Sony A7s 12Mp 4K video mirrorless announced

[arthurking83]

For Sony fans.

12Mp sensor, ISO409K, 4K video .. massive dynamic range, etc, etc.

Strange thing about it tho, was that the announcement was made live by Sony at some conference thingy.
Early this morning I hit a link to the to 'an impending Sony A7s announcement .. and for some reason I sat there watching it.

Not that I hate Sony, I don't mind some of their stuff, but I'm not particularly interested in it really, but sat here for about half hour waiting-watching this announcement.
It was kind'a surreal .. didn't know what to make of it, like it was a hoax, that wasn't a hoax.
Now all the major sites have their Sony A7s info pages up and running.

I'm curious as to the sensor they've used more than anything else.

And is this going to be a D4/Df/D4s killer in some way.

12Mp .. is an interesting step forward. Makes sense actually it makes the 4K data transfer a bit easier to manage.

[Cyph]

It's an interesting direction. For sheer low light capability, the 12 megapixel sensor looks like it will be a winner.

I've got the A7, love the thing, it's turned out to be a nice astrophotography camera... but I'm here thinking "12 megapixel and insane high ISO capability...."

Will be happy to get my hands on one at work, and give it a whirl.

[hoffy]

I only heard about the new camera today(hence why I am checking out some long lost forums). Interesting direction, but is having 4k video really worth that premium? I've read that it will be double the price of the 7r

[arthurking83]

I only heard about the new camera today(hence why I am checking out some long lost forums). Interesting direction, but is having 4k video really worth that premium? I've read that it will be double the price of the 7r


I doubt that having 4K video capability is adding to the price premium(if there is one!).

Unless Sony are really going back to the future here and using the D3s sensor(about the only 12Mp 135 format sensor known to mankind I think!), the new sensor may be unique to this camera.
Sales volumes will be expected to be low(relatively speaking) for this camera and hence sensor.
The A7 and A7r use a sensor that has been available for some time, and due to that sensor's use in other products, will have a lower unit cost per sensor.
So any premium this camera attracts is almost certain to be because of the sensor used .. not the feature set enabled.

I can't imagine it to have a double price premium tho(only time will tell) .. but something like $500 more wouldn't be surprising.

The video feature is not really a cost burden in any sense .. the hardware is.
The hardware is obviously chosen for other purposes too, for eg. 12Mp sensor capable of ISO409K .. so Sony's ideology for this camera is to crown themselves 'low light kings of the universe' and to better Nikon's D4/Df series.

The video ability is an incidental aspect of the camera, and simply creates a marketing advantage.
It may demand better design from the engineers in that the sensor needs to maintain a specific temperature with extended use, or a faster processor to crunch the data effectively, but those hardware aspects also help to provide better still image quality as much as anything else!

I still think Nikon got it totally wrong with the Df in this pure photography garbage they're trying to push.

The reason for going with 4K quality video is that what all these manufacturers will be pushing,
1/. for marketing purposes
and

2/. to allow consumers to capture hi res footage to make full use of the 4K UHD TV screens that they're not yet buying!
(this is almost certain to be a the forefront of Sony's collective mindset .. as well as Samsung too ... they recently introduced the Galaxy S5 phone with 4K video capture ability too).


ps. I'm not particularly interested in uber TV sets personally, and I still run whatever old and unwanted screen someone else is dissatisfied with. But I recently saw a UHD TV at one of the large electronics stores(I think it was JB) .. and the difference in acuity of detail between 1080 HD and UHD images was actually quite noticeable in a major way.
I'm pretty sure that the two screens were both of the 50-60in types, maybe even larger but I'm not particularly interested in it, so can't really remember .. may have been 80" or something.
While the 1080 screen was way beyond acceptable to me and my now apparent low satisfaction point, the UHD screen was so much more detailed.
(the images they displayed were mainly static types, but even on the video they had playing occasionally, the difference was large enough to notice.

Note that the uptake of 4K tv screens has been well below what the manufacturers have been seeking, and nothing like it was for 1080 screens. So the major screen makers(who have some kind of vested interest) will be looking to spark interest in consumers in any way they can.


One last point about pricing too tho.
Sony have been known to sell products at below cost price points(I've read that playstations are notorious for this).
So it may well be that to get the A7 and A7r, Sony may well have priced it at a point low enough not to lose too much money on the product, but also to get it into the hands of as many consumers as possible!
As uptake numbers gradually rises, demand for compatible lenses also rises.
What they lose(or not make) to begin with may end up paying off in future in the profits of their lens lineup.
Could partly explain why their 55/1.8 is so expensive for a 'niftyfifty' .. Even with Zeiss input on the design/manufacture this lens .... $1K, for a $200 lens, is a ridiculous amount of money!

[hoffy]

Sorry, I got that wrong!
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a7-gets-a-provisory-price-in-uk-2500-pounds/

Its 50% more!

[arthurking83]

LOL! I think, once the officials have drowned out the speculators, it'd make more sense to comment.

But I remember Thom Hogan once saying(speculating, guessing, or whatever he does) that a 36x24 silicon chip would cost approximately $500 to manufacture(to the manufacturer).

This was way back in the D3s - D3x days when the price difference between those two was a startling 99-100% premium for the D3x(about $5k vs $10K).
And that the topic for discussion back then was that the 24Mp sensor used in the D3x was already a production unit made by Sony!
So even if that sensor cost $500 more than Nikon's D3s sensor .. why the massive price difference .. etc, etc.

2.500 pounds will probably make this camera less of a success than it otherwise could be.
Even if it betters the Df in terms of performance in many ways, the price is still a factor to consider.

The problem with pricing is one of expectation. It's commonly said that mirrorless cameras are the way forward into the future, and that apart from some disadvantages, the biggest advantage(as I see it) is simply the less temperamental nature of the mechanical side of manufacturing them.
They're supposed to be cheaper to produce as well as being more simple .. where the simplicity of manufacture(no miniscule tolerances in mirrors and mechanicals to concern over!) is what makes them cheaper to make.
The the A7s comes in at near the same price as a Df, it smacks of profiteering on the part of Sony, because the expectation is that it supposed to be cheaper than an equivalent type SLR design.

Hopefully the (apparent)success of the A7/A7r hasn't made Sony more arrogant.
(just as successful cameras have made Nikon arrogant ;))

Y'know that I seriously considered an A7 for a while. Went to the camera shop to confirm the then current internet hype about it, so I could hold it and play with it. Had about 10mins or so to play.
Mounted two different lenses, and the only thing that surprised me was that it was comfortable to hold, against my expectations(smaller camera/grip=less comfort in every day usage for me).
Couldn't get past the EVF tho! .... put that plan to rest.

[MissionMan]

LOL! I think, once the officials have drowned out the speculators, it'd make more sense to comment.

But I remember Thom Hogan once saying(speculating, guessing, or whatever he does) that a 36x24 silicon chip would cost approximately $500 to manufacture(to the manufacturer).

This was way back in the D3s - D3x days when the price difference between those two was a startling 99-100% premium for the D3x(about $5k vs $10K).
And that the topic for discussion back then was that the 24Mp sensor used in the D3x was already a production unit made by Sony!
So even if that sensor cost $500 more than Nikon's D3s sensor .. why the massive price difference .. etc, etc.

2.500 pounds will probably make this camera less of a success than it otherwise could be.
Even if it betters the Df in terms of performance in many ways, the price is still a factor to consider.

The problem with pricing is one of expectation. It's commonly said that mirrorless cameras are the way forward into the future, and that apart from some disadvantages, the biggest advantage(as I see it) is simply the less temperamental nature of the mechanical side of manufacturing them.
They're supposed to be cheaper to produce as well as being more simple .. where the simplicity of manufacture(no miniscule tolerances in mirrors and mechanicals to concern over!) is what makes them cheaper to make.
The the A7s comes in at near the same price as a Df, it smacks of profiteering on the part of Sony, because the expectation is that it supposed to be cheaper than an equivalent type SLR design.

Hopefully the (apparent)success of the A7/A7r hasn't made Sony more arrogant.
(just as successful cameras have made Nikon arrogant ;))

Y'know that I seriously considered an A7 for a while. Went to the camera shop to confirm the then current internet hype about it, so I could hold it and play with it. Had about 10mins or so to play.
Mounted two different lenses, and the only thing that surprised me was that it was comfortable to hold, against my expectations(smaller camera/grip=less comfort in every day usage for me).
Couldn't get past the EVF tho! .... put that plan to rest.

I don't think it's arrogance per say from Nikon. I don't believe any of the manufacturers are arrogant in that sense. They may have a warped perception of what the market demands, but I don't tend to consider this arrogance. I think it's a case of different approach and target market. There is an interest article by Thom that discusses Nikon's approach to some aspects like 4K (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/why-4k-heres-why-not.html). It's not to say it's right or wrong, but its a reflection on how different companies approach the market. As a comparison, you could compare Apple and Samsung's approach to mobile phones, both of which are successful. You could argue that Samsung's is more success because of their market share, but Apple isn't playing in the entry level of the market so at the premium end of the market, they both have a similar share.