, than the new Sony FF. I also think that Sony may be aggressive in their pricing in order to increase market share.

Kudos to Sony for paving the road here. With these Sony mirrorless FF cameras coming out they may start to eat into Nikon and Canon's premium offerings (except for the lack of lenses). The time has come for them to innovate more than they have been. Like using EVFs.

 

[Ray Sachs]

Besides, Ray, we all now belong the the camera-of-the-month club. The game is: constant innovation creates constant potential dissatisfaction with what we have now . . . right?

Not even close to right Jock. I'm constantly satisfied - hell, THRILLED - with what I have at any given moment. And then I'm constantly amazed that it keeps getting even better! Every year or so I find myself thinking, "well, I'm done - I can't imagine what else I'd want in a camera that I don't already have". And I'm always proved wrong - some designers at Fuji or Sony or Olympus or Nikon has imagined and implemented exactly that!

I guess it's all in your attitude - I suppose innovation could lead to dissatisfaction in some, but to me it just leads to excitement that were living in great times for photographers / camera buffs (and I think most of us are both to some degree). To me it's all upside.

-Ray

 

[jloden]

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.

I was about to comment but I see you hit upon the reason the Sony offerings probably won't make everyone feel like the crop sensor options are a bad value

1) It's a Zeiss
2) It's a FF 70-200; price those out sometime and $3k isn't that surprising. More expensive than the DSLR models but then it's probably optimized and size, plus see #1 above :tongue:

Aside from price, I think the size will also be a factor. That 70-200mm f/4 is going to be a sizable lens, and if they produce the fast zooms people are going to want, it'll be even bigger.

To me m4/3 competes on a combination size and "good enough" IQ, paired with a very complete lens selection and feature set. Fuji trades on retro style + IQ. Sony is seemingly shooting for IQ first, size second, style and lens selection last. NEX is somewhere in the middle. Out of all of them pricing is probably the smallest differentiator as far as I'm concerned. Once you get over a certain point (say perhaps a $500 limit), you're likely worried a lot more about features and function than cost.

 

[lcsolla]

I am not interested in the size and weight of a camera, but on the size and weight of the camera + lens combination. I want to carry a small and light system, which can be mounted in a pocket tripod. Micro four-thirds cameras definitely fit the bill. Even the "big" OMD-1 is small, if combined with a pancake lens. A small FF or DX compact would also satisfy me if they had an EVF, which the Nikon A and the Ricoh GRD unfortunately do not. Everytime I forget my EVF at home, I am reminded of how hard it is to see the back LCD under the portuguese sunlight.

Other mirrorless cameras may seem small, but it is just before you start to add lenses - especially zoom ones. I see little advantage in using a big mirrorless system over, say, an inexpensive Nikon D3100/3200, or even my D7000. Nowadays, I often take my Panasonics LX7 and GX1 with me, the D7000 stays at home most of the time.

 

[flash]

I was about to comment but I see you hit upon the reason the Sony offerings probably won't make everyone feel like the crop sensor options are a bad value

1) It's a Zeiss
2) It's a FF 70-200; price those out sometime and $3k isn't that surprising. More expensive than the DSLR models but then it's probably optimized and size, plus see #1 above :tongue:

Aside from price, I think the size will also be a factor. That 70-200mm f/4 is going to be a sizable lens, and if they produce the fast zooms people are going to want, it'll be even bigger.

To me m4/3 competes on a combination size and "good enough" IQ, paired with a very complete lens selection and feature set. Fuji trades on retro style + IQ. Sony is seemingly shooting for IQ first, size second, style and lens selection last. NEX is somewhere in the middle. Out of all of them pricing is probably the smallest differentiator as far as I'm concerned. Once you get over a certain point (say perhaps a $500 limit), you're likely worried a lot more about features and function than cost.

The 70-200 f4 FE lens is NOT $3000.00.

That price refers to the new alpha 70-200f2.8G lens that was also announced. There has been NO official pricing on the FE70-200F4 that I have seen. Once again Ming Thein is wrong but everybody takes it as gospel.

Gordon