Sony, Panasonic both introducing new DSLRs next week

The big Photokina show may be fast approaching but, as is often the case, some camera makers aren't waiting for the doors to open to debut their latest wares, and both Sony and Panasonic look to be carrying on the tradition by introducing new DSLRs next week in advance of the event. Of course, details on either of 'em are pretty light at the moment but, as Macworld notes, Sony had said previously that it was planning on adding a full-frame, 24.6 megapixel camera to is Alpha line, and that would seem to be a likely fit here. For its part, Panasonic will apparently be introducing the follow-up to its Lumix DMC-L10, although its staying tight-lipped on any details beyond that. Look for Sony to get things started at a special event in Tokyo next Wednesday, with Panasonic following-up two days later at a press conference of its own. Both, as you might have guessed, will also have plenty more to say about the cameras at Photokina.

[Patriks7 @ Sep 3rd 2008 1:51PM]

oh come on now Engadget
cant you at least proof read your articles before posting? :\

[phanbouy @ Sep 3rd 2008 1:56PM]

Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto

[helloUser @ Sep 3rd 2008 2:11PM]

If the sonys cant match the sensors of canon or nikon in terms of low noise levels at high ISOs such as 3200 and above, these cameras are an immediate fail and not worth buying unless theyre priced very competitively.

One quick look at the Nikon D90 and it becomes obvious as to why it kicks so much ass (same for Canon 50D) even while having much less than 24 megapixels.

[Crayola @ Sep 3rd 2008 2:20PM]

Nikon actually uses Sony image sensors?

Here's my prediction, Panasonic will steal some thunder by unveiling a four-third prototype...

Anyway just got the LX3, damn! What a great camera!

[evrock @ Sep 3rd 2008 3:04PM]

Crayola is correct, except the new D700 low noise sensor was made in-house by Nikon

[TWLreal @ Sep 3rd 2008 4:56PM]

"Crayola is correct, except the new D700 low noise sensor was made in-house by Nikon"

It's not.

Nikon does not have the resources to make their own sensors. They're supplied by Sony and the D700 sensor, which is the same as the D3, is rumored to be made by Kodak.

[Temple @ Sep 3rd 2008 5:42PM]

No, the D3 sensor is designed by Nikon, a successor to their JFET LBCAST sensors, but is likely built by Sony in Kyushu in their Fab2 plant next to the D300/D90 sensors that Sony makes and is also in the A-700. Sony also makes the sensors in the D40/D60/D80. The 24.8MP full-frame sensor in the A900 will also be found in the Nikon D3x.

[Actaeon @ Sep 3rd 2008 2:25PM]

More DSLRs from brands no professional cares about.

Kudos to Sony for making a good effort, but they are easily a distant third or forth in the DSLR market, somewhere in the area with Olympus area. It would be nice if they could step it up and give some competition to Canon and Nikon, but that won't happen for a while.

Panasonic isn't even on the map as a strong contender.

I am glad that this market is getting a bit more competitive. It'll be a cheaper hobby for enthusiasts.

I do love my D700... just need more money for more glass.

[a @ Sep 3rd 2008 3:10PM]

Common mistake, but too much camera and not enough lens. You'll almost always take better pictures with a cheaper camera and more expensive lens than an expensive camera and a cheap lens.

Also Sony bought Minolta. The sony SLRs are nothing to sneeze at and there rumored to be dropping a 24 megapixel full frame this year (a900).

Sony makes the sensors Nikon uses (and a lot of other companies) so they make a profit pretty much no mater which camera company is selling cameras.

[Mike @ Sep 3rd 2008 3:32PM]

What I don't understand is why these companies don't fess up to where they don't have a strong point. Lenses are pathetic for these bodies. I could care less about how many megapixels Sony can fit into a body. Hell they might come up with a damn fine setup for usability, but when it comes down to it their glass sucks.

I'm betting there is some "patent" or "copyright" for Nikon's or Canon's lens mount. If Sony or another brand made it possible to use one of those lenses I would think it more likely that a professional shooting Nikon or Canon would take a hard second look. It sucks enough when the company you currently shoot changes lens styles throughout body iterations, but at least with Nikon and Canon there is some latitude to use the glass that you've acquired.

[Actaeon @ Sep 3rd 2008 6:14PM]

@ a

"You'll almost always take better pictures with a cheaper camera and more expensive lens than an expensive camera and a cheap lens."

I agree in terms of sharpness, I think the D700/D3 is an exception right now when low light is factored in. No other camera has the same low light ability as these cameras right now. I could have easily bought a D300 and one pro lens for the same price as the D700. But the extra 1 and 1/3 stop (and 2 stops in image quality) in ISO Noise performance the D700 has over the D300 sealed the deal for me.

I completely understand that glass is one of the most important aspects in an SLR setup. I am just waiting for Photokina to occur before I make any big decisions on new pricey lenses. Hopefully a new 70-200 f/2.8 w/ VR from Nikon. Until those announcements and availability of those lenses, I'm just saving cash.

Until Photokina, I'm perfectly fine pimping a nice and very sharp Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 around. Low Noise ISO 6400 w/ f1.4, the images are quite excellent. Low light = no problem.


So what if Sony bought Minolta? They can make the greatest sensors in the world (they do make quite a good sensor that is used in the D300), but with only a few decent pieces of glass, no professional will take them seriously or would take an a900 over a 1Ds MkIII or possible Nikon D3x. I really hope they do get some decent glass and make it a nice three way battle between Canon, Nikon, and Sony. More competition is better bargains for customers.

Olympus/Panny is hanging on to the sub-par Three-Fourths sensor, that is their biggest problem right now. I like the flexibility of the format, but the sensor is quite small compared to the other sensors, thus an overall sacrifice in image quality and noise performance. They have decent glass in terms of optical sharpness and large apertures, but there isn't that many available and they are quite pricey. For amateurs, going with this setup is fine, but you are quite limited in your lens selection.

How many non-Canon or Nikon cameras did we see Professional Photographers shoot at major events such as the Olympics? Maybe a handful at most.

[Temple @ Sep 3rd 2008 6:36PM]

Sony does have the Sony-Zeiss ZA glass which is superb. While I wouldn't consider it to the level of the Canikon system its certainly getting there. Also, I wouldn't bash Sony if you're a Nikon shooter since they are joined at the hip. While the D3/D700 are using Nikon-designed (and probably Sony fabricated) sensors, a good deal of electrical components like Expeed image processor is Sony sourced (the Expeed and Bionz are identical).

I'm saying this as a Nikon shooter, but Nikon has always made good bodies/good AF but their sensors were far inferior to Canon's until Sony decided to get into the dSLR market. Hitherto, cameras like the D2, D2x, D80, etc were stuck with DX CCD sensors, only when Sony became serious in CMOS and the dSLR market did we start seeing a Nikon becoming competitive again (at last Photokina).

[kevinparis @ Sep 3rd 2008 3:57PM]

yeah ... so the leica and olympus lenses you can put on your Panasonic are really suck ???

check out reviews of these lenses before you dismiss the platform totally

as for Sony - well Zeiss and Minolta arent exactly known for their optical ignorance

[Sengimage @ Sep 4th 2008 12:45PM]

Ummm.okay now. Why all the defense of Canon here? Nikon? Why?

My take on it. Sony has some nice Glass out there with the Carl Ziess Moniker on it and they already have a great pool of glass form the MInolta legacy. My Max 9 is still an awesome SLR that Canon and Nikon Professionals acknowledge was designed for the real pro.

Both my Maxxum 7D and it's offspring the Sony Alpha 700 are also top notch pro cameras that are again given due respect from the real pros....And quite honestly have some real pros behind them. And Still have the same pool of excellent glass to go back to, then and now.....if I recall the last review of the Carl Zeiss Alpha 28-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 glass kicked the crap out of the Nikon and Canon contenders so Sony must be doing something right. And with the IS in the bodies built built by the people who get it right all the time....their lenses not only are ounce for ounce better performers but also more affordable by comparison to the top two vendors.

Give it a few years and you'll see Sony up to par in reputation....they're already up to par in performance and quality. When the rest of the world realizes it the Nikon and Canon crowd will suddenly become a tiny whisper in the crowd. That you can bet on.

[Grude @ Sep 4th 2008 2:32PM]

I agree with Sengimage. When sony decides to put money into someting, buying our Minolta, they will do it right. Having both the Maxxum 7d and the A700 I have no complaints. I shoot with the older 80-200mm "G" series lens and the images are phenominal.

[Sengimage @ Sep 4th 2008 7:36PM]

Well I also have to admit I'm not a Sony/Minolta Fanboy. I also have a Canon 20D and a Nikon D80. I got them all around the same time I got my Maxxum 7D, around 3-4 years ago. So my Opinion here is based on actually picking up and using the products in question.

I felt then, that even though Canon and Nikon were the Big shots they were somehow off the mark... Who knows maybe the corporate marketing execs wore softer knee pads and had plenty of chapstick, but for some reason these two makers got all the press. The form and fit of the Canon and Nikon cameras left much to be desired. Never the case with Minolta. Felt like it was serious...designed to fit and form and rugged. Even My Max 9 was the same feel....It just felt like it meant business. And perhaps thats where Sony saw some magic.

I still feel the same way about Canon and Nikon....like they're just missing the point. Like a true architect Sony has a fit that follows form and that form follows function. Not so with the other two. Often the ergonomics leave the shooter looking and fumbling. For me the right switch or button right where my thumb and finger are make all the difference 9 times out of ten. Good glass mostly compensates for a poor photographer IMHO. A good Photographer knows his tools of trade. And that same good glass mated with an awesome body and a pro...well. Canon and Nikon need to worry. The rest of us just reap the rewards. Competitive pricing and constantly improving technology rolled into a solid product. Something Sony seems to have a knack for and Canon and Nikon seem to think is an afterthought based on branding and riding on an overrated reputation.