# Budget Sony Full-frame Body?



## cgw (Aug 9, 2020)

Seems to be in the wings. Love the decision to dump the faux prism bump in favor of the APS-C A6xxx form factor. Too bad the lenses are so damn big!

Sony to Unveil a New Entry-Level Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera: Report


----------



## mjcmt (Aug 9, 2020)

Interesting. Nikon now Sony is offering budget FF cameras. This may be the future for me.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2020)

Waiting for the whining about its single SD memory card slot.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2020)

$898-$998 estimated body-only price... let's hope.


----------



## cgw (Aug 10, 2020)

I keep hoping Fuji delivers on two fading rumors of either a stripped "medium format" ILC or a fixed lens big sensor version of the retro X-100 rangefinder.


----------



## Soocom1 (Aug 10, 2020)

cgw said:


> I keep hoping Fuji delivers on two fading rumors of either a stripped "medium format" ILC or a fixed lens big sensor version of the retro X-100 rangefinder.


I personally would take the MF mirrorless.

The real crux is that (having actually worked on an electronics factory floor for 10 years) that the actual cost of production isn't very high, but investors want money returns.
Thats a difficult approach when activist investors want high yield payouts. 
It puts the company into a no-win situation. Usually killing great ideas.


----------



## cgw (Aug 10, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hoping Fuji delivers on two fading rumors of either a stripped "medium format" ILC or a fixed lens big sensor version of the retro X-100 rangefinder.
> ...



 My only comment is that Fuji's imaging group doesn't bulk large on the company's financial statement. The digital camera crew(consequently?) seems to enjoy unusual freedom in product design. Have a look sometime at the X-Pro3 video posted above that details the camera's genesis. Seems consistent with the cheek involved in developing the X-100 a decade ago:

Fujifilm Finds Niche With Old-Style Cameras That Mask a High-Tech Core


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 11, 2020)

I think a digital ga645zi would sell well.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 11, 2020)

jcdeboever said:


> I think a digital ga645zi would sell well.



Oh, man, that would be a dream!!!


----------



## BananaRepublic (Aug 18, 2020)

mjcmt said:


> Interesting. Nikon now Sony is offering budget FF cameras. This may be the future for me.



When you consider that Sony make the important part of Nikons stuff then I not that surprising. Its like many auto companies nowadays, the ford focus, kia ceed, nissan pulsar, hyundai i10 or whatever and probably a mazda 3 are all identical cars. Thats  on top of all the brands in the VW group indeed VW are have retooled there Commercial van factory line and in the future all electric vans be they ford transit or Renaults, which were nissans anyway, and many other brands are said to be constructed by VW


----------



## cgw (Sep 1, 2020)

Looks like a done deal now according to this update. Prices seem a bit steep. New lens series probably downsized to better match the smaller form factor. Wonder still whether compact ILCs(minus prism bump) with honking big sensors aren't in the wings from other makers?

Sony to Debut a New Line of 'Compact' Full-Frame Cameras Starting this Month: Report


----------



## malling (Sep 1, 2020)

cgw said:


> Looks like a done deal now according to this update. Prices seem a bit steep. New lens series probably downsized to better match the smaller form factor. Wonder still whether compact ILCs(minus prism bump) with honking big sensors aren't in the wings from other makers?
> 
> Sony to Debut a New Line of 'Compact' Full-Frame Cameras Starting this Month: Report



The original $1000 price tag where naive/unrealistic to begin with. There is allot of investment, R&D involved in product development, some of the parts are relatively expensive to make and only a certain % of the parts work as they should, there is allot of workers and supplies who needs to get paid, marketing, distributors, resellers and investors that want to make a high profit possible, that is not gonna happen for a $1000 product in a time where camera sales are dropping in drastic rates every year. 

The age of cheap new camera is over, the future cheap cameras will be older models with older and cheaper technology.

Personally I would not want a compact full frame and even less so Medium format. The Mirrorless is already nose heavy and unbalanced. You will also run into serious distortion issues if you shrink the lens too much, there is a physical limit for how small you can make these without compromising image quality to much. I travel allot I personally would not find it joyful to lug a MF with me.


----------



## cgw (Sep 1, 2020)

malling said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like a done deal now according to this update. Prices seem a bit steep. New lens series probably downsized to better match the smaller form factor. Wonder still whether compact ILCs(minus prism bump) with honking big sensors aren't in the wings from other makers?
> ...



Think you're wide of the mark here on several points. Sony sensors are everywhere and because of it, I don't believe a new camera requires moonshot-level development expense. Costs attach to all products, not just new ones. Besides, I reckon Sony's accounting dept. is sharp enough to spot a dud. Sony's market share is large which allows them to develop niche products. Seems certain Sony can produce lenses of almost any size without optical penalties.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 1, 2020)

A budget full frame Sony that costs $898 to $999 would really be of great benefit to Sony especially since the new Nikon z5 has been announced at roughly 1399.


----------



## malling (Sep 2, 2020)

cgw said:


> malling said:
> 
> 
> > cgw said:
> ...



A sensor is just one part out of many. 

All new products requires a design, development and testing this dos not come for cheap. Sure some parts would be the same as found in other products like the sensor mentioned and would obviously reduce the R&D costs, but Sony would still need to test that all the hardware and software work as these should as a whole, there are many things that can go wrong under an R&D process even if you use known parts, if you don’t do it properly you end up with problems like the overheating issue of certain Cannon cameras. There is only one way Sony could make it that cheap, that would be to ude most of the parts from the Sony A7ii that is still manufactured and sold in that price range and put it in a new body, that is obviously not gonna happen, if Sony is using most of the parts from the Sony A7iii the product would obviously end up in a similar price range and even more so if it’s gonna use the internal parts of the coming A7iv

All niche products still needs to create a profit, I would not use Nikon as a good example of anything as they are poor at running a business and are loosing money by the day. 

The lower end Sony’s actually have distortion issues, I don’t think the technology is there yet to make a small cheap lightweight lens that dos not have somewhat noticeable distortion, comatic aberration etc. The only one that I have seen in the Sony range that dos fairly well in that regards is the 24mm but that is moon rocking expensive. 

All of the 85mm in the lighter end of things in the sony range suffer from those issues, no matter who makes it. The problem is quite persistent throughout the lens selection. The lenses that dos best is typically the heavy, bulky and very expensive ones. There is alway a price to be paid when you shrink a lens and especially if you make it cheaper too. For example Sigma just announced a new 85mm lighter and smaller lens, but the lens because of that also have quite pronounced distortion and has a few issues with sharpness across the plane if compared to the older bigger and heavier version.

So although Sony dos fairly well in that regard, they aren’t breaking the law of physics.


----------



## cgw (Sep 2, 2020)

A few too many truisms above. Typical trollish bs: long on opinion, short on fact. Love the axiom that small, inexpensive lenses are always inferior to large expensive ones. Right...


----------



## malling (Sep 2, 2020)

cgw said:


> A few too many truisms above. Typical trollish bs: long on opinion, short on fact. Love the axiom that small, inexpensive lenses are always inferior to large expensive ones. Right...



I wrote typically the best lenses are more expensive, heavy and bulky. I did not write that is always the case nor that these are necessarily the most expensive, but these are typically not cheap.

Neither did I write expensive lenses are the best or that cheap ones are horrible as you can easily find overpriced mediocre lenses such as the 35mm Zeiss (unless you get a good copy) and where some cheaper ones dos allot better, just as you can find cheap lenses that dos fairly well compared to the price. 

For example the sony 85mm is probably the best value for money, but the Sigma and Sony GM is still better. The Samyang also dos well if you get a good copy and for a time but doesn’t hold op for very long. This is too often a problem with cheaper lenses, these might be great if you get a good copy, but then again you might not. I have seen, heard and experienced way too many not holding up for very long. At the end of the day you get what you pay for. There is a good reason why Sony charge almost 4x for their GM, it’s not only about picture quality but also durability and longevity. 

Way too many thing that you should only look at the total costs of parts (an actual useless information in its own), but that is just only a small part of what makes up the total cost of a product, companies need to pay wages, suppliers etc. if you don’t look at those aspects you won’t get a very clear picture of what the total costs is. I‘m familiar with a few companies who play with completely open cards and tell the price of every part, process etc. it give an insight into all the things that needs to be included and also the problems that you can encounter, problems that you need to cover in the final price. 

If you cannot afford it too bad, buy something else. Don’t complain that it’s too expensive or buy it when the price drops. If the cheap Sony A7C end up costing $2000 then it’s the right price.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Sep 2, 2020)

There are times when companies will choose to make no money off of one product in order to gain a larger piece of the market and be able to sell more of their “accessories”. The PlayStation is an example of this. They make very little off of the play station itself but they make up for it with their games and everything that goes along with people playing it. Maybe they are willing to sell a new camera at cost knowing that people will be buying their lenses and such. Just a thought.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 2, 2020)

If my memory serves me correctly the Sony corporation operated for 7 years in the early 2000s without once making a profit.

The last news article I read about the upcoming a7c listed a potential retail price of $2,000, which is quite a bit more than the first article I read which gave an anticipated price of $898 to $999...quite a substantial difference.


----------



## jaomul (Sep 3, 2020)

Derrel said:


> If my memory serves me correctly the Sony corporation operated for 7 years in the early 2000s without once making a profit.
> 
> The last news article I read about the upcoming a7c listed a potential retail price of $2,000, which is quite a bit more than the first article I read which gave an anticipated price of $898 to $999...quite a substantial difference.


Hard to know what is true, the a73 costed less than 2k  (1999 I think, now I'm not 100% on that in dollars but it wasn't loads more) on release so the budget model will likely be less. Now less than 1k seems like too good to be true but with sales supposedly declining, covid and the fact that as said, accessories lenses and that may bring revenue in who knows, we can hope


----------



## photoflyer (Sep 4, 2020)

One thing I have not yet figured out for any of the manufacturers is where the margin is: glass or bodies?

That determines if they sell bodies at a loss or break even to then sell lenses profitably or vice versa.

My sense is that high end glass is very expensive , perhaps making good lenses lower margin?    

Bodies also benefit from economies of scale with larger production runs (some kit lenses are an exception).

Also, making glass is almost an art.  So some may have advantage in lens making.

All of this plays into which manufacturers even  have the option to cut prices on their bodies.    I'd really like to see the data.


----------

