Sony 25MP full-frame DSLR hands-on

We're not sure why Sony didn't give its 25 megapixel full-frame DSLR a name other than "Flagship," but we can see why they'd want to invoke ocean-faring vessels when referring to this thing -- it's freaking huge. Check it out in the gallery below.

Gallery: Sony 25MP Flagship Hands-on

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Alex @ Feb 1st 2008 2:39PM]

It's about time Sony starting catching up to the competition.

[Mr. B @ Feb 1st 2008 2:51PM]

I would have expected a 1D sort of look with a 'permanent' vertical grip, but this works fine too.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Feb 1st 2008 2:59PM]

Doesn't "hands-on" imply that you got to actually touch it?

[Constable Odo @ Feb 1st 2008 3:03PM]

Does a camera such as this exceed 35MM film cameras in resolution? 25MP is a hell of a lot pixels. It looks awesome in size and style.

[Amy @ Feb 6th 2008 10:31PM]

Generic 35mm film doesn't really have a resolution, but some of the best slow fine-grained mono films probably have a capacity to store more image "data" than a 100MP sensor. Of course it could be said that a monochromatic film cannot store information to distinguish red from green from blue. Still, it's almost impossible to make a like for like comparison.

[248 in québec @ Apr 17th 2008 11:01PM]

In the old days of 35mm film,
a 32 ASA ( old time ISO) black and white film had
200 lines of resolution per mm.
So 200 lignes X 24mm high X 200 lines X 36 mm witdh
gives you a resolution of 34 560 000 pixels or about 34 meg.
But it was with a black and white Panatomic-X of only 32 ASA from our friend at Kodak.

[Denver_80203 @ Feb 1st 2008 3:07PM]

More pixels != better image

[Gremlin @ Feb 1st 2008 3:17PM]

... more like hands-off. I'm curious as to whether this has the same flip-out LCD as the A200 and how well the live preview works with it. Damn the days of being forced to look through a viewfinder.

[Adam Filipowicz @ Feb 1st 2008 3:22PM]

6 Megapixels equals standard 35mm film in terms of resolution
25 Megapixels is about equal to Medium Format and come close to large Format Film

[Temple @ Feb 1st 2008 3:30PM]

>>I would have expected a 1D sort of look with a 'permanent' vertical grip, but this works fine too.

Looks to be a prosumer body; hence probably more a Canon 5D MkII competitor (or whatever they will call it) then a Canon 1Ds MkIII competitor. Most definitely not positioned against the 1D MKIII; since thats a sports/action camera and not full-frame(1.3 crop). So hopefully this camera will cost closer to ~$3k(near the 5D) then ~$8k(1Ds MkIII).

[Temple @ Feb 1st 2008 3:46PM]

>>Does a camera such as this exceed 35MM film cameras in resolution? 25MP is a hell of a lot pixels. It looks awesome in size and style.

These ultra-high megapixel cameras are really for photographers that want to make high-quality large prints. An A4 print at 300dpi is only around 8.3 megapixels, even a bit of cropping factored in a lower megapixel camera is more then adequate (such as the ultra-fast full-frame Nikon D3), however if you move to A3-sized print at 300dpi is around 17.5 megapixels, and a A2 at 300dpi is closer to 34.7 megapixels. That's where high-megapixel cameras really show there strength, and Canon has the 1Ds MkIII currently in that market (at 21 megapixels), and there are medium format digital cameras that offer even more performance at a higher price. Sony may have a cheaper alternative to the 1Ds with this camera (we'll see when they announce the price).

[C Wood @ Feb 1st 2008 4:49PM]

25megs, if executed properly, more than match 35mm in resolution and freedome from noise/grain. 25megs, in fact, directly starts to compete with the smaller medium formats such as 645 and 6x6 in terms of image quality, etc.

[Russ @ Feb 1st 2008 4:59PM]

*not* sure why Sony *didn't* give ... a name *other than* "Flagship"

how many negatives can you get in that sentence?

[Tony @ Feb 1st 2008 5:01PM]

this message is for Nilay (the writer)-

first off- Its not hands on if you dont actually get to touch it, or even see it turned on.
2- They just havent released the model name. Its most likely a900, but its definately NOT "flagship model"
3- its not fully ready to ship yet, so thats why it doesnt have a model name or full specs yet.

research research research

[AlexPN @ Feb 1st 2008 5:05PM]

Sony Alpha DSLRA300K + 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 --> 799.99$
Sony Alpha DSLRA350 --> $799.99
Sony Alpha DSLRA350K + 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 --> 899.99$

If the Sony 25MP full-frame DSLR is 3.000$, there will be a huge price gap between this one and the a350. I think It will be cheaper than expected or that sony will release a a800 or even a a500.

[Jeff @ Feb 1st 2008 5:06PM]

>> 6 Megapixels equals standard 35mm film in terms of resolution

a) I don't know what you mean by "standard 35mm film"

b) Even the grainiest 35mm film has higher resolution than that.

It is hard to equate film resolution with digital resolution because film consists of three color layers (like a Foveon sensor) that each contain a number of light-sensitive crystals, and that number can vary. The crystals also overlap, because it's an analog medium - they're not staggered exactly equally like in a camera sensor.

But on each layer of film, there are approximately 3000 crystals across and 2000 down in the coarsest of 35mm films. That's 6 million crystals *per layer*, or 18 million total. And each one of those crystals carries both color and picture detail, so you don't just throw the number from two of the layers out - you have to count them.

Higher grades of film can have as many as 6000 crystals across and 4000 down, and because we're working geometrically, that actually works out to 72 million crystals.

Now, 72 million crystals, as I said, doesn't automatically equate to 72 megapixels. Because some of the crystals overlap, are slightly different sizes and are spaced somewhat unevenly, you're not really getting 72 megapixels worth of picture detail. However, you are getting better color separation and detail than a 72mp Bayer sensor would give you. So it's probably a wash overall.

Also, this is the resolution of the *film*. There are other factors involved in picture detail, like the resolution capability of the lens, and especially your method of printing and the quality of media you're using. But that's just as true of digital cameras and printing. (If you take a 25mp image and print it at 4x6, you're gonna end up with about a 1mp photo.)

I'd say digital cameras still have a ways to go before they match the detail of film. Though that doesn't mean I favor film - I shoot entirely digital these days. It's much easier to get "good" results with digital than it is with film... but it is *possible* to get better results with film than it is with digital.

[Tobin @ Feb 1st 2008 5:09PM]

@Constable Odo(the reply link is broken): This would only surpass film if coupled with a lens that probably costs more than the camera. The lens is the main limitation.

[poisoneye @ Feb 1st 2008 5:21PM]

Yeah, seriously guy, it's not a hands-on experience when the item is behind glass. But from the looks of your photos, it's not like you'd know what to do with it anyways if they'd let you handle it.

[Temple @ Feb 1st 2008 5:22PM]

>>If the Sony 25MP full-frame DSLR is 3.000$, there will be a huge price gap between this one and the a350.

You forgot the A700 which has been out for awhile. Which is around $1300. Canon has a similar gap between the 40D and the 5D.

[Josh Warner @ Feb 1st 2008 5:26PM]

Anybody spending as much money as this thing is going to cost should opt for Nikon or Canon, thanks to their legendary optics and extremely long-term support for lens mounts. Heck, these people should already have made that choice and have a large cache of Nikkor or Series L lenses already. Nikon sources their sensors from Sony; I'm sure a D3x with this sensor is right around the corner. Wait and buy that instead, if you're in the Nikon camp.

Pros who purchase this do not deserve that moniker.

[nathan @ Feb 1st 2008 5:30PM]

Since this is a full-frame camera, what type of lenses do you use with it? Weren't Sony's previous cameras equiped with APS size sensors? If so, do they have special full-frame lenses available? Also, if they're made by Carl Zeiss, expect to pay a HUGE premium. They're great lenses, but man, they're expensive.

[essogas @ Feb 1st 2008 5:32PM]

More pixels do not = better image unless you are talking about PRINTING BIGGER images.
More pixels have to do about size, not quality. And, currently a 35mm negative can be scanned at 4K or so which is 4000+ pixels by 3000+ pixels which is around 12 million+ pixels. (12-13 megapixels)

[Mehul @ Feb 1st 2008 5:46PM]

I think I see a reflection on a vertical grip camera like the Aiptek or the Canon TX-1. No wonder all these pics are so terrible. Come on Engadget, atleast get a DSLR...

[Temple @ Feb 1st 2008 6:14PM]

>>Since this is a full-frame camera, what type of lenses do you use with it? Weren't Sony's previous cameras equiped with APS size sensors?

Most traditional SLR lenses are designed to fit "full-frame" sensors, since "full-frame" refers to the size of 35mm film. However, more recently cheaper APS-C-specific lenses such as Nikon's "DX"-lens and Canon's EFS lens aren't designed for full-frame sensors. Sony's equivalent to the "DX"/"EFS", is the "DT" lenses will not work with a full-frame sensor. The professional "G" lenses will however work fine, as well as the majority of the large past category of Konica-Minolta lenses as well as the superb Carl Zeiss lenses.

In addition to that, Sony and Carl Zeiss plan on releasing eight new pro lenses along with this camera, ranging from wide-lenses to massive telephotos.

[Jim @ Feb 1st 2008 6:39PM]

Output size is the issue...more pixels larger print! Important to note making an image from a file with more pixels than required by the output device (printer) may reduce image quality. Scaling images is a tricky process which usually ends up approximating partial pixels (bad). Bit depth is another issue, 8 bit vs 16 bit or greater files, is a noticeable quality difference. In film super fine grain films tend to be a little mushy, too many pixels on a small chip has the same effect. It may be possible to make a 50 megapixel 35mm chip today but the resulting images will be mush!

[AlexPN @ Feb 1st 2008 7:20PM]

What about the 39 Megapixel Hasselblad camera?

[Jim @ Feb 1st 2008 7:25PM]

Larger than 35mm chip of course!

[wichenroder @ Feb 2nd 2008 6:04AM]

¿¿sɐɹǝɯɐɔ ɟo soʇoɥd ǝʞɐʇ oʇ uɹɐǝl ʇǝƃpɐƃpuǝ llıʍ uǝɥʍ

[silverblackvoid @ Feb 2nd 2008 10:49AM]

@wichenroder
when u'll learn that typing while hanging upside down is not a good idea.

[murray @ Feb 2nd 2008 1:09PM]

Hey Engadget, why don't you just start fabricating your stories altogether? Basically the same as calling this a "hands-on". Lame.

[Yem @ Feb 2nd 2008 1:16PM]

"Pros who purchase this do not deserve that moniker."

And here I was thinking it was the result that matters, not the tool. Thank you, internet hack! You hear that, people? Ditch your inferior non-Nikon/Canon glass and pick up a new 400/2.8 today.

[TX30000 @ Feb 3rd 2008 3:06AM]

The key here is that they use CMOS (aka Exmor) sensor that are also found in the A300 and A350.

Companies like Intel and Sony tends to have a price advantage over companies like Kodak when it comes to producing CMOS sensors over CCD sensors because CMOS manufacturing is very similar to semi-conductor manufacturing. Therefore lowering the cost of manufacturing these sensors. CMOS also has the advantage of better speed when comparing the its CCD counterparts but suffers when compared to light sensitivities.

In a recent CNet New.com article published, they interviewed Kodak, Sony and one or two medium-format camera producers to obtain their opinion on the matter. Really interesting read too...

http://techrepublic-cnet.com.com/8301-13580_3-9860021-39.html

[Ulrik F. Thyve @ Feb 5th 2008 11:46AM]

When it comes to digital resolution versus analog resolution. It has been done quite a few actual comparisons, both with 35mm and varius medium formats versus digital cameras of different resolutions, sensor sizes and brands.


Examples:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

(to quote one of those articles: "The Canon 1Ds 11mp DSLR outperforms 4000 dpi 35mm film scans by a significant margin and may be competitive with medium format scans of 6X6 and 6X4.5cm films"

This kind of explains it all.. ;)

[Kevin @ Mar 7th 2008 11:14PM]

Digital is stepping beyond film you just have to have the greenbacks to afford it right now there is more dpi in a picture from a hasselblaud 39mp digital back than you could ever want to print you could do a billboard print and have it acceptable ...39,000 will get you the digital back minus the camera body, lenses and memory and they are flying off the shelves check this out this is a body no image sensor nothing . The digital back is seperate you will need it to shoot.


Hasselblad H2 Medium Format SLR Auto Focus Camera Body ONLY

Mfr# 30 13100 • B&H# HAH2



Price: $ 3,120.00
Hasselblad CF-39MS Digital Back for Medium Format Cameras

Mfr # 70370527 • B&H # HACF39MS
Availability : Special Order
Quantity
Product Rating

0 stars
(0 Ratings)
Write a Review
Not Yet Rated Price: $37,995.00 Calculate Shipping
Important Notice!
This is a special order item and is non-cancelable or returnable. Est. arrival at B&H is 7-14 business days(subject to availability). You will be charged upon placing your order.
Quantity
Hasselblad CF-39 Digital Back for Medium Format Cameras

Mfr # 70360527 • B&H # HACF39
Availability : Special Order
Quantity
Product Rating

0 stars
(0 Ratings)
Write a Review
Not Yet Rated Price: $27,995.00 Calculate Shipping
Important Notice!
This is a special order item and is non-cancelable or returnable. Est. arrival at B&H is 7-14 business days(subject to availability). You will be charged upon placing your order.
Quantity
Hasselblad CF-22MS Digital Back for Medium Format Cameras

Mfr # 70370510 • B&H # HACF22MS
Availability : Special Order
Quantity
Product Rating

0 stars
(0 Ratings)
Write a Review
Not Yet Rated Price: $32,995.00 Calculate Shipping
Important Notice!
This is a special order item and is non-cancelable or returnable. Est. arrival at B&H is 7-14 business days(subject to availability). You will be charged upon placing your order.
Quantity
Back to top Price $200 to $7999.99 (1)

$8000 to $25000 (1)

$25000 to $30000 (1)

$30000 to $40000 (2)


Site Map, Company Profile, Online Awards, Career opportunities, Privacy & Security, California privacy rights

User Agreement & Disclaimer

Prices, specifications, and images are subject to change without notice. Not responsible for typographical or illustrative errors. Manufacturer rebates, terms, conditions, and expiration dates are subject to manufacturers printed forms.
© 2000-2008 B & H Foto & Electronics Corp.





Calculate Shipping:
Availability: Back-ordered

..

[the queen @ Mar 11th 2008 10:18PM]

OMG...
and um dude do u know that sony still makes more money than a lot of those other camera manufacturers??
so no they're not catching up, there squashing the competition with this baby