Sony DSLR Alpha released

[efoto]

Well I think both Canon and Nikon won't add VR/IS/Anti-Shake/Super SteadyShot because they probably sell their VR lenses at quite a premium over an equivalent lens without VR. It wouldn't make them any more money to take VR/IS away from their lenses, and just put it in their camera for a one time cost (ie: the cost of the body).

Someone else commented on this but people hold onto lenses a lot longer than bodies, especially true for digital bodies. If you look at a lot of the pro glass from either side (N or C) you'll notice that the only real changes in years is updates to the VR/IS system itself and rarely a redesign of the elements. Basically, if you can have a sweet hunk of glass that is near-perfect and slap VR/IS on it, you should be set for a lifetime (yadda yadda life expectancies and such).

The crazeee thing about it are the price of the Sony/Minolta/Carl Zeiss lenses......$$$Linkety$$$

I mean, $2399 USD for a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens? It's not like the lens requires VR or anything of the sort. Even if it had excellent optics, it still shouldn't cost that much. At least Nikon has VR in their lens, so you at least know where some of the money is going, and yet their price is still $1539 at B&H.

And look at the SAL 135 mm f/2.87 lens....... $1200. What the hell is f/2.87 anyway?

The one that freaked me out even more was the TCs
1.4x TC - $599
2.0x TC - $649

Canon has their TCs at $284.95 and $289.95 (prices from B&H online). Not only SHOULD the prices be similar (which I suppose they are in the CZ case) the Canon ones are less than half the price....LESS THAN HALF!

wtf is in those TCs?

 

[bousozoku]

...
And look at the SAL 135 mm f/2.87 lens....... $1200. What the hell is f/2.87 anyway?

It's called being precise. A lot of numbers are conveniently changed for the consumer because they (and the marketing people) can't handle too much precision. Look up the formula and you'll find that the numbers aren't that easy to put on the aperture ring.

 

[Mr. G4]

I'm shocked no one pointed out that this is TRULY a Rev A product! Personally, I'll wait for Rev B (beta)

That's because it's not...It's an old Minolta under different name and more add on

 

[bousozoku]

That's because it's not...It's an old Minolta under different name and more add on

Well, if the "Sony" falls off and they suddenly see "Minolta" there, they'll know that it's an Alpha.

 

[peterparker]

I found it interesting that it takes CF/Microdrive by default, and Memory Stick via an adapter. If Sony built it from the ground up I would expect nothing but Memory Stick.

[Recording Media: Memory Stick® Duo/Memory Stick PRO™ Duo media (via MSAC-MCF1N adaptor); CompactFlash™ Type I/ CompactFlash Type II / Microdrive™ media]

 

[bousozoku]

I found it interesting that it takes CF/Microdrive by default, and Memory Stick via an adapter. If Sony built it from the ground up I would expect nothing but Memory Stick.

[Recording Media: Memory Stick® Duo/Memory Stick PRO™ Duo media (via MSAC-MCF1N adaptor); CompactFlash™ Type I/ CompactFlash Type II / Microdrive™ media]

Their most recent all-in-one prosumer camera has native CompactFlash support. I think Sony is learning a difficult lesson--that the world doesn't revolve around them.

 

[peterparker]

Their most recent all-in-one prosumer camera has native CompactFlash support. I think Sony is learning a difficult lesson--that the world doesn't revolve around them.

Ah, ok. That would be nice.

 

[efoto]

Their most recent all-in-one prosumer camera has native CompactFlash support. I think Sony is learning a difficult lesson--that the world doesn't revolve around them.

No kidding. I'd buy a lot more, well at least more, maybe, of their products if they didn't have their chewing gum up their asses. I like Sony and think that their styling choices in particular are quite nice....that is such a silly standard though and for a long while they never offered any other support, downright stupid.

 

[bousozoku]

No kidding. I'd buy a lot more, well at least more, maybe, of their products if they didn't have their chewing gum up their asses. I like Sony and think that their styling choices in particular are quite nice....that is such a silly standard though and for a long while they never offered any other support, downright stupid.

Sony in the 1970s was so great but they've diverged so much from the rest of the world that they don't seem anything like a Japanese company. If there is consensus, I don't see it. Isn't the man in charge a westerner now?

 

[efoto]

Sony in the 1970s was so great but they've diverged so much from the rest of the world that they don't seem anything like a Japanese company. If there is consensus, I don't see it. Isn't the man in charge a westerner now?

No idea but I certainly don't see their direction. I'm trying to convince my dad to get the Sony 32" XBR LCD TV, it's hella-expensive but it has an amazing picture.

I love a lot of their products but often a little research and you can find a similar/equal/better product for less cash....shame shame, I used to like them.

 

[Abstract]

It's called being precise. A lot of numbers are conveniently changed for the consumer because they (and the marketing people) can't handle too much precision. Look up the formula and you'll find that the numbers aren't that easy to put on the aperture ring.

I know they round numbers (just like with focal lengths sometimes), but it's just breaking a convention that's actually quite practical. It would be like someone asking for more precise time zones, and then splits the world into 360 different time zones rather than 24 different hourly ones because there are 360 degrees in the Earth's rotation. It's good that 1 stop is 1 stop, or 1/3rd stop is 1/3rd stop. Is Sony going to give users the ability to change settings more precisely than 1/3rd? Are we going to have f/2.87 and f/4.09 or whatever? It just seems unnecessary.

And yes, Sony is run by someone non-Japanese now, but I remember this change being fairly recent (ie: within the last 2 years), so this change was after the memory stick fiasco that was/is happening.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

To this discussion I will add that many don't understand where the "industry has been over the last the last 10 years. One only has to look at the recent Sony offerings of the 11-18 and the 18-200 to see that they are Sony "spec'd" Tamron lenses.

In the Leica world, we have Cosina building lenses for the Zeiss Ikon RF. If one looks at the recent lenses from Pentax, one can see future offerings from Tokina and others.

In the end one may be surprised as to where their "brand name lenses" came from.

 

[efoto]

To this discussion I will add that many don't understand where the "industry has been over the last the last 10 years. One only has to look at the recent Sony offerings of the 11-18 and the 18-200 to see that they are Sony "spec'd" Tamron lenses.

In the Leica world, we have Cosina building lenses for the Zeiss Ikon RF. If one looks at the recent lenses from Pentax, one can see future offerings from Tokina and others.

In the end one may be surprised as to where their "brand name lenses" came from.

Does Nikon still make "Nikon" and Canon produce "Canon" or are those thrown off to someone else and maintaining their price-points per a Nike name association scheme?

 

[bousozoku]

I know they round numbers (just like with focal lengths sometimes), but it's just breaking a convention that's actually quite practical. It would be like someone asking for more precise time zones, and then splits the world into 360 different time zones rather than 24 different hourly ones because there are 360 degrees in the Earth's rotation. It's good that 1 stop is 1 stop, or 1/3rd stop is 1/3rd stop. Is Sony going to give users the ability to change settings more precisely than 1/3rd? Are we going to have f/2.87 and f/4.09 or whatever? It just seems unnecessary.

And yes, Sony is run by someone non-Japanese now, but I remember this change being fairly recent (ie: within the last 2 years), so this change was after the memory stick fiasco that was/is happening.

There are a few time zones that are only 30 minutes different, instead of the full 60 minutes. I don't suppose that helps, though.

Considering Minolta's and Sony's recent history, I wouldn't expect that much precision.

To this discussion I will add that many don't understand where the "industry has been over the last the last 10 years. One only has to look at the recent Sony offerings of the 11-18 and the 18-200 to see that they are Sony "spec'd" Tamron lenses.

In the Leica world, we have Cosina building lenses for the Zeiss Ikon RF. If one looks at the recent lenses from Pentax, one can see future offerings from Tokina and others.

In the end one may be surprised as to where their "brand name lenses" came from.

It's often surprising how a lot of things are made by Kyocera (Kyoto Ceramics) that people would not expect at all. Remember Apple and Kodak's first digital cameras?

 

[Le Big Mac]

I'm shocked no one pointed out that this is TRULY a Rev A product! Personally, I'll wait for Rev B (beta)

.

Except it's a Minolta camera with some reengineered dohickeys. Sony bought Minolta's camera business, including the DSLR technology.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Does Nikon still make "Nikon" and Canon produce "Canon" or are those thrown off to someone else and maintaining their price-points per a Nike name association scheme?

Quite possible, if I follow you.

 

[efoto]

Quite possible, if I follow you.

Alright....maybe I'm still drunk but I don't get it. Is that a yes

 

[Abstract]

Ambiguous answers make me cry.

I think "quite possible" means he's not sure.

 

[efoto]

Ambiguous answers make me cry.

I think "quite possible" means he's not sure.

I just don't know what to believe anymore....there is no solid ground these days.

I'm pretty sure Canon makes their stuff (at least L stuff I'd hope) and last I heard Nikon was making their own stuff as well. I guess as long as they are regarded with such high standards people will continue to purchase regardless of who manufactures the glass.

 

[Abstract]

I've always wondered whether Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc, make their own glass, or whether they actually buy the glass, but make lenses from it themselves. I've always wondered because I wasn't sure whether there were many companies that shared the same glass but created their own unique optics designs, or whether there was actually a difference in glass between Nikons and everyone else, because if the glass that one company used was actually better than another, then lens quality may not be such a subjective opinion, since the quality can probably be quantified in some manner.

 

[efoto]

I've always wondered whether Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc, make their own glass, or whether they actually buy the glass, but make lenses from it themselves. I've always wondered because I wasn't sure whether there were many companies that shared the same glass but created their own unique optics designs, or whether there was actually a difference in glass between Nikons and everyone else, because if the glass that one company used was actually better than another, then lens quality may not be such a subjective opinion, since the quality can probably be quantified in some manner.

A lot of it is placement/engineering of the positions, angles, thicknesses, etc (I'm assuming)....how they attain their optics for a given focal length/aperture combo. Coatings are another big part....each brand seems to have its signature lens coating that they say is better which I assume is like gasoline (Amoco/BP, Shell, Speedway, etc).

It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that they all get their "raw glass" from the same supplier and then grind it in-house to their own specifications. I know that the Canon 1200mm is special-order and the glass is ground when you order it....but I don't know where the glass is coming from or who is grinding it

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I just don't know what to believe anymore....there is no solid ground these days.

I'm pretty sure Canon makes their stuff (at least L stuff I'd hope) and last I heard Nikon was making their own stuff as well. I guess as long as they are regarded with such high standards people will continue to purchase regardless of who manufactures the glass.

Yep, there is no solid ground today, and perhaps there hasn't been for the last 10 to 20 years. Even more so today

Sorry, I wasn't sure if you meant bodies or lenses.

I will focus in on lenses in this reply.

What I can say for sure is that "consumer" grade lenses are farmed out to the likes of Tamron, Sigma, Cosina, and others. Sometimes, like most any 11-18 DSLR lens, it is made by Tamron.

Other times with lets say the 70-300 zooms, they may be "tweaked" versions of a third party manufacturer. This "tweaking" may be cosmetic, with improved "feel". It may be the requirement to use specific glass or coatings, in order to have that Canon, Nikon, or whoever's "color.

I am certain from what I have been told, that the "pro-level" lenses are "made" by the manufacturer. Meaning that they use their own factories, or in the least they ride the third party manufacturer hard to maintain the quality, and provide the glass needed for those lenses.

The clearest indication of the later is with lenses for the new Zeiss Ikon RF 35mm camera. A few of the lenses are made in Germany by Carl Zeiss; but the others are made by Cosina under license.

One has to look at Leica and their M series lenses (even on their R series lenses, a couple of zooms are said to be made by Sigma). These lenses are super expensive, and are considered to be the best around.

I think and believe that the over $700 mark for the likes of Canon and Nikon mean that they either build it themselves, or had a heavy hand in on who did build it.

The problem in giving a definative answer is that the third party lens companies can not confirm or deny as to who, if they do , they build for. Case on point, a few years ago Pentax offered a 28-80 zoom for their SLR 35mm cameras. The only differences between the Pentax lens and the Tamron was purely cosmetic. Just the shell and and rings were different! Putting them side by side they looked like siblings. The optical diagrams were the same, as well as test reports of their performance.

Our Tamron rep at the time was only able to admit that they did build lenses for some manufacturers, with a wink and a nod. I guess the same wink and a nod that Tokina and Pentax will have over their new offerings.

Hope this helps. I hope that you and others know me well enough that I will never try to miss lead. And that if I don't know - I will admit to it. My answers above are based on what I can say, and what I have seen from observations of the industry.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that they all get their "raw glass" from the same supplier and then grind it in-house to their own specifications. I know that the Canon 1200mm is special-order and the glass is ground when you order it....but I don't know where the glass is coming from or who is grinding it

Some truth in this. IIRC, there are only like 3 or 4 MAJOR glass suppliers. There are some like Carl Zeiss in Germany that have their own glass production, and those specific lenses can only be built in Germany from what I have heard.

For the "pro" lenses, and even the "consumer" lenses; Canon, Nikon, and others could require a third party like Tamron to build a lens with that source.

In the end it up to us as consumers to decide the worth of buying name brand verses third party. I personally can't wait to more reports on the 11-18 zoom lens that appears to be a Tamron design, under different names.

As much as I see a difference in my B&W film shots done with my Leica lenses; I have not seen the "color" difference that some speak of comparing manufacturers lenses verses third party lenses.

I own the Tamron 28-75/2.8. This lens has gotten high marks, not just from me, but others. At under $400, it is a third of the cost of similar lenses from Canon or Nikon. It may not have the smooth, noiseless focusing of the Canon USM, or the Nikon AF-S; but for a third of the price of their offerings - I am very happy for my style of shooting.

 

[efoto]

I own the Tamron 28-75/2.8. This lens has gotten high marks, not just from me, but others. At under $400, it is a third of the cost of similar lenses from Canon or Nikon. It may not have the smooth, noiseless focusing of the Canon USM, or the Nikon AF-S; but for a third of the price of their offerings - I am very happy for my style of shooting.

To both notes I thank you for sharing. Everything that you said makes sense and was roughly what I assumed was happening behind the scenes.

I too own that Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and it is a lovely lens (which I have mentioned in another thread was far superior to the Canon 27-70 f/2.8 I had). I would like to believe that there are more differences between the brand names and the third party lenses, more than just motors and casings, but I guess this same re-branding is happening across nearly all of the product lines we use these days. Apple made in China, VW cars made in Mexico....it seems no one truly makes their own products

 

[bousozoku]

To both notes I thank you for sharing. Everything that you said makes sense and was roughly what I assumed was happening behind the scenes.

I too own that Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and it is a lovely lens (which I have mentioned in another thread was far superior to the Canon 27-70 f/2.8 I had). I would like to believe that there are more differences between the brand names and the third party lenses, more than just motors and casings, but I guess this same re-branding is happening across nearly all of the product lines we use these days. Apple made in China, VW cars made in Mexico....it seems no one truly makes their own products

Why should a camera company maintain a department of glass engineers, a glass "foundry", and all of the expense when there are many glass companies which know more, develop new technologies and can do it more economically?

All we have to know is which items are great and which are better avoided. At least, they're not the exact same pieces for more money, as we sometimes see in other products.