Industry News: Sony teases a major alpha mirrorless announcement

[djack41]

Philip bloom is suggesting it might be a new 100MP 8K shooting Medium format camera. Perhaps a true Medium Format sized sensor... The first of a new series of Alpha cameras. The first of the new Alpha One series. All I can say is if this is true is holy $h!t!!!

If he is correct about medium format, the new Sony will require a new, larger mount and all new lenses. Sony's mount is much smaller than the R or Z.

 

[masterpix]

Huh? The menu layout is practically identical on my A9II compared to my R5....ie colour coded headers with lists of things under them and multiple pages per color coded headers. Really the only difference is the Sony has way more pages...guess why...because it can do way more things and has way more customization. I'll take longer menus over less features any day.
But we've already seen the new Sony menu system in the A7SIII so obviously if this is a flagship camera in either 7 or 9 lineup it will have the new XR processor and the new menu.

All in all, how many features you use in your everyday photography? There is aparture, ISO, shutter speed, white balance (when shooting RAW you usualy do that with lightroom, photoshop or even with the basic editing program that comes with the camera), differnt focus points/ tracking and series shooting. What else do you really need? Stacking features you won't even use (reading those 1000 pages manuals and remember every bizzar option) is a..

 

[masterpix]

But one thing is clear: Canon will have to get a bit bump on resolution, if they want not to be third... This body has 30MP more than my owned 1DXIII.
And, be sure, it is as fast as its predecessor . With two ultrafast cards and an ultralong batterylifetime.
I am no Sony fan, despite I own a lot of their equipment (and some of my grand-grand-children work for them), it is hard no neglect their produc-niches (200-600 light and handy with 61MP) and their better lens pricing.

I am willed to pay 7000bugs for an R1 with an superfast and evolved AF at, let us say, 40-45MP

The 1Dx and the R1 are aiming to people for whom, huge MP sensor is not the thign they need or want. As today, 20-30MP image suit their professional needs (I am sure both Canon, Nikon and everyone else did their market research and came to similar conclusion), for those photographers, they need something that can shoot in every light condition, have a very strong body and can shoot up to 100+ images in a burst. Those cameras are made to capture action, and in action, the number of pixels matters alot less. If you need one where HUGE MP is needed, than take the R5s that will have those (rumored) 100MP sensors. But then you "pay" in FPS, dynamic range etc. Over all, the camera should suit the need you buy it for, action is one things, journalism is one thing, fashion is another, architecture is another and so on. For each type the need there is a body that suits it best.

 

[hachu21]

The 1Dx and the R1 are aiming to people for whom, huge MP sensor is not the thign they need or want. As today, 20-30MP image suit their professional needs (I am sure both Canon, Nikon and everyone else did their market research and came to similar conclusion), for those photographers, they need something that can shoot in every light condition, have a very strong body and can shoot up to 100+ images in a burst. Those cameras are made to capture action, and in action, the number of pixels matters alot less. If you need one where HUGE MP is needed, than take the R5s that will have those (rumored) 100MP sensors. But then you "pay" in FPS, dynamic range etc. Over all, the camera should suit the need you buy it for, action is one things, journalism is one thing, fashion is another, architecture is another and so on. For each type the need there is a body that suits it best.

I think it's a wrong or old way of thinking. Until recently, i you wanted a real pro, action oriented camera, you had to stay with a "small" MP count. Not because you don't needed them, but because the tech wasn't there (5Dsr vs 1dxII or 5DIV vs 1dxIII).
But this has changed, and now, tech can give you higher speed AND the high resolution. (A9II, R5...)
I'm pretty sure a lot of action photogs will welcome high MP (given speed is still there).
They often use huge long lenses. They will be happy with the extra reach given by the new crop possibilities.
They don't need the MP or want ultra fast picture sharing? Just set the camera to a lower mp count.... The oversampled pictures is just icing on the cake.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I think it's a wrong or old way of thinking. Until recently, i you wanted a real pro, action oriented camera, you had to stay with a "small" MP count. Not because you don't needed them, but because the tech wasn't there (5Dsr vs 1dxII or 5DIV vs 1dxIII).
But this has changed, and now, tech can give you higher speed AND the high resolution. (A9II, R5...)
I'm pretty sure a lot of action photogs will welcome high MP (given speed is still there).
They often use huge long lenses. They will be happy with the extra reach given by the new crop possibilities.
They don't need the MP or want ultra fast picture sharing? Just set the camera to a lower mp count.... The oversampled pictures is just icing on the cake.

Some potential R1/A9iii/Z9 users would likely want a higher MP body (45MP@20FPS). The issue there comes when this camera is used in a stadium, you kinda need to upgrade to 2.5 Gbps ethernet to get the picture to the editor in the same time and now that editor needs more storage and a faster computer. It seems that it is this workflow that kills it. Or someone taking a press shot in some wart torn region and they need to get that to the BBC over a 2G network. For all other potential buyers.. we kinda shove the CF Express card into a relatively modern machine at the end of the work day.

 

[hachu21]

In this case, set your 45 mp camera to half the pixel count in jpeg and you're good to go!
It's not an issue.
Trying to crop 20mp 1dxIII pics, in the other hand....

 

[degos]

Historically, as it has been reported anyway, the PJ/sports crowd that buys these cameras in bulk have asked for a lower MP count, in order to limit bandwidth usage at events or via cellular hot spotting where they need to transmit images back to home base in near real time.

Which is pretty much nonsense when it's the JPEGs they transmit, not the raw.

The reason so many pro shooters put up with mediocre MP in their daily cameras is ... because the OEMs don't offer a workhorse camera with higher MP. That's it.

Back when the 1Ds3 came out it was in high demand because it offered the highest MP of any Canon DSLR at the time. That was the last workhorse camera that was also the MP leader and yet it still sold like hotcakes despite its price.

 

[masterpix]

I think it's a wrong or old way of thinking. Until recently, i you wanted a real pro, action oriented camera, you had to stay with a "small" MP count. Not because you don't needed them, but because the tech wasn't there (5Dsr vs 1dxII or 5DIV vs 1dxIII).
But this has changed, and now, tech can give you higher speed AND the high resolution. (A9II, R5...)
I'm pretty sure a lot of action photogs will welcome high MP (given speed is still there).
They often use huge long lenses. They will be happy with the extra reach given by the new crop possibilities.
They don't need the MP or want ultra fast picture sharing? Just set the camera to a lower mp count.... The oversampled pictures is just icing on the cake.

It will always be a compromise. The amount of light, whatever you do, it limted. And that means that if you increase the size of the sensor, you have smller pixel size on the sensor, lower dynamic range, sensitivity, on teh other hand you also have higher amount of data to transfer to the card and so on, so eventyally you are limted buy a "limit". Technology allows to streach the upper limit, but it will always be there, and unfortunately you can't "have it all" (see the differnces between the 5D and the 5Ds as an example). The first 1D was.. 4MP? up to ISO 1600? technology now allowas it to be 20MP ISP up to 819200... the upper limit is streeached up, but eventually it is there, the sky is not the limit.

In metaphore, you can't have a family off-road furmula 1 car.

By the way, it goes back to the question "what is a PRO".. A PRO can be action, nature, social, artist, atchitecture, each needs diffferent camera, compromise on what the need more, what they can sacrifice in order to get what they want.

 

[padam]

I mean, it's not like they won't still have the A9II for people who don't want as many megapixels.

This model is way better for video, really an all-in camera, but it comes with a substantial extra cost as well.

 

[Del Paso]

The EVF (9,94 million dots) could be a game changer for me (in a Canon, of course!), it could even outperform, thanks to the loupe function, my beloved OVF...
Hoping for the EOS Rs to have a similar EVF. I've started saving.

 

[Del Paso]

I still think that an OVF has more pixels than EVF (and has no lag), and that a stills camera should focus on stills rather than video.

Absolutely true, but the EVF offers a viewfinder "intergrated" loupe, very useful for macro, and usable in bright sunlight, unlike the rear screen.
PS: I too, prefer OVFs...

 

[hachu21]

It will always be a compromise. The amount of light, whatever you do, it limted. And that means that if you increase the size of the sensor, you have smller pixel size on the sensor, lower dynamic range, sensitivity, on teh other hand you also have higher amount of data to transfer to the card and so on, so eventyally you are limted buy a "limit". Technology allows to streach the upper limit, but it will always be there, and unfortunately you can't "have it all" (see the differnces between the 5D and the 5Ds as an example). The first 1D was.. 4MP? up to ISO 1600? technology now allowas it to be 20MP ISP up to 819200... the upper limit is streeached up, but eventually it is there, the sky is not the limit.

In metaphore, you can't have a family off-road furmula 1 car.

By the way, it goes back to the question "what is a PRO".. A PRO can be action, nature, social, artist, atchitecture, each needs diffferent camera, compromise on what the need more, what they can sacrifice in order to get what they want.

I totally get that, but the need of photog are also "limited". I mean, there always a moment where you reach the area of the diminishing returns.
A 10fps body vs a 4 fps body is a huge difference in action photography. Once you reach 20 or 30 fps... Is there still need for improvement? You'll always find some wanting more, but they will be niche applications.
Same can be said for MP, even if we didn't reach the area yet (imho). Same for dynamic range, etc...
It means, one day, most photog won't have to compromise between speed, resolution or dynamic range.
It's already the case for some markets... Look at the M6 mkII : more pixels and speed than a casual user will (really) need.
And you'll soon find those bodies used for less than 500$.

 

[Joules]

It will always be a compromise. The amount of light, whatever you do, it limted. And that means that if you increase the size of the sensor, you have smller pixel size on the sensor, lower dynamic range, sensitivity, on teh other hand you also have higher amount of data to transfer to the card and so on, so eventyally you are limted buy a "limit".

I can't quite follow you there. There is a limit to how little noise you can have in an image, because light itself is a noisy signal and so even a technologically perfect sensor would capture noisy images.

There are also certainly limits on how small you can manufacture pixels, especially economically.

But you also seem to suggest that there is a practical trade off between resolution and dynamic range / low light quality / 'sensitivity'. If you compare the R6 and R5 for example, you'll see that's not really a factor in modern sensors.

 

[hachu21]

(Deleted)

 

[hachu21]

4k evf!? overkill

Beware ok marketing terms : 9,44M DOTS = 3,14M Pixels (around 2048x1536 if it,s 4:3 ratio).
Still a great reso for an evf

 

[DBounce]

If he is correct about medium format, the new Sony will require a new, larger mount and all new lenses. Sony's mount is much smaller than the R or Z.

Will it? I’m not so sure. What if it’s using a curved sensor? Would different lenses still be required?

 

[jayphotoworks]

All in all, how many features you use in your everyday photography? There is aparture, ISO, shutter speed, white balance (when shooting RAW you usualy do that with lightroom, photoshop or even with the basic editing program that comes with the camera), differnt focus points/ tracking and series shooting. What else do you really need? Stacking features you won't even use (reading those 1000 pages manuals and remember every bizzar option) is a..

For everyday photography not so much, but not all of us are stills-only shooters. Many of us are hybrid shooters. I have different profiles setup for stills vs video for starters. I can't exactly "photoshop" my video and I'm not going to always have the time and budget for a raw workflow, so I understand and optimize the settings for each use case. Just because an option doesn't apply to you doesn't make it "bizarre." That being said, once it is setup I always prefer to load it on a dial setting or recallable memory bank. Fumbling with menu settings on a shoot greatly increases the chance of screwing up said shoot...

 

[jayphotoworks]

Absolutely true, but the EVF offers a viewfinder "intergrated" loupe, very useful for macro, and usable in bright sunlight, unlike the rear screen.
PS: I too, prefer OVFs...

As time moves on and younger photogs come onto the scene replacing those retiring from the industry, they probably don't have any exposure to OVFs anymore. Personally, I was quite attached to my OVF and really struggled moving from OVFs to my first EVF, but that was during the m43 days when shutter lag was high and the EVFs ate batteries for lunch while being laggy and pixelated. I think it is a different experience today, and most people jumping into the business for the first time won't necessarily choose an OVF/SLR as their first choice anymore. I haven't touch an OVF camera in many years.

I know the argument for the visual experience will always be significantly different, but the power argument isn't quite the same anymore. If you look at the A7S3, it draws 4.3w in stills and 7.6w in movie. A Zendure X6 usb-c pd bank is about 99Wh so it would run the camera for 23hours in stills and 13hours in movie mode. The battery in the camera will still be at 100% at that point and you'll get another few hours in stills or video after that.

It probably still won't be enough if you are on a long expedition away from the ability to recharge from mains, but I can't image that use case being that common for most.

 

[padam]

The EVF (9,94 million dots) could be a game changer for me (in a Canon, of course!), it could even outperform, thanks to the loupe function, my beloved OVF...
Hoping for the EOS Rs to have a similar EVF. I've started saving.

I reckon it will have the same exact EVF as an R5.
The live feed may not be as sharp as the full resolution of the sensor is not being fed to the EVF in preview mode, so a 9.94M dot EVF provides no benefit, only in playback mode (where checking critical focus at 100% magnification is just a click away anyway).

 

[[email protected]]

Good to see Sony might start takin their pro bodies seriously. If it is indeed a proper gripped body, perhaps they feel threatened by the upcoming Z9 and R1. But I fear that the tiny mount is going to bit them when Canon and Nik will be rolling f/1.2 and better primes that are about as optically perfect as you can get.

MOUNT SIZE:
Sony may not be producing much in the way light-drinking lenses like the f/1.2s, but the best lens on Sony right now is the Sigma 35mm f/1.2. I shoot an R5 now, but I'd give two of my RF primes for that one Sigma. Yeah, I think it's more difficult to make that sort of thing with the e-mount, but it's certainly not impossible. If that system had a 35mm (which it does), a 50mm and an 85mm f/1.2, then I think the issue is a bit mute.

I see the fact that Sigma and Tamron actually make lenses for Sony to be a bigger deal than the mount orifice radius being a quarter a centimeter shorter.

Not to take anything away from Canon's amazing lens development spree. But we have to remember that they were the ones catching up.

GRIP:
My hope is that they don't permanently attach the grip. There is no need, provided they make the interface weatherproof (which has been an issue for Sony). It's tiresome. It would just be serving an irrational cultural perceived need.

RESOLUTION:
On my other screen right now is a picture of a bobcat kitten and mom that I'm editing for a magazine - and from which I'm procrastinating. The 8.5x11 image - originally shot landscape - is cropped to almost 1:1 from a 45mp sensor. If I'd shot this on a 1DX I, II or III, I wouldn't be doing this at all, as it wouldn't be usable for the purpose. Back in the day, when desired FPS was limited by file sizes above 12 megapixels, it made sense to limit the resolution. If they do it now to satisfy some strange "pro photographer" cultural aversion, I will be very annoyed. I'm not likely to jump back to Sony, but I'm more likely to get the R1 I want if Sony doesn't nerf the mp.