Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount News and Rumors' started by unlo, Sep 11, 2015.
mmm internal 4k
As a video recording device it has nice potential.
Damn. I was hoping it would have PDAF as well. But the price is already up near the A7RII, so it doesn't really matter.
I guess I keep waiting.
Ultimate ISO and IBIS would be awesome for me... but not quite $3K awesome.
I hope the 7Sii sells like wildfire - and that the used market becomes bountiful with original 7Ss.
How about a model with the 12MP see-in-the-dark sensor and IBIS but no video capability whatsoever for $1000 less? THAT would be pretty hard for me to ignore!
Am I wrong in being surprised the megapixel count didn't go up? (Or did it?)
It did not. You can't increase the pixel count if you want to have the sensor be the exact size needed for 4K
A review is up with a lot of images: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/10/31/review-sony-a7s-mk-ii/#.VjYsQIQbuf2 I am not sure what to think of the this camera yet, it is one that I am considering for primarily video.
DB, I'll admit that I don't know an awful lot about 4K, but why couldn't the pixel count be higher for 4K? I can understand not going down, but not going up? The RII can do it with 42MP (I think - I haven't tried it yet).
Sorry that makes no sense. Video on mirror less cameras isn't an add on it is fundamental to their operation. Removing the ability to record the video doesn't actually save Sony any money, certainly not a $1000! Although I too am disappointed in the price hikes. Mirror less are cheaper to make and the first generation reflected that. The second generation (except for the A7II) do not.
The key was "The exact size needed for 4K". The sensor is the correct width for 4K, and so the camera can do 4K with no pixel binning or combining. If you change the size to a larger sensor, you would have to downsize the readout from the sensor to 4K.
Why cheaper to make? There's no mechanical mirror, but that's cheap and fully mature tech (zero r&d cost), they do need EVFs (pricier, and still evolving), are in smaller bodies (cost of miniaturization, greater challenges stuffing all that tech into the small packages), and are cutting edge tech in a lot of ways (there are the r&d costs again).
DSLRs are almost without exception cheaper for equivalent quality (wide lens selection with body) than mirrorless. Sony shook up the market with the original cams and likely didn't make much profit on the bodies, particularly the original A7, which is the exception to the rule imo
Also: 42MP was chosen for the A7rII because it is the perfect size for precise downsampling to 4k. It's twice the linear resolution with a 2x2 square of pixels becoming a single pixel for 4k video.
Wow, Mike, I didn't realize that! I like that answer!
Very true. Also the right size for 8K video - Future camera with better/faster processor?
Let's see... a perfect 3x3 reduction would take... 96Mp. Yikes. We won't go into 4x4
R&D, sure. But there wasn't a lot of R&D for the A7SII for example and it still cost $500 more. It used all the same parts/design with updated firmware. Cost of miniaturization? Not really. Not from a company that already has the technology and ability to make modern smart phones. I imagine there's a lot of engineering in the stabilizer module but they added that to the A7II and didn't increase the price.
The big difference is there's less precision needed with a mirrorless camera. They by design have lower tolerances than SLRs or rangefinders because of on sensor focusing and metering. One of the reasons Sony uses linear focus (NOT the only reason) is that their lenses don't have and can't have hard infinity stop because infinity is potentially at slightly different places on each camera. With other camera designs you can't have this because autofocus is decoupled from image capture. General rule of making stuff, lower tolerances mean easier to make devices.
If you have any proof or evidence that Sony lost money from the first series bodies (at least when they were selling at or near MSRP, it's unclear who loses money when stuff goes on fire sale) I'd love to see it. Given Sony's financial reports the opposite seems true to me.
I'm not saying the current crop of cameras are horribly overpriced compared to the competition but they are expensive and likely have a higher profit margin than competing DSLRs.
One of the problems with cameras companies is that they have very high fixed SG&A overheads. It costs pretty much the same for a TV advert, to stock cameras in retail or to have a service centre whether the camera company is selling 1,000 units a week or 10,000. So to give you can example. Olympus has a higher gross margin on cameras at 44% than Nikon (40%) and Canon (36%) and yet it has lost money in its camera division every single one of the last 6 years because its SG&A costs are over 50% of sales. So I have no idea whether Sony cameras (as opposed to its sensors) really make money (or how costs are allocated) but Sony has a relatively small market share in cameras compared to Nikon and Canon and therefore needs a substantially higher gross margin to be profitable.
I would have thought that ibis, internal 4k and 120fps 1080p are easily worth an extra US$500 as witnessed by the fact that an A7s can now be bought second hand for US$1,000 and obviously Sony doesnt have much competition at anywhere near its current price point.
My point is not necessarily "value", which is in the mind of the consumer, but cost to manufacture. For example, I buy a lot of Apple products knowing their markup is up to 10X that of the competition but their ecosystem, as restrictive as it may be to others, provides me with value that makes it worthwhile. Sony clearly thinks those features you listed provide consumers with added value worth the markup. I doubt though that the cost to develop/manufacture has risen significantly, if at all, and given how quickly the resale value falls on Sony bodies the increase in cost to the consumer (despite increasing sales volume) is frustrating.
You make excellent points about the SG&A overhead but wouldn't that be same for the first and second generation? So why the increase? Anyway if you go back to my original post, my comment was more about how video is integral to mirrorless cameras and that removing video recording would not decrease the cost to manufacturer/develop while significantly decreasing the value. I never meant to hijack the thread with a debate about the cost of the camera.