Why didn't they just use A mounts on those cameras? Size? Is it to sell new product? From what I can tell, the mirrorless really don't save as much size and weight to truly make a difference. And while I'm not the kind of person who would spend the big bucks to get a full frame, I've read where the E mount is an engineering pain for lenses made for full frame because of the size. When I went with APS-C over a decade ago, I was thinking that eventually the price of full frames would come down and one could procure a really nice, full frame camera for little more than $500. I mean, back in the film days, 35mm could be had from really cheap to pro model expensive. It can't cost that much more to make a full frame sensor. I just don't like that in order to get a good quality wide lens for an APS-C, you have to pay up. It negates any savings in going with that format. I don't know how people can stand those four thirds cameras with interchangeable lenses. 2x crop is a deal breaker for me.
A full frame sensor has four times the area, with four times the chance that a fault will make it useless at production, as well as four times the amount of material needed to make it. So yes it does cost significantly more to make a larger sensor.
That's not quite how it works. Check out the prices of computer processors. Today's processors have many more transistors and cores than they did a decade ago, and they cost less than they did back then. The same would ring true for full frame sensors. Like I said, what I don't like about lesser sensors is the crop factor. That 4/3 sensor has a 2x crop. You practically need a fisheye lens to equal a rather mundane 28mm equivalent on a full frame. An 18mm lens is 35mm equivalent. 35mm shooting subjects indoors stinks. You have to stand back quite far to get a subject in the frame. No one says the cameras need to be huge like a pro camera in order to house a full frame sensor. Phones are pretty portable and take images good enough to print on a standard 4x6. Considering the cost of lenses, I'd rather have a full frame camera with Minolta lenses than my APS-C and be forced into more expensive lenses to enjoy wider angles. There's no reason that full frame can't start at lower price points.A full frame sensor has four times the area, with four times the chance that a fault will make it useless at production, as well as four times the amount of material needed to make it. So yes it does cost significantly more to make a larger sensor.
Having tried micro four thirds I've found the smaller sensor gives perfectly good results for printing to A3 for exhibitions. I'm guessing your 'deal breaker' is because you've never tried it.
Lugging full frame hardware equivalent to my everyday MFT kit 2 bodies (one IR one normal) & 4 or more lenses (standard zoom, telephoto zoom, fast prime & fisheye possibly with an adapted lens or two) would be a back breaker for me. It would probably also break the bank!
Gosh, I've noticed the opposite. It wasn't long ago that the typical price for a Minolta 70-210 f4 was going for $140. Today, they've really dropped. I just checked ebay and they're selling for $50 or less in most cases. Heck, even last summer they were $80. Others have dropped by quite a bit as well. The ones I can't tell are the pro lenses because I wasn't in the market for them a year or two ago. My bet is that those dropped as well. Reason being the proliferation of the e-mount cameras. People love those A7 models and are ditching their a-mounts to get them. I, for one, don't mind that. A proliferation of a-mount cameras and lenses on the market works in my favor so I can upgrade for cheap. Read this guy's ad on CL in my area. The last line backs up my theory. He'll never sell it for the $675 asking price. It's going to be interesting seeing where Sony goes from here.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
