Nikon D700

After the launch events of this Summer and this Fall (before and during the Köln Photokina), there are two brands leaving important questions open. This is Sony and Nikon. While the two near-friends had us used to seeing them working together around the Sony digital photo sensors, we discovered two very divergent/different announces about 35mm Full Frame dSLR cameras: A Sony Alpha 900 pushing the resolution to record levels (24.6MP) and a Nikon D700 limiting its resolution in favor of maximum sensitivity (12MP).

Sony Alpha 900 - publicité

Some would have us thinking that Nikon would have rejected the sensor offered by Sony (used on the Alpha 900) for reasons of insufficient image quality. It does not seem so obvious when looking at the results actually obtained by Sony, but why not? After all, Nikon did obtain a special edition of the Alpha 700 sensor in order to build its Nikon D300…

So what?

It is not very difficult to forecast. Nikon is preparing a Full Frame SLR photo camera with very high resolution (the Nikon D800 of the rumour mill or the D4 promised around Christmas?) and Sony will derive a low resolution version of the Alpha 900 (most certainly named Alpha 800). Their moves will be opposite but very complementary (and predictable).

In both cases, you can say that Canon will not be forced into running with the pack. With their EOS 5D Mk II (and the last EOS 5D, sold at bargain prices), there is enough to sustain the pressure, but Canon will need to react in 2009, before Summer.

Beware: We said announces, not releases.

Already done:

Beware: This will be updated as often as needed. This may lead to repeated publications in the RSS feeds and some publication date changes.

• Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6, to finally offer a great tele-zoom
• Carl Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8, to have the wide-angle zoom lens that could drive sales of the Sony Alpha 900

Now, Sony has a full range of f/2.8 zooms from 16mm to 200mm.

Availability of these two zooms: January 2009. Let’s be patient.

Sony Alpha 900

Specification

• 24,6 MP with Full Frame 35mm sensor
• A-to-D conversion with 6000 amplifiers (to reduce pixel noise)
• Dual BIOZ processors
• In-body stabilization (1st in this category)
• Viewfinder with 100% coverage and 0,74x magnification (best in class)
• Replaceable focusing screen
• 10-point new AF system (with central dual cross)
• Continuous shooting at 5 fps
• Intelligent preview allows to keep a RAW image for digital processing (white balance, dynamic range) without writing it to memory
• EV bracketing with ±2EV range
• 13 creative styles and 3 programmable modes
• Image Data Converter SR3 software even allows to compensate for corner light fall off (vignetting)
• HDMI output and Photo TV HD mode
• Magnesium body, rubber seals
• Rugged shutter (for 100,000 cycles)
• 3″ LCD screen (921,000 pixels)
• Secondary LCD screen on top
• Price : $3000 (converted to around 2100€), but the real European price will be 2800€

Sony Alpha 900

Comments

Nobody will even be surprised after the any leaks, pre-launch annoncements, pre-information, near-previews of these last days. Despite the surprising lack of LiveView on the LCD back screen, it seems that the camera is everything that was expected and maybe a little more.

It’s just that the price will be at the highest possible point for this kind of product. Sony does not want the Alpha 900 to enter a cost race (at least, not right now). But if the conversion rate was applied correctly, 2100€ could become a killer for Nikon and Canon competiton. Unforunately, the real price will be 2800 euros. This is quite expensive, but in line with the rest of the competition. Sony Alpha 900 is still a pro bargain at such a price.

Sony Alpha 900

Last bit of information : As I told before the press was under embargo on the information about the Sony Alpha 900. Chasseur d’Images (France) just published a detailled analysis of the Sony Alpha 900 in its October issue. To be noticed: There is nothing about Canon or Nikon further new products (apart from the already clear Nikon D90 and Canon 50D).

Notice the small trapezoidal LCD screen on top of the camera body, the nice position of the drive and exposure buttons on top of the grip, nearly under the finger:

Source: DP via PB.

Sony Alpha 900 - magazine ad

As everybody expected, it will be named Sony Alpha 900. Also,this tends to contradict the possibility of additional similar cameras (possibly with a different/smaller sensor).

Features

• 24.6 Mega Pixel Full Frame Exmor CMOS Sensor
• Dual BIONZ Image Processing Engine
• Intelligent Preview
• 100% Viewfinder (with 0.74x Magnification)
• 3.0”, 921K-pixel Hybrid LCD
• 9-point double-cross AF (with f2.8 wide-area sensor & 10-point secondary sensors)
• 5 fps continuous shooting
• SteadyShot on the sensor

Update: Yet another ad has been found.

Sony Alpha 900 - Magazine ad

Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Canon EOS 7D

Anyway, do not expect to get any reliable information now. Canon has put under NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) all press representative and has provided the pre-production cameras for the initial hands-on reviews to pop up everywhere when the embargo is lifted.

This is exactly the reason why  we no longer have any information about the upcoming Sony Alpha 900 which will be fighting in exactly the same market. Possibly with exactly the same weapons (two cameras to simultaneously cover both the $2000 and $3000 ranges).

We knew that it was coming with 25 million pixels, but it could have been short on quality compared to the D3 (or D700) sensor because of its small (but many) pixels. For Nikon to accept to use this Sony sensor (and not a better one) at this level of products, they must be sure to have the best possible silicon piece: Pros want wonderful images, not only big figures (a big bunch of pixels).

I was thinking differently, but this could tilt the scale toward a very high price for the Sony Alpha 900 camera (I had hoped to see less than 2500€ or even less than 2000€, but -now- I would not be surprised if the label looked like 3000€).

However, it would leave some space left in the Sony camera range for an Alpha 800, with an intermediate price. This could be quite neat if it allowed to have a super-featured Full Frame camera around 3000€ (the Sony Alpha 900) and another Full Frame under 2500€ (the hypothetical Sony Alpha 800).

With such arguments, nobody would be surprised in seeing a brother to the recent Nikon D700: The ruored Nikon D800?

Let’s see at Koln Photokina opening next month.

Most people think that the camera will be christened Sony Alpha 900 (the 9 figure has been used by Minolta for its pro lines). But, well, uhm, the rumor is running free. In Chasseur d’Image, we read that there could be a declination of the camera. Is Sony going to play to the same tune as for the Alpha 300 and Alpha 350?

Why not? It’s only a matter of launching simultaneously a Sony Alpha 900 and an Alpha 950. Both would share the same nice robust body seen previously here and there. But the digital sensor would be different. Imagine:

• Sony Alpha 900 with a 14MP Full Frame sensor
• Sony Alpha 950 with a 24MP Full Frame sensor

or even:

• Sony Alpha 800 with a 14MP APS-C sensor
• Sony Alpha 900 with a 24MP Full Frame sensor

Check here later.

This is the reason why the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS UM and Nikon AF 80-400mm VR f/4.5-5.6 D ED has been so successful despite their obviously high prices (around $2000). When I’m on photo safari, I’d say that about half the people around me have one of the Canons as their main lens (somtimes, it’s even their only lens).

Some time ago, Sigma added its own version of this lens (see this high-end zoom lens comparison). And it was a winner in terms of price-performance.

Now, we can expect several significant news in this range of products coming from different manufacturers.

• Sony presented about a year ago a mockup of a zoom lens corresponding well to this range. The word is out that it will be a 70-400mm f/5.6 zoom presented to the European press on August 14th (for an official launch in the beginning of September, probably at the same time Sony launches the Sony Alpha 800 and/or Sony Alpha 900 Full Frame camera(s)).
• According to some rumors (mainly originating from an unsubstantiated initial post at NikonRumours), there will soon be a Nikon AF80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR update. And this should be explaining the reduced availability of the original version.

I would even be tempted to read between the lines of a recent test article of Chasseur d’Image and say that Canon will also be hard pressed to provide an update to its aging 100-400mm. After all, it’s a real cash cow and a sure sale for owners of top- and mid-range cameras like the Canon EOS 40D (and possibly its successor EOS 50D – next year?).

Since the EOS 5D MkII is expected around this time and no later than September PMA fair, this is quite a possibility and having a handful of these cameras in the hands of pro photographers for all to see would be a very nice promotional opportunity for Canon. This is much needed after the thunderous launch of the Nikon D700 and just before the arrival of the Sony Alpha 800/900 (direct competitors in the Full Frame SLR camera market).

I’m still sceptical about an EOS 50D that would be arriving a little too early according to Canon habits in terms of launches, except if it was a low-cost version of the previous Full Frame camera. And, there, it would be a great event. Think about it! Simultaneous launch of two war machines hitting right into the center of the preoccupations of the most enthusiast photographers.

Some people expect the announcement to happen on Monday.

The arrival of the Nikon D700 with a Full Frame sensor of a lower resolution than the high-end cameras like the Nikon D3 (or the Sony Alpha 900) had people murmuring that maybe (and I have to heavily insist on this maybe word) Nikon and Sony would share a 12-16 million-pixel Full Frame sensor. Nikon would launch a Nikon D700 and Sony would launch a similar Sony Alpha 800 sometimes nicknamed “flagcheap” (”flagship” designating the top-of-the-line Sony, the Alpha 900, “flag-cheap” is a word game on “cheap” for a cheaper camera).

It is impossible to tell if there is any truth to it. Assuredly, the lack of recent information about the Sony Alpha 900 (and most importantly its price target) had heads spinning and marketing laws or logic law being what they are, plugging a price hole in the Sony SLR camera range may become an urgent necessity. Sony could fill it with the Alpha 800. And it previously occured that Sony hid some products behind the visibility of another camera (see the example of the Alpha 300/350).

As you can notice, it is expected that the Sony Alpha 900 will be targetting low prices despite it’s 24MP sensor (or it will have a little Alpha 800 brother, while the Alpha 900 would shoot for a higher price point). But the current Canon EOS 5D seems to be an astonishingly good bargain (while stocks last).

• Nikon D3x because Nikon is not yet out of voice and they prepare a high-end pro SLR to go along with the D3; Probably beginning of 2009.
• Sony Alpha 900 because Sony promissed in September 2008 (launch at PMA in August 2008?) its super-hig-end 24 million pixels FF camera.
• Canon EOS 5D MkII because the replacement for the EOS 5D is coming soon (maybe not even waiting for August) and maybe with a cheaper little brother under the name of Canon EOS 3D.

Nikon Rumours affirmed last week that the Nikon D700 (or D700 FX) will be priced just under 3000 USD. It has been said that the Canon EOS 5D MkII should arrives around 3500 USD, but the Canon EOS 5D is already sold under 2000 USD now. And the Nikon D3 (already previous generation camera) is still near 5000 USD, except in some very small on-line shops whose reputation is a bit low.

Not taking into account the actual performance and exact features of each, I would say that Sony will be able to position itself around 2000 USD which is the price point that Canon is setting for all the others. But keep in mind that there is a large body of amateurs enthusiasts that are ready to pay much more than the usual 600-1500 USD price tag for a digital SLR, but the competition is heating to bring Full Frame capability to the masses.

Your guess is as good as mine, but I would say that the tendency is to prepare to a very low price point. 2000 USD will be considered a turning point (notice how Canon is letting the price of the EOS 5D plummet down). A camera willing to position itself as top-quality Full Frame will probably aim at $2500 (I think the price of the Canon EOS 5D MkII or a possible Canon EOS 6D could climb there, not even speaking of a possible Nikon D3x in 2009 with a stratospheric price), but a product aimed at a larger market would have to start around $2000 and preparing for a street price going under this limit (this should be the case of the Nikon D700 -the name is referring more to the D300 than to the D3/D3x pro family- and of the Sony Alpha 900).

Sony Alpha 900 along with the newest Sony flash

Will there be something before Photokina?

And it’s a good question to ask, but the answer goes with some of the comments about sensor resolution. About the same people who noticed that resolution is not all that counts (despite what is said or implied by some of the major brands on this market) also understand that going Full Frame is a possibly very important decision for the attentive digital photographer.

WTF is Full Frame?

First you’d like to understand what we are speaking about – precisely. Most Digital Single Lens Reflex (D-SLR) cameras use a sensor whose size is about half of the size of a usual (old?) 35mm film frame. We call them APS-C-sized sensors because it’s not far from the (younger but still old?) APS-C film frame size. Since so many photographers have been trained in the world of 35mm films, everything tends to be compared to it.

Those small sensors are used by camera manufacturers because the smaller the silicon chip, the cheaper it goes. This is the main reason why phone cameras use even smaller sensors (a few millimeters wide for some of them).

Full Frame sensors are those ones that are nearly exactly the same size as a 35mm film: 24mm by 36mm sensitive surface. By silicon manufacturing standards this has long been too big to be reasonably manufactured in large quantities but progress being what it is in this industry (Moore’s law, you know?) it is now becoming feasible. So why not?

The pros of FF

The first one is that if you stick to a fixed number of pixels (say 10 millions of them on one single sensor), the wider the sensors, the larger the individual pixel sensitive element. This has several enormously interesting advantages.

Being big, the pixel is also much more sensitive (it can collect more photons at the same time). So, there is less need to do mathematics and algorithmics to compensate for low light situations. The sensor collects directly enough light and the image is less impacted by noise. Like when you push the volume up on a radio to hide the background noise of a conversation. Those big pixels naturally “push the volume up”.

And noise is a real problem. On very high ISOs and/or on low quality cameras (read “small sensors” like we find them in camera phones or even compact point-and-shoot cameras), you keep shooting images that are dull, covered with little colored specks or lack in details because the camera manufacturer forced on “noise cleaning algorithm” and this removed most details.

Parallely, if you pixel is large and collecting a lot of light photons, it is easier for the electronics to cut it in small pieces: you get better dynamic range. It means that you will find easily more details in the dark areas of the image and you will mostly avoid the blown-out white zones of some light areas. This is a good thing for your photos.

But there are also some other even more subtle but important issues at hand. Many photographers migrating from analog to digital SLR cameras have noticed that the viewfinder now looks like a tiny little tunnel: everything seems to be small and dark. Since the sensor image is smaller, it is sent back to the eye in a smaller size too. It is uncomfortable unless you invest in a camera with a top of the line viewfinder. But if the sensor is Full Frame, it is easier for the camera manufacturer. They don’t have to enlarge the image, it’s already big.

A much more technically difficult argument is something that is now cropping up with large pixel numbers. When we had 6 million pixels on an APS-C sensor, nobody noticed it, but with 10, 12, 14 millions pixels people start to notice that the increase of resolution does not always go with improved image quality. One of the reasons is linked to light diffraction when you close the diaphragm. The pixels are getting so small that the slight diffraction from a lens closed at f/22 or f/16 is becoming larger than a pixel (or at least perceptible there).

Manufacturers (and intensely attentive photographers) now understand that if they want to keep getting more pixels, they -first- have to buy extra-high-quality lenses (at a price) and -second- they must get bigger pixels (and bigger sensors). 20 million pixels on an APS-C sensor will probably never be significantly better than 10-12 millions of them. You have to go to Full Frame if you want more pixels! It essentially gives you more real pixels and an extended diaphragm range: in most cases, it is understood that around 12 millions pixel on an APS-C sensor, closing to more than f/16 is just breaking down your picture.

As a side note, this also explains why so many small cameras and phone cameras are producing really ugly images out of an astonishing number of pixels…

Questionable advantages

Another bane of small sensors is that they have so much Depth of Field (DOF). Everything seems to be in focus. This is good for a digital photo notebook like your camera phone. But if you want to go a little more on the artsy side, you may want to ensure that the subject is neatly focused and leaving the background in a warm fuzzy light. This is more difficult with APS-C sensors than with full frame sensors. However, you have to admit that this is a mixed advantage. For example, macro photography is always lacking in depth of field. APS-C has been bringing a little advantage here.

Also, APS-C sensors being smaller, they tend to crop the image. So, the standard 50mm lens you used on the old analog camera looks like it is giving you the same image as your old 75mm or 80mm short tele lens when mounted on a Digital SLR camera. This is what is called the crop factor. Depending on your camera (or, more precisely, its sensor), it gives you a small conversion factor (1.6 for most Canon EOS, 1.5 for most Sony and Nikon). This is a nightmare for people in love with wide angle lenses and wide panoramas (it’s becoming more and more difficult to get a wide angle lens: super wide 16mm now looks like a wide 24mm). Many nature landscape photographers suffer from that change. However, being a wildlife photographer myself, I admit that this can be good too: My collection of tele-lenses got a boost going from Minolta analog to Sony digital; The latest addition, a 400mm f/4.5, is nearly exactly equivalent on my Sony Alpha 700 to a 600mm f/4.5 on the old Minolta Maxxum 9xi but it is about half the weight and half the price). Not everybody can be happy with that.

The dark side of the Full Frame

But there are also very bad aspects of these large Full Frame sensors. First, we already said that electronics manufacturing is utterly sensitive to surface. The larger a chip, the more expensive. And not only because of the added material. Defects on a silicon chip tend to be spread quite evenly on its surface. The larger it is, the more defects you have, the more difficult it becomes to manufacture, the more parts you have to scrap (if your chip is twice bigger, a single defect will kill it, but on a smaller one, you would get one good chip and one bad one). Price increase has long been so large that it is not mentionable. Now, things are a bit easier, but… it’s expensive.

Also to mention, bigger sensors mean bigger cameras (your phone camera is small because its photo sensor is small). Bigger means heavier. There is a definite difference between a 300g camera body and 800g camera body. Keep it for more than an hour while shooting! Some photographers may not really care (I often hold a camera behind a lens that is more than 2kg -I previously mentioned a 400mm lens of 2.9kg- and I’ve got used to it but many people would not even think about it. The first time I bought a second-hand Sigma 400mm/5.6 the previous owner was selling it because he had a back ache prohibiting to use it).

But you could also say that you don’t really care if the image is good. And here comes the size of the lens again. To cover the full surface of a Full Frame sensor you need a lens that is large enough for that. It must also be of perfect quality to the extreme corner of the image. But if you get the light in all corners you also have to ensure that the light rays are not suffering from too many angled paths through the lens. If you do not make sure of this during the design, it’s easy to get a correct lens for APS-C, but a pitifully bad one for Full Frame. Quite often, these are difficult goals to reach and you get vignetting (the corners of the image are a little darker than the center) and soft corners (zones that are not as crisp as the center of the image). The larger the sensor, the more difficult to make a good lens for it (again). You go to the pro-quality lenses. Again, there is a price hike and added weight on the scale.

So what?

In the end, the choice to go Full Frame is currently reserved to prosumers or top-flight amateurs or even pro photographers. But we have to keep in mind that the trend will be going there just to keep the quality while other factors are climbing. Don’t believe that electronics progress will remove all limits (diffraction is an optical phenomenon we have to live with). Not everybody will have to go there, but Full Frame is there to stay.

You may not want to invest in Full Frame, but you must take that into account when you buy a lens. Many cheap lenses are only able to serve APS-C sensors. While this was a sensible investment (pay less for the same service), remember that a good lens is supposed to live much longer than your camera (digital cameras have gone the way of computers: 2-year obsolescence is the standard). This is why so many Full Frame (even second-hand) lenses are keeping a high market price. This is why Sony and Carl Zeiss still only manufacture lenses able to work on both APS-C and FF.

When I buy a tele lens, I tend to pay a hefty price on second-hand hardware (more than 2000 Euros on the old second-hand Minolta APO G High-Speed 400mm f/4.5 I got from eBay). I intend to keep that much longer than the Sony Alpha 700 and the Konica-Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7D I use as SLR bodies behind it. If (and I say if) I go and buy the future Sony Alpha 900 Full Frame camera which is supposed to be available some time this year, possibly at the end of the Summer 2008, all my lenses will still be compatible with this camera body.

So, even if you don’t care about the added quality, think about the rest of your investment in the context of Full Frame sensors.

According to Amateur Photographer, Samsung is preparing a Full Frame D-SLR camera to compete with Canon EOS 5D (or future 5D Mk II), with Nikon D3, with future Sony Alpha 900. We know that Samsung has a very good technology (shared with Pentax) and that the high-end market is calling for Full Frame sensors.

Nothing is certain, and we will probably have to wait until 2009, but things are moving fast in Korea too.