Should Sony stop production of Full Frame?

[Raymond Lin]

Oh no not the brick wall theory again Raymond!


I don't ask for much from a system and I looked into the future before purchasing into Sony and for me it's simple but I understand that some people might require more than I'm expecting and of course everybody is different.

I know everyone is different. All i am saying that canon and nikon offer more.

One would be happy with any of the brand when starting out, they are all very much the same. However since non of us know the future and don't know how hard this photography bug will bite or if it ever turn from mere hobby to a job. One shouldn't limit its choices inn the future by choosing a limited system.

That's my argument when telling people when they start out. I don't tell them to go get canon because i am a canon shooter, i tell them just get canon or nikon. Because i have been there. I never in a million years to get the gear i have now. Even in the past 12 months, i went from 30D with a 50/1.4, and added 5D2 x 2, 16-35L, 24-70L, 35L, 85/1.8, 135L, 580exii. I didn't get them because i wanted more toys, i got them because it needed them, they all give me something different in my work. I don't want my creativity to be limited by my gear.

I shoot weddings btw, and if you say to me i would be charging and getting money for doing that 2 years ago i would say i was a long way off. You never know what the future holds.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Even in the past 12 months, i went from 30D with a 50/1.4, and added 5D2 x 2, 16-35L, 24-70L, 35L, 85/1.8, 135L, 580exii.

All of which is available on Sony (16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8), so you wouldn't have hit a brick wall yet.

Note 85/1.4, there is no 85/1.8 available.

 

[Sam_G]

Prices according to CPB

Sony 135mm f1.8 ZA Sonnar £1091.82
Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar £1299.00
Sony 35mm f1.4 G £899.99
Sony 50mm f1.4 AF £256.49
Sony 85mm f1.4 ZA Planar £1099.00
Sony 16-35mm f2.8 ZA Vario-Sonnar £1499.00

£6415.30

Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM mkII £1099.00
Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM £1124.99
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM £978.99
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM £289.00
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM £309.00
Canon EF 135mm f2.0 L USM £879.33

£4608.28

£1537.02 difference which could coincidently buy something exotic like a 24/1.4 which on Sony... isn't available!

Or that could go towards a 400/2.8/4 or 500/4 or 600/4 or 800/5.6 or a Tilt Shift, oh wait...

Also, remember that if you can't afford the top end stuff, Canon has cheaper alternatives eg. 17-40 or 20/2.8 or 20-35 rather than the 16-35, things that sony just can't offer.

I actually am quite fond of the Alpha system but it certainly has gaps that need filling IF it is to be considered a "big" name.

 

[mastertrinity]

Prices according to CPB

Sony 135mm f1.8 ZA Sonnar £1091.82
Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar £1299.00
Sony 35mm f1.4 G £899.99
Sony 50mm f1.4 AF £256.49
Sony 85mm f1.4 ZA Planar £1099.00
Sony 16-35mm f2.8 ZA Vario-Sonnar £1499.00

£6415.30

Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM mkII £1099.00
Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM £1124.99
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM £978.99
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM £289.00
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM £309.00
Canon EF 135mm f2.0 L USM £879.33

£4608.28

£1537.02 difference which could coincidently buy something exotic like a 24/1.4 which on Sony... isn't available!

Or that could go towards a 400/2.8/4 or 500/4 or 600/4 or 800/5.6 or a Tilt Shift, oh wait...

Also, remember that if you can't afford the top end stuff, Canon has cheaper alternatives eg. 17-40 or 20/2.8 or 20-35 rather than the 16-35, things that sony just can't offer.

I actually am quite fond of the Alpha system but it certainly has gaps that need filling IF it is to be considered a "big" name.

Yes what i don't agree with is that Sony charge a fortune for premium lenses that don't have IS (because it's in body) so it really is topsy turvy.

I thinks Sony are gradually getting there after the next release of a 24mm f2 and so I think they are filling the gaps...well hopefully they are.

 

[evo456]

Sony pull out FF? Doesn't make much sense to me, if so why release 2 new FF lenses this year? Infact, why release at least a new full frame every year since 06 (note before the first FF alpha A900 was introduced). Why release at least a new carl zeiss lens every year since 06- premium , high end FF lenses (with the one exception of 16-80). Also above 85% of the alpha lens range is FF?

Nex covers another market segment that Sony couldnt afford to lose share to panasonic & olympus etc.

If anything, I would imagine four thirds to go, there hasn't been any up-date to the flag ship E3, and Micro four thirds have cannibalised the small, light DSLR camera area like the E420

Pentax/Samsung market shrinking as there is no full frame solution for semi/pro market, though they seem to now cater for the MF market with the 645. No light and compact alternatives for the EVIL equivalents offered on the market today (yet).

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Sony hae stated that their objective is to become the number 2 player in the dslr market, they're not going to do that if they drop FF are they? Mind you, they're not going to do it anyway, so I suppose it's a moot point...

 

[mastertrinity]

I do agree FITP that Sony did want to become number 2 in the market and somewhere I was reading quite a while back is that they were trying to challenge Canon because they were "easier" to attack, I don't know how but even then I would be happy for them to stay in the top three.

 

[goldenlight]

Surely it's a decision only Sony can make, based upon the profitabilty of this sector, their expected market penetration and whether they feel able to effectively compete with Canon/Nikon.

Personally I hope they do continue as more choice can only be good for the consumer.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I hope they DO continue too, competition is a good thing. But challenging Canon/Nikon....i really can't see that happening. Sony is at lease a decade away from challenging properly with their setup, there are way too many holes in their line up, even if they release a new lens every year it will take like 10 years to make up the ground. By then Canon/Nikon would have had 10 years too to advance...

 

[Starastin]

Raymond - you still haven't answered - which lens do you terribly miss in that is not there in Sony ?
24mm f1.4 ? not much of a difference between 35mm , just a step back, although with 24mm you can make funnier pics.
50mm f1 ? costs a fortune and sort of not practical I think, although looks very sharp at 1.4 .

 

[Raymond Lin]

Raymond - you still haven't answered - which lens do you terribly miss in that is not there in Sony ?
24mm f1.4 ? not much of a difference between 35mm , just a step back, although with 24mm you can make funnier pics.
50mm f1 ? costs a fortune and sort of not practical I think, although looks very sharp at 1.4 .

The 85/1.2, 45 T/S are both on my list of lens to get next, may be the 50/1.2 as well for its bokeh quality.

The reason i bought Canon (a EOS300 film camera) over Nikon, all those years ago was because back then Nikon only made a Tilt lens, not a Tilt/Shift Lens. I studied architecture back then and thought a t/S would be useful to take photos of buildings. So i went with Canon.

I don't study Architecture anymore and I still don't have that T/S lens. So, we never know what the future holds but i am glad i picked Canon.

 

[Digikat]

All brands have to look at challenging the next market share position, if they don't have that as a target they don't grow. It might seem pie in the sky but to a brand manager their bonus depends on moving up and overtaking the competiton...

 

[mastertrinity]

The 85/1.2, 45 T/S are both on my list of lens to get next, may be the 50/1.2 as well for its bokeh quality.

The reason i bought Canon (a EOS300 film camera) over Nikon, all those years ago was because back then Nikon only made a Tilt lens, not a Tilt/Shift Lens. I studied architecture back then and thought a t/S would be useful to take photos of buildings. So i went with Canon.

I don't study Architecture anymore and I still don't have that T/S lens. So, we never know what the future holds but i am glad i picked Canon.

but two things i'm interested in;

only canon make f1.2's apart from nikon's old and rare 50mm f1.2

T&S is very specialist and while being great for architecture and making dioramas it's not one that everyone would have in there bag.

most people you talk to on here prefer to just have the f1.4 versions instead of f1.2 because there are too expensive, as for T&S some like them and some don't.

 

[Starastin]

The 85/1.2, 45 T/S are both on my list of lens to get next, may be the 50/1.2 as well for its bokeh quality.

The reason i bought Canon (a EOS300 film camera) over Nikon, all those years ago was because back then Nikon only made a Tilt lens, not a Tilt/Shift Lens. I studied architecture back then and thought a t/S would be useful to take photos of buildings. So i went with Canon.

I don't study Architecture anymore and I still don't have that T/S lens. So, we never know what the future holds but i am glad i picked Canon.

you deserve 85mm f1.2 you're a good tog ! as for the T/S i'm not a specialist, but I've heard a lot of people rave about this one -
http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_35mm.htm

 

[danbroad]

24mm f1.4 ? not much of a difference between 35mm , just a step back, although with 24mm you can make funnier pics.

To dismiss the 24mm f/1.4 as a '35mm with a step back' is missing the point entirely - they are very different beasts with different intended uses.

Sony's lens lineup is meagre compared to the Canon and Nikon lineup, that's not open to argument - the intricacies of 'what's missing...' or 'which is best...' is also missing the point.

Until Sony offer a lens range that looks as complete on paper as the big two, they'll always be on page 3 of the Jacob's or Warehouse Express brochure, alongside the Sigma lenses, and the Pentax and Olympus cameras. Buyers looking to invest in a system will always consider them another 'leftfield' choice.

 

[specialman]

Hence, as a system, they fail.

I need the aperture, Sony doesn't provide it. Period.

Ask any Nikon shooter what they wish they could have, it isn't bodies, its Fast, wide, primes.

But that's you as an individual. Not everyone s buying a camera thinking about lens systems and how they'll upgrade within that brand. Many DSLR users are so new to buying 'proper' camera gear (i.e. not compacts) that the thought hasn't even crossed their mind.

Okay, Sony's lens line-up can is more limited than, say, Canon's and is quite expensive to boot in places, but Nikon isn't the greatest either. Canon is the only brand with a wholely comprehensive lens line-up but they make cameras that don't suit me, hence why i moved over to Nikon. Yes, they (Nikon) don't make a £600 17-40mm f/4, or a f/5.6 400mm, but that's just one of those things; I work around it.

I think people are confusing a small market share with a poor brand; before Sony took the reigns the brand was dead in the water if I remember rightly. Yes, I doubt that you'll see a gaggle of sports shooters swapping their Canon and Nikon stuff at the next olympics, but look at many of the major adverts in the press and you can see the retailers are pushing Sony to the new DSLR owner market. It's hard to market stuff to people who are already on the ladder but it's much easier to sell to people who don't have a clue about what they want yet....

BTW, I went Nikon mainly for the body, not solely the lens. Don't assume everyone's the same

 

[danbroad]

Oh, and I can't stay on 666 posts on a Sunday, so here's 667....

Some of the Sony lenses are superb - the SSM 80-400 looks lovely, as does the idea of image stabilised primes. But, as I said, it'd require a change in attitudes toward the company aswell as the greater lens lineup. To continue the metaphor of 'moving up a page', imagine if Sony's camera and lens lineup was as broad as Canon's in terms of price, quality, accessibility and scope. Imagine if Sony was on page 1, then [enter Canon/Nikon here] was on the facing page. It's a big step.

Still, the company seems serious - there's a slew of cheaper lenses around the corner, and 4 new bodies being announced next month [if the rumours are to be believed.]

If Sony took the initiative and challenged the big sellers from each - cheap 35mm 1.8's, quality 24mm 1.4's, an f/4 midrange, a 300/4, tilt/shift.... well they'd be very serious players indeed.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But that's you as an individual. Not everyone s buying a camera thinking about lens systems and how they'll upgrade within that brand. Many DSLR users are so new to buying 'proper' camera gear (i.e. not compacts) that the thought hasn't even crossed their mind.

Okay, Sony's lens line-up can is more limited than, say, Canon's and is quite expensive to boot in places, but Nikon isn't the greatest either. Canon is the only brand with a wholely comprehensive lens line-up but they make cameras that don't suit me, hence why i moved over to Nikon. Yes, they (Nikon) don't make a £600 17-40mm f/4, or a f/5.6 400mm, but that's just one of those things; I work around it.

I think people are confusing a small market share with a poor brand; before Sony took the reigns the brand was dead in the water if I remember rightly. Yes, I doubt that you'll see a gaggle of sports shooters swapping their Canon and Nikon stuff at the next olympics, but look at many of the major adverts in the press and you can see the retailers are pushing Sony to the new DSLR owner market. It's hard to market stuff to people who are already on the ladder but it's much easier to sell to people who don't have a clue about what they want yet....

BTW, I went Nikon mainly for the body, not solely the lens. Don't assume everyone's the same

You are right, not everyone think buying a system, but they should. We are not buying compacts, it is an SLR.

Unless we all know for certain we won't buy more lenses. Like i said, i never knew how deep i am getting into this. Every one got to start somewhere at the bottom, why restrict yourself?

That's what i don't get.

 

[mastertrinity]

You are right, not everyone think buying a system, but they should. We are not buying compacts, it is an SLR.

Unless we all know for certain we won't buy more lenses. Like i said, i never knew how deep i am getting into this. Every one got to start somewhere at the bottom, why restrict yourself?

That's what i don't get.

Like you've mentioned in previous posts that people change system if they require something that the system doesn't already offer, so really it doesn't matter what you get as long as you like it and then if you have the chance to go pro then change system if you really NEED to.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Like you've mentioned in previous posts that people change system if they require something that the system doesn't already offer, so really it doesn't matter what you get as long as you like it and then if you have the chance to go pro then change system if you really NEED to.

Changing system is EXPENSIVE, why do you think i stuck with Canon and not gone to Nikon when the D700 came out? I wanted that AF soooo bad !

That's the game Sony/Pentax are trying to play, offer MORE in their entry model, get people on their ladder and they are "stuck" to their system. Offering more features such as IS which Canon and Nikon don't offer in their bodies. On paper Sony and Pentax does offer more. Until you look at the bigger picture, which like you say, people usually don't, because they don't think that far ahead, they seldom do.

Let me ask you this, how often do you see someone selling their Pentax/Sony to get Canon and Nikon and how often someone sell up their Canon/Nikon gear to go Sony?

 

[mastertrinity]

Changing system is EXPENSIVE, why do you think i stuck with Canon and not gone to Nikon when the D700 came out? I wanted that AF soooo bad !

That's the game Sony/Pentax are trying to play, offer MORE in their entry model, get people on their ladder and they are "stuck" to their system. Offering more features such as IS which Canon and Nikon don't offer in their bodies. On paper Sony and Pentax does offer more. Until you look at the bigger picture, which like you say, people usually don't, because they don't think that far ahead, they seldom do.

Let me ask you this, how often do you see someone selling their Pentax/Sony to get Canon and Nikon and how often someone sell up their Canon/Nikon gear to go Sony?

and may I ask how often people gain better images through brand snobbery?

 

[Raymond Lin]

and may I ask how often people gain better images through brand snobbery?

What has that got to do with anything? People don't gain better images through brand snobbery, they gain better images through better skill and better gear to realise their skill.

Trust me, the old saying "its not the gear, its the photographer". The more weddings i do, the more i think how BS that statement is.

Fair enough if you spend most of the time shooting landscapes in F/11. But when push comes to shove, you want all the light you can get and all the choices available to you, you just can't shoot a wedding with a 450D and a kit lens, not professionally.

It is a FACT Sony has too many holes in their set up. It is not even open to debate, it is not brand snobbery, that is a FACT.

 

[mastertrinity]

It has everything to do with it!

most only change from Sony to Canon/Nikon because they think the brand will get them better images, some people will change system for business reasons whereas Canon/Nikon to Sony converts change for a genuine reason.

 

[Raymond Lin]

It has everything to do with it!

most only change from Sony to Canon/Nikon because they think the brand will get them better images, some people will change system for business reasons whereas Canon/Nikon to Sony converts change for a genuine reason.

Unless you have been skimming my posts, when did I ever say Canon or Nikon are a more premium brand? All I have been talking about is how much MORE they offer as a system. I have no mentioned anything else.

And what Genuine Reasons would that be to go to Sony that the others don't offer?

And is getting a lens that Sony doesn't offer not a genuine reason?

I give up...you clearly can't see past that Sony has a limited system, we are just going around in circles.

 

[SamuelHearn]

I give up...you clearly can't see past that Sony has a limited system, we are just going around in circles.

That is quite a bold statement!

Anyway, why don't we all just stop arguing.. Some professionals use sony, some nikon, some canon.. Why can't we all just get along and enjoy the pictures?

 

[Raymond Lin]

That is quite a bold statement!

Anyway, why don't we all just stop arguing.. Some professionals use sony, some nikon, some canon.. Why can't we all just get along and enjoy the pictures?

Ok, a system with "LESS" choices.

 

[mastertrinity]

Unless you have been skimming my posts, when did I ever say Canon or Nikon are a more premium brand? All I have been talking about is how much MORE they offer as a system. I have no mentioned anything else.

And what Genuine Reasons would that be to go to Sony that the others don't offer?

And is getting a lens that Sony doesn't offer not a genuine reason?

I give up...you clearly can't see past that Sony has a limited system, we are just going around in circles.

loads of people (myself included) would change to Canon and Nikon because of people like you saying they offer more of a system (which is true) and so people want to change just for that reason and not realise that the lenses that wanted on the Canon or Nikon system could be available anyway on the Sony system.

I know Sony has a limited system of lenses but what do you expect for a brand that only took over minolta 4 years ago, clearly you do not see that if minolta had changed to digital at the same time as Canon and Nikon did and had the same success as Sony then all the old lenses would still be in production and Minolta could of had the same line up as Canon and Nikon, but when Sony took over they never made the great minolta lenses that could have helped so much such as the 70-210 f4 and so they were slower at getting the lens line up.

what I am trying to say is that most people are happy as long as they can get the lenses they want, like me for example I am happy with a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and macro primes which all the systems seem to offer so if Sony stopped produce FF and I had to swap then I would first try and afford those lenses again and spend less on a body and still be happy even though I might be a few quid out of pocket.

a good system contains the lenses you need and so you saying that Sony is a crap system in other words means "they don't offer what I need".

 

[Starastin]

Ray - did you look at the hartblei !?

 

[magicmikey]

i thnik the question should be Should Sony stop production fullstop?

 

[POAH]

There have been hundreds of rumours going around that Sony might stop Full Frame to concentrate on APS-C and the NEX series. Now i doubt that these rumours are true because Sony to me are a big player in the DSLR stakes.

So I've created this poll to see what everyone else thinks.

could not care less TBH

 

[heidfirst]

i thnik the question should be Should Sony stop production fullstop?

why?
they are gaining market share & surely strong competition is good for Canon & Nikon users too (keeps them honest in their pricing)?
Of course if they are undermining your superiority complex ...

Anyway, all indication (new FF lenses still being introduced plus Sony spokespeople hinting) is that Sony will be back with new FFs in the future.

 

[woof woof]

The market needs Sony.

Canon and Nikon are too conservative and going nowhere IMVHO, they're not the manufacturers trying something new and years from now I wonder who the biggest players will be? My guess is that the world will have moved on a lot more than Canon and Nikon would like it to.

 

[Ramaz]

It is true that Sony doesn't offer as wide range of lenses as Canon does but to say that their system is a fail is just wrong. Their line up is pretty good and covers almost all focal lengths and it is improving all the time. The only problem with their lenses is a price as stated above. If they are to increase their market share they do need more aggressive pricing policy - they have to lure more people into their system and the only way to do so is by offering cheaper alternatives to Canikon. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure Nikon have done something similar in order to get back a lot of togs. Now I dont presume that decision makers at Sony aren't aware of this fact but then again this problem is characteristic to big divisionalised companies such as Sony. The manager of a division is not concerned with a long term future as his/her performance is only measured for short/medium term. Hence their stubbornness with the high prices.

 

[jonneymendoza]

plus u can get nice shiny white lens like canon hehe

 

[POAH]

sony does not have a limited system

I give up...you clearly can't see past that Sony has a limited system, we are just going around in circles.

 

[godsakes]

I'm a big Sony fan but if i was to pick a full frame camera i'd be far more tempted by a nikon d700 than a sony a900. Despite having a bag full of sony fitting lenses, most of them are APS-C, if i was to upgrade to FF I would have to sell and rebuy most of my lineup and i'm not sure keeping my flashes are enough to justify sticking to the same brand.

Sad thing is, Sony's next FF sensor will probably match the D700 on high ISO performance, but they'll likely opt for a STL design (rather than SLR) and if the EVFs on the A33/55 are anything to go by, they don't give me much faith in the direction Sony is heading.

 

[SussexBlue]

i thnik the question should be Should Sony stop production fullstop?

Did you have to go back a year to dig this up just for that comment :thumbsdown:
Canikon, should be worried, Sony are leading the field in technology, A77 coming out very soon and a new full frame in 2012 and that will be something special

 

[LCPete]

Only Canon make a 4 stop IS 100mm macro (2 stops at 1:1) as well as the MPE 65
That alone is enough to make me stay with Canon
Its all about the lenses and Canon/Nikon have the best choice
Pete

 

[SussexBlue]

Horses for courses lol
By the way Sony have Carl Zeiss and thats enough for me to stay

 

[33L]

bodies should not be whats in question. Its the system as an overall element.
i shoot a 5DII, its a basic full frame very few bells and whistles.
comparing the systems shows that some people are not gonig to see a difference but those that want fast glass (1.2/1.4) on all their portrait glass cant use the sony system as its not there yet. the long telephotos are not there yet!
if im not mistaken their flash mounts only untril recently couldnt be used with 3rd party triggers making things expensive.

dont get me wrong i know photographers that produce stunning images with sony kit, most of them are wanting to jump ship though to push their photography through the wider range of equipment offered elsewhere.