Jump to content

Melbourne Park

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. While pre-orders were being listed at $Au3,500, there are Australian sites offering the A7S for $Au2,500. Which includes our sales tax of 10%. So, that would be pre-sales tax in the USA, a price of $Au2,273. Which in US dollars, would be about $US2,200. Also the Australian sites are offering a free lens adapter of your choice, worth in Australian dollars up to $300, or $US280. So I think the likely US price for the camera is around the $US2,000 mark, when profiteering from retailers passes. I am delighted with the price. This is around the same price as the 7R, for a stills and video camer
  2. I am like you - 4K video isn't where its at for me. I also have micro four thirds gear (Olympus). But I will not be able to do decent amateur video hand held with my Olympus lenses on a GH-4 IMO, due to lack of internal stabilisation. I will very much miss the touch screen and focus interface on the Olympus LCD, but I think the low light ability of the Sony especially the video will allow me to achieve lots that I can't easily do with Olympus or a GH-4. As far as stills resolution goes, the Sony zooms actually out resolve Olympus's best lenses from the tests I have seen. The slower Son
  3. I recall the CPU story from a Japanese manufacturer, who was requested to have a failure rate of .002%. Curious about this, the company sent some extra CPUs along, to satisfy the customer's error "requirement"! The customer was somewhat surprised ...
  4. I suspect though, that faults would get less and less, due to experience. Interesting though that the GH-3 sells now for retail now @ $1,300; while the A7 sells for $1,700. That's about your price difference on sensors ($400). But more relevent here, is the price for other FF cameras. Canon and Nikon both have FF cameras that cost under $1,900. The Nikon D610 is a cese in point. It has a magnesium obdy with polycarbonate front outer skin, and its as weather and shockproof as a D800. It shares the same optical viewfinder as the D800 too, which means 100%, good magnification, and expen
  5. About the Nex branding - I thought that Samsung hurt the name - their mirrorless being called NX. I was surprised that was legal actually. Who knows - but Sony have certainly wasted many many millions on their branding the Nex line. Which surely points to Sony making mistakes - which was my point to pablogrollan. As far as the sensor cost issue goes - I agree that smaller sensor would cost less to produce. I suspect though that R&D costs dominate sensor costing. I note too that the bottom of the micro four thirds cameras, sell for quite low prices. My presumption with such price diverg
  6. Firstly, I am unsure about answering because I think there was some emotion going on in your reply. So I'll just answer back directly. The problem is that this is barely on topic. Let me say I am not a Pro photographer, and that my interest is in buying one of two products: the A7S, or the GH-4. Hence I am reading these threads.
  7. Sure ... but how is 2K video resolved on the A7S? My understanding, is by the A7S cropping down to APS-C? Hence the full frame is not used??? Or is there binning going on?? According to what I've read, there isn't binning with 2K. So ... a speed booster on the A7S could make a Canon FF lens etc increase the ISO by one stop, by putthing an APS-c focus onto the A7S's sensor ... not worthwhile probably because the gain of one stop may not be a big deal with that S sensor.
  8. With the ISO power of the 12.2 MP sensor, I don't see much need in speed booster. While a stop is worthwhile on deeper depth of field sensors, with the huge ISO power of this new sensor, I'd save the money and get a cheaper adapter.
  9. Sony have lots of experience at pricing technology. They'd have asked Pros how much they'd pay ... but outside of such issues, things become strategic. I'll give you an example: if Sony sell this A7"S" camera at $3,500, that action would cause less sales, bad PR, and much worse, it would invite Nikon to use the very same sensor in a Full Frame Nikon "2". Keep the Nikon "1" the same. And Nikon might sell it for $1,899. And make money. Meanwhile, Olympus would be even more tempted: bring out a larger camera, call it their E-7, with IBIS FF, clever cooling, phase focus, full video capabilitie
  10. I think the 7R has all metal, and different metal rotating buttons. Its slighty lighter too. The A7 has a plastic front, and as said, different material for the rotating buttons. IMO the A7R feels much nicer. The A7S I have read has the A7 body (which indicates hopefully a lower price point than the A7R). The difference in body between the A7S and the A7, is the bayonet on the A7S is stainless instead of the alloy bayonet used on the A7 and A7R, due to the expectation of some big (third party) lenses for video by pro uses on the A7S.
  11. No, its a strategic decision, which is done by marketing. Essentially, there are two ways to market: a differentiated strategy, typically with higher unit profit margins; a low cost basis, with more sales and lower profit margins. The issue with a camera, is that much profit can come from its lenses. In the old days, Kodak sold its cameras in order to sell paper. Kodak was a paper manufacturing company. Its camera sales were likely low cost, high volume. With digital, there's no film profits; but lenses do make lots of money. Which is why Canikon are afraid to be serious about mirror
  12. It is ready for most pro users, who would not operate without a second screen and the gear that goes with it. For ProSumers, they likely don't have the home infrastructure either: powerful editing software, fast disk and computers, 4K monitors and 4K TVs. I think if you made the camera bigger, you might loose the mass market, who want something small. Plus, Sony had a form factor for this when they started - the A7 size. Perhaps if you put in 4K, the battery life would suffer perhaps too much. Same too with perhaps with heat issues. If you put in IBIS - the issue would also be battery li
  13. Why should it cost more than the other A7s? Sony own the software inside, they haven't developed the body (its shared), and it opens up new markets for more lenses. Its CPUs inside might be no more costly than the rest of the A7 models. IMO the price will be decided by marketing. If they just want to Pro market, then sell it for $3K. But if they want the Prosumer mass market, then sell it for under $2k. I'd bet selling it for under $2K would win them major market share, and would also keep Sony and Nikon away from getting serious about mirrorless. And if another FF competitor entered the marke
  14. Actually Apple is case to make note of, on how to do things. Incidentally, their IOS phone software provided heaps of new features to my old iPhone 4, which my mother now uses. It did not get Siri - but Apple would not allow it on the old phone, Apple said because it would not be reliable on the old, slow CPU. But the software upgrades were free, and provided heaps of new features, and even more speed. Apple is interesting, because - at least under Steve Jobs - they were not afraid to hurt a current profitable business or market, by introducing an alternative product that challenged
×
×
  • Create New...