# The changing field of professional cameras



## skieur (Dec 20, 2011)

Well at the top end of the "35mm format" size is the Canon IDs Mark III at approximately $7,000 and 21 megapixels, the Nikon D3x at approximately $8,000 at approx. 24 megapixels and surprisingly the Sony A77 at $1,500.

If you put photos side by side from these cameras you will find very little difference. They are equally sharp with similar noise levels at very high ISO. Canon tends to have cooler colours than Nikon and Sony but that is a matter of taste.

Nikon and Sony have 920,000 pixel LCDs versus the 230,000 pixel LCD from Canon. Although the Sony has an EVF, rather than optical viewfinder, it is the new OLED technology with 2.4 million pixels resolution and greater contrast than any other EVFs. 

Sweep panorama and enhanced HDR in camera are interesting features on the Sony. Canon and Nikon however have great strobe and related accessories for elaborate light set-ups and in-studio work.

Lenses are somewhat similar too. The best Canon and Nikon lenses are not drastically better or worse than the best Zeiss lenses, Sony G lenses, or rebranded Minolta lenses. Third party lens manufacturers have improved for all these makes as well.

Many or most pros will use Canon or Nikon but a few will probably be asking themselves whether the Canon or Nikon are 5 times better (as per the price) than the Sony and a few with lower budgets will probably consider that direction.

The competition for market share will benefit all photographers.

skieur


----------



## Rephargotohp (Dec 20, 2011)

The 21 MP 5D Mark II is $2,000


----------



## Tony S (Dec 20, 2011)

The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to.  Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing. 



> If you put photos side by side from these cameras you will find very little difference. They are equally sharp with similar noise levels at very high ISO. Canon tends to have cooler colours than Nikon and Sony but that is a matter of taste.



 The image quality comparisons don't match up well once you get up into the ISOs over 1600.  You also lose some of it's functions when you start getting up into the higher frame rates, like live view. Here's one quote on the image quality from an online review about the image quality.. "  At ISO 1600 and above, the destructive effects of the A77's noise reduction setting become more apparent and it is obvious that at ISO 3200 and 6400, the A77 isn't producing 24MP' worth of actual resolution  "

  It is a good camera, but it's not anywhere near the Nikon and Canon pro class cameras.


----------



## skieur (Dec 20, 2011)

Rephargotohp said:


> The 21 MP 5D Mark II is $2,000



Yes, the 5D Mark II is closer to the Sony in price and features.  It then becomes more a matter of individual needs and use.

skieur


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 20, 2011)

You can put an iPhone 4S photo up against those same bodies and even then you _may_ not be able to tell the difference if they were all similar shots taken in an ideal, static environment with adequate lighting.  The problem is in the real world this almost never happens.  If you took photos with all those same bodies of a ferrari racing through a rainstorm, you'd quickly be able to tell the difference in which body took what photo... assuming they all functioned in the rain storm.


----------



## skieur (Dec 20, 2011)

Tony S said:


> The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Sony A77 is dust and weather sealed as in both body, dials and lens and I have not seen any posts of problems with it in a rainstorm.  It is also heftier than the other models with a magnesium alloy body

With photos side by side at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, print was sharper on the Sony A77, than on the Canon 5D MarkII.  Go to imaging-resource and check out the back of the book in the photo. 

skieur

.


----------



## skieur (Dec 20, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> You can put an iPhone 4S photo up against those same bodies and even then you _may_ not be able to tell the difference if they were all similar shots taken in an ideal, static environment with adequate lighting. The problem is in the real world this almost never happens. If you took photos with all those same bodies of a ferrari racing through a rainstorm, you'd quickly be able to tell the difference in which body took what photo... assuming they all functioned in the rain storm.



Ah, not unless you are blind or a newbie in photography. You don't see any pros using an iPhone in their photo studios do you?

skieur


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 20, 2011)

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > You can put an iPhone 4S photo up against those same bodies and even then you _may_ not be able to tell the difference if they were all similar shots taken in an ideal, static environment with adequate lighting. The problem is in the real world this almost never happens. If you took photos with all those same bodies of a ferrari racing through a rainstorm, you'd quickly be able to tell the difference in which body took what photo... assuming they all functioned in the rain storm.
> ...



Yes, The iPhone Fashion Shoot By Lee Morris | Fstoppers 
And that was with the crappier iPhone 3 camera


----------



## KmH (Dec 20, 2011)

A magnesium metal chassis is mostly about heat dissipation, and the blocking of electromagnetic interference. 

The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.


----------



## skieur (Dec 20, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



I noticed that the iphone 3 could not handle the range in skin colour and brightness due in large part to the lighting and limitations of the camera.

skieur


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 20, 2011)

KmH said:


> The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.



I believe the point that was intended to be made, was.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 21, 2011)

I think it's too bad the Sony A-850 has been discontinued. A full-frame size sensor, and the huge viewfinder image, and the impeccable traditional layout were really impressive, and the price of under $2,000 for a full-frame was market-leading.Sony Alpha DSLR- A850 Full Frame Digital SLR Camera DSLRA850 B&H

The A77 is NOT impressive to me...read the dPreview review...cramming 24.6 MP into a crop-sensor leaves the image performance severely lacking, and far below that of a FF camera...and the high frame rates are nice and all, but the autofocus system cannot even begin to keep up...and the image through the viewfinder is so dim that in-studio use under modeling lights is severely impaired. Sorry, but the Sony A77 is in NO WAY a "professional" camera...it has some serious,serious fundamental flaws as a "machine", and would make a disastrous choice for somebody looking for a real "professional camera".

If you put the photos from the A77 side by side with those from a Nikon or Canon 12 megapixel camera (meaning 5D original, Nikon D3, D3s, or D700), you can see that the camera's JPEG images are soft, and the sensor is very noisy, and the image quality is strictly not up to snuff, at ANY of the higher ISO values...and the camera has NO LIVE VIEW in 8- or 12 frames per second mode, so panning and following motion is basically damned near impossible...the RAW files are noisy at high ISO...in all, the Sony A77 is not a very good professional-level instrument. The Sony A77 has some very serious shortcomings in image quality, ISO range, lack of viewfinder at high FPS!! (Good Gawd, that's a serious problem!), and poor viewfinder image under lower-light levels.

I honestly have no idea why you are calling this a "professional camera", when it is clearly not up to the BASIC level of functionality for a pro camera...it's high-end gadget freak consumer all the way....small sensor, bad finder under anything but bright light, poor sensor performance at high ISOs, strong noise reduction, poor control over degree of noise reduction, an AF system that cannot keep up with the shutter, and no real-time viewing at 8 fps or 12 fps...and SOOC JPEG Images that are severely lacking in detail...

Sony SLT-A77 Review: 26. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"Ehhh..."


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

I have no idea what the deal is with these fixed mirror SLRs. All you're going to get is continuous phase detection AF at the expense of decreased SNR. 

This translucent mirror "technology" seems like it's an attempt by Sony to convince us that their corner cutting is actually a good thing.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 21, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.
> ...



I saw your point, and it was a valid one.



> Ah, not unless you are blind or a newbie in photography.



This is such a stuck up horse **** comment it's not even funny.


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I think it's too bad the Sony A-850 has been discontinued. A full-frame size sensor, and the huge viewfinder image, and the impeccable traditional layout were really impressive, and the price of under $2,000 for a full-frame was market-leading.Sony Alpha DSLR- A850 Full Frame Digital SLR Camera DSLRA850 B&H
> 
> The A77 is NOT impressive to me...read the dPreview review...cramming 24.6 MP into a crop-sensor leaves the image performance severely lacking, and far below that of a FF camera...and the high frame rates are nice and all, but the autofocus system cannot even begin to keep up...and the image through the viewfinder is so dim that in-studio use under modeling lights is severely impaired. Sorry, but the Sony A77 is in NO WAY a "professional" camera...it has some serious,serious fundamental flaws as a "machine", and would make a disastrous choice for somebody looking for a real "professional camera".
> 
> ...



What you say contradicts with what I see in these side by side shots Imaging Resource "Comparometer" &#8482; Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Take a look at the maniquin in the green outfit with the book in 1600 ISO. The Canon 5D Mark II image is SOFTER than the image from the Sony A77.

Looking further you will find that the image performance is not lacking at all. Notice the detail of the A77 is equal to that of the Nikon D3 or Canon IDs mark iii.  I don't think that ISO 25,600 is lacking in ISO range either. The viewfinder image is better under lower light than usual optical viewfinders since it is OLED. The autofocus system according to Popular Photography is the fastest of any DSLR in both movie mode and photo shooting.


skieur


----------



## Canuk (Dec 21, 2011)

The camera on an iPhone may make images that look good on a screen, but try to print one. The local camera shop here, is constantly getting people come in w/ photos from their iPhones to print only to realize how crappy the images look even on a 4x6 print.


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> What you say contradicts with what I see in these side by side shots Imaging Resource "Comparometer" &#8482; Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Take a look at the maniquin in the green outfit with the book in 1600 ISO. The Canon 5D Mark II image is SOFTER than the image from the Sony A77.



By the link you provided, the D7000 is much sharper and retains much more detail than the A77 and apparently all of the other cameras you listed.  I only checked one comparison out of curiosity, the last photo with the bottles and yarn @ ISO1600.  But then again, all these comparisons use different lenses so the results are useless!


----------



## Dao (Dec 21, 2011)

You know, I think most of the cameras are just fine as far as the image quality concern.

Are there any differences between them, yes I am sure.  But just for image quality, it may not matter too much for most of the photographers.   I wish Sony continue to wow the market with their full frame cameras.  If they have a full frame camera with decent performance can cost around $1500 new, I may consider switch to Sony.  Or at least take a closer look.

For what I do, I do not need 10fps (6fps is good enough for me now).  Lens wise, I just need few decent primes with a good standard zoom lens and a good telephotos lens.  If cost is a concern, some of the Tamron and Sigma lens are not bad at all, prime or zooms.


My Canon 40D is old when it compare to other newer cameras.  But I did not find it has bad image quality.  I even saw a lot of great photos coming out from 20D, 30D or Nikon D50 or 70s.  And yes, in certain situation, to have a camera with better ISO performance is nice, but I do not think it is deal breaker if a camera do not perform as good as others in that area.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 21, 2011)

Sorry Skieur, but are you honestly saying the A77 is a good high ISO camera? You make alot of valid points in your post and I agree with you and think the gap is closing so don't think this is a blast at you, it really is not!

My only beef is using the A77 as an example of a good High ISO camera. The A77 has absolutely ghastly High ISO. DP Review slammed this camera for its HIGH ISO noise performance, it really is not a camera I would spend 20 pennies on, it has other things going for it but its another typical case of Sony being the company who sells style over substance (the main reason I try to avoid Sony products if I can).

You would be better off mentioning the D7000 in comparison to these cameras in my humble opinion.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 21, 2011)

KmH said:


> A magnesium metal chassis is mostly about heat dissipation, and the blocking of electromagnetic interference.
> 
> The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.



if you actually read his post!!!! MJ Howard was stating how in 'PERFECT' conditions an Iphone can produce a decent photo that matches other cameras... He has a valid point here! But as we all know, conditions are not always 'PERFECT' for taking photographs so the iphone suffers badly in anything but perfect conditions.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 21, 2011)

I think the Sony A77's best pro camera feature is how the Live View viewfinder image cuts out at 8 FPS, and does not allow the user to keep up with moving subjects...or maybe it is how the A77's autofocus system cannot keep up with the shutter...and is routinely out-done by the conventional Canon 7D, with its flapping mirror...

The image performance as described by dPreview is one of the camera's weaker areas.Sony SLT-A77 Review: 26. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review As dPreview states: "Very noisy RAW files at high ISO settings." 

As well as ,"we're not very impressed by the A77's pixel level image quality at ISO 3200 and above compared to its competitors." 

And, "as far as image quality is concerned, the A77 is a camera with a split personality." 

As well as, "...we're unhappy with the mushy JPEG rendering in all but the most favorable conditions, and very disappointed by intense noise toward the top of the A77's ISO sensitivity scale."

And there is also:"...the A77 is unequivocally noisier than its competitors both in terms of measured and visible noise." and "...we're disappointed by the mushiness of its JPEGS in everyday shooting,"

Once again, I say, "Ehhh."


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's too bad the Sony A-850 has been discontinued. A full-frame size sensor, and the huge viewfinder image, and the impeccable traditional layout were really impressive, and the price of under $2,000 for a full-frame was market-leading.Sony Alpha DSLR- A850 Full Frame Digital SLR Camera DSLRA850 B&HThe A77 is NOT impressive to me...read the dPreview review...cramming 24.6 MP into a crop-sensor leaves the image performance severely lacking, and far below that of a FF camera...and the high frame rates are nice and all, but the autofocus system cannot even begin to keep up...and the image through the viewfinder is so dim that in-studio use under modeling lights is severely impaired. Sorry, but the Sony A77 is in NO WAY a "professional" camera...it has some serious,serious fundamental flaws as a "machine", and would make a disastrous choice for somebody looking for a real "professional camera".If you put the photos from the A77 side by side with those from a Nikon or Canon 12 megapixel camera (meaning 5D original, Nikon D3, D3s, or D700), you can see that the camera's JPEG images are soft, and the sensor is very noisy, and the image quality is strictly not up to snuff, at ANY of the higher ISO values...and the camera has NO LIVE VIEW in 8- or 12 frames per second mode, so panning and following motion is basically damned near impossible...the RAW files are noisy at high ISO...in all, the Sony A77 is not a very good professional-level instrument. The Sony A77 has some very serious shortcomings in image quality, ISO range, lack of viewfinder at high FPS!! (Good Gawd, that's a serious problem!), and poor viewfinder image under lower-light levels.I honestly have no idea why you are calling this a "professional camera", when it is clearly not up to the BASIC level of functionality for a pro camera...it's high-end gadget freak consumer all the way....small sensor, bad finder under anything but bright light, poor sensor performance at high ISOs, strong noise reduction, poor control over degree of noise reduction, an AF system that cannot keep up with the shutter, and no real-time viewing at 8 fps or 12 fps...and SOOC JPEG Images that are severely lacking in detail...Sony SLT-A77 Review: 26. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review"Ehhh..."
> ...


 The photosites on all of Canon's pro cameras are larger than that of the A77 (can't speak for Nikon). Even the 1D's 1.3x crop APS-H sensor has larger sites. This means that the camera can...well...take in more light information. I don't know the technics of it, all I know is that the larger the sensor, the larger the photosites, which equals better ISO. I also know that less MP (nowadays anyways) translates into better image quality in large sensors when compared to high megapixel APS-C, because there are less photosites, but the photosites that are there are far apart and larger, allowing for better quality. (I think I have this right. Someone elaborate if I'm wrong. lol)


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

That is true, but larger images also mean more reduction at any given print size, and no no matter what as you approach these absurd ISOs you're going to get noisy results to the extent I am not sure it matters much if there is more grain in one camera than the other at ISO 2.3 billion.

In fact, while the NEX 7 does have more noise than the lower pixel count NEX 5, the NEX 7 does perform fairly well when compared to the SLT series. I think the biggest problem with these is that some of the light is being diverted away from the sensor at time of exposure resulting in lower signal.

---

Honestly, though, I think that us small-fry photographers get a little overly enthusiastic about 35mm frame-sized sensors and that older model medium format sensors will easily out-perform current full frame systems at a similar price range. Perhaps you won't have ISOs at above 16k (or lower), but unless you're a press photographer - who cares?


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

I am honestly saying that the A77 is the same at high ISOs as the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III.  If you don't believe it, check out the photo I mentioned in the link.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.
> ...



No, it wasn't. To quote you "You can put an iPhone 4S photo up against those same bodies and even then you _may_ not be able to tell the difference."  I pointed out the difference so my point was made, not yours.


skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

unpopular said:


> That is true, but larger images also mean more reduction at any given print size, and no no matter what as you approach these absurd ISOs you're going to get noisy results to the extent I am not sure it matters much if there is more grain in one camera than the other at ISO 2.3 billion.
> 
> ---
> 
> Honestly, though, I think that us small-fry photographers get a little overly enthusiastic about 35mm frame-sized sensors and that older model medium format sensors will easily out-perform current full frame systems at a similar price range. Perhaps you won't have ISOs at above 16k (or lower), but unless you're a press photographer - who cares?



Medium format certainly outperforms in some areas but Hasselblad and the others do not handle high ISOs very well and require lots of studio light for indoor work.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 21, 2011)

Looking at these shots @ ISO 6400... the 5D Mark II is clearly the winner in the mannequin picture over the A77. But in the house picture, The 5D mark II is ultra blurry making it a crap picture. The D7000 house picture is at a different angle and at a different time of day(year?) That site is terrible.


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> Sorry Skieur, but are you honestly saying the A77 is a good high ISO camera? You make alot of valid points in your post and I agree with you and think the gap is closing so don't think this is a blast at you, it really is not!
> 
> My only beef is using the A77 as an example of a good High ISO camera. The A77 has absolutely ghastly High ISO. DP Review slammed this camera for its HIGH ISO noise performance, it really is not a camera I would spend 20 pennies on, it has other things going for it but its another typical case of Sony being the company who sells style over substance (the main reason I try to avoid Sony products if I can).
> 
> You would be better off mentioning the D7000 in comparison to these cameras in my humble opinion.



Well, if the A77 has ghastly high ISO, then so does the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III, since side by side the images look very similar in sharpness, quality etc.

skieur


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 21, 2011)

KmH said:


> The insertion of the iPhone camera into a discussion of pro grade DSLR cameras is a canard, and a useless canard at that.



Aren't canards more or less useless by definition? :scratch: 

I just haven't came across anyone with an unfounded statement that was actually useful.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Skieur, but are you honestly saying the A77 is a good high ISO camera? You make alot of valid points in your post and I agree with you and think the gap is closing so don't think this is a blast at you, it really is not!
> ...



Yeah, that's because who ever shot these pictures are awful or rushed through the process.


----------



## Destin (Dec 21, 2011)

Why are we inserting the D3x into a high iso comparison, when it only goes natively to 1600? The D3s is Nikon's TRUE top end pro body, even though it's less expensive, it's the better all around performer. The D3x is only good in the studio.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

because who would ever use ISO 200 outside?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > That is true, but larger images also mean more reduction at any given print size, and no no matter what as you approach these absurd ISOs you're going to get noisy results to the extent I am not sure it matters much if there is more grain in one camera than the other at ISO 2.3 billion.
> ...



For a long time we did just fine with ISO 400 film, you know. I think this absurd ISO stuff is really a non-issue. While digital may outperform film in terms of SNR per square unit, very high ISOs still result in noise. It's a matter of if it looks crappy or more crappy.


----------



## usayit (Dec 21, 2011)

Keep the technology rat race going....  How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



Excuses!  It sounds like your BIAS is showing.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



I tend to agree. I avoid using any camera past ISO 800.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

usayit said:


> Keep the technology rat race going.... How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?



It also keeps the prices competitive and adds new features to the cameras.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



How can I be biased about ALL of the cameras? And I find it funny that you call legitimate issues with the shots excuses. Last time I checked, a comparison has only 1 variable, the camera. Not the time of day, height, angle, etc etc etc. If you can't admit the fact that these are half assed examples, you would be the one making biased excuses.

Furthermore, the examples at high ISOs contradict your argument. The image looks posterized @ 1600 and higher.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 21, 2011)

usayit said:


> Keep the technology rat race going.... How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?


:thumbup:  Yep...  an F5 in mint condition for ~$300, Mamiya 645 AFD kit for $1500????  More please!


----------



## Derrel (Dec 21, 2011)

I looked at the sample images comparing the A77 and the Canon 5D-II...at higher ISO values, the crop-sensor looks worse. In terms of "canard", one meaning of which is falsehood or "lie"--Sony's A77 and its 8- and 12 fps- frame rates are a canard...a Live View finder image that cannot keep up with the camera being moved AND an AF system that can not keep up with slower-firing conventional cameras with those awful flapping mirrors...

I think the average Sony A77 pro-sumer buyer thinks he or she is going to be able to shoot high-speed action at 8- to 12-Frames Per Second...BUT I doubt those buyers realize that the viewfinder image will not keep up with a moving subject, and the AF will penalize the user whenever he or she manages to luck into the subject while shooting blind...to me, that is a "canard".


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



OK, so explain how these shots taken under "controlled conditions" as indicated are all "awful or rushed through the process".....whatever you mean by process. That seems to me to be just a biased opinion of the testing as in, they are all awful because they contradict your views.

These supposed "half-assed examples" according to you are done with all the cameras, so if your "favourite camera" does not show up better than any other than the problem is your camera.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

tirediron said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Keep the technology rat race going.... How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?
> ...



First let me say that for studio work, I would use a medium format camera and if you can make a profit using a Mamiya 645 AFD kit then all power to you. Film cameras however are going the way of the DODO bird so I would make the jump to medium format digital or with a digital back with a good sense of timing. (For those that are considering used medium format film cameras)

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I looked at the sample images comparing the A77 and the Canon 5D-II...at higher ISO values, the crop-sensor looks worse. In terms of "canard", one meaning of which is falsehood or "lie"--Sony's A77 and its 8- and 12 fps- frame rates are a canard...a Live View finder image that cannot keep up with the camera being moved AND an AF system that can not keep up with slower-firing conventional cameras with those awful flapping mirrors...
> 
> I think the average Sony A77 pro-sumer buyer thinks he or she is going to be able to shoot high-speed action at 8- to 12-Frames Per Second...BUT I doubt those buyers realize that the viewfinder image will not keep up with a moving subject, and the AF will penalize the user whenever he or she manages to luck into the subject while shooting blind...to me, that is a "canard".



Well, at the very beginning we were talking about the Canon IDS Mark III and at higher crop values the images do NOT look worse for the A77 vs this camera.  Explain where I am supposedly wrong here.  The viewfinder for the A77 is apparently according to tests less than 1/10 sec behind on continuous shooting at 24 megapixels.  So tell me, Derrel which camera has a better 12fps viewfinder.  The AF system in phase detection does keep up to both movie and still shots at high speed.

As far as the "average Sony A77 pro-sumer", it depends on what he shoots.  For the journalist or public relations shooter 5fps is fine for the job.  Most wedding photographers do not require more than 5 fps either.  Twilight mode, sweep panorama, and in camera HDR will also add to the repertoire to many creative wedding photographers.

So, even in sports photography I can work with 1/10 of a second lag in the viewfinder considering the 24 megapixel resolution and I can always sweep the camera and produce a panorama stitch shot as an alternative.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Dec 21, 2011)

In sports photography a 1/10 second lag is HUGE. Positively HUGE. Unworkably long and slow...

You obviously are not familiar with how shooting sports actually happens in the real world.

A viewfinder that lags behind the subject by 1/10 of a second is a joke.


----------



## skieur (Dec 21, 2011)

Derrel said:


> camera has NO LIVE VIEW in 8- or 12 frames per second mode, so panning and following motion is basically damned near impossible..."Ehhh..."



Sure it does.  In 12 frames per second mode, live view is less than 1/10 of a second behind, which is not much and has no comparison with any camera in its price range.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Instead of assuming, look for yourself. I don't have a "favorite" camera. I'm not 10 years old. Especially since you can see that I own a Nikon and defended the Canon. Brand loyalty is for sheep. Look at the 5D Mark II picture of the house side by side with the A77 picture of the house.The cameras are about 15 ft away from eachother, at different heights, and different times of day(possibly year). You call these controlled?


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> OK, so explain how these shots taken under "controlled conditions" as indicated are all "awful or rushed through the process".....whatever you mean by process. That seems to me to be just a biased opinion of the testing as in, they are all awful because they contradict your views.
> 
> These supposed "half-assed examples" according to you are done with all the cameras, so if your "favourite camera" does not show up better than any other than the problem is your camera.
> 
> skieur



I'm sorry but after reading all of your responses to your own, biased, thread... I can only conclude that you are thick headed.  I've already pointed out the fact that all of these 'controlled' 'tests' were done so with different lenses!  Hopefully you understand the implications of that.  The comparisons are completely invalid! 

If for some reason you still find validation in the results provided by the link you provided, the ONLY comparison from that site I even bothered to look at, the D7000 and the A77, showed results of the 'Still-Life ISO1600' and higher shots (the only comparisons I bothered looking at) favoring the D7000 over the A77.  If the A77 is 'better' than the other camera bodies as you mentioned, then the D7000 MUST be better than the D3x and everyone knows this is true!


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 21, 2011)

Skieur, I would not use the A77 for wedding photography, and here's why: 

The images are noisy as **** at ISO 1600 compared to the 5D2, and the EVF is not comparable to an OVF in low light.


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm not sure it is ever truly possible to do a controlled realistic comparison test.  In print magazines or online it's not possible to show photos in their native size and resolution.  The best that anyone can do is to show it at 100%, which will of course show the noise in all it's...umm 'glory'.  Even the files I have from my 645D will show noise at high ISO's when I look at 100% (it only goes to 1600 and handles noise better than a hassleblad, but then the hassie is predominantly a studio camera whereas the Pentax is aimed mainly at landscape).  No-one seriously looks at photos at 100% unless they are pixelpeeping and when you look at a printed picture you generally don't look at it at 100%.  

Comparing Nikon, Canon and Sony's efforts re noise to Hassleblad is not a valid comparison.  The Hassie is a studio camera so Hasselblad wouldn't have seen high ISO as a priority.  

Skieur, you say that the features such as in camera HDR and sweep panorama would be useful to wedding photographers.  I would NEVER hire a wedding photographer who used these 'features' which are fairly gimmicky and are definitely not aimed at pro photographers.  They are for the so-called facebook photographers only.  These in-camera features will be in jpeg only with little or no control over compression rates and other important areas.  No serious professional photographer would use these consumer effects.  They would shoot in raw and stitch a panorama.  I would never leave my camera do this for me when you have people in the frame too as it is asking for all sorts of problems like distortion and chopping people's arms off in the photo.  The photographer that shot my wedding 8 years ago did a panoramic which he shot in raw and stitched and was all shot handheld on a gloomy day, and that was the shot we had framed.  

The Sony is definitely not a pro camera.  Sony doesn't pitch it that way.  The closest thing was the Alpha 900 which was a good camera with some great Zeiss glass available for it. I had that camera with the Zeiss 24-70 and it was superb: I lent it to my brother in law and it was stolen in a break in.  That was the closest thing that Sony have come to having a pro camera.  It looks sadly like they have given up on the pro market, which is a pity as some of their glass like the 70 - 200 G and the 16-35 and 24-70 CZ lenses are great glass.


----------



## BlairWright (Dec 22, 2011)

Destin said:


> Why are we inserting the D3x into a high iso comparison, when it only goes natively to 1600? The D3s is Nikon's TRUE top end pro body, even though it's less expensive, it's the better all around performer. The D3x is only good in the studio.



Well he is asserting that the A77 is a pro camera.. already reaching quite a bit here

I can't believe I read 3 pages of this thread.


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> In sports photography a 1/10 second lag is HUGE. Positively HUGE. Unworkably long and slow...
> 
> You obviously are not familiar with how shooting sports actually happens in the real world.
> 
> A viewfinder that lags behind the subject by 1/10 of a second is a joke.



Well, since neither the Canon 1DS Mark III and the Nikon D3S cannot come close to this speed in full resolution, it is hardly a joke, unless the joke is on the slower Nikon and Canon cameras mentioned.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Skieur, I would not use the A77 for wedding photography, and here's why:
> 
> The images are noisy as **** at ISO 1600 compared to the 5D2, and the EVF is not comparable to an OVF in low light.



If you look at the images side by side on the site I mentioned paying attention to the book she is reading and the wine glass nearby, both are sharper and more detailed in the A77 image and noise looks a slight bit worse on the Canon 5D 2.

This is not your standard EVF and it is better than the OVF in low light due to the OLED technology.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



I am looking at the photo of the girl in the green outfit.  There is more in that image..ie book, print, wine glass, texture etc and makes a more valid comparison shot for all cameras.

skieur


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > In sports photography a 1/10 second lag is HUGE. Positively HUGE. Unworkably long and slow...You obviously are not familiar with how shooting sports actually happens in the real world.A viewfinder that lags behind the subject by 1/10 of a second is a joke.
> ...


What's the point of the speed if you miss the shot or the focus?


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Skieur, I would not use the A77 for wedding photography, and here's why:
> ...



Yeah, the images may look less noisy on the A77, if you're either drunk or partially blind.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Haha and I'm the biased one. Ignore the example I just mentioned because it's detrimental to your case, and bring attention to another image. One non-credible image makes all images non-credible. And talking about high ISO, the A77 shows signs of posterization. No bueno. The comparison is better left up to your real world experience, not the experience of a website that can't take sharp pictures or use the same lenses.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> Tony S said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing.
> ...




Yet it is not proven in the studio, the A55 is a dog in the studio A77 could be as bad


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > In sports photography a 1/10 second lag is HUGE. Positively HUGE. Unworkably long and slow...
> ...



This is probably why the other cameras you mention employ an OPTICAL view finder... zero lag.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2011)

I think that I understand where you were going with this thread, skieur. Sony's "top" camera is now the A77, fixed-mirror, crop-sensor camera, with Sony's newest 24.6 megapixel sensor in it. However, I do not really think that Sony's top model camera automatically qualifies it as a "pro camera". To me, the term "pro camera" has always meant a "flagship-level" camera, ie, the BEST-possible technology and construction, and reliability and ruggedness, that the camera's maker can muster. So, over the past decades, that would encompass cameras like the Nikon F and F2, Nikon F3,F4,and F5, and the Canon F1 and F1-n, then the EOS-1, and then in modern times the Nikon 1-digit series cameras, and the Canon 1-digit series of bodies.

Of course, over the past decades there have been high-end AMATEUR-oriented camera models that have found widespread professional use. Nikon's FM- and FE- series camera models were a great example of "high-end amateur" cameras that were used by tens of thousands of professionals for many years. Same with the later N90,N90s,and F100 film cameras. 

While the Canon 5D and 5D-II have found wide acceptance among wedding and social photographers...these are not really "professional cameras" in the "flagship" sense of the word--they are in fact, really quite stripped-down, very BASIC cameras, lacking in many features found in lower-cost cameras from multiple makers. However, if the term professional camera simply means "in use by quite a few professional photographers," then the Canon 5D and 5D-II, as well as the Nikon D700, and D300 and D300s would also qualify as "professional cameras." Sony however, does not have much in the way of professional acceptance or use...their user base is new,and in part some of Minolta's old user base, and is for the most part I think, amateurs and people who are just entering into the d-slr market. If your intent was to lump the A77 into the "professional camera" segment, it would ONLY be based upon the megapixel count of the camera, because it does not have a wide professional photographer user base like the Canon 5D series has, or the Nikon cameras have. Sony's efforts in the A900 and A850 models, full-frame, simple, great design, good viewfinders, low-tech bodies (no live view, no video) fell FLAT, and now Sony has regrouped and is trying to push fixed-mirror cameras onto consumers. They are trying to convince people that their new technology is an "advantage", and one worth paying for. I simply do not think that bearing the highest-ranking model number makes the Sony A77 a "professional camera".


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Now, you are getting silly! This thread is about the 3 cameras I mentioned at the beginning as well as for consistency the photos of the girl and other items in that scene at different ISOs on the website for the reasons I have mentioned.  What posterization?  Where?   And you are still blaming the web site for results that you are not happy with.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 22, 2011)

^^ there are rumors of a new full frame body to be released by sony. sony has never made a crop sensor pro body, and given Sony's lack of success in the pro market, I am not 100% sure if this is the direction sony is going to be taking.

I think though that if Sony focuses it's efforts on the NEX series rather than the SLT, it may be able to create an interesting market for high-end, feature-rich bodies which appeal to enthusiests, even if the pro market is elsewhere; there is something very Contax-like about the NEX-7's market.


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


What does cloud cuckoo land look like? The 77 isn't a professional camera. You're not going to see pros using it. It doesn't have the capability.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



The posterization he was referring to was in the A77 shot at ISO 1600. Along with all the chroma noise. Still drinking? Or do you not have your glasses on?


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 22, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Spot on.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 22, 2011)

I'm looking at the 5D Mark II vs A77 @ ISO 6400 on the mannequin picture. And if you really believe that the A77 is on par @ high ISO's... you aren't just biased, you're in denial. 
Do you own an A77?


----------



## gsgary (Dec 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I think that I understand where you were going with this thread, skieur. Sony's "top" camera is now the A77, fixed-mirror, crop-sensor camera, with Sony's newest 24.6 megapixel sensor in it. However, I do not really think that Sony's top model camera automatically qualifies it as a "pro camera". To me, the term "pro camera" has always meant a "flagship-level" camera, ie, the BEST-possible technology and construction, and reliability and ruggedness, that the camera's maker can muster. So, over the past decades, that would encompass cameras like the Nikon F and F2, Nikon F3,F4,and F5, and the Canon F1 and F1-n, then the EOS-1, and then in modern times the Nikon 1-digit series cameras, and the Canon 1-digit series of bodies.
> 
> Of course, over the past decades there have been high-end AMATEUR-oriented camera models that have found widespread professional use. Nikon's FM- and FE- series camera models were a great example of "high-end amateur" cameras that were used by tens of thousands of professionals for many years. Same with the later N90,N90s,and F100 film cameras.
> 
> While the Canon 5D and 5D-II have found wide acceptance among wedding and social photographers...these are not really "professional cameras" in the "flagship" sense of the word--they are in fact, really quite stripped-down, very BASIC cameras, lacking in many features found in lower-cost cameras from multiple makers. However, if the term professional camera simply means "in use by quite a few professional photographers," then the Canon 5D and 5D-II, as well as the Nikon D700, and D300 and D300s would also qualify as "professional cameras." Sony however, does not have much in the way of professional acceptance or use...their user base is new,and in part some of Minolta's old user base, and is for the most part I think, amateurs and people who are just entering into the d-slr market. If your intent was to lump the A77 into the "professional camera" segment, it would ONLY be based upon the megapixel count of the camera, because it does not have a wide professional photographer user base like the Canon 5D series has, or the Nikon cameras have. Sony's efforts in the A900 and A850 models, full-frame, simple, great design, good viewfinders, low-tech bodies (no live view, no video) fell FLAT, and now Sony has regrouped and is trying to push fixed-mirror cameras onto consumers. They are trying to convince people that their new technology is an "advantage", and one worth paying for. I simply do not think that bearing the highest-ranking model number makes the Sony A77 a "professional camera".




Top cameras are A850 A900 which are both full frame


----------



## unpopular (Dec 22, 2011)

and both discontinued, iirc


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2011)

gsgary said:
			
		

> Top cameras are A850 A900 which are both full frame



And both have been officially discontinued. The A900 was officially dropped in the spring of May,2010. The A850 is discontinued. Great specifications, and a really LOW price for a full-frame 24mmx36mm sensor d-slr, but simply not enough sales to keep the camera viable...

Sony a850 is now discontinued | Photo Rumors


----------



## unpopular (Dec 22, 2011)

Works for me. These bodies will only get cheaper now. By all account the a900 is a beast of a machine.


----------



## jake337 (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> I am honestly saying that the A77 is the same at high ISOs as the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III. If you don't believe it, check out the photo I mentioned in the link.
> 
> skieur



So they are the same in a single photo......


----------



## gsgary (Dec 22, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Works for me. These bodies will only get cheaper now. By all account the a900 is a beast of a machine.



I used one at a UK show and really liked it


----------



## jake337 (Dec 22, 2011)

unpopular said:


> because who would ever use ISO 200 outside?



Or with any type of lighting system....


----------



## unpopular (Dec 22, 2011)

Am I the only one here that thinks this is the stupidest thread in all the internetz?


----------



## jake337 (Dec 22, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Am I the only one here that thinks this is the stupidest thread in all the internetz?



No you aren't, it is enjoyable at times....


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Yes zero lag but at 5 fps or slower and NOT at 12 frames per second at full resolution.

skieur


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...




You don't get it do you. If I wanted 12 fps I would want each of those fps to be in focus and to catch the shot. No pro is going to use the A77 on a fee paying gig. It's not all about resolution, it's about more than that. I'd bet that the D3s would get a far better shot than any A77. Why? because if the 'tog needs an ultra fast shooting speed, they can rely on a higher ISO to still produce saleable goods. If a photographer can rely on an ISO of say 800 being able to get good results on a professional level, then he will get more shots per second than a tog needing to use a slower shooting speed because a lower ISO is required to get same quality. If a shooter has to use ISO 200 to get the same quality, then his shooting speed will be 4 x slower than the 800 speed, if I have got my maths right. He is then unlikely to get very close to 12 fps at all. The A77 is only 12 fps on paper.  That's pretty meaningless in the real world.  It's not about how many frames per second for professionals but about how many *useable* frames. Very few professional sports togs need 24mp. 12 will be more than ample, and I'm not a Nikon fan. Before I shot with MF digital I was on Canon. The A77 will never win a battle against any good nikon on the ISO stakes. Simples


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I think that I understand where you were going with this thread, skieur. Sony's "top" camera is now the A77, fixed-mirror, crop-sensor camera, with Sony's newest 24.6 megapixel sensor in it. However, I do not really think that Sony's top model camera automatically qualifies it as a "pro camera". To me, the term "pro camera" has always meant a "flagship-level" camera, ie, the BEST-possible technology and construction, and reliability and ruggedness, that the camera's maker can muster. So, over the past decades, that would encompass cameras like the Nikon F and F2, Nikon F3,F4,and F5, and the Canon F1 and F1-n, then the EOS-1, and then in modern times the Nikon 1-digit series cameras, and the Canon 1-digit series of bodies.
> 
> Of course, over the past decades there have been high-end AMATEUR-oriented camera models that have found widespread professional use. Nikon's FM- and FE- series camera models were a great example of "high-end amateur" cameras that were used by tens of thousands of professionals for many years. Same with the later N90,N90s,and F100 film cameras.
> 
> While the Canon 5D and 5D-II have found wide acceptance among wedding and social photographers...these are not really "professional cameras" in the "flagship" sense of the word--they are in fact, really quite stripped-down, very BASIC cameras, lacking in many features found in lower-cost cameras from multiple makers. However, if the term professional camera simply means "in use by quite a few professional photographers," then the Canon 5D and 5D-II, as well as the Nikon D700, and D300 and D300s would also qualify as "professional cameras." Sony however, does not have much in the way of professional acceptance or use...their user base is new,and in part some of Minolta's old user base, and is for the most part I think, amateurs and people who are just entering into the d-slr market. If your intent was to lump the A77 into the "professional camera" segment, it would ONLY be based upon the megapixel count of the camera, because it does not have a wide professional photographer user base like the Canon 5D series has, or the Nikon cameras have. Sony's efforts in the A900 and A850 models, full-frame, simple, great design, good viewfinders, low-tech bodies (no live view, no video) fell FLAT, and now Sony has regrouped and is trying to push fixed-mirror cameras onto consumers. They are trying to convince people that their new technology is an "advantage", and one worth paying for. I simply do not think that bearing the highest-ranking model number makes the Sony A77 a "professional camera".



Boy, your definition of pro camera is rather limited by your examples, even over the past decades.  The Minolta XK was the best technology, construction, reliability and ruggedness in its time and it was "flagship-level".  It even had interchangeable focus screens.  You forgot the Leica R4 and M series rangefinders that fit that definition as well.  The Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses was also a pro camera.

Even your view of high end amateur cameras over past decades is biased toward Nikon. The Minolta XD11 was one of the best designed and robust cameras of its time too.  I used 2 of them continually and professionally at one point, even more than the Nikons that I also had at my disposal.  They were great cameras for journalistic and public relations action shooting.

As to professional use, you are engaging in broad generalizations.  Even the pros on this forum, and I use the term loosely, are using everything from basic Canon cameras with kit lenses through to Red Epic with medium and large format digital modules or those who favour the Hasselblad or Leica S2.

As to where I am coming from or going, it is simple.  Canon, Nikon, and Sony are one,two and three in terms of DSLR cameras according to Popular Photography and other sources.  The Canon IDS Mark III, Nikon D3X and the Sony A77 are the most expensive cameras in their respective lines at 21 and 24 megapixels.  Looking at the specifications side by side, they are well matched, in that some pluses on the side of one camera are matched by different pluses on the side of the other camera(s).  In looking at the photos side by side, picture quality and noise is similar. None of these are great at very high ISOs.
Nikon and Sony are closer together in quality with warmer colours than the Canon that has less sharpness and resolution.  This is looking at the photo of the girl in green...specifically at the text on the book she is holding and on the wine glass to the right in the image on the web site I mentioned.  Side by side photos is the only way to compare but lets keep this thread to the models I started out with and to the photos we are comparing.

skieur


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> As to where I am coming from or going, it is simple.  Canon, Nikon, and Sony are one,two and three in terms of DSLR cameras according to Popular Photography and other sources.
> 
> skieur



Is Popular Photography really a reputable source to be quoting? Even  back in the 80's... the mag was so advertising ridden, that many reviews  seemed biased. Really curious about opinions on this!


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2011)

thereyougo! said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



What I get is that you are not reading. The A77 has a better and faster phase shift autofocus then any other DSLR according to the reviews 
that I read. You are saying that the D3x would get a far better shot but you have NOT defined what a "far better shot is" if resolution is NOT part of the picture.  Looking at the images side by side the D3X at 1600 ISO was NO better than the A77 at 1600 ISO, so your argument loses ground.  So, if you have to go down in ISO on the A77 to get pro quality then you MUST go down equally low on the Nikon D3X, so your argument goes nowhere here either.

As to whether pros need 24meg resolution it depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting products or anything with text in various parts of the image, then yes I do need and want high resolution.  I would certainly not shoot electronic equipment for example in lower res.

As to frames per second speed, Derrel started things down that road.  It does add features to the Sony that use this speed that are not available on the other cameras.

skieur


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Since when do you need 12fps to do product shooting?

Methinks you are just a Sony fanboi talking nonsense.  The Sony A77 is an enthusiast's camera at most.  Most product shoots where resolution is important are done in studio, and they are NOT done with Sony A900 let alone with A77.  They would be done with MF with Hassies or Phase Ones.


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 22, 2011)

It's official, skieur is delusional


----------



## Derrel (Dec 22, 2011)

Your reading comprehension is kind of poor skieur. I listed the "best": camera a manufacturer can make, ie, its flagship, as being what I consider a "pro" camera. Minolta is a dead company,defunct company. the leica flex line of cameras never was very complete, nor very well-accepted,and has been killed off, also dead. The "Contax" was a Kyocera/Yashica resurrection of a famous German brand, with imitation "Zeiss" lenses...once again, lots of "sizzle" but very,very,very little "sizzzle".

You listed The Minolta XK as " best technology, construction, reliability and ruggedness in its time and it was "flagship-level". It even had interchangeable focus screens."
--Funny thing though, I have never seen a SINGLE ONE in actual use--not one, single Minolta XK, and I hung out with aspiring photojournalists and art photography students...Nikon was #1, Canon was #2, and Olympus was #3,with the OM-1 system. As far as the "best technology", the XK is a laughable camera of choice--the Olympus OM series and had TTL flash before Minolta did. Minolta's XK line was a statement camera, but it was an abject failure. It was Minolta's pro camera, for sure. And yet, I never, EVER have seen a single one in actual use...not in 35+ years...As far as the Minolkta XK having the best ruggedness an reliability...pretty much theoretical, in that pretty much zero pros ever proved they were rugged cameras...their toughest assignments were found on the pages of Popular Photography magazine, in the Minolta advertisement ad copy.

Minolta's XD-11???? Are you serious??? Canon's A-1 multi-mode was more-advanced. Pentax's Super Program was equally advanced. The Canon however, was a poor seller,and despite its tremendous advances in design, always sold poorly, and was discontinued after small numbers were made. Pentax's LX was MORE-advanced and better made than anything MInolta ever made, and YET, it too was a total,total FLOP. I have only seen ONE, in over 30 years of shooting. ONE LX, in the real world...Nikon F bodies? HUNDREDS. Canon bodies? HUNDREDS.

You forgot the Leica R4 and M series rangefinders that fit that definition as well. The Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses was also a pro camera.

No I did not "forget them"....I mentioned a manufacturer's best possible camera as being their "flagship"...I think your long-term love for Minolta/Sony is showing here...the Leica held sway for a long time as a small 35mm camera, but as soon as the Nikon system came into being, Leica found itself outmoded within a decade. The Leica rangefinder is a good camera with about four lens lengths, but the framing is poor for lenses longer than about 90mm...nearly useless for longer lenses like 135 to 300...Leica R-series...stepchildren of the Leica family, not well-liked by many, discontinued about four years ago...no sales...no user base...outmoded design...Contax RTS with YASHICA-made (Kyocera 'Zeiss') lenses....yeah, I owned one in 1980-81...it was a very poorly-conceived system.

Even your view of high end amateur cameras over past decades is biased toward Nikon. The Minolta XD11 was one of the best designed and robust cameras of its time too. I used 2 of them continually and professionally at one point, even more than the Nikons that I also had at my disposal. They were great cameras for journalistic and public relations action shooting.

**Hilarious...Let's see...Minolta as a camera maker--DEAD. Out of business. Contax as a camera brand--DEAD....discontinued. Leicaflex as a camera brand--DEAD...discontinued. Olympus as a camera brand--currently, as of yesterdaym, being raided by the Japanese federal government for financial misdealings extending back to the 1980's, and pretty much one of the worst camera makers in terms of offerings. Pentax as a camera makwer--hmmm....passed over by HOYA, and now sold to Ricoh....Miranda as a camera maker--dead. Petri-dead. Mamiya/Sekor as a 35mm camera maker--DEADR. Rolleiflex as a 35mm camera maker=DEAD. As I said, Nikon and CANON, THRIVING....My "bias" is toward cameras that actually made it out of the showrooms and the magazines...Minolta fell on its face multiple times and never could gain acceptance as a pro camera...the brand is DEAD.

Whose bias are we talking about here, really??? Is Elvis still alive???

Sony professional cameras...blah,blah,blah...


----------



## Destin (Dec 22, 2011)

skieur said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...




I'll repeat: THE D3X IS NOT A SPORTS CAMERA. IT IS MEANT TO LIVE IN A STUDIO AND WORK AT LOW ISO'S IN PERFECT LIGHTING CONDITIONS. Using it in a comparison on high frame rate sports photography is asinine. 

Let's compare the a77's AF and iso performance the the real competitor for this type of shooting, the D3s, and see how it holds up. It won't hold a candle to the Nikon, period.


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

Interesting how complicated Live View is to use on the Nikon D3x versus how easy it is to use on the Sony A77






skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 23, 2011)

skieur said:


> Interesting how complicated Live View is to use on the Nikon D3x versus how easy it is to use on the Sony A77
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the D3x was released exactly 3 years ago, and the Sony was released a couple months ago. Better yet, lets compare the A77 to a nikon D100.

You are cherry picking your arguments and it's getting kind of sad now.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 23, 2011)

The nikon D4 is due out in a few months, I'll be sure to start a thread comparing the Nikon D4 to the Sony A77 since the A77 is comparable to all of these fancy professional cameras.


----------



## jake337 (Dec 23, 2011)

Destin said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...



Or better yet.  Compare it to the upcoming Nikon/Canon pro lineup since the are being released closer to the Sony A77 release date.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 23, 2011)

skieur said:


> Interesting how complicated Live View is to use on the Nikon D3x versus how easy it is to use on the Sony A77
> 
> _(video)
> _
> skieur


That was ridiculous.  I can't stand this fanboi crap any longer.  It's too much like watching a train wreck in slow motion while the passengers stare out the windows in horror at me.

Having read his threads, his responses in others' threads, and seen the photos he's posted, I can only conclude that he's nothing more than a poser, no matter what he claims his level of experience is.  I don't think I've seen a single thing he's posted that has any value at all.

Where's that ignore button...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 23, 2011)

Buckster said:


> That was ridiculous.  I can't stand this fanboi crap any longer.  It's too much like watching a train wreck in slow motion _[...]_



Is the train going in circles? Because this one is.


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

thereyougo! said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...



You are reading too fast again. I said 24 meg resolution for product shooting, not 12fps.  You were the one who said 12meg was ample enough for pros. I was just disagreeing with your resolution comment.  Now you are disagreeing with yourself and saying MF is needed for product work and I totally agee for top end shoots, but the only "12megapixel" camera I would ever consider  would be Epic Red but then the sensor is sooo big that it is beyond comparison to the quality of a 35mm format 12 megapixel camera.

As far as being a Sony fanboy, I got dragged into this by a Nikon fanboy.  My view is simply that none of the 3 cameras: Canon, Nikon, or Sony is drastically better or worse than any other in the list and for that matter all can be used effectively by pros.  Preference is just based on what you shoot and what camera weaknesses you can work around, since all cameras have them. If I did a lot of lab work I would lean to medium format and not use any of the above. I consider cameras consumable and in 3 years or less it is time for a new one, anyway.  Preparing a multimedia presentation from my photos and video to be seen by 1,000 important potential future customers requires a different level of equipment, accessories, time and attention to detail than shooting photos for a small size public relations folder to go out to a community.  The size of the final images alone is drastically different.  Perhaps my photographic concerns with cameras are not the same as yours for the simple reason that we do different shoots for different reasons.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2011)

The Sony A77 professional camera is not going to displace my iPhone 4 professional camera...the iPhone 4 is amazing...backside-illuminated sensor...instant uploading to Flickr, Facebook, e-mail, or my own FTP site and the newspaper's FTP site...address book...shoots Hi-definition 720P video...has over 500,000 applications available for it, plays music, has voice command control, GPS navigation assistance, Facebook mobile, a web browser, calculator,stopwatch,dual-time alarm clock,iSHRED guitar app,AND THE PICTURES LOOK JUST LIKE THE ONES OUT OF THE SONY A77!!!

I love my professional iPhone 4!!!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 23, 2011)

your mom is a fanboy.


----------



## usayit (Dec 23, 2011)

Hey... Leave Leica out of this...

Everyone knows that Leica Fanboys don't exist..


----------



## unpopular (Dec 23, 2011)

Contax 4eva!


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> The Sony A77 professional camera is not going to displace my iPhone 4 professional camera...the iPhone 4 is amazing...backside-illuminated sensor...instant uploading to Flickr, Facebook, e-mail, or my own FTP site and the newspaper's FTP site...address book...shoots Hi-definition 720P video...has over 500,000 applications available for it, plays music, has voice command control, GPS navigation assistance, Facebook mobile, a web browser, calculator,stopwatch,dual-time alarm clock,iSHRED guitar app,AND THE PICTURES LOOK JUST LIKE THE ONES OUT OF THE SONY A77!!!
> 
> I love my professional iPhone 4!!!


Dont forget that it has inbuilt HDR!


----------



## Crollo (Dec 23, 2011)

thereyougo! said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony A77 professional camera is not going to displace my iPhone 4 professional camera...the iPhone 4 is amazing...backside-illuminated sensor...instant uploading to Flickr, Facebook, e-mail, or my own FTP site and the newspaper's FTP site...address book...shoots Hi-definition 720P video...has over 500,000 applications available for it, plays music, has voice command control, GPS navigation assistance, Facebook mobile, a web browser, calculator,stopwatch,dual-time alarm clock,iSHRED guitar app,AND THE PICTURES LOOK JUST LIKE THE ONES OUT OF THE SONY A77!!!
> ...



_And_ built-in HDR!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 23, 2011)

but will it blend?


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Tony S said:
> ...


  The A77 is much better than the A55, but I would use medium format in a studio.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> The Sony A77 professional camera is not going to displace my iPhone 4 professional camera...the iPhone 4 is amazing...backside-illuminated sensor...instant uploading to Flickr, Facebook, e-mail, or my own FTP site and the newspaper's FTP site...address book...shoots Hi-definition 720P video...has over 500,000 applications available for it, plays music, has voice command control, GPS navigation assistance, Facebook mobile, a web browser, calculator,stopwatch,dual-time alarm clock,iSHRED guitar app,AND THE PICTURES LOOK JUST LIKE THE ONES OUT OF THE SONY A77!!!
> 
> I love my professional iPhone 4!!!



Then they must look like the ones out of your Nikons and the Canon IDS Mark III.  So perhaps you should replace your Nikon with an iPhone 4.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

usayit said:


> Hey... Leave Leica out of this...
> 
> Everyone knows that Leica Fanboys don't exist..



Sure, they do. Some are on this forum.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

unpopular said:


> your mom is a fanboy.



No. My mom is a fangirl for none of the 3 mentioned.

skieur


----------



## usayit (Dec 23, 2011)

skieur said:
			
		

> Sure, they do. Some are on this forum.
> 
> skieur



I was being facetious...  :er:


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I love my professional iPhone 4!!!



Somehow, I am not at all surprised.  I wondered what you were using.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2011)

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I love my professional iPhone 4!!!
> ...



I get a lot of people asking me, "So, you shoot the new Sony A77, right? I mean, your pics have that Sony "look"." When I tell them it's the iPhone 4, they just nod and say, "Wow, that iPhone is impressive!!!"


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

thereyougo! said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



If you miss the shot, it is your own fault.  The autofocus on the Sony is sufficiently fast that you will NOT miss the focus even in movie mode unlike other cameras.

skieu


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



 skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 23, 2011)

usayit said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I certainly hope so.  I was partially referring to myself, since I prefer Leica over some other cameras...

skieur


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 23, 2011)

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



hahaha, Thanks again Derrel for lightening the mood of a thread that has gone onto the point of completel EXHAUSTION! And I'm NOW lost as to what the thread was about in the first place. But it's managed to generate eight pages now! I even agreed with you Skieur, I liked the concept behind the original post. I think you had a valid point, I just don't know why you had to pick the Sony A77 as a comparison. Haha. 

But just to ask Skieur.. Did you really have to respond to all the people baiting you?? It would appear that you always have to have the last word????  And it would seem after 8 Pages you now are finally having the last word!


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 23, 2011)

Too much talk about "equipment" ... really, people do we have to go through this constantly ?

As Derrel pointed out ... without a program you can't tell one horse from another.
It is the image that counts, not what you take it with ... and you can take a great image with any device.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 23, 2011)

dxqcanada said:


> It is the image that counts, not what you take it with ... and you can take a great image with any device.



There it is!!! I was waiting for this.

...And the trap is set.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 23, 2011)

Your mom can make a great picture with any device.


----------



## skieur (Dec 24, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how complicated Live View is to use on the Nikon D3x versus how easy it is to use on the Sony A77
> ...


----------



## skieur (Dec 24, 2011)

dxqcanada said:


> Too much talk about "equipment" ... really, people do we have to go through this constantly ?
> 
> As Derrel pointed out ... without a program you can't tell one horse from another.
> It is the image that counts, not what you take it with ... and you can take a great image with any device.



But then Derrel contradicts himself when he talks about professional cameras and his limited definition.  Even Derrel does not agree that you can take a great image with any device despite his humour.  Neither do I.  A reasonable image under ideal conditions maybe, but certainly not a great image.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 24, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Your reading comprehension is kind of poor skieur. I listed the "best": camera a manufacturer can make, ie, its flagship, as being what I consider a "pro" camera. Minolta is a dead company,defunct company. the leica flex line of cameras never was very complete, nor very well-accepted,and has been killed off, also dead. The "Contax" was a Kyocera/Yashica resurrection of a famous German brand, with imitation "Zeiss" lenses...once again, lots of "sizzle" but very,very,very little "sizzzle".
> 
> You listed The Minolta XK as " best technology, construction, reliability and ruggedness in its time and it was "flagship-level". It even had interchangeable focus screens."
> --Funny thing though, I have never seen a SINGLE ONE in actual use--not one, single Minolta XK, and I hung out with aspiring photojournalists and art photography students...Nikon was #1, Canon was #2, and Olympus was #3,with the OM-1 system. As far as the "best technology", the XK is a laughable camera of choice--the Olympus OM series and had TTL flash before Minolta did. Minolta's XK line was a statement camera, but it was an abject failure. It was Minolta's pro camera, for sure. And yet, I never, EVER have seen a single one in actual use...not in 35+ years...As far as the Minolkta XK having the best ruggedness an reliability...pretty much theoretical, in that pretty much zero pros ever proved they were rugged cameras...their toughest assignments were found on the pages of Popular Photography magazine, in the Minolta advertisement ad copy.
> ...



Actually, you don't read your own posts.   Dead companies was NOT included in your original definition of a pro camera and it certainly has NOTHING to do with either the quality of the camera or the quality of the image produced.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 24, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Your mom can make a great picture with any device.



My mom was the top Canadian pro in nationwide photographic art competitions at one point and she used some of the top cameras from Derrel's dead companies.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 24, 2011)

That's because you're in Canada, and she was competing against the same six other photographers

(sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## Derrel (Dec 24, 2011)

Let's all sing Kumbaya and celebrate the great products that bore the name Leicaflex, Konica, Konica/Minolta,Minolta, Mamiya/Sekor, Petri, and Miranda!!! Okay...we're done with that. Whew, that was a long three seconds.

Canada...home of 25 million people spread out over half of a continent...where a tractor isn't just a tractor--it's also your kid's first car!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 24, 2011)

You forgot Koni-Omega!

Man those things were so cool.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 24, 2011)

Btw Derrel, you kinda took the Canada thing too far and made me look like an @$$.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 24, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Dec 24, 2011)

your mom isn't a valid comparison.


----------



## skieur (Dec 25, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


----------



## skieur (Dec 25, 2011)

unpopular said:


> your mom isn't a valid comparison.



You are the one that brought my mom into the discussion.  Doesn't fit your expectation, eh??

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Dec 25, 2011)

skieur said:
			
		

> Well, based on what you are saying and Derrel's definition the Nikon D3S is NOT a pro camera because it is NOT the best in current technology.
> 
> skieur



Hey, stop putting words in my mouth...the Nikon D3s is a flagship camera, and is a professional camera...it has the absolute BEST high-ISO image quality, and the absolute BEST high-ISO video capture capabilities of any d-slr on the market. Again, stop being a douche. You cannot read English well enough to even begin to understand a complex sentence, and you seem to have difficulty with the simpler sentences as well...the single-digit Nikon and Canon bodies are clearly "professional" cameras. Please, stop being a douche and trying to misrepresent my "definition". I mentioned the single-digit Nikon and Canon bodies SPECIFICALLY, as being "professional" cameras. Can you not read, Canuck???


----------



## skieur (Dec 25, 2011)

unpopular said:


> That's because you're in Canada, and she was competing against the same six other photographers
> 
> (sorry, couldn't resist)



Yah, but it is quality not quantity that counts.  (couldn't resist either)

skieur


----------



## Canuk (Dec 25, 2011)

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.

Hey Hey, don't lump me in with him, I'm Canuk. He's skieur, should not be confused. Haha.


----------



## usayit (Dec 25, 2011)

Wow...  you all still working post counts in this thread.

All i know is that most of the non-mainstream-media (small business owners) professionals I've run into are NOT shooting with the top level professional equipment.  In fact, most of us hobby shooters are better equipped.. in some cases far better equipped.  

They do just fine.   I think "professional" tag line is more of a marketing thing..


----------



## skieur (Dec 25, 2011)

usayit said:


> Wow... you all still working post counts in this thread.
> 
> All i know is that most of the non-mainstream-media (small business owners) professionals I've run into are NOT shooting with the top level professional equipment. In fact, most of us hobby shooters are better equipped.. in some cases far better equipped.
> 
> They do just fine. I think "professional" tag line is more of a marketing thing..



Good point!

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 25, 2011)

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not misrepresenting your definition whatsover. When you defined professional camera you made no mention at all that dead companies or in your mind unpopular cameras made any difference at all. Do, I need to quote back to you, your original definition??

So, are you now trying to tell me that somehow the quality of the camera or the image produced is somehow influenced by how popular the camera is, or whether the company changed over a period of time or was not good in marketting? 

Methinks, your limited, biased view is showing again, if this is the case.

Moreover it was pointed out by a Nikon supporter than the D7000 had more advanced liveview than the Nikon D3x.  Well then according to your definition the Nikon D3x must NOT be best technology.  The D7000 is apparently better.  So the D3x is not a pro camera according to this definition but the D7000 is????  If this is the case, then it further screws up your definition, since you said that only the Nikon single digit cameras are pro cameras.

I have no problem understanding warped logic and definitions by you that don't stand up.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 25, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Let's all sing Kumbaya and celebrate the great products that bore the name Leicaflex, Konica, Konica/Minolta,Minolta, Mamiya/Sekor, Petri, and Miranda!!! Okay...we're done with that. Whew, that was a long three seconds.
> 
> Canada...home of 25 million people spread out over half of a continent...where a tractor isn't just a tractor--it's also your kid's first car!



or more likely a snow plough.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 25, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > As to where I am coming from or going, it is simple. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are one,two and three in terms of DSLR cameras according to Popular Photography and other sources.
> ...



The lab tests were definitely NOT biased. The reviews needed to be read carefully for information that could be backed up by test results and made sense.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 26, 2011)

This nonsense is still going on?


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 26, 2011)

Yes, Skieur still refuses to see that the A77 will not be a camera that is well received among professional photographers. Mostly due to it's poor ISO handling, also due to the EVF.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 26, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


----------



## terri (Dec 27, 2011)

All: keep things pleasant during your discussion or the thread will be closed.    

Thanks!


----------



## skieur (Dec 27, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Yes, Skieur still refuses to see that the A77 will not be a camera that is well received among professional photographers. Mostly due to it's poor ISO handling, also due to the EVF.



Who cares whether it is well received? Some reviews have indicated that it is a flag camera for Sony, and it fits the bill as being equal to the other cameras in my list.
At 1600, its ISO handling is equal to the others on my list and slightly better than the Canon IDS Mark III when you look at the photos side by side. I even pointed out where to look in the image. That is better proof than any "opinion".

Sony is the only current camera with an OLED viewfinder with a higher resolution than any other at 2.2 million dots, greater contrast, and brighter colour. It is also a full size viewfinder screen and not at all similar to any other EVF in any other camera. It is better than an optical viewfinder in low light as has also been indicated in many reviews. 

The bottom line assessment from pros is that it is different and therefore some will get used to it and embrace the advantages, whereas other will stick to their optical viewfinders. but that is typical of any improvement/change in photographic technology. There will always be for example, some photographers trying to stick to large format black and white film or plate technologies.


skieur


----------



## Destin (Dec 27, 2011)

skieur said:
			
		

> Who cares whether it is well received?  Some reviews have indicated that it is a flag camera for Sony, and it fits the bill as being equal to the other cameras in my list.
> At 1600, its ISO handling is equal to the others on my list and slightly better than the Canon IDS Mark III when you look at the photos side by side. I even pointed out where to look in the image.  That is better proof than any "opinion".
> 
> Sony is the only current camera with an OLED viewfinder with a higher resolution than any other at 2.2 million dots, greater contrast, and brighter colour.  It is also a full size viewfinder screen and not at all similar to any other EVF in any other camera.  It is better than an optical viewfinder in low light as has also been indicated in many reviews.
> ...



So you're comparing a new camera to a camera that is almost 2 generations old? For real?


----------



## skieur (Dec 27, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 27, 2011)

Yes, I do have it. I don't consider anything a gimmick that is useful. You think the A77 is the camera to own, and we all disagree.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 27, 2011)

The A77 is no where near as good as the A900


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 27, 2011)




----------



## unpopular (Dec 27, 2011)

^^ I tried, but even 'your mom' jokes wouldn't kill it.

It's hopeless.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 27, 2011)

Sony's First Betamax VCR, the SL-7200 from 1976

Another wonderful Sony Invention.






Excuse me, I have to go alphabetize my 8 Track Collection now.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 27, 2011)

THE A77 is no where near as good as my Iphone 3GS camera, the images it produces are simply ordinary in comparison to iphone images! :er:

SO my conclusion is this... My compact camera and my Iphone produces better images than the Sony A77!! END OF STORY!!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 27, 2011)

your mom is no where near as good as my iphone 3gs.

... ok maybe that one was a little over the top.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 27, 2011)

and skieur i swear to god if you somehow think that was about your mom, i'd suggest you go visit sigmund!


----------



## nickzou (Dec 27, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> THE A77 is no where near as good as my Iphone 3GS camera, the images it produces are simply ordinary in comparison to iphone images! :er:
> 
> SO my conclusion is this... My compact camera and my Iphone produces better images than the Sony A77!! END OF STORY!!



Test shots! I demand test shots!


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 27, 2011)

nickzou said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > THE A77 is no where near as good as my Iphone 3GS camera, the images it produces are simply ordinary in comparison to iphone images! :er:
> ...



Haha, don't worry Nick. I have shown 'Skieur' the test shots, he is head of Research and development at Sony! He designed the A77's sensor, when he WAS designing the sensor the camera uses. He famously said 'I am going to make a 24MP A77 and it will be a professional camera without professional features, it will also be a professional camera that photographers do not view as a pro camera. And also, the A77 will have IQ as good as a Nikon d3S.'

When I showed him the test shots just now, he was astounded. He couldn't believe my Iphone was outperforming the sensor he designed for the A77! He is now as we speak back in the lab, improving the A77's sensor. His ambition now is to get it so it produces better images than an Iphone... he also feels slightly ashamed that he started this thread now...I mean, he now realises the A77 is not even as good as an iphone camera let alone a Pro DSLR!

Stay tuned folks....

I will be keeping you updated on Skieur's progress...


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

nickzou said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > THE A77 is no where near as good as my Iphone 3GS camera, the images it produces are simply ordinary in comparison to iphone images! :er:
> ...



Go back and find the links to the test shots.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

gsgary said:


> The A77 is no where near as good as the A900



So, you would prefer to wait for the A99 full frame with 36 megapixels, next year?

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



Completely full of bull!

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sony's First Betamax VCR, the SL-7200 from 1976
> 
> Another wonderful Sony Invention.
> 
> ...



Interesting that Sony features are being copied by Nikon and Canon, but not as well.  Live view anyone???

:lmao:

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

unpopular said:


> your mom is no where near as good as my iphone 3gs.
> 
> ... ok maybe that one was a little over the top.



Your ignorance of my mom's photographic work and reputation is downright funny! :lmao::lmao::lmao:

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 28, 2011)

this thread is hopeless


----------



## unpopular (Dec 28, 2011)

skieur said:


> Interesting that Sony features are being copied by Nikon and Canon, but not as well.  Live view anyone???
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> skieur



skieur is right on this one. when sony started with the articulating back pros bocked and said it was a worthless feature only enjoyed only by amateurs, it's such an obviously good idea, I wondered how much of this was fanboism.

Regardless, SLT is just a bad idea and can't ever be made a good idea. Even if sensors become so effective that the translucent mirror could be used effectively, you will always have greater signal intensity if it were a clear path. I think a better investment for camera manufacturers would be faster contrast detection AF.


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> Yes, I do have it. I don't consider anything a gimmick that is useful. You think the A77 is the camera to own, and we all disagree.



Gee, you don't read.  I said   ALL THREE CAMERAS IN MY LIST ARE EQUAL!

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that Sony features are being copied by Nikon and Canon, but not as well. Live view anyone???
> ...



Boy, you have just demonstrated how really far behind you are in the technology. The Sony live view is being copied on several DSLRs.

Contrast detection AF has always been a failure and Sony's super fast phase detection autofocus even for video will I am sure be copied by Nikon and Canon as well.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 28, 2011)

unpopular said:


> this thread is hopeless



No, what is hopeless is your limited vision of photographic technology and your bias against one camera maker.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 28, 2011)

Well. Skieur. I'm not going to fall for your insults.

But i do know that contrast detection is being used in the NEX, and yes, it is slower than phase contrast. But i think the reason why any manufacturer would produce a pellicle-type SLR still camera is to reduce cost, not to improve image quality.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 28, 2011)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > this thread is hopeless
> ...



LMFAO. You realize I am using an a350 and plan to upgrade to an NEX-7, right?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 28, 2011)

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > nickzou said:
> ...



I'm glad you recognise bull when you see it, because you certainly are full of BULL!

Can I say on behalf of the whole forum.. SHUT THE HELL UP and stop continuing this pointless Frickin Boring Thread. You are clearly INSANE!


----------



## skieur (Dec 29, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...




So, you make up stories, such as the above when you are bored. This is only frustrating to you, because I won't accept your incorrect premise that Nikon is somehow better. It is similar to the Canon and Sony camera I mentioned in both specifications and image quality.

With more experience as a photographer, and when you get a chance to use different cameras, you might even learn that they are very similar in everything but design and placement of features.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 29, 2011)

Well, pros will chose cameras based on the type of photography that they do and what level of shooting they do as well.  DSLRs are starting to push out the medium format cameras with 36 megapixels starting next year with Nikon and Sony.  The sensor was produced by Sony.  I am sure that Canon will not be far behind with their own camera in that range as well.  Multiple in camera processors and firmware is starting to make a difference in the technology as well.

Some photographers have always been in a rut and unwilling and resistant to change and to move to new technology unless they are forced kicking and screaming into it.  In that regard, the film fanatics, and black and white photographers come to mind.  Others however will be making money out on the cutting edge of the newest photography features of both hardware and software.  Virtual tours, 3D panoramas,  simulated tilt-shift photos that eliminate wide angle distortion to name a few.

So, take your choice.  Be on the front end or the rear end of change in photography.  Choose the camera that is feature rich and quick to change or the camera that is somewhat behind and less inclined to add certain features.  Now you can even chose whether to pay a lot or pay less.  Of course it makes a difference, if you are planning to keep your camera(s) for a long time or are going to use them like consumables.  

There is no best camera. The Canon, Nikon and Sony that I mentioned were equal in specs and image quality.  Leica also has great classic pro cameras in their M and R series.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 29, 2011)

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



So you've compared (and used) the A77, D7000, D3, D700, 5DII,7D, 60D, 1D all side by side?


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 29, 2011)

I think it unlikely that Nikon will bring out a 36 mp camera to replace a 12mp. In any case Skieur you have limited knowledge about the differences between sensor sizes and their relationship to image quality. If you think it is all about number of mp you are very much mistaken. The Nikon or canon having a 36 mp sensor will not kill digital medium format. It's a different market. It's like saying crop will kill full frame and we know that's not true.


----------



## skieur (Dec 29, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



You keep forgetting that my comparison was 3 cameras: Nikon D3X, Canon IDS Mark III, and Sony A77, side by side.  I stick by that side by side comparison and will not get sidetracked.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 29, 2011)

thereyougo! said:


> I think it unlikely that Nikon will bring out a 36 mp camera to replace a 12mp. In any case Skieur you have limited knowledge about the differences between sensor sizes and their relationship to image quality. If you think it is all about number of mp you are very much mistaken. The Nikon or canon having a 36 mp sensor will not kill digital medium format. It's a different market. It's like saying crop will kill full frame and we know that's not true.



It has already been indicated that Sony has made a deal with Nikon for selling them the 36mp sensor and that a Nikon D800 will come out in February 2012. Sony in turn will come out with an A77 36 mp camera in April. I know all about sensor sizes but multiple sensors and blending high speed shots reduce picture noise too. Sony, Nikon or Canon 36 mp sensor will not kill medium format digital, but it will certainly squeeze the lower end of that market. Pros have noted that the medium format market is not as large as the one for digital single lens reflex cameras in the first place and that it will continue to decline.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 29, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Well. Skieur. I'm not going to fall for your insults.
> 
> But i do know that contrast detection is being used in the NEX, and yes, it is slower than phase contrast. But i think the reason why any manufacturer would produce a pellicle-type SLR still camera is to reduce cost, not to improve image quality.



Limited view of technology, eh?  The EVF on the Sony A77 reduces vibration from the mirror producing greater sharpness, increases speed which permits new features such as in camera panorama, tilt-shift, and HDR, as well as better HD video, and produces a what you see is what you get image in exposure.
With all thoses pluses, it is an obvious direction to go.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 29, 2011)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



There is talk about a Sony hibrid that uses both Nex lenses and Alpha lenses in the wings. I would consider whether it was worth waiting for or not.

I can't reconcile your comments with your A350 camera.  It is a user-friendly camera that with the right lenses Zeiss, Sony G, and Minolta can produce some great shots.

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 29, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Ok so you've used all 3 cameras side by side? Or did you "try them out". Because odds are you did not explore the cameras to their entirety.


----------



## thereyougo! (Dec 29, 2011)

skieur said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > I think it unlikely that Nikon will bring out a 36 mp camera to replace a 12mp. In any case Skieur you have limited knowledge about the differences between sensor sizes and their relationship to image quality. If you think it is all about number of mp you are very much mistaken. The Nikon or canon having a 36 mp sensor will not kill digital medium format. It's a different market. It's like saying crop will kill full frame and we know that's not true.
> ...


Perhaps you can point us to the Nikon announcement on this.  Oh there isn't one! You're relying on internet rumours.


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 29, 2011)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Well. Skieur. I'm not going to fall for your insults.
> ...



Well your 'views' are certainly one sided... for instance, you've failed to acknowledge that the mirror introduces 1/2 stop loss of light all the time.  I'll take faster shutter speed advantage over the miniscule mirror vibration any day.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 29, 2011)

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



What comments? I like my a350 ok. it's kind of noisy, but I believe in shooting the lowest practical ISO anyway. The ergonomics aren't as good as my last 35mm SLR, but that was a Contax RX, which is in another league entirely. 

My issue is with the SLT, and i never thought it was a good idea. I also recognize that Sony has never had very good luck in the professional market. But Leica isn't marketed at professionals, neither was Contax (aside from the 645). 

Just because Sony does not excel at the "professional" market does not mean it's a shoddy product. In fact, as I said, the NEX-7 has a certain Contax quality about it - it's like the G2 I always wished for: one that I could afford 

However, the SLT series never was intended as a professional camera, it was always intended as a mid-level platform, and in my opinion the SLT series have technological disadvantages which cannot ever be overcome. If you don't like, talk to whoever wrote the laws of physics.

My a350 isn't a "pro" body either, but that doesn't mean it can't take good pictures or one couldn't make money using it.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 30, 2011)

I want to see skieurs side by side comparison pics. Your pictures on the A77 better be flawless.


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon_Josh said:
> ...



As you well know, by now.  I am keeping the comparison to the 3 cameras I mentioned:  Nikon D3x, Canon IDS Mark III, and the Sony A77.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> The EVF on the Sony A77 reduces vibration from the mirror producing greater sharpness



Most pro cameras have mirror lockup, and anything moving so slowly that you'd need this feature you wouldn't need live view, so really this is a non-issue.



> camera panorama, tilt-shift, and HDR, as well as better HD video, and produces a what you see is what you get image in exposure.



Ok, well. You got me there. Silly toy features like these can't be done in camera with a traditional SLR. So if you want cruddy 8-bit panoramas, goofy, fake tilt-shift effects on cruddy 8-bit images and limited HDR functionality in-camera because you're too lazy to actually make a proper HDR then you'll definitely want an SLT - or a mirrorless interchangeable that has all these features except for the pellicle which permits slightly faster AF at the expense of signal.

Definitely, inherently foregoing image quality for toy features and faster AF is



> an obvious direction to go.



right?

And as far as video, is this a still camera with video features or a video camera with still features?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > I think it unlikely that Nikon will bring out a 36 mp camera to replace a 12mp. In any case Skieur you have limited knowledge about the differences between sensor sizes and their relationship to image quality. If you think it is all about number of mp you are very much mistaken. The Nikon or canon having a 36 mp sensor will not kill digital medium format. It's a different market. It's like saying crop will kill full frame and we know that's not true.
> ...



Nikon_Josh

(OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO WRITE YOUR NICKNAME AT THE END OF EACH POST SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHO YOU ARE)


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 30, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> Well your 'views' are certainly one sided... for instance, you've failed to acknowledge that the mirror introduces 1/2 stop loss of light all the time.  I'll take faster shutter speed advantage over the miniscule mirror vibration any day.



Skieur, 
 why is it that you only respond to or acknowledge posts that either have nothing to do with your argument or support your argument?  All that you have been saying all along is how superior and advantageous it is to have a full time EVF and phase detect AF during live-view.  But when rational arguments against your views, such as the one I posted earlier today, point out the DRAWBACKS, you can't acknowledge them?  There have been many posters here that provided valid points and reasoning for why full time EVF is not the "perfect" solution that you claim, which in fact has more drawbacks than advantages for professional shooters, and you cannot acknowledge that for some reason.  Why?

<---- mjhoward


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Yes, I can see that you do ignore posts. 



> Ok so you've used all 3 cameras side by side? Or did you "try them out". Because odds are you did not explore the cameras to their entirety.



I said this. 

You compared the 3 cameras you mentioned side by side? At the same time? And used them all in the same scenario?


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



"Sony has unveiled the SLT A55 and SLT A33, the first pair of cameras to incorporate the company's translucent mirror design. The Single Lens Translucent (SLT) cameras offer live view with full-time fast phase-detection AF whether in stills or movie shooting. This is achieved by having a fixed, semi-transparent mirror that redirects a small amount of light onto the AF sensor while allowing the rest through onto the main imaging sensor. "

No mention of a 1/2 stop loss of light here and it is definitely not from a Sony biased web site.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



OK, to give you something to look at carefully, go here. Imaging Resource "Comparometer" &#8482; Digital Camera Image Comparison Page. It compares images. On the left hand side pick one of the cameras I mentioned. Double click to zoom in. On the right hand side pick the Sony A77.

Sony and Canon for example. Look at the back of the book held by the girl in green. How readable is the text? Look at the top edge of the book in ISO 6400 for both the Canon and Sony. The Sony is slightly better. The Canon has inaccurate coloured pixels in the grain which is much more prominent than in the Sony image.

Compare the Nikon D3x as well. Frankly none of the 3: Canon, Nikon or Sony handle noise extremely well in these images but the Sony is a little better, certainly not worse than the other 2.

skieur


----------



## gsgary (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


They are that good when i set up a studio shoot the Sony user had to borrow one of my cameras because his A55 was crap in the studio


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...



Pretty funny, since you have done exactly the same thing.:lmao:

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> No mention of a 1/2 stop loss of light here and it is definitely not from a Sony biased web site.



maybe it's a third or a sixth or even less. but it is less light and there must be enough light diverted to illuminate the EVF's sensor, light that could be used to illuminate the primary imaging sensor.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...





A reveiw i have just read the Sony had noise from the lowest iso right through it's range and he would not use it above ISO400   i know which i would buy


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Well the A77 is a considerable improvement over the A55 with a new 2.4 million dot resolution viewfinder and a much brighter with more contrast OLED viewfinder.
It also has the viewfinder advantage of what you see is what you get mode in exposure and white balance, filters, etc.  as well as a gain up mode for low light shooting in studio or other low light setup.

On the other hand as I have said many times before, I would NOT use any of these cameras for studio work.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

gsgary said:


> A reveiw i have just read the Sony had noise from the lowest iso right through it's range and he would not use it above ISO400   i know which i would buy



But did you read the Comparometer? The comparometer says... THE COMPAROMETER!!! *COMPAROMETER!!!!

&#8203;COMPAROMETER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Well, dpreview is questionable beside the very large Popular Photography magazine organization in North America, labs, and staff experts.  Also dpreviews test images do NOT back up what they say.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

wait. are you _seriously _saying that Popular Photography is reputable??? :lmao:


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

unpopular said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > A reveiw i have just read the Sony had noise from the lowest iso right through it's range and he would not use it above ISO400  i know which i would buy
> ...



What are you talking about????  I read the images. Can't you analyze images????

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

Were they RAW? I didn't read the whole thread, where are they at?

--

nm I thought the comparometer was a different website


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

Ok. I looked at the sample images for the a77.

Skieur. You're *officially* on crack. Those samples are noisy as all hell.


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

unpopular said:


> wait. are you _seriously _saying that Popular Photography is reputable??? :lmao:



It has the advantage of size, staff, contributors, and readership and as such it represents a broad consensus of trends in photography. It's labs for testing are more advanced and more expensive than those of any other organizations that review cameras. There is also an effort made to be unbiased, which is more than what I can say for some other reviewers, so yes they are more reputable than most.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

^^ have you ever read an outright negative review in Popular Photography? Reading that magazine you'd think every camera was as good as any other.


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > No mention of a 1/2 stop loss of light here and it is definitely not from a Sony biased web site.
> ...



Even if it were true, I don't see a sixth of a stop or less as being even noticeable let alone an issue.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

unpopular said:


> ^^ have you ever read an outright negative review in Popular Photography? Reading that magazine you'd think every camera was as good as any other.



Read the reviews carefully and pay more attention to the lab results and yes I have seen some negative evaluations of several cameras and models.  For some it may be hidden in the paragraph or two at the end on similar cameras which may be suggested as better choices.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2011)

unpopular said:


> Ok. I looked at the sample images for the a77.
> 
> Skieur. You're *officially* on crack. Those samples are noisy as all hell.



Dumb statement!  Be specific!  What are you talking about?  Where in the image?  How does it compare with the Nikon and Canon images?

General statements such as the one you made above are NOT CREDIBLE.  Try and show me that you actually viewed the images and can talk knowledgeable about them as a pro.  Otherwise.....I am not likely to take such emotional statements seriously.


skieur


----------



## mjhoward (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Skieur,
Perhaps you should check this out... http://thesybersite.com/sony/a55/index.htm#slt_mirror_image_quality

An independent test performed by an owner of an A55.  He tests and confirms 1/2 stop (30%) light loss from the mirror and what he calls 5% degradation in image quality due to the extra piece of glass (mirror) always present. ENJOY!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

skieur said:


> I am not likely to take such emotional statements seriously.



Really, man? This coming from YOU?!

But. I'll play your little game for now. Yes. In the mid shadows there is significant noise which is more pronounced in the out of focus areas (where you'd expect it), especially compared against the aforementioned Nikon and Canon bodies, though the Canon example did not use the same reference image.

However, being that the example on the Nikon example was not focussed properly, I have some doubts about the reputability of this website.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



these are done at ISO 200!

And what method did he use to calculate 5% from, anyway?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 31, 2011)

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Maybe you should write out all your posts as just 'skieur'?? They would be more interesting! Perhaps?

Nikon_Josh


----------



## greybeard (Dec 31, 2011)

Classifying the A77 as a Pro level Camera is a slippery slope at best.  Granted, it does have some neat pro features and there are I'm sure some professional photographers who are happy with the A77.  What about the Nikon D7000?  Is it a pro camera?


----------



## skieur (Jan 1, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Well your above link seems to be as clear as mud. Read the following:

What is NOT purple fringing? Well, any sort of similar phenomenon that is caused _only _by a lens, and that would also appear when that lens is used on a _film_ camera. Traditionally understood and defined chromatic aberrations (CA) are NOT purple fringing; but purple fringing does often appear to be related to the presence of CA in a lens. So a lens with inherent CA may also be likely to produce purple fringing under the right (wrong?) conditions with a digital camera.​Irrespective of trying to make out, what he is actually saying, you seem to forget that the A55 consumer model is 2 models below the A77, so the comments do NOT apply. 

There is for example; NO ghosting, NO chromatic aberations, No purple fringing etc. on the A77. The OLED viewfinder on the A77 is NEW with greater resolution, brightness, and contrast than the one on the A55. The viewfinder is larger as well. It is also better in lower light in the studio. The introduction of the electronic first curtain shutter has also made the A77 much faster and more responsive than the A55. The lengthy writing times for burst shooting to the card that was present with the A55 are also no longer the case with the A77 either.

skieur






​


----------



## skieur (Jan 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I am not likely to take such emotional statements seriously.
> ...



What you were seeing was lack of resolution from the Nikon example. It had NOTHING to do with focusing which is obvious from looking at the photo.  By the way, the Canon does have the SAME test image, but then perhaps you read my directions as carefully as you have read other posts in this thread.

Boy, you display MINIMAL experience with photography and looking at images. The fact that you indicated in another forum that you don't really even understand the Sony SLT viewfinder but are apparently against it anyway, shows that your opinion has limited value.

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 2, 2012)

Once upon a time the ultimate pro camera was the K Brownie. So, yes, cameras have evolved. WOW.

Just another one of your mindless, whatever-you-are-looking-for thread.

Skieur, you're a joke. Go back to your shell!


----------



## unpopular (Jan 2, 2012)

So, then the resolution is varied according to relative depth?

Skieur - you make such an enormous mess out your arguments it's harder to detangle what you're talking about than it is to rebut.


----------



## skieur (Jan 2, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Once upon a time the ultimate pro camera was the K Brownie. So, yes, cameras have evolved. WOW.
> 
> Just another one of your mindless, whatever-you-are-looking-for thread.
> 
> Skieur, you're a joke. Go back to your shell!



Well, given that "contribution", get lost and quit wasting our time.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jan 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> So, then the resolution is varied according to relative depth?
> 
> Skieur - you make such an enormous mess out your arguments it's harder to detangle what you're talking about than it is to rebut.



To keep it simple, the Nikon image is just not as sharp as the Sony or Canon.

skieur


----------



## johnsonstevie (Jan 3, 2012)

The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line.  It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the  Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one  rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with  their weather resistant sealing. If you put photos side by side from  these cameras ...


----------



## skieur (Jan 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > The EVF on the Sony A77 reduces vibration from the mirror producing greater sharpness
> ...



Well, if you are a pro, you must be a starving one, since your silly toy features save time and will help me make more money. 

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Jan 3, 2012)

Nope. I am not a pro. But if I were I wouldn't cut corners, either.


----------



## skieur (Jan 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...




The Sony A77 replaced the Sony A700 which was used by real-estate and wedding pros in my area.  At the moment it is just as much a pro camera as the Nikon and Canon cameras I mentioned in both specs and image quality.  The Sony A900 will likely be replaced with the A99 a full frame 36 megapixel camera with a further improved SLT and more innovative features for the higher end pros. Projected price is $4,000.  It will probably come out at one of the camera shows in the Spring.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Jan 3, 2012)

We'll see on the A99. 36mp is already a LOT to cram onto a 35mm frame. I'd think I'd want as much light as possible illuminating it.


----------



## skieur (Jan 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Nope. I am not a pro. But if I were I wouldn't cut corners, either.



No cutting corners, but from a business point of view, your final output determines the quality level.  If the image is projected, there is no need to surpass the specs of the projector.  If the image is printed, there is no need to surpass the printing quality of the printer being used.  That is wasting time, effort and money.  If you work at different levels, you adjust your choice and use of equipment and postprocessing to suit the particular project or work.  I can use work equipment, home equipment, borrow equipment or rent equipment as I need to.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jan 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> We'll see on the A99. 36mp is already a LOT to cram onto a 35mm frame. I'd think I'd want as much light as possible illuminating it.



It is a brand new chip and they are also doing further work on the programming end of the firmware as well.  There is also a trend toward changing the architecture of the electronics so we will have to wait and see.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Jan 3, 2012)

Like I said, we'll see, but the bottom line the fundamental laws of quantum physics and thermodynamics can't be broken. Only so much quanta can 'fit' in any given space, and thermal noise can be minimized only to an extent. Even as sensor and signal processing technology improves, eventually small format manufacturers are going to have to consider changing their lens design to accommodate larger sensors if the megapixel race is to proceed.

I do agree though that there is a LOT of room for improvement, and I'd imagine with avalanche diodes and maskless sensors you could see perhaps 100mp per channel or more on the 35mm frame. Though this may far surpass current, if not physical optical resolution limits.

(how about that for technologically ignorant?)


----------



## skieur (Jan 4, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Like I said, we'll see, but the bottom line the fundamental laws of quantum physics and thermodynamics can't be broken. Only so much quanta can 'fit' in any given space, and thermal noise can be minimized only to an extent. Even as sensor and signal processing technology improves, eventually small format manufacturers are going to have to consider changing their lens design to accommodate larger sensors if the megapixel race is to proceed.
> 
> I do agree though that there is a LOT of room for improvement, and I'd imagine with avalanche diodes and maskless sensors you could see perhaps 100mp per channel or more on the 35mm frame. Though this may far surpass current, if not physical optical resolution limits.
> 
> (how about that for technologically ignorant?)



Actually the "fundamental laws" can be worked around.  Themal noise can be be iminized by reducing or eliminating the heat causing the noise. Random noise is being eliminated by Sony through blending 2 or more high speed shots together.  The area of random noise is wiped out by the shot that does NOT have noise in that area during the blending in camera.  When only "so much quanta can 'fit" into any given space, then the answer is to increase the space.  The technology is already there for multi-layer sensors as in one layer for red pixels, one for green pixels and one for blue pixels. There are other possible approaches as well.

So, the megapixel race will continue, but what is interesting is that it will become more innovative to work around your "fundamental laws" and that has potential benefits for all photographers.

Yes, there is hope for you, technologically.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Jan 4, 2012)

Certainly optimization is possible - active cooling in a DSLR would be the most obvious next step.


----------



## skieur (Jan 4, 2012)

Tony S said:


> The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The A77 is marketed as a replacement for the A700 which was used by semi-pros and pros for some areas of photography particularly for real estate photography and virtual tours.  The magnesium alloy, sealed body and its size certainly puts the A77 into the same category as the Nikon and Canon. I guess I am not impressed by "build reputation", since I have had no problems with rain, at the bottom of high falls, in the snow off the beaten track and in -20 to -40 degree temperatures.  I have also hung out of open cockpit airplanes and climbed rock faces with my cameras.  The A99 will probably be marketed as the flagship pro camera coming in the spring show at 36 megapixels and full frame.

Image quality comparison are not great for any digital camera when you get over ISO 1600.  When it comes to sharpness, the Sony A77 is not great but nevertheless equal to or better than most Canons and Nikons and that is based on side by side photos of the same subject.  The dpreview was incorrect.  You do not lose live view at the higher frame rate but the image on the screen is one you have just shot at 1/12 of a second rather than the one coming up.  To put it another way, the viewfinder refresh is not as fast as the frame rate at 12 fps.  That is rather understandable considering the speed and the limits of any electronic system at 24 megapixels.

I can't say I would trust any camera to produce a quality image at or above ISO 1600 and would seldom have any need to even consider shooting at that ISO.

skieur


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 4, 2012)

Yeah, tons of pros will be using the new Sony cameras. Just like tons of people are Sony DSLR shooters as proven by their ENORMOUS MARKET SHARE.

Canon destroyed Nikon in 2010 global DSLR market share (YiR #6) - 1001 Noisy Cameras


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 6, 2012)

skieur said:


> Tony S said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony is not marketed as a pro camera, it's listed as being more in the enthusiast/semi-pro line. It's build is nowhere near the solid quality of either the Nikon or the Canons you are trying to compare them to. Take that Sony out in one rainstorm and you may soon notice why the others are "Pro" cameras with their weather resistant sealing.
> ...



IS there anything you haven't done? You have been a PRO for 50 years, you have also climbed up rock faces and no doubt you have also jumped out the back of airplanes to take photographs? You have also been to the north pole and back no doubt?? And you were wearing just a t-shirt at the time!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 6, 2012)




----------



## skieur (Jan 7, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Tony S said:
> ...



What's wrong with you? You like leading a dull life? I had to keep up with my mother. She was shooting photos from the top of a moving train at age 79 and shooting wild black bears at a distance of 7 feet using a 50mm lens.

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2012)

LOL, I can't believe this thread is still going...  15 pages of this ... wow.


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 7, 2012)

D4 was just released

/Thread


----------



## skieur (Jan 8, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> D4 was just released
> 
> /Thread



The D8000 will be more interesting with the Sony 36 megapixel chip, probably in February.  Sony is still making decisions on the specs for the A99 and it is not expected until April.

skieur


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 8, 2012)

Yea, everybody knows that more pixels is always better... regardless of the drawbacks and consequences.


----------



## skieur (Jan 8, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Yea, everybody knows that more pixels is always better... regardless of the drawbacks and consequences.



With design changes more pixels can be better and they are changing the design.

skieur


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 8, 2012)

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, everybody knows that more pixels is always better... regardless of the drawbacks and consequences.
> ...



That's nice and all but the sensor is only half the equation.  You can have a super high res sensor with the best specs imaginable but unless you've got glass in front of it that is capable of resolving those smaller spots and preserving the contrast... who cares?


----------



## nickzou (Jan 8, 2012)

I don't know much about Sony glass but aren't Zeiss lenses supposed to be good?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 8, 2012)

nickzou said:


> I don't know much about Sony glass but aren't Zeiss lenses supposed to be good?



Yeah, just like Pizza is _supposed _to be a vegetable.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 8, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know much about Sony glass but aren't Zeiss lenses supposed to be good?
> ...


Pizza is all food groups at once - that's why it's so awesome.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 8, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know much about Sony glass but aren't Zeiss lenses supposed to be good?
> ...



^^ ok that just doesn't make sense.

The Zeiss glass is good, but I don't think it represents the best Zeiss options.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2012)

The majority of "Zeiss" glass these days...isn't it made by Cosina? I mean, the last I heard, the ZF and ZE series (for Nikon F and Canon EF) manual focusing Zeiss lenses, as well as the newer series for Pentax K-mount, were ALL being made by Cosina, for "Zeiss". Zeiss these days is really just a name...just as the modern Contax cameras of the 1980's were made by Yashica, and then later by Kyocera. The "Contax" brand of cameras, and their associated lenses, have really been "Yashica" or "Kyocera" since the late 1970's, when the Contax name was bought, and resurrected.

Same with the Voigtlander 35mm rangefinders; Cosina bought the rights to the old Voigtlander name over a decade ago, and began producing. As far as Zeiss lenses...they have some nice lenses, as well as some that look horrible...the 50mm f/1.4 Planar for example--UGLY bokeh...simply horrific....God-awful. Hashy. Harsh. Yeeech! What is really sad is that one of the absolute best lenses Cosina ever made, the 125mm Apo-Lanthar, was discontinued at the insistence of Zeiss, in order to get the production contract for lenses branded Zeiss...since the APO-Lanthar was NOT of Zeiss origins, and was one of the absolute best-corrected macro lenses, Zeiss forced Cosina to stop production of a lens that would have made their offerings look like dogmeat by comparison.

Zeiss aka Cosina has made some pretty well-proved manual focusing lenses for 35mm cameras over the last few years, but their autofocusing stuff is kind of a mystery to me. I'm not really sure what they have in the AF ranks.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 9, 2012)

I doesn't matter who ... oh f*ck it already.

I'm done.


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2012)

nickzou said:


> I don't know much about Sony glass but aren't Zeiss lenses supposed to be good?



Yes, Leica and Zeiss have the best reputation for lenses.

skieur


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 9, 2012)

Carl Zeiss Quality - Made by Cosina


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2012)

Rolls-Royce quality - Made by Kia

Tiffany & Co. Quality - Made by WalMart

Kentucky Fried Chicken Quality - Made by Bubba's Chik-N-Shak

Yeah...we get it...


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 9, 2012)

What !!! KFC is made by Bubba ??


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



Yes, and the Zeiss, Sony G lenses, and Minolta lenses do that.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> Carl Zeiss Quality - Made by Cosina



Yes, for Nikon manual lenses.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2012)

"ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss. Quality assurance specialists from the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen implement the ZEISS quality assurance system in the chosen facility. Many ZEISS optic measuring systems are installed. Carl Zeiss audits the lens production areas on a regular basis"

skieur.


----------



## skieur (Jan 9, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> nickzou said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know much about Sony glass but aren't Zeiss lenses supposed to be good?
> ...


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 9, 2012)

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Your response indicates that you think it is as cut and dry as either 'they do' or 'they don't'... which is not the case.  I suggest you read a little more about optics and the modulation transfer function.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 9, 2012)

skieur said:
			
		

> "Carl Zeiss audits the lens production areas on a regular basis"
> 
> skieur.



Oh, thank goodness they send some people around with a clipboard on a regular basis!!

I know Minolta was famous as a lens maker...they used to make the, uh, the, uh...50mm f/1.7 Rokkor-X...it had multi-coating!!!


----------



## unpopular (Jan 10, 2012)

Oh Derrel. You're getting all stupid again.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 10, 2012)

Zeiss Lenses.

The thought of 36MP density on a full frame sensor would make one wonder if the optics will be up to it.  I do have a camera that has roughly the same pixel density on the sensor with a Zeiss Lens.  It's a Sony F828.  It comes with a Zeiss T* 7X zoom.  It has a 8MP, 2/3" type (8.8 x 6.6 mm) RGBE color filter array 2.7 µm pixel pitch sensor.  If my math is correct the pixel density should be close to that of a 36MP full frame sensor.  My point is that the Zeiss Lens on my camera is more than up to the task.  I also have a Nikon d5100 and with both cameras set at ISO100 and roughly 8MP, the Sony has the edge in sharpness and contrast when the Nikon is using the 18-55mm kit Nikkor kit lens.  Comparing it with a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 then the Nikon has the edge but, not by all that much.   In this case, Zeiss can more than handle the resolution needed for 36MP.  The big problem my F828 has is high ISO noise.  It's fine at 64-100, usable at 200 and 400-800 really suck.  Hopefully Sony has solved the problem of high noise with small pixels.


----------



## skieur (Jan 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, and Minolta used to make lenses with better sharpness results in the lab, than Nikon according to Popular Photography tests.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Jan 10, 2012)

greybeard said:


> Zeiss Lenses.
> 
> The thought of 36MP density on a full frame sensor would make one wonder if the optics will be up to it. I do have a camera that has roughly the same pixel density on the sensor with a Zeiss Lens. It's a Sony F828. It comes with a Zeiss T* 7X zoom. It has a 8MP, 2/3" type (8.8 x 6.6 mm) RGBE color filter array 2.7 µm pixel pitch sensor. If my math is correct the pixel density should be close to that of a 36MP full frame sensor. My point is that the Zeiss Lens on my camera is more than up to the task. I also have a Nikon d5100 and with both cameras set at ISO100 and roughly 8MP, the Sony has the edge in sharpness and contrast when the Nikon is using the 18-55mm kit Nikkor kit lens. Comparing it with a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 then the Nikon has the edge but, not by all that much. In this case, Zeiss can more than handle the resolution needed for 36MP. The big problem my F828 has is high ISO noise. It's fine at 64-100, usable at 200 and 400-800 really suck. Hopefully Sony has solved the problem of high noise with small pixels.



There are different kinds of noise.  Sony has solved the random noise problem with their twilight mode. Thermal noise is solvable by reducing the heat.  The small pixel problem can be solved by increasing the space which by the way does not require a bigger sensor.  A multi-level sensor will handle that issue quite well.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2012)

I'm old enough to remember the Pop and Modern Photography tests. Minolta might indeed have had a lens or two that out-resolved a Nikkor lens. It's too bad that Minolta's cameras, accessories,and flash systems were never good enough to elevate them above the amateur market, where they slowly faded from mild relevance to total,utter irrelevance. When autofocus was introduced, Minolta's Maxxum 7000 was a nice camera, but Minolta lost out to the then-new Canon EOS system, and Nikon, with its backward-compatible lens mount. Then, when digital SLR's came onto the scene, Minolta was unable to produce a camera that could compete against the Nikon, Canon, and FujiFilm, and Kodak cameras that totally dominated the professional and high-end enthusiast market.

The real truth of the matter is that Minolta is now a dead camera maker. Their products never could compete. They have NEVER, as in NEVER, made a successful "professional camera" that sold and was used to professionals in any significant number. That is what you seem to be missing in this thread skieur--a professional camera is one that professionals actually buy, and use. "*The changing field of professional cameras*" is still a field in which Canon and Nikon totally dominate all other small-camera brands. Simple as that.


----------



## skieur (Jan 10, 2012)

Worldwide Digital Camera Market Shares by Vendor
====================================================
Vendor 2010 2009
----------------------------------------------------
Canon 19 19
Sony 17.9 16.9
Nikon 12.6 11.1
Samsung 11.1 10.9
Kodak 7.4 8.8
Panasonic 7.6 7.6
Olympus 6.1 6.2
Fuji 4.9 5.4
Casio 4 4.7
PENTAX 1.5 1.7
Vivitar 1.2 0.7
Other 6.7 7


It seems that your so-called "not a real camera" DERREL has overtaken Nikon in marketshare.  Perhaps you should be talking about Nikon as the dying camera maker instead of Sony.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2012)

Sony does sell a loooooooot of "digital cameras", for sure. They make a lot of point and shoots. And video cameras. And some fine television sets. And some so-so computers. They make a mean Discman, and some awesome headphones as well!! Sony is a consumer electronics company with a lot of leverage over retail shelf space, world-wide.

Market share is nice for Sony. Of course, in terms of sheer numbers, feces is the leading food for maggots. I mean, 100 billion flies cannot possibly be wrong, can they? And Ernest and Julio Gallo is America's best-selling wine brand, sold mostly in 1/2 and 1-gallon jugs. And WalMart is the best retail store in America. And McDonald's is a top,top restaurant! Kraft individually-wrapped processed cheese slices are the #1 cheese product. Big, big numbers can be deceptive, or as in your case, totally,totally IRRELEVANT to the subject at hand, which is "*professional cameras.*"

Mercedes and BMW do quite well with less than 1.5 percent of the worldwide car market. I would dearly love to read about a successful SONY professional camera in use for say, newspaper sports. I watched last night's BCS championship game like a hawk, and all along the sidelines were all these silly Nikon and Canon shooters...I didn't see a single Sony A77 "professional camera" in use...huh...those guys from the AP and Sports Illustrated must not know what gold they are missing by not shooting a Sony pro-cam,eh?

The title of this thread is *"The changing field of professional cameras". *So far, it seems like you're the only one who wants, and very badly I might add, to claim that the A77 is a professional camera. I'm glad Sony's worldwide digital camera sales figures are so high...but until they make a camera that is widely adopted by professionals, then I do not think they have a "professional camera". See, the marketplace decides what is a professional camera, and so far, only Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses have won that title...it's a title that can NOT be bought by launching a magazine called *Sony Style [Sony Style Magazine Covers]*, and selling it at hipster supermarkets. Or by flooding Best Buy and Target stores with cheap digital cameras and d-slrs spaced $149 apart in a line that extends from cheap-o to $1499...ie flooding the market, Sony-style.


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 10, 2012)

skieur said:


> It seems that your so-called "not a real camera" DERREL has overtaken Nikon in marketshare.  Perhaps you should be talking about Nikon as the dying camera maker instead of Sony.
> 
> skieur



Is this how you conduct all your research???  No wonder you're clueless.  You might as well include the PS3 in those figures as they have nothing to do with 'professional' or even enthusiast level photography products.   

Sony, Nikon Narrow Gap to Canon With New Digital Camera Models - Bloomberg

"In the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data."

So to make it easy for you, sales for DSLR's:
Canon - 44.5%
Nikon - 29.8%
Sony - 11.9%

The 'dying' camera maker has almost 3x the market share for DSLR's over your obsession.  I bet if these figures were only for Full Frame DSLR's... the gap would be even much larger.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 10, 2012)

And Sony's market share is irrelevant.  Unless topic changes to The Changing field of *Consumer* Cameras.

Bestbuy and Facebook DSLR stats don't count for much in this thread.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 10, 2012)

I win

NIKON - D4 16.2-Megapixel Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) - Black - D4


----------



## skieur (Jan 10, 2012)

Smith&#8217;s EquipmentSony &#945;900 cameras
Sony 100mm &#402;/2.8 lens
Sony Zeiss 24-70mm &#402;/2.8 zoom lens
Sony Zeiss 85mm &#402;/1.4 lens
Sony Zeiss 135mm &#402;/1.8 lens
Profoto Pro-7 2400Ws packs and heads

_
Brian Smith is a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer and one of the Sony Artisans of Imagery. His photographs of famous and infamous faces of the noteworthy and notorious have appeared on the covers and pages of hundreds of magazines. See more of his photography at his website, __www.briansmith.com._

So, no pros use sony cameras, eh?  Want more examples?

skieur


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 10, 2012)

skieur said:


> Smith&#8217;s EquipmentSony &#945;900 cameras
> Sony 100mm &#402;/2.8 lens
> Sony Zeiss 24-70mm &#402;/2.8 zoom lens
> Sony Zeiss 85mm &#402;/1.4 lens
> ...



How about a photographer that isn't endorsed by Sony. Brian Smith is a Sony Artisan.

Edit: I'm certain you are taking this too literally. The comparison between professionals that shoot sony vs nikon or canon is microscopic. For every 1 Sony professional, there has to be 1000 nikon and canon professionals.


----------



## skieur (Jan 14, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Smith&#8217;s Equipment
> ...



You are right.  The point is that Sony, Nikon and Canon are equally professional cameras.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Jan 14, 2012)

We hereby declare you the winner of your own argument. Yeah! Yippie-skippy! Yooo-hooo! (fireworks! fireworks! fireworks!) [celebratory champagne-FRENCH, not California!]


----------



## manaheim (Jan 14, 2012)




----------



## nickzou (Jan 14, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Smith&#8217;s EquipmentSony &#945;900 cameras
> ...



Yo I'd get all up in that. If Sony lends me gear and calls me a 'Sony Artisan' I'd happily ditch my Nikon stuff right now. I'm surprised there aren't more Sony pros.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 14, 2012)

From what I can see, Sony does intend to be a major player in the processional photography market. Is there room for 3?


----------



## table1349 (Jan 15, 2012)

greybeard said:


> From what I can see, Sony does intend to be a major player in the processional photography market. Is there room for 3?



That is what they intended with the Beta Max during the video tape years.  Saw how well that worked out.  Only time will tell if Sony ever becomes a serious contender.  Currently they are not.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 15, 2012)

Sony is an absolutely horrible company.  I would never purchase their products for any reason.  I know they make a theoretically viable third choice in the dslr market, but their politics, their constant (usually failed) attempts at proprietary strangleholds on their customers, piss poor quality and ergonomics and make them a pariah in my eyes and the eyes of many.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Sony is an absolutely horrible company.  I would never purchase their products for any reason.  I know they make a theoretically viable third choice in the dslr market, but their politics, their constant (usually failed) attempts at proprietary strangleholds on their customers, piss poor quality and ergonomics and make them a pariah in my eyes and the eyes of many.



Manaheim, you couldn't be more RIGHT if you tried!


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Sony is an absolutely horrible company.  I would never purchase their products for any reason.  I know they make a theoretically viable third choice in the dslr market, but their politics, their constant (usually failed) attempts at proprietary strangleholds on their customers, piss poor quality and ergonomics and make them a pariah in my eyes and the eyes of many.



My wife has a point and shoot from sony from before we were married.  I HATE that camera.  I have to use the proprietary cable because I can't use a standard USB cable like every other camera out there.  The reason why I have to use the cable is because I can't plug the proprietary memory card into any standard memory card slots on my laptop.  Can't wait till that thing is gone.... probably will replace it with a G12.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 15, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > From what I can see, Sony does intend to be a major player in the processional photography market. Is there room for 3?
> ...


Back in the 90's all the sports photographers shot Nikon and then Canon developed a descent auto-focus and a big portion of the Nikon crowd jumped ship and went to and have stayed with Canon.  Canon came with a game changer and that is what Sony will have to do to get a big share of the pro market to jump ship and go with Sony.  They seem to be pushing this translucent mirror technology.  I don't see it being the game changer that they need.  They also seem to be selling some of their technology to other camera makers like Nikon.  Does anyone see them acquiring Nikon in the future like they did Minolta?  They've got the capital to do it.


----------



## nickzou (Jan 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Sony is an absolutely horrible company.  I would never purchase their products for any reason.  I know they make a theoretically viable third choice in the dslr market, but their politics, their constant (usually failed) attempts at proprietary strangleholds on their customers, piss poor quality and ergonomics and make them a pariah in my eyes and the eyes of many.



Yo don't hate on the PS3. Dual Shock 3 uses mini-USB.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Sony is an absolutely horrible company.  I would never purchase their products for any reason.  I know they make a theoretically viable third choice in the dslr market, but their politics, their constant (usually failed) attempts at proprietary strangleholds on their customers, piss poor quality and ergonomics and make them a pariah in my eyes and the eyes of many.


Good grief,  Sony in conjunction with Phillips is responsible for the Compact Disk, Cassette tape, DVD I think etc. etc.  They didn't get to be as big and successful by doing everything wrong.  Anybody who knows anything about VCRs will tell you that Beta was far superior to VHS.  Sony definitely screwed up where Beta was concerned but, they are still in the DVD/Blue Ray business.  Sony also makes some of the best professional microphones money can buy.  There contributions to the audio industry go without saying.  There contributions to the video industry also go without saying.  Now they want a piece of the professional still camera market.  I wonder what percentage of all the digital cameras, from cell phones to large format, Sony is already making the sensors for?  You folks who hate Sony so much probably have some of their electronics in your cameras right now.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 15, 2012)

RCA Victor and Phillips actually developed the Cassette tape.  Sony was only one of 4 contributors to the development of the DVD.  Shure and Neumann are pretty much the recording industry standard for microphones.  Sony makes quality products, however Sony is the pre 2008 General Motors of electronics world.  They try to be involved in such a wide variety of the field that they don't due justice to the multitude of lines that they have.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 15, 2012)

greybeard said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is an absolutely horrible company. I would never purchase their products for any reason. I know they make a theoretically viable third choice in the dslr market, but their politics, their constant (usually failed) attempts at proprietary strangleholds on their customers, piss poor quality and ergonomics and make them a pariah in my eyes and the eyes of many.
> ...



That's a straw man argument if I ever heard one.  So contributing some positives necessarily makes them not suck pond water?  No, I really don't think so.  There's a VERY handy example I could use, but it's kinda over-the-top, so I'll resist it... if you don't push it... but I bet if you think about it for a moment or two, you'll come on it yourself.

I was once a HUGE Sony fan... whenever I bought an electronic device, it would unquestionably be a Sony.  Until I started to notice that everything I bought kinda sucked... or locked me into some STUPID proprietary piss-poor technology.  (Can you say memory stick???  I knew you could.)  Toss in 3 TVs, and not a single one had the same remote control or remote layout.  Then they started suing 13 year old kids and grandmothers for stealing their music.  Oh and then they started putting rootkits on their music CDs that would silently install on your system when you put the CD into your computer.  Somewhere in there they also crushed the HD DVD movement by calling up the media houses and saying "Hey, um... yeah, you want to publish our movies?  Bluray or nothing."

Yeah.  Nice @#$@#$ company.

Simple fact is the CEO even came out in the past 5 years or so and said "Oh my god we suck."  I'd find you the article, but ... meh.

And yes, Sony's stuff is everywhere... which is why I always eye my laptops with suspicion for fear that they will burst into flames on an airplane.

Go do a little research, man.


----------



## usayit (Jan 16, 2012)

and the thread evolves.... and avoids death.

Just bought the latest version 46' LED Sony 1080p 240Hz Bravia in a negotiated packaged deal with a GE dishwasher.   Our dishwasher broke 4 months ago and our 36' CRT TV was about 15 years old.  So I pulled out some cash at the local appliance store and started to negotiate.  So far so good.   Nice features and integrates well with their soundbar and BD/DVD player.  The SoundBar and Player take commands from the TV which simplifies its operation (good for my wife and kid).  Netflix and Pandora all set up.  I have my old/nice 2 channel amp + speakers hooked to it as well.  It was more for my wife as I don't watch TV that often.

Not really a brand loyalist (I don't buy consumer audio/video stuff very often) but I didn't realize how much of Sony's reputation had turned on them...    I'm still thinking of the Sony from late 80's and 90's. .  interesting..


----------



## jake337 (Jan 16, 2012)

skieur said:


> Smiths Equipment
> Sony &#945;900 cameras
> Sony 100mm /2.8 lens
> Sony Zeiss 24-70mm /2.8 zoom lens
> ...



I thought this thread was about the A77 not the A900.  As others have already stated the A900 is a great body......


----------

