# Noise a850 vs. A77



## cosmonaut

Just messing around. If any non Sony trash talkers have anything to say please back it up with pictures. Walk the Walk, please.

Sony a77 1600iso





Sony a850 1600iso




Sony a77 3200iso




Sony a850 3200




Sony a77 6400 iso




Sony a850 6400iso





 EDIT, I just added one from the NEX 7 at 6400. same settings Carl Ziess 24mm 1.8
The NEX is pretty good if you ask me.


----------



## dxqcanada

Hmm, nice comparison.
I would have guessed the A850 still would have been better at high ISO.
Interesting differences in colour ... which is more accurate ?


----------



## cosmonaut

The a850. I am surprised it dropped that much a 6400 as well. The files for the a850 a much richer. I am also not using a high end CZ on the a850.


----------



## Derrel

So, which coffee are you saying is better???


----------



## cosmonaut

Derrel said:


> So, which coffee are you saying is better???


That depends on how sleepy I am and how cold it is.


----------



## rexbobcat

omg, the a850 really goes down hill compared to the others at 6400. :O


----------



## cosmonaut

I look at it the other way around. The NEX and a77 are hangin tough with a full frame camera. I expected what I see with the a850, 6400 is as high as it goes anyway.. I would love to see some Canon and Nikon pictures posted. I am sure the D7000 will out do these but would still like to see some examples. Come on let's see what kind of coffee you drink.


----------



## DiskoJoe

The nex at 6400 is pretty impressive. The noise control seems really nice. The 850 does seem to handle noise better then the a77 as I would expect.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

The A850 looks very good I have to say, the A77 looks like complete trash in comparison at ISO3200 It's funny though the A850 seems to completely fall apart at ISO 6400 which is strange..

I'm assuming these were taken in RAW and not Jpeeg aswell?


----------



## gsgary

cosmonaut said:


> I look at it the other way around. The NEX and a77 are hangin tough with a full frame camera. I expected what I see with the a850, 6400 is as high as it goes anyway.. I would love to see some Canon and Nikon pictures posted. I am sure the D7000 will out do these but would still like to see some examples. Come on let's see what kind of coffee you drink.



But the A850 is not made for high iso but i would have it over the other 2


----------



## fokker

The NEX7 is incredible at 6400 ISO, that would give the 5dmk2 a good run for its money


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> But the A850 is not made for high iso but i would have it over the other 2



It's not all about the high ISO. How often do shoot in 6400?
a850 and a900 IQ in low ISO is superior to 5DmkII.  But NEX-7 and a77 has many useful features that the a850 doesn't have.


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the A850 is not made for high iso but i would have it over the other 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not all about the high ISO. How often do shoot in 6400?
> a850 and a900 IQ in low ISO is superior to 5DmkII.  But NEX-7 and a77 has many useful features that the a850 doesn't have.
Click to expand...


DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

That's weird. Looks to me like the low ISO IQ is roughly the same, and the high ISO noise handling is significantly better on the 5D2.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the A850 is not made for high iso but i would have it over the other 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not all about the high ISO. How often do shoot in 6400?
> a850 and a900 IQ in low ISO is superior to 5DmkII.  But NEX-7 and a77 has many useful features that the a850 doesn't have.
Click to expand...


Have you taken any photos this year yet?  Or are you still too 'busy' looking at test charts?


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> That's weird. Looks to me like the low ISO IQ is roughly the same, and the high ISO noise handling is significantly better on the 5D2.



The score "79" that you are seeing is an overall IQ. The low ISO IQ is better in a900/a850, high ISO IQ is better in 5DmkII


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Have you taken any photos this year yet?  Or are you still too 'busy' looking at test charts?



I am still busy here at Photoforum crashing you.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you taken any photos this year yet?  Or are you still too 'busy' looking at test charts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still busy here at Photoforum crashing you.
Click to expand...


:lmao:


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
> 
> That's weird. Looks to me like the low ISO IQ is roughly the same, and the high ISO noise handling is significantly better on the 5D2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The score "79" that you are seeing is an overall IQ. The low ISO IQ is better in a900/a850, high ISO IQ is better in 5DmkII
Click to expand...


Aren't we talking about high ISO IQ?


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> :lmao:



lol


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Aren't we talking about high ISO IQ?



Yes. But I said low ISO IQ. Didn't I?


----------



## rexbobcat

argieramos said:
			
		

> Yes. But I said low ISO IQ. Didn't I?



But that isn't relevant.


----------



## argieramos

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> But that isn't relevant.



I am just stating the fact.


----------



## rexbobcat

argieramos said:
			
		

> I am just stating the fact.



But it doesn't have any effect on the topic at hand so it would logically be disregarded by those who enter this thread looking for information that the topic title represents. 

Just stating a fact here.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

toy cameras are really coming around lately huh


----------



## rexbobcat

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> toy cameras are really coming around lately huh



NOT RELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!

D:<


----------



## kassad

These do look pretty good.   Much better than some of the other higher iso shots you've posted.    I wonder how the a850 hold up in more challenging lower light situations?


----------



## argieramos

rexbobcat said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just stating the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't have any effect on the topic at hand so it would logically be disregarded by those who enter this thread looking for information that the topic title represents.
> 
> Just stating a fact here.
Click to expand...


Neither your opinion about my post have any effect on the topic. Gary said that the a850 is not made for high ISO but he would rather have it over the NEX-7 and a77. Obviously, high ISO is not the most important thing to him.  I replied to his comment because I saw his point and I agree, that's why I asked him how often does he shoot in ISO6400 vs lower ISO. That's how this low ISO IQ thing brought up in here.  I was trying to have a healthy, friendly, and happy discussion in this thread but I guess you don't want that. I am cool with that. lol


----------



## Crollo

Argier, you're an idiot. We've established this already.
We've established this already.
this already.
already.

Please go away.


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just stating the fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't have any effect on the topic at hand so it would logically be disregarded by those who enter this thread looking for information that the topic title represents.
> 
> Just stating a fact here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither your opinion about my post have any effect on the topic. Gary said that the a850 is not made for high ISO but he would rather have it over the NEX-7 and a77. Obviously, high ISO is not the most important thing to him.  I replied to his comment because I saw his point and I agree, that's why I asked him how often does he shoot in ISO6400 vs lower ISO. That's how this low ISO IQ thing brought up in here.  I was trying to have a healthy, friendly, and happy discussion in this thread but I guess you don't want that. I am cool with that. lol
Click to expand...


A lot of people who shoot with available light, especially action in available light use ISO 1600-6400 quite regularly.

Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.


----------



## cosmonaut

I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso.  If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one.  I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit.  I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.


----------



## rexbobcat

cosmonaut said:


> I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso.  If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one.  I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit.  I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.



I agree with most of what you said, but...

Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.

And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!" 

You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....


----------



## jaomul

rexbobcat said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso.  If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one.  I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit.  I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of what you said, but...
> 
> Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.
> 
> And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!"
> 
> You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....
Click to expand...


In camera HDR isn't my thing, or a camera that stiches together a panorama but these extra functions (gimmicks) don't seem to add cost to the camera so why not have them, they may appeal to some. When hd video arrived on DSLRs many dismissed it as a gimmick, now there are posts even here that recommend a sony over a canon or a nikon over a sony because of video functionality. It has to be said that with technology improving that cheaper smaller lighter cameras are competing. I still think though that if a small light camera with a smallish sensor can compete with their larger counterparts that the larger ones have massive ability to improve over what they now are.
This is all good news if you enjoy the tech as much as the photography


----------



## cosmonaut

The a77 focuses in almost darkness. The NEX 7 as well I don't get to many blurry pictures. I seldom get out of manual settings and the in camera HDR is quite useless the anti shake where the camera takes six shots and puts them together for a sharp picture is amazingly good. But even with that other than trying it I never use it.  But at least they try new things. Nikon and Canon are going to be playing catch up if they are not careful. When was the last upgrade to the 5D? There are already rumors to the next full frame Sony. I think that will be the one that puts them ahead in the game.





rexbobcat said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso.  If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one.  I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit.  I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of what you said, but...Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!" You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....
Click to expand...


----------



## kassad

rexbobcat said:


> You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....



These gimmicks are probably the strongest selling point for Sony.   Your average DSLR or Mirrorless etc buyer isn't a pro or looking to go pro.   They are people who want to take better than average pictures, better than they can get with a point and shoot.    Most of these people will never use Photoshop let alone to do a HDR or stitch a panorama together.   Unfortunately for me this is the course Sony has set.   I suspect to "pro"  camera market is far smaller that the amateur market.   Sony is going where the market is.


----------



## o hey tyler

cosmonaut said:


> The a77 focuses in almost darkness. The NEX 7 as well I don't get to many blurry pictures. I seldom get out of manual settings and the in camera HDR is quite useless the anti shake where the camera takes six shots and puts them together for a sharp picture is amazingly good. But even with that other than trying it I never use it.  But at least they try new things. Nikon and Canon are going to be playing catch up if they are not careful. When was the last upgrade to the 5D? There are already rumors to the next full frame Sony. I think that will be the one that puts them ahead in the game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso.  If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one.  I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit.  I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of what you said, but...Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that! I paid $600 for this camera!!!!" You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There are already rumors for the next 5D too... I guess I don't see your point.


----------



## Kolia

kassad said:
			
		

> These gimmicks are probably the strongest selling point for Sony.   Your average DSLR or Mirrorless etc buyer isn't a pro or looking to go pro.   They are people who want to take better than average pictures, better than they can get with a point and shoot.    Most of these people will never use Photoshop let alone to do a HDR or stitch a panorama together.   Unfortunately for me this is the course Sony has set.   I suspect to "pro"  camera market is far smaller that the amateur market.   Sony is going where the market is.



Agreed. 

These gimmicks are what drove me to Sony. I bought an a390 last year and upgraded to a a65 a few months ago. 

I had a film Rebel film camera 15 years ago and didn't like the multiple version of similar lenses with a wide price range.

Like you said, the mass market doesn't care about spending hours reworking pictures.

I find it somewhat amusing when CaNikon friends are snubbing my because of my "toy camera" yet none of them own a FF or have any sort of recognition as pro anything. Many people chose CaNikon for the image they project. 

If Sony makes enough waves with its gimmicky product to push Canon and Nikon to innovate too, everybody wins.


----------



## o hey tyler

That's interesting. I chose Canon because of the usability, availability of lenses, the price point, image quality, and high ISO capabilities. 

Wasn't really considering my "image" when I made the switch from Sony. Just looking for a better system... Which I found.


----------



## Kolia

What made you go with Sony in the first place ?

I wasn't judging anybody by my comment.


----------



## o hey tyler

Kolia said:


> What made you go with Sony in the first place ?



Because it was my first DSLR that I bought. I didn't read far enough into it and do my homework. Shortly after I purchased my A200, I realized the limitations of the system, and switched to one that worked for me and my needs. 

I didn't want a solely APS-C 50mm lens, I didn't want a proprietary flash system, I didn't want a CCD sensor, I didn't want such exorbitantly priced lenses,  I did want live view, etc.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't have any effect on the topic at hand so it would logically be disregarded by those who enter this thread looking for information that the topic title represents.
> 
> Just stating a fact here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither your opinion about my post have any effect on the topic. Gary said that the a850 is not made for high ISO but he would rather have it over the NEX-7 and a77. Obviously, high ISO is not the most important thing to him.  I replied to his comment because I saw his point and I agree, that's why I asked him how often does he shoot in ISO6400 vs lower ISO. That's how this low ISO IQ thing brought up in here.  I was trying to have a healthy, friendly, and happy discussion in this thread but I guess you don't want that. I am cool with that. lol
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people who shoot with available light, especially action in available light use ISO 1600-6400 quite regularly.
> 
> Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.
Click to expand...


A lot of people shoot with available light? Ofcourse! Everyone does. There are times that you just can't use a flash and the ambient light is not good enough. I was asking how often do you use the 6400? For what I see a850 shots from 100-3200 are good. 6400 not that good, but still usable. A lot of people are using flash right? In Portrait, Studio, Wildlife, Sports, Landscape, and General outdoor Photography, what ISO do you use? 6400?

I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me. You really don't want a decent and healthy discussion huh? lol...


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither your opinion about my post have any effect on the topic. Gary said that the a850 is not made for high ISO but he would rather have it over the NEX-7 and a77. Obviously, high ISO is not the most important thing to him.  I replied to his comment because I saw his point and I agree, that's why I asked him how often does he shoot in ISO6400 vs lower ISO. That's how this low ISO IQ thing brought up in here.  I was trying to have a healthy, friendly, and happy discussion in this thread but I guess you don't want that. I am cool with that. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people who shoot with available light, especially action in available light use ISO 1600-6400 quite regularly.
> 
> Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people shoot with available light? Ofcourse! Everyone does. There are times that you just can't use a flash and the ambient light is not good enough. I was asking how often do you use the 6400? For what I see a850 shots from 100-3200 are good. 6400 not that good, but still usable. A lot of people are using flash right? In Portrait, Studio, Wildlife, Sports, Landscape, and General outdoor Photography, what ISO do you use? 6400?
> 
> I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me. You really don't want a decent and healthy discussion huh? lol...
Click to expand...


I used 6400ISO on my 5Dmk2 the other night to take photos of the stars, and they turned out great. Other people use ISO that high to freeze action in available light. 

That's why I chose the 5Dmk2 because it does so well up to ISO6400. Even images at a higher ISO are salvageable but may require a touch of NR.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

o hey tyler said:


> Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.





argieramos said:


> I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people who shoot with available light, especially action in available light use ISO 1600-6400 quite regularly.
> 
> Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people shoot with available light? Ofcourse! Everyone does. There are times that you just can't use a flash and the ambient light is not good enough. I was asking how often do you use the 6400? For what I see a850 shots from 100-3200 are good. 6400 not that good, but still usable. A lot of people are using flash right? In Portrait, Studio, Wildlife, Sports, Landscape, and General outdoor Photography, what ISO do you use? 6400?
> 
> I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me. You really don't want a decent and healthy discussion huh? lol...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used 6400ISO on my 5Dmk2 the other night to take photos of the stars, and they turned out great. Other people use ISO that high to freeze action in available light.
> 
> That's why I chose the 5Dmk2 because it does so well up to ISO6400. Even images at a higher ISO are salvageable but may require a touch of NR.
Click to expand...


Before I make a comment on that one, can I see the sample of that bro if you don't mind? High ISO noise is not that noticeable on that kind of photography anyway.


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you wouldn't know that because you're too wrapped up in sensor statistics rather than doing real world shooting with an actual camera because it's too "cold" out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Still got nothing else to say? You scared to talk trash on me? lol


----------



## argieramos

Kolia said:


> kassad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These gimmicks are probably the strongest selling point for Sony.   Your average DSLR or Mirrorless etc buyer isn't a pro or looking to go pro.   They are people who want to take better than average pictures, better than they can get with a point and shoot.    Most of these people will never use Photoshop let alone to do a HDR or stitch a panorama together.   Unfortunately for me this is the course Sony has set.   I suspect to "pro"  camera market is far smaller that the amateur market.   Sony is going where the market is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> These gimmicks are what drove me to Sony. I bought an a390 last year and upgraded to a a65 a few months ago.
> 
> I had a film Rebel film camera 15 years ago and didn't like the multiple version of similar lenses with a wide price range.
> 
> Like you said, the mass market doesn't care about spending hours reworking pictures.
> 
> I find it somewhat amusing when CaNikon friends are snubbing my because of my "toy camera" yet none of them own a FF or have any sort of recognition as pro anything. Many people chose CaNikon for the image they project.
> 
> If Sony makes enough waves with its gimmicky product to push Canon and Nikon to innovate too, everybody wins.
Click to expand...


Nikon is now putting in-camera HDR function in their camera too. Having these "gimmick" features is better than not having anything at all


----------



## argieramos

rexbobcat said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rarely shoot high ISO. Mostly my daughters ballet and school plays which isn't often. Those pictures never gets printed. They are just viewed on the computer. So high ISO is important but not overly important. My Olympus gear was really bad over 800iso.  If I worked for Rolling Stone and shot concerts then a 5D would be my choice. But for what I do I can't justify getting one.  I think that a camera like the NEX 7 with it cropped sensor, small size and low cost plus IQ approaching the IQ of a full frame camera is awesome. I think in the near future owning a full frame camera will be of little benefit.  I am very pleased with my Sony gear. It does what I want it to do. Like I said. Sony and Olympus both think outside the box. Call it gimmiky if you like but they have the balls to try new things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with most of what you said, but...
> 
> Most of what you said makes sense if you put photos on FB and keep them on your computer like you said. But how many people only enjoy keeping their photos on the computer? Heh.
> 
> *And I get soooo tired of these moms at basketball games with their entry-level DSLRs (including Sony) with their entry-level lenses asking "why are all of my pictures blurry?" "It's out of focus." "It shouldn't do that!* I paid $600 for this camera!!!!"
Click to expand...


Those moms just doesn't know how to operate a DSLR camera. You're just like them bro. You bashed the a100 because you didn't know how to use the "eye-start" properly, and didn't know how to lock focus. lol 



> You get what you pay for. "New things" refers to features that people are wanting, and make work easier. "Gimmicks" refer to those features that sound cool on the box of the product. Sony and Olympus have tried new things, but I'm not sure that their innovation really outweighs their gimmicks....I mean....in-camera HDR? Is that really innovation, or is it just being lazy.....



Having those so-called "gimmicks" is better than not having anything at all. And don't talk like you can't manually create an HDR on your computer with a software. What's your problem bro?


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people shoot with available light? Ofcourse! Everyone does. There are times that you just can't use a flash and the ambient light is not good enough. I was asking how often do you use the 6400? For what I see a850 shots from 100-3200 are good. 6400 not that good, but still usable. A lot of people are using flash right? In Portrait, Studio, Wildlife, Sports, Landscape, and General outdoor Photography, what ISO do you use? 6400?
> 
> I see that you are still using that "cold' issue to attack me. You really don't want a decent and healthy discussion huh? lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used 6400ISO on my 5Dmk2 the other night to take photos of the stars, and they turned out great. Other people use ISO that high to freeze action in available light.
> 
> That's why I chose the 5Dmk2 because it does so well up to ISO6400. Even images at a higher ISO are salvageable but may require a touch of NR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I make a comment on that one, can I see the sample of that bro if you don't mind? High ISO noise is not that noticeable on that kind of photography anyway.
Click to expand...


Really? Noise isn't more prevalent in dark areas of a photo? Why is there more noise noticeable in dark/underexposed areas of a photo then? Have you done this kind of photography? Do you have real world experience shooting stars?


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used 6400ISO on my 5Dmk2 the other night to take photos of the stars, and they turned out great. Other people use ISO that high to freeze action in available light.
> 
> That's why I chose the 5Dmk2 because it does so well up to ISO6400. Even images at a higher ISO are salvageable but may require a touch of NR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I make a comment on that one, can I see the sample of that bro if you don't mind? High ISO noise is not that noticeable on that kind of photography anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Noise isn't more prevalent in dark areas of a photo? Why is there more noise noticeable in dark/underexposed areas of a photo then? Have you done this kind of photography? Do you have real world experience shooting stars?
Click to expand...


Dude, the sky at night, where everything looks completely black, is not the same as dark/underexpose areas.


----------



## Derrel

argieramos said:
			
		

> Dude, the sky at night, where everything looks completely black, is not the same as dark/underexpose areas.



W_h_a_t   are     you   t_a_l_k_i_n_g about man???? The night sky, that looks "completely black" is not the same as "dark/underexpose areas". Wow...I wonder why the night sky looks so "completely black"...

Is that "completely black" night sky NOT a "dark area"? I mean, by definition, it would seem that a "completely black" night sky *is*,indeed, a dark area.


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the sky at night, where everything looks completely black, is not the same as dark/underexpose areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W_h_a_t   are     you   t_a_l_k_i_n_g about man???? The night sky, that looks "completely black" is not the same as "dark/underexpose areas". Wow...I wonder why the night sky looks so "completely black"...
> 
> Is that "completely black" night sky NOT a "dark area"? I mean, by definition, it would seem that a "completely black" night sky *is*,indeed, a dark area.
Click to expand...


[Facepalm] Common sense.. I guess you don't have that. How can you consider yourself as Pro? Man, I wouldn't hire you if i really need a Pro. lol

Look up in the sky at night where the light is completely absent 
Look at the dim lit areas.
Are they the same?


----------



## Derrel

argieramos said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the sky at night, where everything looks completely black, is not the same as dark/underexpose areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W_h_a_t   are     you   t_a_l_k_i_n_g about man???? The night sky, that looks "completely black" is not the same as "dark/underexpose areas". Wow...I wonder why the night sky looks so "completely black"...
> 
> Is that "completely black" night sky NOT a "dark area"? I mean, by definition, it would seem that a "completely black" night sky *is*,indeed, a dark area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [Facepalm] Common sense.. I guess you don't have that. How can you consider yourself as Pro? Man, I wouldn't hire you if i really need a Pro. lol
Click to expand...


Is English your native language? It does not appear so.

You also seem to suffer from a SEVERE case of reading comprehension failure. What's all this blathering coming from your end about "Pro?" and me considering myself as a "Pro?" Can you not read my signature file, which has been on over 10,000 posts? Sorry argieramos, but learn to read. It says, "It's about time people started taking photography seriously, and treating it as a hobby." And argieramos, you are probably never going to need the services of a professional photographer, except perhaps for your high school senior picture set.

Sorry argieramos, but your inability to recognize the NIGHT SKY as a "dark area" makes me question your language skills. Do you speak another language besides English as your first, or primary language? It seems like you have difficulty engaging in anything more than snarky little high-school type slap fighting.


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I make a comment on that one, can I see the sample of that bro if you don't mind? High ISO noise is not that noticeable on that kind of photography anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Noise isn't more prevalent in dark areas of a photo? Why is there more noise noticeable in dark/underexposed areas of a photo then? Have you done this kind of photography? Do you have real world experience shooting stars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, the sky at night, where everything looks completely black, is not the same as dark/underexpose areas.
Click to expand...


Maybe now you can come to terms that you don't know anything about photography other than what DxO mark tells you about sensors. 

If everything in the night sky looks black, with the exception of the stars... You STILL don't think that it's an underexposed area of the image?


----------



## o hey tyler

PS. It was 27 degrees out in Maine when I took that image. I was also fairly drunk and stoned at the time. I still managed to make it down the street without falling, or freezing to death to take photos. 

It's going to be 46 degrees in Chi-Town today... Are you going to get outside and take some photos? Surely that temperature is within the working range of your Sony.


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Is English your native language? It does not appear so.
> 
> You also seem to suffer from a SEVERE case of reading comprehension failure. What's all this blathering coming from your end about "Pro?" and me considering myself as a "Pro?" Can you not read my signature file, which has been on over 10,000 posts? Sorry argieramos, but learn to read. It says, "It's about time people started taking photography seriously, and treating it as a hobby." And argieramos, you are probably never going to need the services of a professional photographer, except perhaps for your high school senior picture set.
> 
> Sorry argieramos, but your inability to recognize the NIGHT SKY as a "dark area" makes me question your language skills. Do you speak another language besides English as your first, or primary language? It seems like you have difficulty engaging in anything more than snarky little high-school type slap fighting.



Now you have to criticize my english skills because as usual, you can't make a decent argument about the topic. I never that night sky is not a "dark area". Where did you get that from? lol.. Does all the "dark" look equal?  As I said, common sense.

You're dumb as a box of rocks. Straight up and get a clue.... lol


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Maybe now you can come to terms that you don't know anything about photography other than what DxO mark tells you about sensors.
> 
> If everything in the night sky looks black, with the exception of the stars... You STILL don't think that it's an underexposed area of the image?



Did I even say otherwise? You didn't get the point my friend. I was talking about the sky at night when it's extremely dark. If you photograph a pitch black, the noise is less visible compare to the regular shot with the same high ISO.. I am surprise you didn't know that. lol


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> PS. It was 27 degrees out in Maine when I took that image. I was also fairly drunk and stoned at the time. I still managed to make it down the street without falling, or freezing to death to take photos.
> 
> It's going to be 46 degrees in Chi-Town today... Are you going to get outside and take some photos? Surely that temperature is within the working range of your Sony.



I don't give a damn even if it was 0 degree out  when you took that picture. We have a different lifestyle, you know. I prefer to shoot when it's warm outside, why does it bother you?. Your personal attack is not going to work on me. Try something else. You're becoming the 2nd Nikon_Josh. lol


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe now you can come to terms that you don't know anything about photography other than what DxO mark tells you about sensors.
> 
> If everything in the night sky looks black, with the exception of the stars... You STILL don't think that it's an underexposed area of the image?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I even say otherwise? You didn't get the point my friend. I was talking about the sky at night when it's extremely dark. If you photograph a pitch black, the noise is less visible compare to the regular shot with the same high ISO.. I am surprise you didn't know that. lol
Click to expand...


You really are that clueless. Amazing.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> You really are that clueless. Amazing.



Are you saying that I'm wrong?


----------



## Nikon_Josh

Derrel said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> W_h_a_t   are     you   t_a_l_k_i_n_g about man???? The night sky, that looks "completely black" is not the same as "dark/underexpose areas". Wow...I wonder why the night sky looks so "completely black"...
> 
> Is that "completely black" night sky NOT a "dark area"? I mean, by definition, it would seem that a "completely black" night sky *is*,indeed, a dark area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Facepalm] Common sense.. I guess you don't have that. How can you consider yourself as Pro? Man, I wouldn't hire you if i really need a Pro. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is English your native language? It does not appear so.
> 
> You also seem to suffer from a SEVERE case of reading comprehension failure. What's all this blathering coming from your end about "Pro?" and me considering myself as a "Pro?" Can you not read my signature file, which has been on over 10,000 posts? Sorry argieramos, but learn to read. It says, "It's about time people started taking photography seriously, and treating it as a hobby." And argieramos, you are probably never going to need the services of a professional photographer, except perhaps for your high school senior picture set.
> 
> Sorry argieramos, but your inability to recognize the NIGHT SKY as a "dark area" makes me question your language skills. Do you speak another language besides English as your first, or primary language? It seems like you have difficulty engaging in anything more than snarky little high-school type slap fighting.
Click to expand...


 As I have said all along, his reading and writing skills are simply abysmal. :lmao:


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are that clueless. Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I'm wrong?
Click to expand...


Clearly.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the sky at night, where everything looks completely black, is not the same as dark/underexpose areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W_h_a_t   are     you   t_a_l_k_i_n_g about man???? The night sky, that looks "completely black" is not the same as "dark/underexpose areas". Wow...I wonder why the night sky looks so "completely black"...
> 
> Is that "completely black" night sky NOT a "dark area"? I mean, by definition, it would seem that a "completely black" night sky *is*,indeed, a dark area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [Facepalm] Common sense.. I guess you don't have that. How can you consider yourself as Pro? Man, I wouldn't hire you if i really need a Pro. lol
> 
> Look up in the sky at night where the light is completely absent
> Look at the dim lit areas.
> Are they the same?
Click to expand...



There is one dim lit person in this thread making too much noise and he knows **** all


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

Pretty cool thread for a drama thread.  

I have a Nikon mount Holga lens being delivered because a true hipster suggested it, might start a new thread about that too


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are that clueless. Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I'm wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly.
Click to expand...


Then I guess there are things in photography that even you don't know about. I really thought you know every single thing about photography.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> W_h_a_t   are     you   t_a_l_k_i_n_g about man???? The night sky, that looks "completely black" is not the same as "dark/underexpose areas". Wow...I wonder why the night sky looks so "completely black"...
> 
> Is that "completely black" night sky NOT a "dark area"? I mean, by definition, it would seem that a "completely black" night sky *is*,indeed, a dark area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Facepalm] Common sense.. I guess you don't have that. How can you consider yourself as Pro? Man, I wouldn't hire you if i really need a Pro. lol
> 
> Look up in the sky at night where the light is completely absent
> Look at the dim lit areas.
> Are they the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is one dim lit person in this thread making too much noise and he knows **** all
Click to expand...


You must be talking about yourself. You didn't know how inferior the AF of the 5DMkII compare to the a77. Tsk Tsk Tsk!! 
Canon sensors are inferior to Sony
Canon AF is also inferior.
lol lol lol lol


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Facepalm] Common sense.. I guess you don't have that. How can you consider yourself as Pro? Man, I wouldn't hire you if i really need a Pro. lol
> 
> Look up in the sky at night where the light is completely absent
> Look at the dim lit areas.
> Are they the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is one dim lit person in this thread making too much noise and he knows **** all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be talking about yourself. You didn't know how inferior the AF of the 5DMkII compare to the a77. Tsk Tsk Tsk!!
> Canon sensors are inferior to Sony
> Canon AF is also inferior.
> lol lol lol lol
Click to expand...



Why do you never post any of your shots to prove it


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that I'm wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess there are things in photography that even you don't know about. I really thought you know every single thing about photography.
Click to expand...


Compared to someone who doesn't shoot because it's too cold at 45 degrees, I think I have a lot more real world experience than you do, Argie.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess there are things in photography that even you don't know about. I really thought you know every single thing about photography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to someone who doesn't shoot because it's too cold at 45 degrees, I think I have a lot more real world experience than you do, Argie.
Click to expand...


What makes you think 45 degrees is tool cold for me? You really love to make things up. lol
You have more real world experience? Sure. That's because you're older. But I will be here longer to experience the world because I'm younger. Hehehe!.....


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one dim lit person in this thread making too much noise and he knows **** all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be talking about yourself. You didn't know how inferior the AF of the 5DMkII compare to the a77. Tsk Tsk Tsk!!
> Canon sensors are inferior to Sony
> Canon AF is also inferior.
> lol lol lol lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you never post any of your shots to prove it
Click to expand...


I have posted some evidence to prove my claim that Canon has inferior sensors and AF. I don't see how it will prove anything by posting some pictures taken by my alpha because I don't have a Canon in my hand to do the comparison. Let me use your outdated Canon then . I have some photo on my gallery. That's not enough?

Here is another evidence how inferior the Canon. Nyehehehe!!
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/351453/38216ciPKjWvt0d/KkVqCMOrz8/692562.jpg


----------



## Nicostorm

Maybe more time out taking pics and less time fighting on this forum .....omg it's ridiculous sometimes!.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess there are things in photography that even you don't know about. I really thought you know every single thing about photography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to someone who doesn't shoot because it's too cold at 45 degrees, I think I have a lot more real world experience than you do, Argie.
Click to expand...


Tyler, how dare you talk about Argie in such a manner!

He has been out taking lots of photos recently since he has started putting his scarf on.... Oh yeah and just so you know Tyler.. Argie is also planning a trip to South America so it is warm enough for him to take photos outside! NYEHEHEHEHHE


----------



## o hey tyler

Nikon_Josh said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess there are things in photography that even you don't know about. I really thought you know every single thing about photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to someone who doesn't shoot because it's too cold at 45 degrees, I think I have a lot more real world experience than you do, Argie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyler, how dare you talk about Argie in such a manner!
> 
> He has been out taking lots of photos recently since he has started putting his scarf on.... Oh yeah and just so you know Tyler.. Argie is also planning a trip to South America so it is warm enough for him to take photos outside! NYEHEHEHEHHE
Click to expand...


NYHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHYEHYHEYHEHYLELEEOELLLILILILLULULULULULUL


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess there are things in photography that even you don't know about. I really thought you know every single thing about photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to someone who doesn't shoot because it's too cold at 45 degrees, I think I have a lot more real world experience than you do, Argie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyler, how dare you talk about Argie in such a manner!
> 
> He has been out taking lots of photos recently since he has started putting his scarf on.... Oh yeah and just so you know Tyler.. Argie is also planning a trip to South America so it is warm enough for him to take photos outside! NYEHEHEHEHHE
Click to expand...


Nyehehehehe!!
Seriously, that's the best comeback you can come out with? .  So you and Tyler are friends again? lol...
Personal insult is not going to work on me, specially the lame ones. lol.. I guess you got no more to say about this camera argument?


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to someone who doesn't shoot because it's too cold at 45 degrees, I think I have a lot more real world experience than you do, Argie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyler, how dare you talk about Argie in such a manner!
> 
> He has been out taking lots of photos recently since he has started putting his scarf on.... Oh yeah and just so you know Tyler.. Argie is also planning a trip to South America so it is warm enough for him to take photos outside! NYEHEHEHEHHE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NYHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHYEHYHEYHEHYLELEEOELLLILILILLULULULULULUL
Click to expand...


lol lol lol... You actually find that funny?  lol lol lol lol


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> So you and Tyler are friends again?



Strange, I didn't recall having a personal vendetta with Josh. We've always seemed to get along quite fine. He's actually a pretty nice dude, Argie. 

But since apparently you know more about my disposition towards forum members than I do... That also must mean that you know more about cameras, photography, lighting, composition, post processing, talking with clients, and all that jazz.

PS. Comic sans is the obvious sarcasm font, in case you weren't aware.


----------



## bentcountershaft

We're talkin' Jazz now?  I like Miles Davis.


----------



## o hey tyler

No, we're talking about Bob Fosse... DUH.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> So you and Tyler are friends again?



Yes Argie, I am trying to remember this so called war with Tyler I have been having aswell??? :er: In fact, I only remember times when Tyler has given me helpful advice.

Lets outline some differences between Argie and Tyler...

1) Argie only takes photos when it's warm outside and looks at test charts, Tyler is a good photographer who doesn't sit around looking at test charts all day because its too cold outside, he actually TAKES photos.
2) Argie only involves himself with camera brand wars on this forum, Tyler contributes good and decent advice to other forum members.
3) Argie prides himself on playing the 'TROLL' and attracting attention to himself, Tyler enjoys helping other photographers improve themselves and uses this forum as a tool to learn for himself also, instead of trying to win arguments and attracting attention to himself. 

Don't deny it Argie, just check out the post histories. ALL of your posts on this forum have involved you showing people test charts and saying Sony are great. Tyler's post history has involved actually being a PROPER forum member. You should try it sometime! :thumbup:


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you and Tyler are friends again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Argie, I am trying to remember this so called war with Tyler I have been having aswell??? :er: In fact, I only remember times when Tyler has given me helpful advice.
> 
> Lets outline some differences between Argie and Tyler...
> 
> 1) Argie only takes photos when it's warm outside and looks at test charts, Tyler is a good photographer who doesn't sit around looking at test charts all day because its too cold outside, he actually TAKES photos.
> 2) Argie only involves himself with camera brand wars on this forum, Tyler contributes good and decent advice to other forum members.
> 3) Argie prides himself on playing the 'TROLL' and attracting attention to himself, Tyler enjoys helping other photographers improve themselves and uses this forum as a tool to learn for himself also, instead of trying to win arguments and attracting attention to himself.
> 
> Don't deny it Argie, just check out the post histories. ALL of your posts on this forum have involved you showing people test charts and saying Sony are great. Tyler's post history has involved actually being a PROPER forum member. You should try it sometime! :thumbup:
Click to expand...


So you want to talk about how good Tyler is to you because I ignored your private message? You checked mine and Tyler's forum history?lol... You really are the creepy one.. You have been playing as a back support of Tyler and Derrel..  You are the most boring person to argue with, seriously Josh..
If I'm a troll to you, then you are something that worse than a troll...


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you and Tyler are friends again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, I didn't recall having a personal vendetta with Josh. We've always seemed to get along quite fine. He's actually a pretty nice dude, Argie.
> 
> But since apparently you know more about my disposition towards forum members than I do... That also must mean that you know more about cameras, photography, lighting, composition, post processing, talking with clients, and all that jazz.
> 
> PS. Comic sans is the obvious sarcasm font, in case you weren't aware.
Click to expand...


Lighting, composition, framing, post processing, metering, talking with clients, etc..,blah blah blah.. Our argument is not about those things. We are arguing about the camera, and you are using the inferior camera. Inferior sensor, inferior IQ, inferior AF. Come back here when Canon created an aps camera that can beat the NEX-3 in IQ...Nyehehehehe!!!

BTW, Didn't you say that in-camera HDR is gimmick? I guess I can say that too on the 5D MKIII... lol


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you and Tyler are friends again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Argie, I am trying to remember this so called war with Tyler I have been having aswell??? :er: In fact, I only remember times when Tyler has given me helpful advice.
> 
> Lets outline some differences between Argie and Tyler...
> 
> 1) Argie only takes photos when it's warm outside and looks at test charts, Tyler is a good photographer who doesn't sit around looking at test charts all day because its too cold outside, he actually TAKES photos.
> 2) Argie only involves himself with camera brand wars on this forum, Tyler contributes good and decent advice to other forum members.
> 3) Argie prides himself on playing the 'TROLL' and attracting attention to himself, Tyler enjoys helping other photographers improve themselves and uses this forum as a tool to learn for himself also, instead of trying to win arguments and attracting attention to himself.
> 
> Don't deny it Argie, just check out the post histories. ALL of your posts on this forum have involved you showing people test charts and saying Sony are great. Tyler's post history has involved actually being a PROPER forum member. You should try it sometime! :thumbup:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to talk about how good Tyler is to you because I ignored your private message? You checked mine and Tyler's forum history?lol... You really are the creepy one.. You have been playing as a back support of Tyler and Derrel..  You are the most boring person to argue with, seriously Josh..
> If I'm a troll to you, then you are something that worse than a troll...
Click to expand...


To keep making up stuff about how I am sending you private messages all the time?? Hmmmm and I am the creepy one?? Hmmm?? I think thats a tad creepy, to keep making up that I am sending you private messages. Hmmm you strange little lady you.

Fact is.. you do nothing on this forum but post in arguments about which camera is better! As has been proven on numerous occasions now, YOU ARE NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER.. you spend your time looking at test charts and arguing about which camera is better than the next. You seriously need to be banned! Nyehehehehehehe


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> Lighting, composition, framing, post processing, metering, talking with clients, etc..,blah blah blah.. Our argument is not about those things. We are arguing about the camera, and you are using the inferior camera. Inferior sensor, inferior IQ, inferior AF. Come back here when Canon created an aps camera that can beat the NEX-3 in IQ...Nyehehehehe!!!
> 
> BTW, Didn't you say that in-camera HDR is gimmick? I guess I can say that too on the 5D MKIII... lol



That's strange, because while you say I am using 'inferior' equipment. I still seem to put out a superior product when compared to anything you've pointed a camera towards and somehow managed to actuate a shutter. 

And yes, IN CAMERA HDR IS A GIMMICK! I still stand firm on that. There's a ton of reasons to bracket your exposures and process outside of camera. That means that it's a gimmick IMO.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> That's strange, because while you say I am using 'inferior' equipment. I still seem to put out a superior product when compared to anything you've pointed a camera towards and somehow managed to actuate a shutter.
> 
> And yes, IN CAMERA HDR IS A GIMMICK! I still stand firm on that. There's a ton of reasons to bracket your exposures and process outside of camera. That means that it's a gimmick IMO.



That's strange, because our argument is about the camera. You are trying to avoid topic. That's like saying " While you say I am driving a slower car, I can still make to the finish line quicker than you because I am a better racer" lol.. Don't make an excuse and don't change the topic. You have been in photography for a long time, and while your photos are good, still nowhere as good as real pros work. Something that I wouldn't pay. Come to think of it, you are always present here and can reply quickly than anybody else. No customers bro? lol....

Gimmick huh? Canon also add a gimmick feature on their 5DMKIII... add a bit more megapixel, and gimmicky in camera HDR feature, then sell it for $3500. lol


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> To keep making up stuff about how I am sending you private messages all the time?? Hmmmm and I am the creepy one?? Hmmm?? I think thats a tad creepy, to keep making up that I am sending you private messages. Hmmm you strange little lady you.
> 
> Fact is.. you do nothing on this forum but post in arguments about which camera is better! As has been proven on numerous occasions now, YOU ARE NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER.. you spend your time looking at test charts and arguing about which camera is better than the next. You seriously need to be banned! Nyehehehehehehe



You did send me a Private message. You know it's true.. 
I do nothing  on this forum but to argue? That's the very same thing you and Tyler are doing here, the Sony Forum. It's like 90% of your post in this forum are all about personal insults.
You saw the test chart result, but you didn't see the photo samples? At least I posted something to prove my claim. What about you? lol

Oh I am not a photographer? That's a funny claim from someone who has "zero" photo upload... Nyehehehe...

A real photographer does not troll and argue about which camera is better. Real photographer know better that it is all about the person behind the camera.


----------



## belial

argieramos said:
			
		

> You did send me a Private message. You know it's true..
> I do nothing  on this forum but to argue? That's the very same thing you and Tyler are doing here, the Sony Forum. It's like 90% of your post in this forum are all about personal insults.
> You saw the test chart result, but you didn't see the photo samples? At least I posted something to prove my claim. What about you? lol
> 
> Oh I am not a photographer? That's a funny claim from someone who has "zero" photo upload... Nyehehehe...
> 
> A real photographer does not troll and argue about which camera is better. Real photographer know better that it is all about the person behind the camera.



And yet you're spending your time arguing. Troll


----------



## Crollo

belial said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did send me a Private message. You know it's true..
> I do nothing  on this forum but to argue? That's the very same thing you and Tyler are doing here, the Sony Forum. It's like 90% of your post in this forum are all about personal insults.
> You saw the test chart result, but you didn't see the photo samples? At least I posted something to prove my claim. What about you? lol
> 
> Oh I am not a photographer? That's a funny claim from someone who has "zero" photo upload... Nyehehehe...
> 
> A real photographer does not troll and argue about which camera is better. Real photographer know better that it is all about the person behind the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're spending your time arguing. Troll
Click to expand...


What do you expect from a guy whose name is Argueramos?


----------



## KmH

Cosmonaut, open a second version of the thread if you'd like to.

This thread too will now be CLOSED.

*"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." - Joshua  *

The TPF forum rules / regs are found here folks: Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum FAQ


----------

