Sony Does NEX FF make anyone question the price of the current crop mirrorless?

[jloden]

The 70-200 f4 FE lens is NOT $3000.00.

That price refers to the new alpha 70-200f2.8G lens that was also announced. There has been NO official pricing on the FE70-200F4 that I have seen. Once again Ming Thein is wrong but everybody takes it as gospel.

Ah, I was just going off WT21's quoted post.

Same difference, my point was just a FF 70-200 is going to be more expensive and bigger/heavier than a APS-C or m4/3 equivalent lens, which is to be expected.

I don't have an intrinsic problem with either thing (or I wouldn't own FF gear), but it's going to be a differentiator for the Sony FE system compared to crop-sensor mirrorless, just like it is in DSLRs.

 

[Armanius]

Nikon just announced a new G lens 58/1.4. Sticker price of $1700. The Sony/Zeiss at $1000 doesn't sound so bad now eh!?

 

[norman shearer]

I think a FF NEX is going to be a big seller for Sony. especially as they are once again leading the way. APS-C NEX has drawn a big following from people who like to manual focus and/or use legacy lenses. I exclusively use legacy glass on my Canon 5D but I'm very limited on what lenses will work. With my Sony 5N I've gathered quite a collection of adapters and lenses over the years and some of those lenses are exceptionally good value. Alas, the APS-C crop is a little dissapointing, especially when you value the wide end more than the telephoto. To finally be able to use my Konica Hexanon and Canon FD lenses on FF is a big draw.

I gather the Fuji X series mount was deliberately chosen because it is shorter than the NEX mount. So it should not be long before Fuji follow suit with a FF camera. Who next? Samsung or Ricoh (Pentax)? Exciting times for sure.

This also means the NEX 7 will probably drop quite a bit in price and my 5N will be worth less than an LX7!

 

[flash]

Well the estimates are US$1399.00. Not far off the Panasonic. But a couple of hundred more than the Canon f4L. Then again the Zeiss 24-70 f4 is cheaper than the Canon 24-70 f4LIS.

I think that the lens prices will be somewhat in the park of other "pro" full frame lenses. Bizzarely that seems kind of logical to me.

This isn't directed at you, but I'm already over the whinging about the lens prices. It's sooooo painful. "the 50mm Ziess is too expensive". "How am I supposed to order one of those when I'm on a pension?". "What's a match for the Zeiss 50mm that cost less than $100.00?" "Sony aren't going to sell any of those at $1000".
"When are Sigma going to make some budget lenses for the new Sonys? I hope they're as good as the Zeiss but cheaper." I just bought a Topcon zoom for $42.00 but the corners are soft. This thing is shit. Why didn't you warn me?"

Or my favourite... "I'm going to wait until the a9r and pick up a used a7 cheap. It's stupid these aren't exactly $399.00 after all they're just plastic".

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Gordon

p.s. What do you think all the large format camera shooters think of Ming Theins rubbish about adaptors and precision alignment.

 

[wolfie]

There is no NEX FF ...

At the body price point of the NEX FF (and the pixel count and features), does anyone else find suddenly that the current selection of cropped mirrorless (APS-C and m43 included) look generally overpriced?

edit: I mis-titled my post, so I retitled it. I didn't mean the value of the cameras you have in your hands, but the price of the current offerings on the market. Sorry for the confusion.

Think you mean Sony Alpha series?

Also keep in mind how many lens mount changes they've made ( four different Sony adaptors available currently).

What lens system actually exists?

Hopefully will force prices down - but will it actually get anyone to change from C or N system - doubt it. Sony have shon lots of innovation, but precious little commitment to previous lines if a new idea comes along.

As usual decent glass to actually extract the FF advantage will be big and expensive, especially if you talk about their proposed $3,000 zoom.

If it makes an Olympus E-M1 more affordable for me, then I'd still rather get that.

 

[wt21]

If it makes an Olympus E-M1 more affordable for me, then I'd still rather get that.

This is what I am wondering/conjecturing about. The Sony body seems like a really good deal.

Onnnnn the other hand, though -- many makers have been jacking up lens pricing. It seems that as the low-end collapses into cell phone use, the camera makers know there is a range of enthusiasts who still want quality, and so lens prices are going up, as they determine where the price elasticity for lenses is (i.e. lower volume, but higher prices). Canon's been raising their lens prices for the last few years. Nikon just launched a $1600 58/1.4. This new Sony glass is getting more expensive. But in all 3 cases, the body prices have been stable or dropping, as the body features are going up.

The counter trend is Fuji, which is currently making pretty good glass at reasonable prices. m43 also has a broad line of affordable glass. This Sony FF body can use anyone's glass with the right adapter -- even with (albeit) slow AF. It's a pretty interesting strategy, because even I could use the Sony body with my Canon glass until the lenses I want come along.

It's interesting to me, though I won't predict where it's all going (I'll leave that to Thom Hogan), but the dynamics are fascinating.

 

[jloden]

Well the estimates are US$1399.00. Not far off the Panasonic. But a couple of hundred more than the Canon f4L. Then again the Zeiss 24-70 f4 is cheaper than the Canon 24-70 f4LIS.

I think that the lens prices will be somewhat in the park of other "pro" full frame lenses. Bizzarely that seems kind of logical to me.

This isn't directed at you, but I'm already over the whinging about the lens prices. It's sooooo painful.

[...]

p.s. What do you think all the large format camera shooters think of Ming Theins rubbish about adaptors and precision alignment.

Yep. Totally agree on both points.

I expect these to cost similarly to other full frame, pro quality lenses (provided they perform like them, which I'm inclined to assume they will given Sony's recent Zeiss branded glass).

As for the rest... I always just figured either something's worth it or it's not. If it is, then I'll figure out a way to afford it, haha :tongue:

 

[Armanius]

Good glass for 35mm has historically been more expensive than cropped sensor glass. No way around that. What I can't justify is expensive but subpar glass. But there's no reason to think any of the FE glass will be crappy. Instead, all reports that I read (and samples I looked at) indicate otherwise.

 

[biglouis]

To answer the original question: yes. Top-end m43rds cameras have become ridiculously overpriced. Especially so now in comparison to the A7.

LouisB

 

[bartjeej]

p.s. What do you think all the large format camera shooters think of Ming Theins rubbish about adaptors and precision alignment.

Well, Thom Hogan seems to be of the same opinion, and he's one of the very few reviewes whose opinions I generally trust.

 

[Luckypenguin]

To answer the original question: yes. Top-end m43rds cameras have become ridiculously overpriced. Especially so now in comparison to the A7.

LouisB

No, what is ridiculous is that people are making value for money comparisons on cameras that aren't equally specified. It makes no sense to choose the cheaper A7 body, and the most expensive Micro 4/3 body (E-M1), and say "Wow, there's only $300 difference! Why would anyone choose the Olympus!?". Being very generous to the Sony, the A7 is more closely competitive on specification with something like the E-M5 which was never more than a $1000 body.

There are Micro 4/3 cameras that are much more than just basic Canon Rebel competitors so the expectation that they shouldn't be priced according to their specifications is not a sound one.

 

[wt21]

But Nic, the comparison is up to the buyer, not the manufacturer. If people are shopping the Sony 7 vs. the EM1, it's up to them what they want to compare.

 

[Luke]

But Luke, the comparison is up to the buyer, not the manufacturer. If people are shopping the Sony 7 vs. the EM1, it's up to them what they want to compare.

I think you meant to direct this to Nic (and when I was younger, had more hair and was more handsome, I could have MAYBE passed for him if I had bought the young lady enough drinks), but the manufacturer definitely needs to be aware of what all is in in the marketplace.

In some ways, I would never consider the new Sony with just the handful of lenses that are out there. And in other ways, I would never consider the E-M1..... it's really just a repackaged E-M5 and around $900 more than you can find a used E-M5 for....THAT is insanity (unless you need the couple of newer features). But everyone really does evaluate things differently....and especially money.

 

[wt21]

Sorry, yes. Reading too many threads at the same time.

 

[Luckypenguin]

But Nic, the comparison is up to the buyer, not the manufacturer. If people are shopping the Sony 7 vs. the EM1, it's up to them what they want to compare.

But they also have to convince themselves whether they are comparing them based on the full specification and capabilities of each camera, or simply throwing them together as a convenient way to support a conclusion that they'd already made.

 

[wt21]

But they also have to convince themselves whether they are comparing them based on the full specification and capabilities of each camera, or simply throwing them together as a convenient way to support a conclusion that they'd already made.

I think they only have to compare them on the features that matter TO THEM. For instance, if someone likes the mid-sized body with the grip, but with a built in EVF. Maybe they only need light weather sealing, and not the full shebang. It's what the user values, not necessarily everything the camera can do.

Of course, I can't count the number of times I see an older gentleman driving a Porsche at (or below) the local speed limit. I think in that instance, sometimes they like what the product COULD do, whether they ever use it or not

 

[jloden]

I think they only have to compare them on the features that matter TO THEM. For instance, if someone likes the mid-sized body with the grip, but with a built in EVF. Maybe they only need light weather sealing, and not the full shebang. It's what the user values, not necessarily everything the camera can do.

Of course, I can't count the number of times I see an older gentleman driving a Porsche at (or below) the local speed limit. I think in that instance, sometimes they like what the product COULD do, whether they ever use it or not

That's true, people can (and do) compare whatever they want, which is their prerogative.

On the other hand, you have to ask yourself if it's fair to compare a Porsche and a Smart Car and complain that the Porsche is so much more expensive when they both work for your 5 mile to commute to work and carting around your briefcase

If the features are there, you're probably paying for them, whether they matter to you or not. Take wifi in a camera - tons of people will *never* use that feature, but it's still on the spec sheet, and it's in the hardware costs somewhere too.

 

[wt21]

That's true, people can (and do) compare whatever they want, which is their prerogative.

On the other hand, you have to ask yourself if it's fair to compare a Porsche and a Smart Car and complain that the Porsche is so much more expensive when they both work for your 5 mile to commute to work and carting around your briefcase

If the features are there, you're probably paying for them, whether they matter to you or not. Take wifi in a camera - tons of people will *never* use that feature, but it's still on the spec sheet, and it's in the hardware costs somewhere too.

Let's be realistic, though -- do people ACTUALLY shop smart cars and Porches at the same time? It's theoretically possible, but I've never seen that before. There have got to be more realistic analogies. I shopped an SUV and a sedan recently. Different cars, and each had different things to offer. Yet, I was deciding between the two. Are they comparable? Some would say no, but I had some things to balance (the main ones being fuel economy, with my driving needs in the winter and a better view of the road). I ended up getting the SUV because I got a gorgeous one, fully loaded, for a song (high mileage).

In terms of features being there and paying for them -- that's the point of my OP on the Sony 7. There's a lot there for a relatively low price.

At the end of the day, this is all theoretically, but what's true is that MANY people are buzzing about the camera, and I'm seeing posts of people saying they're dropping their plans to get an EM1, Fuji X system and DSLRs to get one -- that's a pretty broad market reach. Though I haven't yet seen anyone say they're getting a Sony 7 (Porsche) instead of the Panny GM1 (Smart car)

 

[jloden]

[...]

At the end of the day, this is all theoretically, but what's true is that MANY people are buzzing about the camera, and I'm seeing posts of people saying they're dropping their plans to get an EM1, Fuji X system and DSLRs to get one -- that's a pretty broad market reach. Though I haven't yet seen anyone say they're getting a Sony 7 (Porsche) instead of the Panny GM1 (Smart car)

I did see at least one person say they were ditching the EM-5 for the GM1 so who knows, haha :tongue:

I completely agree, people are obviously comparing these cameras against each other across a huge swath of brands and models - which is totally fine and to be expected. I'm just saying I agree with Nic it doesn't make another camera overpriced because you're only looking at subset of features A, B, and C and don't particularly care about features D-Z.

 

[wt21]

Hmmmm... I think I can see your/Nic's point better. That is, something like the EM1 is a very competent machine, and is not overpriced if you need everything it offers.

But IN GENERAL it seems the mirrorless cameras were trying to head to the $1500 level, with many of the newer generations going up in price vs. the last gen, while the DSLRs were forced to come down in price. Then along comes the Sony 7, the camera so many people were calling for, and it's priced BELOW the cheapest DSLR full frames, whereas many of the lower end mirrorless have been priced above their "counter part" consumer DSLR crops. It was just a surprise and, IMO, is aggressive pricing by Sony, designed to lead folks to do exactly what people are talking about -- trying it out.