D90 and EOS 50D launched on same day

Of course, there is no guarantee that Sony is going after the pro market. Its early descriptions of the A900 when first shown in mock-up form were not as a "pro" camera but rather its "flagship" that was capable of delivering pro results but not necessarily designed as a "pro" camera. Perhaps that thinking has changed over time.

As for the lens issue that you raised earlier, I generally agree that lenses are an equally important issue, and once there is a camera body or two to satisfy pro and higher-end photographer needs, the more important issue. Sony is definitely filling out the line-up, and obviously can do so only at a certain speed (depending on how much manufacturing capacity it has - and none of us knows what that is). In doing so, it needs to focus first on those lenses that would be viewed as "essential" or near essential for this level of photographer (e.g., the expected 16-35/2.8). Once that is done, one assumes Sony may start looking at more esoteric lenses that have far more limited sales potential, such as TS lenses and a longer macro (unfortunately for you) and super-telephotos (unfortunate for me).

Much of Sony's current customer base are former Minolta shooters, many of whom already had/have an assortment of lenses, including some of the more esoteric lenses Minolta made (such as the 200/4 macro and 600/4 - I have the latter). Some of those lenses can be found on the used market, at least occasionally. Some of these lenses are or may be available from independent manufacturers (such as the longer macros from Sigma and Tamron, and a 500/4.5 Sigma). Thus, for some lenses the whole may not be quite as large, and it may not be quite as critical for Sony to get some of these types of lenses to market as soon as others.   

Given that Sony's priority does not seem to be the pro segment, I think the really esoteric lenses, such as TS lenses, may be a very long time in coming, if ever ((look how long it took for Nikon to get its new TS lenses to market to compete with what Canon has had for many years; Minolta never made a TS lens in AF mount). On the other hand, Sony has shown a mock-up of a super-telephoto lens, so we can assume that something is coming in that range, which at least is potentially good for me.

Ultimately, if TS lenses are critical to your photography, it is hard to justify staying with the Sony system right now. Then again, you could get a single body and the TS lenses that another manufacturer offers for those specialized purposes, while staying with Sony for the rest. That might actually be a less expensive way to go than converting an entire system.

PhotoTraveler wrote: The simple matter that each photographer has different needs is what will drive the DLSR industry in the coming years. Face it, the model lens are getting filled out. They have got the feature set at or above what it was in film times, they no longer have to axe stuff just to get the digital camera cheap enough. So many features are leveling off in their evolution. So that leaves camera makers finding ways to may different models of the same camera. We are seeing that all ready with A200/A300/A350,     D40/D40X,   D2X/D2H and such. It will get even further along in time. Down to options in menus ore many more different sensor options in the same chassis. Let a chassis live a long life, but have 3-4 different sensor options.   So all users will start finding the one for them. Sony isn't there yet at the high end, heck, it won't be till after the A900 do we see the first clues to as what their Pro bodies will look like or be. Let Sony get their line filled up, and then they can start to Walkman the whole deal. Take a platform and tweak it into a million forms to serve everyone.   The entry level models this round were a good hint of this. A200 to A350 is the first time I'm aware of where a company took the same platform and not just changed the sensor, but some buttons and an entire view finder system, yet retained most the parts. This will be the future. I think Sony will have the upper hand on the competition in that world. Sony is a manufacturing godlike company. They know platforms and how to make lots of products from them. I'm not sure Canon and Nikon will be able to keep pace with them on shear variation. Best we can tell, Sony all ready has very rapid development times.   KM did the A100 from them, but Sony basically started work on all the current bodies around the time the A100 launched. Sure they had some basics to work with, but it's still a very short cycle for that many cameras. If they keep that going, we might see Sony being able to pull ahead simply by being able to bring a new model or tweaked model with the latest feature out much quicker than the others can. This is the part that keeps me interested in Sony. If they get the lenses there, the body line will have lots of options.   We can see the same body come in high rez, high iso, super light weight, all weather (yellow with grey trim :) ), Black and White only, so on and so forth. Everyone gets what they want. But to get there, Sony has to work up to it. Which means compromise bodies. I think the A700 is blatantly such a body, it serves high end entry level and semi-pro. It will be replaced by a high end entry level and a true semi-pro body.   The A900 is a hybrid of markets, high res, part semi-pro, part pro. It does a bit of everything.   When they get pro bodies, they can re-focus the A900 on the next spin.   Maybe the A900 gets replaced by a A800 which becomes the semi-pro FF, and the A910 is a D3X/1DsIII type body, and a A1000 comes out as the high speed.   Build 1 body for now that straddles markets, then replace with 2 bodies the next time. Sony doesn't have the advantage Nikon and Canon did. Nikon and Canon had an early start. They were able to start their digital lines at Pro, and work down the market one body at a time. Which works much nicer. Sony like KM and Pentax came in late, and was forced to work the other way, from the bottom up. Establish in each market and then move up, and have the problem of not having a pro body or other high end bodies to let people move up to.

ab012 wrote: But which is the top of the line Nikkor action camera? D300 or D3?

Believe it or not, for "tracking" action, the D300 is the body that is most used - even over the D3/D700.

True, although those Hartblei/Zeiss T/S lenses are a fortune, and I'm not talking about CZ 24-70 type fortunes. I'm talking ~$3500-$6000.

Schneider also makes a T/S lens, and Hartblei (minus Zeiss) makes some less expensive one's as well.

None of those count though. They aren't proper lenses, they are hacked up medium format lenses. They also aren't very wide at all.

The schnieder is a nice lens, but also doesn't come in native mount. But at least it was built for 35mm.

Any lens that doesn't come in full proper native A mount means nothing. I could care less about those since they don't help a thing.   And they are ridiculously overpriced.

If a lens doesn't have a true native mount to the system, or even a 3rd party reverse engineering mount (Tamron, Sigma) it's not even something to talk about. And is completely off topic. Such lenses do nothing to help the situation for Sony, and no one is ever going to switch to Sony just to use them.

Also, these hartblei (non Zeiss) T/S lenses are available with an a-mount, and are much more affordable.

click here for Hartblei

Edited by douglasf13 - 29 August 2008 at 21:00

I disagree with just about everything you said here.

PhotoTraveler wrote: the thing on TS lenses is they aren esoteric lenses.   Nikon knew they were loosing market due to the lack of them. That's why they got them out.

Without knowing actual sales figures it is hard for either one of us to prove what is or is not an esoteric lens. However, based on my personal observations when photographing out and about in various locations, talking with other photographers and knowing what photographer friends have in terms of equipment, all that combined points to TS lenses being very esoteric. By that I mean not appealing to a broad category of photographers and having very limited sales. The only people I know that have a TS lens are working pros, most of whom do architecture, though some nature shooters also love them for their ability to alter the depth of field.

I think to many people have got to stuck on what lenses are important. Sony could make vastly better return on their efforts even one wide TS than they can with a big telephoto. TS are obtainable to more normal people, as they aren't ridiculously expensive. Very few people will ever buy a 2.8/300, 2.8/400, 4/600, 4/500.   Sony can move a ton more TS lenses than those kinds of big teles. Given the markets that Sony can make more inroads on are the TS/Macro type worlds than they will the sport shooter, big tele market it makes more sense for sony to hit markets like TS lenses. They could make a run on Portrait markets with more STF lenses, which is another "esoteric" lens.

Again, based on my personal observation of photographers there are far more photographers with telephoto lenses than there are with TS lenses (again, I can't prove it without knowing actual sales figures - perhaps I'll remember to ask a Canon rep I know the next time I see him about what sells in higher numbers). There are lots of amateur photographers who shoot nature and wildlife who own big telephoto lenses. I know several who are in just one of the many local camera clubs in the Washington, D.C. area. You can see examples of them when you venture to wildlife hotspots like Yellowstone NP, S. Florida for birds in the winter/spring, Bosque del Apache in December, and far more. Take a look at the various nature photography gallery forums (such as naturescapes.net) and you'll see huge numbers of photos from amateurs shot with telephoto lenses. I assume that you are not all that interested in wildlife photography and have a somewhat myopic view of the level of interest among amateur photographers in these subjects and just how many of them have big glass.

You don't see many of them in the A-mount universe because it was never one of Minolta's strong suits and it failed to support such photographers with upgraded long glass for more than a decade (from the early 1990's until Minolta's demise in 2005, the only thing Minolta did was bring out the 400/4.5 and 500/8 mirror, to go along with the pre-1990 300/2.8 and 600/4 lenses). But, if you think of the number of people who lament the discontinued 400/4.5 lens, I think you would find that those numbers far exceed the number of people calling for TS lenses (might make for an interesting poll question).

Note that I am not denigrating TS lenses. They are great tools for what they are designed to do. But, those designs just don't have as widespread interest at shooting sports (which I did not even get into above) and nature/wildlife, which are the two primary uses for big telephotos.

Nikon probably wanted their lenses years earlier, but without a FF body, the need was reduced. Also the need for TS lenses has been inverse proportional to the fall of Film usage. Before people used view cameras for that, now they are more and more impractical. If you want an idea of how well they sell, spend time in nikon forums, lots of people buying TS lenses, but not to many people buying 4/500 VR or 4/600VR.

We really don't know what Nikon "wanted." It seems to me what is discussed in forums depends on what Nikon forums you are talking about, and even then I would never use a forum discussion as an indication of sales strength. Look at nature-related discussions of Nikon equipment and you will find lots of talk about its telephoto lenses, almost none about TS lenses. Everything is relative (or at least most things are). Sales figures don't lie, but neither of us has those. But, I know what I see when out and about shooting (or just being out when not shooting but observing other photographers), and it is rare to see a TS lens. It is not rare to see telephotos.

The big thing for me is people need to understand that TS lenses are not niche, but pretty main stream. Canon made very good use of them for years, people switched systems for them. Now nikon is in the game with them (well, they all ready had the 85 TS).   Which now comes back to the issue that is Sony intends to be every bit of a player as Canon and Nikon, they now need them since both systems have them.   Also considering Sony has Zeiss in their pocket, that too makes all the more sense for sony to have them as it just sounds right.

TS lenses are not mainstream except for architectural photographers. I won't repeat again that neither of us knows how many of these lenses Canon has sold over the years (well, I guess I just did). Yes, some people switched to Canon because it had TS lenses, but how many? Some did not switch, but just got a body to work with the TS lenses.

I don't think whether or not Zeiss is in Sony's "pocket" (which I doubt Zeiss would agree with, but that's a different subject) has any bearing on Sony's likelihood of making a TS lens (or lenses). What will determine that is the sales potential of such lenses. If they were as great as you suggest then Nikon would have come out with them many years ago, even before the digital revolution when Canon brought out its lenses (one of the few photographers I know who had TS lenses did a lot of architectural work and used the Canon lenses for that, and for her nature photography, long before digital took over). If they had sales potential Minolta might have made one or two for its AF mount, dating back to the mid-1980's. Companies don't ignore products with a significant market potential. One assumes that at least one of the independent lens manufacturers would make them of they had sales potential. But where is the Sigma, Tamron or Tokina TS lens? More than almost any other type of lens, TS lenses are far more directed to a segment of the pro market, and have far less use among non-pro shooters (you would be an exception, of which there no doubt are some, just not that many).

I'm a perfect example, I have a lot of money in Sony-Minolta lenses (for a non pro), and a like a lot of stuff about the system, but one lens can cause me to leave. But it's not that simple because Nikon doesn't have everything I want, and they have some stuff just wrong, like in-lens VR.    I considered for a long time picking up a Canon 5D and the 24TS, and now it's the D700 and the 24TS. But it's the same problem. First, such a move cost a lot of money, verses being able to buy the lens, and the body later or vise versa. And it's also means 2 systems, which is a huge pain in the bum. As it's not very practical to carry stuff around like that (tried it for a while with my MF film stuff, and the AF digital gear).

I certainly understand your reluctance to shoot two systems. I too have lots of money tied up in Sony-Minolta lenses (also for a non-pro), including 300/2.8 and 600/4 lenses. But, I don't do architecture and have not had enough reason for nature shooting to really lament the absence of TS lenses. That (and likely many other things) make us different. But, we should not let our personal preferences confuse us as to what the market is like for different types of lenses.

If you have as much tied up with your Sony-Minolta lenses, it still seems to me that it would be less expensive for you to get a 5D and the Canon TS lenses than any other solution (certainly less expensive than the D700 and the new Nikon TS lenses which are just about guaranteed to be more expensive than Canon's older lenses, when they become available). No, it may not be an optimal solution, and perhaps for that or other reasons it's not a viable option from your perspective. That, of course, is your choice and your call.

One other possibility, depending on the reason you want/need the TS lenses (e.g., for perspective correction or depth of field modification), and the size files you need. The high resolution of the A900 could let you shoot with a wider view than you would otherwise need, to minimize or eliminate the perspective issues that can occur with wide angle lenses, and then crop to get the final image size and composition you want. David K. illustrated this in a Photo World article a few issues back when he shot a church with a wider view than he wanted, to keep the camera parallel to the subject to avoid the perspective distortion that occurs when wide angles are not kept perpendicular or parallel to the subject. He then cropped the image to give him the final composition he was looking for (eliminating much of the foreground). Yes, this is far from an optimal solution and likely would not work all of the time, but it can be a work-around in some circumstances, depending on your ultimate goals for the image.

But if Sony doesn't get it right, I am basicaly forced to move on. If nikon had anounced the TS stuff back before I bought my A700 I would all ready be gone.

Well, if I was a betting man, and assuming you are good to your word (I have no reason to think otherwise), it looks like you'll be leaving us in the near future, depending on how much time you are willing to give Sony. If I'm wrong, and Sony does come out with or even announces one or more TS lenses within the next two years I would be shocked (but pleasantly so as it would indicate an unexpectedly high level of commitment to developing the pro market).

Sony's potential market is the markets that Nikon and Canon aren't super dominant in. They should be doing everything they can to go for those markets before Nikon and Canon increase footholds there.   Sony can make all the tele photos and standard zooms they want, and make them at all different build levels and speeds, but it won't help them much. That doesn't change fundamental options. And right now the people in other systems they could be getting they won't because they don't have the lenses for them. Sony needs to bring the big telephotos, but that will be the hardess market for them to crack. That market is also hard because the people in it don't own their gear, the magazine or paper they work for does. So it takes a lot for those groups to change. But the landscapers, product shot, architecture people are the independents who go to what works for them. Thats where Sony needs to focus right now.

In what market are Nikon and Canon not now dominant? Medium and large format photography is all that comes to my mind, where neither is a participant.

As noted earlier, big telephotos are not a hard market to crack as there are lots of amateurs who enjoy wildlife photography (just look how many member here use the Bigma, or Tamron 200-500, or look for ways to get longer focal length with converters). How well Sony does will depend on what lens (or lenses) it
brings forth (e.g., a less expensive and lighter 500/4 would have far more sales potential than a more expensive and much heavier 400/2.8 lens, to rehash one discussion we've had before; a simple re-do of Minolta's 400/4.5 but with SSM focusing would likely be a huge hit - relatively speaking). When you say people don't own their own gear of this sort, but the magazine or paper they work for does, you are thinking solely of sports shooters and even there you're at least partially wrong, as many sports shooters are free lance photographers who own their own gear. But, you also are ignoring all those interested in wildlife, as discussed above.

So for me, it basicaly comes down to them either anouncing the right gear, or making a statement or showing a mockup, otherwise I have to start leaving.

I think by now you know what I think will be happening here.

The A mount system never having a TS lenses isn't an excuse for continuing not to have one, it's something to point to on how the system has issues.

On this I will agree to the extent we are talking about Sony one day having a "complete" pro-level system of lenses. I just don't think that TS lenses is as much of an issue as some other things. Nikon was considered a pro system long before it came out with its new AF TS lenses. All systems have issues (Canon wildlife photographers would love a lens like Nikon's 200-400/4). How significant they are for the vast majority of photographers is ultimately the key to determining how much impact they have on a system's sales potential. I would venture to say that it was the D3, not the TS lenses, that caused about 50% of the photographers covering the Olympics to be shooting Nikon (with big lenses), a huge bump from what it has been in prior years (judging by photographs of the photographers).