The changing field of professional cameras

[unpopular]

Nope. I am not a pro. But if I were I wouldn't cut corners, either.

 

[skieur]

LMFAO. You realize I am using an a350 and plan to upgrade to an NEX-7, right?

There is talk about a Sony hibrid that uses both Nex lenses and Alpha lenses in the wings. I would consider whether it was worth waiting for or not.

I can't reconcile your comments with your A350 camera. It is a user-friendly camera that with the right lenses Zeiss, Sony G, and Minolta can produce some great shots.

skieur

What comments? I like my a350 ok. it's kind of noisy, but I believe in shooting the lowest practical ISO anyway. The ergonomics aren't as good as my last 35mm SLR, but that was a Contax RX, which is in another league entirely.

My issue is with the SLT, and i never thought it was a good idea. I also recognize that Sony has never had very good luck in the professional market. But Leica isn't marketed at professionals, neither was Contax (aside from the 645).

Just because Sony does not excel at the "professional" market does not mean it's a shoddy product. In fact, as I said, the NEX-7 has a certain Contax quality about it - it's like the G2 I always wished for: one that I could afford

However, the SLT series never was intended as a professional camera, it was always intended as a mid-level platform, and in my opinion the SLT series have technological disadvantages which cannot ever be overcome. If you don't like, talk to whoever wrote the laws of physics.

My a350 isn't a "pro" body either, but that doesn't mean it can't take good pictures or one couldn't make money using it.

The Sony A77 replaced the Sony A700 which was used by real-estate and wedding pros in my area. At the moment it is just as much a pro camera as the Nikon and Canon cameras I mentioned in both specs and image quality. The Sony A900 will likely be replaced with the A99 a full frame 36 megapixel camera with a further improved SLT and more innovative features for the higher end pros. Projected price is $4,000. It will probably come out at one of the camera shows in the Spring.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

We'll see on the A99. 36mp is already a LOT to cram onto a 35mm frame. I'd think I'd want as much light as possible illuminating it.

 

[skieur]

Nope. I am not a pro. But if I were I wouldn't cut corners, either.

No cutting corners, but from a business point of view, your final output determines the quality level. If the image is projected, there is no need to surpass the specs of the projector. If the image is printed, there is no need to surpass the printing quality of the printer being used. That is wasting time, effort and money. If you work at different levels, you adjust your choice and use of equipment and postprocessing to suit the particular project or work. I can use work equipment, home equipment, borrow equipment or rent equipment as I need to.

skieur

 

[skieur]

We'll see on the A99. 36mp is already a LOT to cram onto a 35mm frame. I'd think I'd want as much light as possible illuminating it.

It is a brand new chip and they are also doing further work on the programming end of the firmware as well. There is also a trend toward changing the architecture of the electronics so we will have to wait and see.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Like I said, we'll see, but the bottom line the fundamental laws of quantum physics and thermodynamics can't be broken. Only so much quanta can 'fit' in any given space, and thermal noise can be minimized only to an extent. Even as sensor and signal processing technology improves, eventually small format manufacturers are going to have to consider changing their lens design to accommodate larger sensors if the megapixel race is to proceed.

I do agree though that there is a LOT of room for improvement, and I'd imagine with avalanche diodes and maskless sensors you could see perhaps 100mp per channel or more on the 35mm frame. Though this may far surpass current, if not physical optical resolution limits.

(how about that for technologically ignorant?)

 

[skieur]

Like I said, we'll see, but the bottom line the fundamental laws of quantum physics and thermodynamics can't be broken. Only so much quanta can 'fit' in any given space, and thermal noise can be minimized only to an extent. Even as sensor and signal processing technology improves, eventually small format manufacturers are going to have to consider changing their lens design to accommodate larger sensors if the megapixel race is to proceed.

I do agree though that there is a LOT of room for improvement, and I'd imagine with avalanche diodes and maskless sensors you could see perhaps 100mp per channel or more on the 35mm frame. Though this may far surpass current, if not physical optical resolution limits.

(how about that for technologically ignorant?)

Actually the "fundamental laws" can be worked around. Themal noise can be be iminized by reducing or eliminating the heat causing the noise. Random noise is being eliminated by Sony through blending 2 or more high speed shots together. The area of random noise is wiped out by the shot that does NOT have noise in that area during the blending in camera. When only "so much quanta can 'fit" into any given space, then the answer is to increase the space. The technology is already there for multi-layer sensors as in one layer for red pixels, one for green pixels and one for blue pixels. There are other possible approaches as well.

So, the megapixel race will continue, but what is interesting is that it will become more innovative to work around your "fundamental laws" and that has potential benefits for all photographers.

Yes, there is hope for you, technologically.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Certainly optimization is possible - active cooling in a DSLR would be the most obvious next step.

 

[skieur]

The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing.

If you put photos side by side from these cameras you will find very little difference. They are equally sharp with similar noise levels at very high ISO. Canon tends to have cooler colours than Nikon and Sony but that is a matter of taste.

The image quality comparisons don't match up well once you get up into the ISOs over 1600. You also lose some of it's functions when you start getting up into the higher frame rates, like live view. Here's one quote on the image quality from an online review about the image quality.. " At ISO 1600 and above, the destructive effects of the A77's noise reduction setting become more apparent and it is obvious that at ISO 3200 and 6400, the A77 isn't producing 24MP' worth of actual resolution "

It is a good camera, but it's not anywhere near the Nikon and Canon pro class cameras.

The A77 is marketed as a replacement for the A700 which was used by semi-pros and pros for some areas of photography particularly for real estate photography and virtual tours. The magnesium alloy, sealed body and its size certainly puts the A77 into the same category as the Nikon and Canon. I guess I am not impressed by "build reputation", since I have had no problems with rain, at the bottom of high falls, in the snow off the beaten track and in -20 to -40 degree temperatures. I have also hung out of open cockpit airplanes and climbed rock faces with my cameras. The A99 will probably be marketed as the flagship pro camera coming in the spring show at 36 megapixels and full frame.

Image quality comparison are not great for any digital camera when you get over ISO 1600. When it comes to sharpness, the Sony A77 is not great but nevertheless equal to or better than most Canons and Nikons and that is based on side by side photos of the same subject. The dpreview was incorrect. You do not lose live view at the higher frame rate but the image on the screen is one you have just shot at 1/12 of a second rather than the one coming up. To put it another way, the viewfinder refresh is not as fast as the frame rate at 12 fps. That is rather understandable considering the speed and the limits of any electronic system at 24 megapixels.

I can't say I would trust any camera to produce a quality image at or above ISO 1600 and would seldom have any need to even consider shooting at that ISO.

skieur

 

[o hey tyler]

Yeah, tons of pros will be using the new Sony cameras. Just like tons of people are Sony DSLR shooters as proven by their ENORMOUS MARKET SHARE.

Canon destroyed Nikon in 2010 global DSLR market share (YiR #6) - 1001 Noisy Cameras

 

[Nikon_Josh]

The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing.

If you put photos side by side from these cameras you will find very little difference. They are equally sharp with similar noise levels at very high ISO. Canon tends to have cooler colours than Nikon and Sony but that is a matter of taste.

The image quality comparisons don't match up well once you get up into the ISOs over 1600. You also lose some of it's functions when you start getting up into the higher frame rates, like live view. Here's one quote on the image quality from an online review about the image quality.. " At ISO 1600 and above, the destructive effects of the A77's noise reduction setting become more apparent and it is obvious that at ISO 3200 and 6400, the A77 isn't producing 24MP' worth of actual resolution "

It is a good camera, but it's not anywhere near the Nikon and Canon pro class cameras.

The A77 is marketed as a replacement for the A700 which was used by semi-pros and pros for some areas of photography particularly for real estate photography and virtual tours. The magnesium alloy, sealed body and its size certainly puts the A77 into the same category as the Nikon and Canon. I guess I am not impressed by "build reputation", since I have had no problems with rain, at the bottom of high falls, in the snow off the beaten track and in -20 to -40 degree temperatures. I have also hung out of open cockpit airplanes and climbed rock faces with my cameras. The A99 will probably be marketed as the flagship pro camera coming in the spring show at 36 megapixels and full frame.

Image quality comparison are not great for any digital camera when you get over ISO 1600. When it comes to sharpness, the Sony A77 is not great but nevertheless equal to or better than most Canons and Nikons and that is based on side by side photos of the same subject. The dpreview was incorrect. You do not lose live view at the higher frame rate but the image on the screen is one you have just shot at 1/12 of a second rather than the one coming up. To put it another way, the viewfinder refresh is not as fast as the frame rate at 12 fps. That is rather understandable considering the speed and the limits of any electronic system at 24 megapixels.

I can't say I would trust any camera to produce a quality image at or above ISO 1600 and would seldom have any need to even consider shooting at that ISO.

skieur

IS there anything you haven't done? You have been a PRO for 50 years, you have also climbed up rock faces and no doubt you have also jumped out the back of airplanes to take photographs? You have also been to the north pole and back no doubt?? And you were wearing just a t-shirt at the time!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

 

[skieur]

The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing.



The image quality comparisons don't match up well once you get up into the ISOs over 1600. You also lose some of it's functions when you start getting up into the higher frame rates, like live view. Here's one quote on the image quality from an online review about the image quality.. " At ISO 1600 and above, the destructive effects of the A77's noise reduction setting become more apparent and it is obvious that at ISO 3200 and 6400, the A77 isn't producing 24MP' worth of actual resolution "

It is a good camera, but it's not anywhere near the Nikon and Canon pro class cameras.

The A77 is marketed as a replacement for the A700 which was used by semi-pros and pros for some areas of photography particularly for real estate photography and virtual tours. The magnesium alloy, sealed body and its size certainly puts the A77 into the same category as the Nikon and Canon. I guess I am not impressed by "build reputation", since I have had no problems with rain, at the bottom of high falls, in the snow off the beaten track and in -20 to -40 degree temperatures. I have also hung out of open cockpit airplanes and climbed rock faces with my cameras. The A99 will probably be marketed as the flagship pro camera coming in the spring show at 36 megapixels and full frame.

Image quality comparison are not great for any digital camera when you get over ISO 1600. When it comes to sharpness, the Sony A77 is not great but nevertheless equal to or better than most Canons and Nikons and that is based on side by side photos of the same subject. The dpreview was incorrect. You do not lose live view at the higher frame rate but the image on the screen is one you have just shot at 1/12 of a second rather than the one coming up. To put it another way, the viewfinder refresh is not as fast as the frame rate at 12 fps. That is rather understandable considering the speed and the limits of any electronic system at 24 megapixels.

I can't say I would trust any camera to produce a quality image at or above ISO 1600 and would seldom have any need to even consider shooting at that ISO.

skieur

IS there anything you haven't done? You have been a PRO for 50 years, you have also climbed up rock faces and no doubt you have also jumped out the back of airplanes to take photographs? You have also been to the north pole and back no doubt?? And you were wearing just a t-shirt at the time!

What's wrong with you? You like leading a dull life? I had to keep up with my mother. She was shooting photos from the top of a moving train at age 79 and shooting wild black bears at a distance of 7 feet using a 50mm lens.

skieur

 

[Josh66]

LOL, I can't believe this thread is still going... 15 pages of this ... wow.

 

[Ballistics]

D4 was just released

/Thread