# Wondering why Sony isnt coming out with a user grade full frame camera



## goodguy

I was reading today a thread of a guy who want to buy a full frame camera, not a pro grade but a user grade and I mentioned he should consider Nikon 600 and Canon 6D and then it hit me that Sony doesnt have a user grade full frame camera and I was wondering why.
You have the a77 which is a cropped sensor and above it you have the a99 but nothing in between, a full frame that will give an amature a good full frame without the extra additions which cost much more that he/she will not need but will pay for.
A full frame in the 1800$-2000$ region.

Does anyone know if Sony plans on making such a camera ?


----------



## cgipson1

That would be this....  Sony reveals DSC-RX1 full-frame camera with fixed Zeiss T* 35mm F2 lens: Digital Photography Review  lol!

Oops.. to expensive, that is in D800 range!


----------



## dxqcanada

Rumour has it that Sony does plan on a Full-Frame NEX, and an SLT-A99 replacement probably this year.


----------



## CouncilmanDoug

cgipson1 said:


> That would be this....  Sony reveals DSC-RX1 full-frame camera with fixed Zeiss T* 35mm F2 lens: Digital Photography Review  lol!
> 
> Oops.. to expensive, that is in D800 range!


If I had tons of $ to throw around, I'd try this thing for sure


----------



## Derrel

Right now, Sony is charging $800-$900 MORE than a Nikon FX camera, and when one includes the recently discontinued NIkon D600 + FREE 24-85mm AF-S VR lens promo Nikon had for $1,999 US dollars before Christmas, the price difference was more like $1500...

I think it is simply a matter of profit margin; a large, 24x36mm sensor costs a LOT more to make/buy than does an APS-C sensor. With 24MP APS-C sensors now available and made by Toshiba, Nikon, and SONY (Nikon is using TOSHIBA and NIKON-made 24-MP 1.5x sensors in the D3200 and D5200,not SONY-made sensors), the per-camera profit margin on APS-C models is much,much higher than on Full-Frame cameras, simply due to the sensor cost, which is the highest-cost component of every d-slr made. Why make low-priced FF cameras when high-priced APS-C SONY bodies, or high-priced FF SONY bodies, make much higher profit per camera made and sold??? SONY needs to keep itself in business,and needs to do what it needs to do!!!!

SONY has not turned a corporate profit in YEARS, and has been losing money at an ever-worse rate for quarter after quarter; they do not have the volume of sales the way Canon or Nikon has, so it makes very little sense for them to race to the bottom of the price/feature set...SONY needs to make at least some profit on each camera sold...they do not have the volume to flood markets the way Canon and Nikon can...making a cut-priced FF d-slr is probably not really in SONY's best interest. Look at the way they are pricing their most-recent FF models--at huge premiums...so they can make some profit, and not need to have huge volume to do it! Higher prices also convey a sense of exclusivity and snob appeal to customers. Rolls-Royce does NOT want, or need, to build a Kia-priced car; Rolex does not need or want to compete with Casio or Timex in making cheap-a$$ wristwatches...


----------



## CouncilmanDoug

are fx sensors really that much more expensive? can someone enlighten me on how much it would cost to make just a sensor?


----------



## Derrel

CouncilmanDoug said:


> are fx sensors really that much more expensive? can someone enlighten me on how much it would cost to make just a sensor?



I have read quantity volume wholesale pricing of $500 per unit on 24x36 sensels AKA full-frame; that does not include the AA filters or elecronics...just the light-sensitve 'sensel' part...and more like $80 or thereabouts for APS-C...


----------



## CouncilmanDoug

that's crazy! I was expecting like $50 and $100, the production price is probably going to keep going down right? because I would love to see a d7000 priced full frame dslr one day


----------



## KmH

*Wondering why Sony isnt coming out with a user grade full frame camera*

Because profit margins drop. (see below)
Sony has a  *l o n g * way to go as far as increasing their DSLR market share.



CouncilmanDoug said:


> are fx sensors really that much more expensive? can someone enlighten me on how much it would cost to make just a sensor?


FX is a Nikon designation.



> Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
> 
> *COST OF PRODUCING DIGITAL SENSORS*
> 
> The cost of a digital sensor rises dramatically as its area increases. This means that a sensor with twice the area will cost more than twice as much, so you are effectively paying more per unit "sensor real estate" as you move to larger sizes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon Wafer
> (divided into small sensors)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon Wafer
> (divided into large sensors)
> 
> One can understand this by looking at how manufacturers make their digital sensors. Each sensor is cut from a larger sheet of silicon material called a wafer, which may contain thousands of individual chips. Each wafer is extremely expensive (thousands of dollars), therefore fewer chips per wafer result in a much higher cost per chip. Furthermore, the chance of an irreparable defect (too many hot pixels or otherwise) ending up in a given sensor increases with sensor area, therefore the percentage of usable sensors goes down with increasing sensor area (yield per wafer). Assuming these factors (chips per wafer and yield) are most important, costs increase proportional to the square of sensor area (a sensor 2X as big costs 4X as much). Real-world manufacturing has a more complicated size versus cost relationship, but this gives you an idea of skyrocketing costs.
> This is not to say though that certain sized sensors will always be prohibitively expensive; their price may eventually drop, but the relative cost of a larger sensor is likely to remain significantly more expensive (per unit area) when compared to some smaller size.


----------



## Patriot

I'm sure as technology get better they will get cheaper. I read sometime as year they someone discovered a alternative to using silicon. This new material is far cheaper because it's in a abundant amount. I wish I could remember the name of this stuff.  

It may also get cheap once they figure out how to remove the human element from production. Imagine very smart robots making everything.


----------



## DiskoJoe

They could buy a a850 or an a900 for that price or less used.


----------



## Derrel

Used cameras are quite often a GREAT way to score huge savings!!!!


----------



## DiskoJoe

dxqcanada said:


> Rumour has it that Sony does plan on a Full-Frame NEX, and an SLT-A99 replacement probably this year.



Thats 2014. Sony stated that they were focusing on APS-c this year.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Derrel said:


> Used cameras are quite often a GREAT way to score huge savings!!!!



With Sony, usually only one person owned it too.


----------



## bigal1000

If Sony doesn't start making some profits there won't be any Sony cameras as for the RX-1 too little for too much money,you can get a Nikon D800  for less money!!


----------



## skieur

Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.


----------



## DiskoJoe

skieur said:


> Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.



There is a difference.


----------



## KmH

Patriot said:


> I'm sure as technology get better they will get cheaper. I read sometime as year they someone discovered a alternative to using silicon. This new material is far cheaper because it's in a abundant amount. I wish I could remember the name of this stuff.
> 
> It may also get cheap once they figure out how to remove the human element from production. Imagine very smart robots making everything.


Silicon is the 3rd most abundant element on Earth after iron and oxygen:



> Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The mass of the Earth is approximately 5.98×10[SUP]24[/SUP] kg. It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements



A big advantage silicon has is that it is a semiconductor:



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor
> A large number of elements and compounds have semiconducting properties, including:[SUP][1][/SUP]
> 
> Certain pure elements found in Group IV of the periodic table; the most commercially important of these elements are silicon and germanium.


----------



## DiskoJoe

KmH said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure as technology get better they will get cheaper. I read sometime as year they someone discovered a alternative to using silicon. This new material is far cheaper because it's in a abundant amount. I wish I could remember the name of this stuff.
> 
> It may also get cheap once they figure out how to remove the human element from production. Imagine very smart robots making everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon is the 3rd most abundant element on Earth after iron and oxygen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The mass of the Earth is approximately 5.98×10[SUP]24[/SUP] kg. It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A big advantage silicon has is that it is a semiconductor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semiconductor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> A large number of elements and compounds have semiconducting properties, including:[SUP][1][/SUP]
> 
> Certain pure elements found in Group IV of the periodic table; the most commercially important of these elements are silicon and germanium.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Theyre going to make them out of air. It will be super light weight.


----------



## skieur

DiskoJoe said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference.
Click to expand...


Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?


----------



## Kolia

KmH said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure as technology get better they will get cheaper. I read sometime as year they someone discovered a alternative to using silicon. This new material is far cheaper because it's in a abundant amount. I wish I could remember the name of this stuff.
> 
> It may also get cheap once they figure out how to remove the human element from production. Imagine very smart robots making everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Silicon is the 3rd most abundant element on Earth after iron and oxygen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The mass of the Earth is approximately 5.98×10[SUP]24[/SUP] kg. It is composed mostly of iron (32.1%), oxygen (30.1%), silicon (15.1%), magnesium (13.9%), sulfur (2.9%), nickel (1.8%), calcium (1.5%), and aluminium (1.4%); with the remaining 1.2% consisting of trace amounts of other elements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A big advantage silicon has is that it is a semiconductor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semiconductor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> A large number of elements and compounds have semiconducting properties, including:[SUP][1][/SUP]
> 
> Certain pure elements found in Group IV of the periodic table; the most commercially important of these elements are silicon and germanium.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Silicone is abundant, but not the helium and other noble gases needed to manufacture the chips.


----------



## rexbobcat

skieur said:
			
		

> Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?



Because physics.

And technology.


----------



## DiskoJoe

skieur said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that NO ONE here has shown with examples, any image quality difference between a full frame and crop body camera with the same megapixels, so for some the question might be: "If there is no image quality difference, then why care about the availability of FFs at a cheaper price than currently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?
Click to expand...


yeah and there is a subtle difference.


----------



## skieur

rexbobcat said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because physics.
> 
> 
> 
> And technology.
Click to expand...



Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY.  Of course the related issue is the question:  Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.


----------



## skieur

DiskoJoe said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah and there is a subtle difference.
Click to expand...


A subtle difference that you cannot show, does not seem to warrant a huge price differential.

skieur


----------



## Kolia

Apparently yes because the market does support the more expensive FF cameras...


----------



## DiskoJoe

skieur said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because physics.
> 
> 
> 
> And technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY.  Of course the related issue is the question:  Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## DiskoJoe

skieur said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah and there is a subtle difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A subtle difference that you cannot show, does not seem to warrant a huge price differential.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


It does.


----------



## DiskoJoe

skieur said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you seen the difference in comparison shots from FF vs crop body of the same subject?   If not, then how do you know, that there is any difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because physics.
> 
> 
> 
> And technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY.  Of course the related issue is the question:  Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.
Click to expand...


Go to the camera store and see for yourself first hand.


----------



## skieur

DiskoJoe said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because physics.
> 
> 
> 
> And technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrespective of physics and technology, the bottom line is SHOW ME THE DIFFERENCE in IMAGE QUALITY.  Of course the related issue is the question:  Is any difference in image quality worth 2X the price or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to the camera store and see for yourself first hand.
Click to expand...




Well, in image quality the Nikon D90 is not far away from that of some FFs and better than the D600.  In Sony at ISO 1600 the A99 is only a little sharper than the A77 not a lot sharper as one would expect from the price differential.  Both have noise levels.    In Canon the 1DX and the 7D are probably the sharpest but the price differential with the T4i as in more than $6,000 for the 1DX is a lot more than the sharpness difference between these cameras.

So, I find it interesting that you cannot tell anyone why they should buy full frame if the image quality is not considerably better.

skieur


----------



## rexbobcat

skieur said:
			
		

> Well, in image quality the Nikon D90 is not far away from that of some FFs and better than the D600.  In Sony at ISO 1600 the A99 is only a little sharper than the A77 not a lot sharper as one would expect from the price differential.  Both have noise levels.    In Canon the 1DX and the 7D are probably the sharpest but the price differential with the T4i as in more than $6,000 for the 1DX is a lot more than the sharpness difference between these cameras.
> 
> So, I find it interesting that you cannot tell anyone why they should buy full frame if the image quality is not considerably better.
> 
> skieur



DXOMark rates the D600 higher in everything, but yes, when the ISO performance of my 6D is 2x better than the performance of my 60D, I think it is worth 2x the price. 

Downplaying the fact that full frames give better imaging performance does not mean that the better performance is not there.

Objectively, a new full frame at this point in time will perform better than a new crop sensor according to...pretty much everyone...The gap is closing but it's not quite there yet.


----------



## cosmonaut

I don't think there is a big enough market for one. I hear rumors of an a78 this summer and we might see something new in the RX line but it won't be cheap.


----------



## goodguy

cosmonaut said:


> I don't think there is a big enough market for one. I hear rumors of an a78 this summer and we might see something new in the RX line but it won't be cheap.



Its not supposed to be cheap just cheapper then the a99, something between the a77 and a99 price, I would say in the 2K$ range.


----------



## cosmonaut

goodguy said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a big enough market for one. I hear rumors of an a78 this summer and we might see something new in the RX line but it won't be cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not supposed to be cheap just cheapper then the a99, something between the a77 and a99 price, I would say in the 2K$ range.
Click to expand...


 Yeah I understand. I would love for them to expand their line. But I just don't think there are enough of a market. Maybe I am wrong? There is a huge difference in the image quality of the a77 and a99 and certainly something could bridge the huge gap. We will see when the spring news comes out but the rumors in the past were a 36 mp version to compete more with the D800.  But you never know?


----------



## Nervine

I am hanging out for the A78. Been following sonyalpharumors on twitter and slowly but surely more information is coming to light. 

Glad I didn't buy the A77 and will use the A55 until it comes out.


----------



## skieur

rexbobcat said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in image quality the Nikon D90 is not far away from that of some FFs and better than the D600.  In Sony at ISO 1600 the A99 is only a little sharper than the A77 not a lot sharper as one would expect from the price differential.  Both have noise levels.    In Canon the 1DX and the 7D are probably the sharpest but the price differential with the T4i as in more than $6,000 for the 1DX is a lot more than the sharpness difference between these cameras.
> 
> So, I find it interesting that you cannot tell anyone why they should buy full frame if the image quality is not considerably better.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DXOMark rates the D600 higher in everything, but yes, when the ISO performance of my 6D is 2x better than the performance of my 60D, I think it is worth 2x the price.
> 
> Downplaying the fact that full frames give better imaging performance does not mean that the better performance is not there.
> 
> Objectively, a new full frame at this point in time will perform better than a new crop sensor according to...pretty much everyone...The gap is closing but it's not quite there yet.
Click to expand...


If you do the pixel peeping on the same shot with two different cameras you will find that the 6D has less noise than the D600 but then crop body cameras do not have much more noise than FFs at 1600.  

Irrespective of what everyone says I have NOT seen an considerable noise difference or considerable sharpness difference on an image with a crop body vs an image with a FF.

skieur


----------



## skieur

cosmonaut said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a big enough market for one. I hear rumors of an a78 this summer and we might see something new in the RX line but it won't be cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not supposed to be cheap just cheapper then the a99, something between the a77 and a99 price, I would say in the 2K$ range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I understand. I would love for them to expand their line. But I just don't think there are enough of a market. Maybe I am wrong? There is a huge difference in the image quality of the a77 and a99 and certainly something could bridge the huge gap. We will see when the spring news comes out but the rumors in the past were a 36 mp version to compete more with the D800.  But you never know?
Click to expand...


Well since you have both the A77 crop body and the A99, full frame how about showing us "the huge difference in image quality" on the same shot with same lighting, settings and lenses?

skieur


----------



## Kolia

You'll never get the same shot by using the same settings with the same lens on different sensor sizes...


----------



## Benco

skieur said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not supposed to be cheap just cheapper then the a99, something between the a77 and a99 price, I would say in the 2K$ range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I understand. I would love for them to expand their line. But I just don't think there are enough of a market. Maybe I am wrong? There is a huge difference in the image quality of the a77 and a99 and certainly something could bridge the huge gap. We will see when the spring news comes out but the rumors in the past were a 36 mp version to compete more with the D800.  But you never know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since you have both the A77 crop body and the A99, full frame how about showing us "the huge difference in image quality" on the same shot with same lighting, settings and lenses?
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


They have the same resolution right? so the A99 sensor has larger pixels than the A77, all else being equal doesn't that give the larger sensor a performence advantage?


----------



## skieur

Benco said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I understand. I would love for them to expand their line. But I just don't think there are enough of a market. Maybe I am wrong? There is a huge difference in the image quality of the a77 and a99 and certainly something could bridge the huge gap. We will see when the spring news comes out but the rumors in the past were a 36 mp version to compete more with the D800.  But you never know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well since you have both the A77 crop body and the A99, full frame how about showing us "the huge difference in image quality" on the same shot with same lighting, settings and lenses?
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have the same resolution right? so the A99 sensor has larger pixels than the A77, all else being equal doesn't that give the larger sensor a performence advantage?
Click to expand...


Sure but a photographer and his/her client is paying for what he/she SEES in terms of sharpness, lack of noise etc.  at 1600 ISO for example which makes for better quality prints and enlargements.  The test of the spin about larger pixels is a visible difference in IMAGE QUALITY as in sharpness and low noise that everyone can view.

So, don't tell me that the difference in quality is there, if it can't be shown with images.

skieur


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

> [h=3]Wondering why Sony isnt coming out with a user grade full frame camera[/h]



Perhaps you don't realize Sony is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, buyer beware


----------



## 2fastlx

2WheelPhoto said:


> *Wondering why Sony isnt coming out with a user grade full frame camera*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't realize Sony is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, buyer beware
Click to expand...



So was Apple at one point.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

2fastlx said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wondering why Sony isnt coming out with a user grade full frame camera*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't realize Sony is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, buyer beware
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So was Apple at one point.
Click to expand...


One company pulled out, many more haven't, I'm not sure what the point is.  

If a company is leaning towards bankruptcy and profit is heading down every quearter, research and development slows.  That was my point to the thread topic =)


----------



## rexbobcat

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> One company pulled out, many more haven't, I'm not sure what the point is.
> 
> If a company is leaning towards bankruptcy and profit is heading down every quearter, research and development slows.  That was my point to the thread topic =)



I thought most of Sony's loss is in its TV sector?

I have a hard time believing that Sony's bankruptcy is inevitable considering that they have so many options to downsize and restructure.

Even if they are losing money, Sony is still EVERYWHERE it seems so it's not like they can't strip some of their sectors that have dwindling sales.

I did find this though. Pretty damn funny.


----------



## jamesthefotodude432

bigal1000 said:


> If Sony doesn't start making some profits there won't be any Sony cameras as for the RX-1 too little for too much money,you can get a Nikon D800  for less money!!



But dont forget that you will want a lens for that d800 and we might as well make it a zeiss 35mm f2.0.


----------

