Many, many months ago when the first pictures of the A700 were circulating (then called the 'high amateur model' by Sony) pics of the 'flagship' started to pop up as well. While I rather liked the more muscular looking A700, the flagship was a little bit of a let down. First, I imagined that it would be a big body model, with an integrated grip. Ok, it's all about the price point stupid. So, it looks more like Sony's version of Canon's 5D. It's full frame, and it has a slightly bigger body than most semi-pro models. Like a 'pro' model, there is no built in flash, and the body should be totally weather sealed.
So as far as looks go, I wasn't very happy. Well looks aren't everything. My Glock pistols (especially the full size one) are about the ugliest things (in a minimalist way) that's out there, but they (glocks) are like the honda accord of the pistol world. I don't ever question their reliability, they come through every time. So maybe I could live with an ugly 'flagship' if it performs right?
Then just a few weeks ago, Sony announced (like they did before the A700/Nikon D300) a new full frame chip. This new chip would sport just over 24 megapixels. Oh shit. Now some dumb shit buying a point and shoot camera at Wal-Mart thinks more megapixels mean a better picture. Well dSLR buyers know better, in fact the very opposite might be true. But megapixels sell cameras. And in some races the only things that change are price points. So why am I anti-megapixel right now?
When the pixel count rises for any given camera group (point and shoot, APS-C and full frame) each pixel becomes smaller as the image sensor remains the same size. What this means is that the old 3 megapixel camera you owned a few years ago, has an image sensor that's the same size (in most cases) of the 7 to 12 megapixel cheap point and shoot cameras on the market now. Something has to give. What? everything. Contrast can go out the window and noise rises as pixels become smaller and more tightly packed. Worse yet, smaller pixels gather less light making high ISO settings even worse.
I'm not fond of 24 megapixels, but I must admit a couple of things. First, when comparing the area of the sensor from a piece of crap point and shoot to an APS-C sensor (like the one found on the A700) the area of the sensor on the A700 is about 10 times greater than that of a point and shoot sensor.
And jumping to full frame, the area is more than double that of the sensor size of the A700. Example: APS-C on the Sony Alpha A700 is 23.5mm or nearly one inch by 15.6mm. The area in mm is 366.6. A full frame sensor is about 24x36mm that works out to 864 square mm. So the pixel size could be slightly larger than the A700 sensor, but by a very tiny amount.
What do I want? I want a light gathering monster, not a large pixel count. The sensor on the Nikon D3 is full frame with a MP count of only 12 MP. Bottom line, the pixel size is huge. That's what I wanted Sony. I wonder if Sony people ever listen to the common folk that buy their gear? Now, my purchase of the 'flagship' isn't in the bag. I'd be happier to know that Sony would launch a full frame camera with a megapixel count in the 12 to 14 range for the rest of us.
Those that shoot landscapes, and that are blowing their prints up to the 20x40 inch and beyond want 24 MP, but what about the rest of us? On a good note, Sony looks like they are bumping the LCD up in size yet again. Now it looks like a massive 3.5 inch screen for the 'flagship' model. I wouldn't be surprised if it were special, like an OLED or some wide color gamut model.
But pixel size aside, I still don't fancy 24 MP. Why? Data size. The RAW files I shoot with my A700 run about 18MB each. That's huge. A simple wedding will net hundreds of pics to go through, that's 6 to 10 gigabytes. Large image files are slow to work with, slow to transfer from camera to PC, and hog hard drive space.
What will the file sizes be from a FF 24 MP sensor be? Try north of 40 MB per photo. That means a 2 gigabyte card might only hold 60 or so photos. I could eat all of these words an end up posting a 'flagship' blog. But 14 to 16 MP in a FF Sony would be sweet.
And finally, I'm not sold on the moniker of A900 for the flagship. Everyone has been calling it that for so long (everyone except Sony) that they could change the name just to zig when you all thought they would zag. Nobody saw the A300/350 twins about to hit, and many were calling the A700 the 'A500' before it landed. My theory for months has been that the 'flagship' will be called something like the Alpha 'ONE'. However, if Sony does have a big body in the works, the 'ONE' tag could go to that one, and another name would be given to the current top dog.
0 comments:
Post a Comment