View Full Version : Sony's DSLR DISSCUSSION
Solracer
08-27-2006, 09:45 AM
Donnell, flame on.
Ive played with it at work, the anti shake works really good. Thats about all I can say about it. Id take a D70 over it tho.
RealLive
08-27-2006, 01:30 PM
uhhh seeing as how it has pretty much the same sensor as a D80 and D200, why the fuck would you want a D70 over it sean ? the only downfall i see is that there's not as much aftermarket support
uhhh seeing as how it has pretty much the same sensor as a D80 and D200, why the fuck would you want a D70 over it sean ?
aftermarket support
and the d80 will be in stores when? exactly
Vincent
08-27-2006, 10:16 PM
It seems identical to a Minolta 5d/7d to me other than the sensor.
What else is different? Did they actually improve the anti-shake system any other than change the name?
It seems identical to a Minolta 5d/7d to me other than the sensor.
What else is different? Did they actually improve the anti-shake system any other than change the name?
you are right on the money, sony bought it and put their sensor in, and they make nikons sensors
Todd Spoth
08-28-2006, 01:12 AM
why would anyone want any of this crap over a canon is the real question.
swyyyguy
08-28-2006, 01:19 AM
why would anyone want any of this crap over a canon is the real question.:wrd: my canon s200 owns every non-canon camera mentioned in this thread.
why would anyone want any of this crap over a canon is the real question.
some ppl have to have anti shake on the body, other ppl buy tripods
RealLive
08-28-2006, 03:18 PM
aftermarket support
and the d80 will be in stores when? exactly
lol 3 weeks
NOOBS WITH MONEY WILL WANT IT. AND I WANT MY SPIFFS!!
lol 3 weeks
NOOBS WITH MONEY WILL WANT IT. AND I WANT MY SPIFFS!!
yeah nikon allways ships their shit on time with plenty of supply for the demand
Whiteyfoo
08-28-2006, 08:50 PM
why would anyone want any of this crap over a canon is the real question.
Carl Zeiss lenses
If you already own a Minolta, all your lenses (back to the mid-70s A mount) will work.
It's a damn good price point for people looking to get into digital SLRs
The integral anti-shake makes all your lenses anti-shake. No need to pick between ultrasonic/AS lenses, and cheaper lenses.
I personally hope it takes off and sells like discount crack. The more competition in the prosumer DSLR market, the better. All Sony needs to do is decide to manufacture a full frame sensor and scare the crap out of Canon.
My question is why do people want this camera to fail?
Solracer
08-28-2006, 09:44 PM
alot of people are anti Sony, I for one love sony.
Oni-San
08-28-2006, 09:48 PM
I've played with the SLR at my work, I like it so far.
We actually had a customer return the SLR because we advertised the SLR w/ a Carl Zeiss lens in store and in our ad. But the kit only comes with a reg lens thats made in china :hsugh:
We had to refund his money, even though our return policy dosen't let customers return open cameras :hsugh:
captobvious
08-28-2006, 10:01 PM
Carl Zeiss lenses
If you already own a Minolta, all your lenses (back to the mid-70s A mount) will work.
It's a damn good price point for people looking to get into digital SLRs
The integral anti-shake makes all your lenses anti-shake. No need to pick between ultrasonic/AS lenses, and cheaper lenses.
I personally hope it takes off and sells like discount crack. The more competition in the prosumer DSLR market, the better. All Sony needs to do is decide to manufacture a full frame sensor and scare the crap out of Canon.
My question is why do people want this camera to fail?
the lenses sony uses are only designed by the zeiss company, they are not the German made Carl Zeiss lenses people think of when they think of the name. not saying they aren't a good lens, but not the quality lens you think of when you hear the Zeiss name. it is more of an advertising gimmick for them
I dont forsee Sony putting out a full frame anytime in the near future, mainly as they produce the sensors for Nikon's cameras, and unless nikon is planning on one, i dont think they would put the research into it considering they are just putting out their first DSLR camera now
as for people wanting it to fail, i dont think thats entirely true. i believe that people are always going to favor more proven platforms such as Canon and Nikon. Minolta's DSLRs weren't out long enough to really prove themselves in my opinion, so Sony falls under this fate because of this being the first DSLR badged as a Sony, they camera will have to prove itself and if it makes it to alpha200 if that happens to be the next camera it will do better. but till that point people are going to be skeptical whether is really a Minolta with a Sony processor
Todd Spoth
08-28-2006, 11:00 PM
All Sony needs to do is decide to manufacture a full frame sensor and scare the crap out of Canon.
sony wont be scaring canon anytime soon lol.
RealLive
08-29-2006, 01:30 AM
the lenses sony uses are only designed by the zeiss company, they are not the German made Carl Zeiss lenses people think of when they think of the name. not saying they aren't a good lens, but not the quality lens you think of when you hear the Zeiss name. it is more of an advertising gimmick for them
I dont forsee Sony putting out a full frame anytime in the near future, mainly as they produce the sensors for Nikon's cameras, and unless nikon is planning on one, i dont think they would put the research into it considering they are just putting out their first DSLR camera now
as for people wanting it to fail, i dont think thats entirely true. i believe that people are always going to favor more proven platforms such as Canon and Nikon. Minolta's DSLRs weren't out long enough to really prove themselves in my opinion, so Sony falls under this fate because of this being the first DSLR badged as a Sony, they camera will have to prove itself and if it makes it to alpha200 if that happens to be the next camera it will do better. but till that point people are going to be skeptical whether is really a Minolta with a Sony processor
very well said
3gen_venn
08-29-2006, 02:30 AM
Minolta's DSLRs weren't out long enough to really prove themselves in my opinion, so Sony falls under this fate because of this being the first DSLR badged as a Sony, the camera will have to prove itself and if it makes it to alpha200 if that happens to be the next camera it will do better. but till that point people are going to be skeptical whether is really a Minolta with a Sony processor
ditto. Konica Minolta we're kind of trying to keep up when dSLR's are on the market but when they released their 5d/7d with AS tech... that helped them a bit, up until its bought by Sony which as you mentioned, new to the field. So hopefully Sony will atleast be ahead of some developments in dSLR, like Olympus and Panasonic's LCD live-view which will very likely attract lots of dSLR consumers.
Olympus and Panasonic's LCD live-view which will very likely attract lots of dSLR consumers.
only n00bs that dont know anything about slr cameras
Whiteyfoo
08-29-2006, 08:40 PM
sony wont be scaring canon anytime soon lol.
You are right. But currently Canon is the only manufacturer with a full frame sensor. Because of this there are quite a few professional photographers who either jumped ship to Canon from Nikon, or are in the process of jumping ship. I personally wouldn't buy into a Nikon since they have announced they won't run a full frame sensor, and I have recommended to quite a few people looking to get into photography professionally to go with Canon solely because of the full frame sensor.
Sony had the money and resources to develop a full frame sensor. They won't do it unless they see a financial gain from doing so though. If this new Sony DSLR does well, and Sony decides to broaden their line of cameras (which is their plan as far as I know), then they might see it as financially viable to develop a full frame sensor. Nikon might even be persuaded to move to a full frame with Sony shouldering the brunt (if not all) of the R&D costs.
Canon had a near monopoly on "professional" series cameras. If suddenly their biggest rival (Nikon) has, or has the potential to have, access to a full frame sensor, you better be damned sure it will scare the crap out of Canon. I think you would see a fairly large leap in technology and a resulting drop in prices as everyone scrambles to release the newest, best camera. 2-3 years between model releases is ridiculous.
Yeah, it all hinges on a bunch of "ifs", but I'm all for anything that may spur the technology race in photography.
^yeah ppl that have spent 10-20k on lens for canon will go back to nikon after nikon left them wanting. Canon will allways one up Nikon and anyone else
captobvious
08-29-2006, 09:59 PM
currently Canon is the only manufacturer with a full frame sensor.
couldn't be more untrue, kodak has i believe 3 full frame digital slrs, and there is at least one or two others out there that do also
Todd Spoth
08-29-2006, 11:11 PM
Canon had a near monopoly on "professional" series cameras. If suddenly their biggest rival (Nikon) has, or has the potential to have, access to a full frame sensor, you better be damned sure it will scare the crap out of Canon.
lol i dont think there would be less of a "monopoly" when nikon releases the full frame.
Todd Spoth
08-29-2006, 11:16 PM
couldn't be more untrue, kodak has i believe 3 full frame digital slrs, and there is at least one or two others out there that do also
nope
Vincent
08-30-2006, 12:15 AM
Kodak had one...Pentax did...and prob others I don't know about.
Todd Spoth
08-30-2006, 12:21 AM
hmmm yeah i thought kodak did too. didnt know about pentax. either way canon > *
Whiteyfoo
08-30-2006, 01:06 AM
lol i dont think there would be less of a "monopoly" when nikon releases the full frame.
Why?
If you have a choice between two (or more) things, then there ceases to be a monopoly. So how would Nikon or Sony or Pentax or any other manufacturer offering a full frame digital SLR camrea not remove the monopoly on full frame DSLRs currently held by Canon?
Currently, there is only one manufacturer offering full frame 35mm DSLRs. Kodak had one, but they pulled out of the market. Kyocera/Contax had the first full frame DSLR, but it's no longer on the market either. There may have been others, but I'm unaware of them.
^yeah ppl that have spent 10-20k on lens for canon will go back to nikon after nikon left them wanting. Canon will allways one up Nikon and anyone else
People who have already made the switch obviously won't go back. However, there are still quite a few photographers who still use Nikon, and an untold number of people who have yet to buy into DSLR cameras, many of whom have a stock of Nikon lenses.
Why do you think Canon will allways one-up everyone? They have dominated the market as of late, and have had a huge effect on the photography market in the past, but they have been one-upped many times. Nikon had the first DSLR prototype, and professional-consumer DSLR. Contax/Kyocera had the first full frame sensor, Fujifilm had the first consumer level digital. Konica/Minolta intorduced sensor stabilization and had the first auto focus SLR back in the mid-70s. Hell, Kodak manufactured the first easily useable and consumer friendly camera with the Brownie. Canon had been one-upped more times than they have not. I have no doubt that another manufacturer will take Canon's spot as the market leader in the near future.
I'm genuinely curious as to the wholesale Canon mastubatory frenzy exhibited by damn near everyone here. I love my Canon cameras, but there are plenty of other manufacturers that put out perfectly good, and sometimes better, options.
Todd Spoth
08-30-2006, 01:33 AM
Why?
If you have a choice between two (or more) things, then there ceases to be a monopoly. So how would Nikon or Sony or Pentax or any other manufacturer offering a full frame digital SLR camrea not remove the monopoly on full frame DSLRs currently held by Canon?
Currently, there is only one manufacturer offering full frame 35mm DSLRs. Kodak had one, but they pulled out of the market. Kyocera/Contax had the first full frame DSLR, but it's no longer on the market either. There may have been others, but I'm unaware of them.
People who have already made the switch obviously won't go back. However, there are still quite a few photographers who still use Nikon, and an untold number of people who have yet to buy into DSLR cameras, many of whom have a stock of Nikon lenses.
Why do you think Canon will allways one-up everyone? They have dominated the market as of late, and have had a huge effect on the photography market in the past, but they have been one-upped many times. Nikon had the first DSLR prototype, and professional-consumer DSLR. Contax/Kyocera had the first full frame sensor, Fujifilm had the first consumer level digital. Konica/Minolta intorduced sensor stabilization and had the first auto focus SLR back in the mid-70s. Hell, Kodak manufactured the first easily useable and consumer friendly camera with the Brownie. Canon had been one-upped more times than they have not. I have no doubt that another manufacturer will take Canon's spot as the market leader in the near future.
I'm genuinely curious as to the wholesale Canon mastubatory frenzy exhibited by damn near everyone here. I love my Canon cameras, but there are plenty of other manufacturers that put out perfectly good, and sometimes better, options.
i cant speak for others but as a action/sports photographer canon cameras reign here. youre the one who said monopoly and full frame doesnt really mean all that much to the professional photographers i work with. i dont see the sports photography industry abandoning canon any time soon, regardless of full frame this or that.
Whiteyfoo
08-30-2006, 07:42 AM
i cant speak for others but as a action/sports photographer canon cameras reign here. youre the one who said monopoly and full frame doesnt really mean all that much to the professional photographers i work with. i dont see the sports photography industry abandoning canon any time soon, regardless of full frame this or that.
That's the explination I'm looking for. It's quite simply a difference in segments of the industry. In the commercial/advertising photography sector you can't really get by without going full frame. Most ad agencies/graphic design agencies specify a minimum image resolution you have to provide. And that resolution almost allways requires a full frame image sensor to acheive without interpolating your image to artificicially boost the resolution.
and an untold number of people who have yet to buy into DSLR cameras,
90% of the ppl who dont have a dslr right now are in the market for one thats under 1500, that means no professional dslr or full frame for them, so it doesnt matter what nikon makes.
most advertising, fashion, glamour, etc pros don't even use full frame. they skip right by it and go to medium or large format. pentax, hassleblad, etc.
I had heard that alot of those ppl had switched to the canon full frame since with the sensor size and pixels the quality and print size was about the same and digital is what alot of customers want
Todd Spoth
08-30-2006, 02:15 PM
many of them do, but i believe a majority of them are using medium and large format w/ digital backs.
not necessarily. do the big names in advertising and editorial fasion use mamiya, hassleblad w/ digital backs for their stuff? Yes, but thats the tip of the top. those cameras are every bit of $25,000 on up and a lot of companies and photographers alike will try and look at DSLR FF options as well to save at least 10 grand or 20. ha.
btw no one uses pentax medium format anymore. lol.
SloESLex
08-30-2006, 09:34 PM
this looks neat
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/
btw no one uses pentax medium format anymore. lol.
I think joe and his uncle do, well atleast joe raves about how good they are
and they both like the k100
this looks neat
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/
the sensor comment made me think of the fuji s3 pro
Todd Spoth
08-31-2006, 09:59 AM
I think joe and his uncle do, well atleast joe raves about how good they are
and they both like the k100
k1000?
k1000?
whatever, same differnce. All I know is that the DOF preview is actually a shutter relaese, and on the ist it sounds like a record scratching(like 80s hip hop)
PerceptionZ
09-16-2006, 12:00 AM
Sony couldn't make a decent camera if they stole the technology from someone else... Oh wait, they stole the anti dust system from Olympus. Zeiss is the only thing they have going for them. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Contax, Pentax.... Hell I would buy a Kodak (shudders) before I would buy a Sony... Sony is the Devil...
Todd Spoth
09-16-2006, 03:09 AM
Sony couldn't make a decent camera if they stole the technology from someone else... Oh wait, they stole the anti dust system from Olympus. Zeiss is the only thing they have going for them. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Contax, Pentax.... Hell I would buy a Kodak (shudders) before I would buy a Sony... Sony is the Devil...
you would buy pentax or olym or contax over sony???? gross dude.
PerceptionZ
09-16-2006, 10:53 AM
you would buy pentax or olym or contax over sony???? gross dude.
Ok, Sony is an accessories company... NOT a camera company... They just started making digital cameras a few years ago, unlike Olympus (still one of the best although I prefer Canon), Contax, and Pentax (also great company's though they aren't as well known). Yes I would choose a Contax over a Sony. They still use Carl Zeiss lenses, and they have been making cameras well before Sony was even formed. Same with Pentax, though they are at the lower end of the spectrum.
Oni-San
09-16-2006, 11:22 AM
:roflmao:
1990hatch
09-16-2006, 01:15 PM
whatever, same differnce. All I know is that the DOF preview is actually a shutter relaese, and on the ist it sounds like a record scratching(like 80s hip hop)
Yep. You keep pushing the on switch past on and it makes that scratching noise. I never really use that though.
Todd Spoth
09-16-2006, 01:34 PM
Ok, Sony is an accessories company... NOT a camera company... They just started making digital cameras a few years ago, unlike Olympus (still one of the best although I prefer Canon), Contax, and Pentax (also great company's though they aren't as well known). Yes I would choose a Contax over a Sony. They still use Carl Zeiss lenses, and they have been making cameras well before Sony was even formed. Same with Pentax, though they are at the lower end of the spectrum.
maybe for old medium format or whatever, but for digital i would take a sony over a pentax/contax/kyocera digital any day of the week.
PerceptionZ
09-16-2006, 09:45 PM
maybe for old medium format or whatever, but for digital i would take a sony over a pentax/contax/kyocera digital any day of the week.
What do you mean for "old" medium format? Contax was the first medium format camera to have the option of switching from film to a digital back. Then followed Hasselblad, the king among kings when it comes to medium and large format cameras. For a portrait photographer like myself, nothing compares to medium or large format digitals... Take your Sony though, to each his own... They all have their good qualities and their bad ones...
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.