Wondering why Sony isnt coming out with a user grade full frame camera

[skieur]

Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.

There is a difference.

 

[KmH]

I'm sure as technology get better they will get cheaper. I read sometime as year they someone discovered a alternative to using silicon. This new material is far cheaper because it's in a abundant amount. I wish I could remember the name of this stuff.

It may also get cheap once they figure out how to remove the human element from production. Imagine very smart robots making everything.

Silicon is the 3rd most abundant element on Earth after iron and oxygen:

Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The mass of the Earth is approximately 5.98×10[SUP]24[/SUP] kg. It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements

A big advantage silicon has is that it is a semiconductor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor
A large number of elements and compounds have semiconducting properties, including:[SUP][1][/SUP]

• Certain pure elements found in Group IV of the periodic table; the most commercially important of these elements are silicon and germanium.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I'm sure as technology get better they will get cheaper. I read sometime as year they someone discovered a alternative to using silicon. This new material is far cheaper because it's in a abundant amount. I wish I could remember the name of this stuff.

It may also get cheap once they figure out how to remove the human element from production. Imagine very smart robots making everything.

Silicon is the 3rd most abundant element on Earth after iron and oxygen:

Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The mass of the Earth is approximately 5.98×10[SUP]24[/SUP] kg. It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements

A big advantage silicon has is that it is a semiconductor:

Semiconductor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A large number of elements and compounds have semiconducting properties, including:[SUP][1][/SUP]

• Certain pure elements found in Group IV of the periodic table; the most commercially important of these elements are silicon and germanium.

Theyre going to make them out of air. It will be super light weight.

 

[skieur]

Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.

There is a difference.

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

 

[Kolia]

I'm sure as technology get better they will get cheaper. I read sometime as year they someone discovered a alternative to using silicon. This new material is far cheaper because it's in a abundant amount. I wish I could remember the name of this stuff.

It may also get cheap once they figure out how to remove the human element from production. Imagine very smart robots making everything.

Silicon is the 3rd most abundant element on Earth after iron and oxygen:

Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The mass of the Earth is approximately 5.98×10[SUP]24[/SUP] kg. It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements

A big advantage silicon has is that it is a semiconductor:

Semiconductor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A large number of elements and compounds have semiconducting properties, including:[SUP][1][/SUP]

• Certain pure elements found in Group IV of the periodic table; the most commercially important of these elements are silicon and germanium.

Silicone is abundant, but not the helium and other noble gases needed to manufacture the chips.

 

[rexbobcat]

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

Because physics.

And technology.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.

There is a difference.

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

yeah and there is a subtle difference.

 

[skieur]

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

Because physics.



And technology.

Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY. Of course the related issue is the question: Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.

 

[skieur]

There is a difference.

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

yeah and there is a subtle difference.

A subtle difference that you cannot show, does not seem to warrant a huge price differential.

skieur

 

[Kolia]

Apparently yes because the market does support the more expensive FF cameras...

 

[DiskoJoe]

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

Because physics.



And technology.

Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY. Of course the related issue is the question: Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.

Yes.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

yeah and there is a subtle difference.

A subtle difference that you cannot show, does not seem to warrant a huge price differential.

skieur

It does.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject? If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?

Because physics.



And technology.

Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY. Of course the related issue is the question: Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.

Go to the camera store and see for yourself first hand.

 

[skieur]

Because physics.



And technology.

Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY. Of course the related issue is the question: Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.

Go to the camera store and see for yourself first hand.

Well, in image quality the Nikon D90 is not far away from that of some FFs and better than the D600. In Sony at ISO 1600 the A99 is only a little sharper than the A77 not a lot sharper as one would expect from the price differential. Both have noise levels. In Canon the 1DX and the 7D are probably the sharpest but the price differential with the T4i as in more than $6,000 for the 1DX is a lot more than the sharpness difference between these cameras.

So, I find it interesting that you cannot tell anyone why they should buy full frame if the image quality is not considerably better.

skieur