# sony a77



## suppyxx

i was thinking about getting one... but not sure i have read about it the pros the cons but i want some more people views on it 
not trying to get professional just mainly pictures for concerts and videos of them and


----------



## gsgary

If it is like the A55 there may be trouble using it when it gets dark


----------



## suppyxx

yeah i was reading about that even with the hvl f58am flash will that help


----------



## dxqcanada

Sony Alpha SLT-A77 Camera Operation - Hands-On Preview

"The Sony A77's EVF does an excellent job of gaining-up when the light  gets dim. There's no free lunch, in that the trade-offs are that the  image gets a bit grainy looking, and the refresh rate drops  dramatically, but the net result is I was much more able to see what I  was shooting after dark with the A77 than I've ever been with any  optical-viewfinder camera I've used in the past."


----------



## gsgary

dxqcanada said:


> Sony Alpha SLT-A77 Camera Operation - Hands-On Preview
> 
> "The Sony A77's EVF does an excellent job of gaining-up when the light  gets dim. There's no free lunch, in that the trade-offs are that the  image gets a bit grainy looking, and the refresh rate drops  dramatically, but the net result is I was much more able to see what I  was shooting after dark with the A77 than I've ever been with any  optical-viewfinder camera I've used in the past."



I still wouldn't buy one for studio use


----------



## DiskoJoe

From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.


----------



## kassad

I totally agree.   I wish they would offer the A77 with their incredible 16 megapixel sensor.   The high ISO performance form that sensor is amazing and appears to beat any other aps-c sensor out there.


----------



## ToxikPixels

Hey guys,
I just got the a77 (body only), and I was wondering if the kit lens was worth buying?
The f/2.8 is pretty much the only thing that calls out to me, so I'm still debating between getting this one or the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5
Any suggestions? Anything helps!


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony Alpha SLT-A77 Camera Operation - Hands-On Preview
> 
> "The Sony A77's EVF does an excellent job of gaining-up when the light gets dim. There's no free lunch, in that the trade-offs are that the image gets a bit grainy looking, and the refresh rate drops dramatically, but the net result is I was much more able to see what I was shooting after dark with the A77 than I've ever been with any optical-viewfinder camera I've used in the past."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still wouldn't buy one for studio use
Click to expand...


For serious studio use, rent a Red One, Epic Red, or Leica S9. Why consider anything else?

skieur


----------



## dxqcanada

I have read that the DT 16-50mm is a good lens: Sony Lens: Zooms - Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 DT SSM SAL1650 (Tested) - SLRgear.com! compared to the CZ Sony Lens: Zooms - Sony 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* SAL-1680Z (Tested) - SLRgear.com!


----------



## TJH1023

DiskoJoe said:


> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.



I just dumped my canon gear for sony A77 and am very happy, the EVF has taken a little getting used to, it kicks but. As far as the high ISO shooting goes it is better than you think and a firmware update 1.04 has now made it even better. Look out Canon and Nikon, sony is giving you a run for the money.


----------



## dxqcanada

Hmm TJH, what camera did you have ?
I know at one time you had a Nikon D60 ... what Canon did you have ?

What lenses did you get with the Sony ?


----------



## cosmonaut

Well I can tell you mine focuses in very low light situations and the noise levels are low. Personally I think it's the best camera on the market unless you go full frame. But get a fast lens. Don't buy it and put cheap glass on it.


----------



## gsgary

Just read my first reveiw of the A77 in a pro UK mag can't see any pro sports shooters buying it write speads slow so you struggle to get 12fps and you can only use it in AE (auto exposure) mode set, so the only way to control exposure is by ISO or exposure compensation, another thing the was concerning was the tester would not use it over ISO400 and didn't consider it suitable for low-light work


----------



## ConradM

I use my a33 in low-light all the time.  I don't really understand why people keep bringing it up. It's not like the a77 is going to take "bad" low-light pictures.


----------



## ConradM

gsgary said:


> Just read my first reveiw of the A77 in a pro UK mag can't see any pro sports shooters buying it write speads slow so you struggle to get 12fps and you can only use it in AE (auto exposure) mode set, so the only way to control exposure is by ISO or exposure compensation, another thing the was concerning was the *tester would not use it over ISO400* and didn't consider it suitable for low-light work



Sounds like a biased tester.


----------



## gsgary

ConradM said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read my first reveiw of the A77 in a pro UK mag can't see any pro sports shooters buying it write speads slow so you struggle to get 12fps and you can only use it in AE (auto exposure) mode set, so the only way to control exposure is by ISO or exposure compensation, another thing the was concerning was the *tester would not use it over ISO400* and didn't consider it suitable for low-light work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a biased tester.
Click to expand...


No it is one of the top UK mags been going for decades, what i didn't know untill i read the reveiw was that it will only shoot 12Fps (and that is a stretch even with fast cards) in Auto if you shoot sports in manual like me it only shoots 8fps which is not the way i shoot anyway


----------



## skieur

DiskoJoe said:


> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.



Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.

skieur


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read my first reveiw of the A77 in a pro UK mag can't see any pro sports shooters buying it write speads slow so you struggle to get 12fps and you can only use it in AE (auto exposure) mode set, so the only way to control exposure is by ISO or exposure compensation, another thing the was concerning was the *tester would not use it over ISO400* and didn't consider it suitable for low-light work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a biased tester.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is one of the top UK mags been going for decades, what i didn't know untill i read the reveiw was that it will only shoot 12Fps (and that is a stretch even with fast cards) in Auto if you shoot sports in manual like me it only shoots 8fps which is not the way i shoot anyway
Click to expand...



Ah, NO other camera shoots faster than the Sony A77 in 24 megapixel full resolution, even the Canon or Nikon, so speed is not an issue.

skieur


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony Alpha SLT-A77 Camera Operation - Hands-On Preview
> 
> "The Sony A77's EVF does an excellent job of gaining-up when the light gets dim. There's no free lunch, in that the trade-offs are that the image gets a bit grainy looking, and the refresh rate drops dramatically, but the net result is I was much more able to see what I was shooting after dark with the A77 than I've ever been with any optical-viewfinder camera I've used in the past."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still wouldn't buy one for studio use
Click to expand...


I would not buy a Nikon or Canon for studio use either.  I would buy or rent a medium format Red Epic.

skieur


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> If it is like the A55 there may be trouble using it when it gets dark



Different camera.  Brighter, more contrast, higher resolution viewfinder, for example.

skieur


----------



## skieur

suppyxx said:


> i was thinking about getting one... but not sure i have read about it the pros the cons but i want some more people views on it
> not trying to get professional just mainly pictures for concerts and videos of them and



Sony has the best video with smooth 60 frames per second, full HD, and the only camera with fast phase detection autofocus during video shooting.

skieur


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



The reveiw i read said the opposite and the Sony had noise in the lowest ISO's that had to be remove, tracking focus was inconsistant and stuggled to keep up with fast moving action, and as soon as you fire off a 12frame burst it is imposible to track the subject it also said images shot at ISO6400 or 12800 were unusable, they said images were good if there was good light 
There is now way this is good enough for a sports camera


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The reveiw i read said the opposite and the Sony had noise in the lowest ISO's that had to be remove, tracking focus was inconsistant and stuggled to keep up with fast moving action, and as soon as you fire off a 12frame burst it is imposible to track the subject it also said images shot at ISO6400 or 12800 were unusable, they said images were good if there was good light
> There is now way this is good enough for a sports camera
Click to expand...


Imaging Resource "Comparometer" &#8482; Digital Camera Image Comparison Page This is the image comparometer. Choose Canon 7D on the left menu and Sony A77 on the right menu. Double click and then move down to the photo of the girl in green at ISO 6400 in zoom mode. Look at the text on the back of the book that she is reading and the noise at the top of the book. The results are as I indicated above. The lab results for noise at Popular Photography magazine indicated very low noise at low ISOs for Sony A77 and I would trust lab results more than review opinions.  I should also note that these tests were not even done with fast frame noise reduction mode on which further reduces noise reduction while maintaining the high resolution and quality.

I would also point out that the Sony A77 is the ONLY camera with even 8 fps or faster at the full resolution of 24 megapixels, so complaints about 12 fps are a bit of a stretch. Moreover the viewfinder lag is apparently no greater than 1/10 of a second which is still faster than 5fps cameras or fast fps cameras at much lower resolution.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_7D-vs-Sony-A77

skieur


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reveiw i read said the opposite and the Sony had noise in the lowest ISO's that had to be remove, tracking focus was inconsistant and stuggled to keep up with fast moving action, and as soon as you fire off a 12frame burst it is imposible to track the subject it also said images shot at ISO6400 or 12800 were unusable, they said images were good if there was good light
> There is now way this is good enough for a sports camera
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imaging Resource "Comparometer" &#8482; Digital Camera Image Comparison Page This is the image comparometer. Choose Canon 7D on the left menu and Sony A77 on the right menu. Double click and then move down to the photo of the girl in green at ISO 6400 in zoom mode. Look at the text on the back of the book that she is reading and the noise at the top of the book. The results are as I indicated above. The lab results for noise at Popular Photography magazine indicated very low noise at low ISOs for Sony A77 and I would trust lab results more than review opinions.  I should also note that these tests were not even done with fast frame noise reduction mode on which further reduces noise reduction while maintaining the high resolution and quality.
> 
> I would also point out that the Sony A77 is the ONLY camera with even 8 fps or faster at the full resolution of 24 megapixels, so complaints about 12 fps are a bit of a stretch. Moreover the viewfinder lag is apparently no greater than 1/10 of a second which is still faster than 5fps cameras or fast fps cameras at much lower resolution.
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



There is no way any sports photographer will buy the A77, I rang a friend at a shop and was able to tried one this afternoon to find out and i was not impressed so it is a big fail on Sony's part


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reveiw i read said the opposite and the Sony had noise in the lowest ISO's that had to be remove, tracking focus was inconsistant and stuggled to keep up with fast moving action, and as soon as you fire off a 12frame burst it is imposible to track the subject it also said images shot at ISO6400 or 12800 were unusable, they said images were good if there was good light
> There is now way this is good enough for a sports camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imaging Resource "Comparometer" &#8482; Digital Camera Image Comparison Page This is the image comparometer. Choose Canon 7D on the left menu and Sony A77 on the right menu. Double click and then move down to the photo of the girl in green at ISO 6400 in zoom mode. Look at the text on the back of the book that she is reading and the noise at the top of the book. The results are as I indicated above. The lab results for noise at Popular Photography magazine indicated very low noise at low ISOs for Sony A77 and I would trust lab results more than review opinions. I should also note that these tests were not even done with fast frame noise reduction mode on which further reduces noise reduction while maintaining the high resolution and quality.
> 
> I would also point out that the Sony A77 is the ONLY camera with even 8 fps or faster at the full resolution of 24 megapixels, so complaints about 12 fps are a bit of a stretch. Moreover the viewfinder lag is apparently no greater than 1/10 of a second which is still faster than 5fps cameras or fast fps cameras at much lower resolution.
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way any sports photographer will buy the A77, I rang a friend at a shop and was able to tried one this afternoon to find out and i was not impressed so it is a big fail on Sony's part
Click to expand...


Well, the statement above is TOO SHORT, to be believable. If you really thoroughly tried it out, you would be able to tell us in detail your impressions of perceived weaknesses and provide sample shots.

You have not even commented on the shots I directed you to, above, so you did not look at them either......or perhaps you did and they proved what I have been saying all along.

skieur


----------



## ConradM

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reveiw i read said the opposite and the Sony had noise in the lowest ISO's that had to be remove, tracking focus was inconsistant and stuggled to keep up with fast moving action, and as soon as you fire off a 12frame burst it is imposible to track the subject it also said images shot at ISO6400 or 12800 were unusable, they said images were good if there was good light
> There is now way this is good enough for a sports camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imaging Resource "Comparometer"  Digital Camera Image Comparison Page This is the image comparometer. Choose Canon 7D on the left menu and Sony A77 on the right menu. Double click and then move down to the photo of the girl in green at ISO 6400 in zoom mode. Look at the text on the back of the book that she is reading and the noise at the top of the book. The results are as I indicated above. The lab results for noise at Popular Photography magazine indicated very low noise at low ISOs for Sony A77 and I would trust lab results more than review opinions.  I should also note that these tests were not even done with fast frame noise reduction mode on which further reduces noise reduction while maintaining the high resolution and quality.
> 
> I would also point out that the Sony A77 is the ONLY camera with even 8 fps or faster at the full resolution of 24 megapixels, so complaints about 12 fps are a bit of a stretch. Moreover the viewfinder lag is apparently no greater than 1/10 of a second which is still faster than 5fps cameras or fast fps cameras at much lower resolution.
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way any sports photographer will buy the A77, I rang a friend at a shop and was able to tried one this afternoon to find out and i was not impressed so it is a big fail on Sony's part
Click to expand...


Now you're just blatantly showing your hate for Sony. Maybe you should just stop posting in this section.


----------



## gsgary

ConradM said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imaging Resource "Comparometer" &#8482; Digital Camera Image Comparison Page This is the image comparometer. Choose Canon 7D on the left menu and Sony A77 on the right menu. Double click and then move down to the photo of the girl in green at ISO 6400 in zoom mode. Look at the text on the back of the book that she is reading and the noise at the top of the book. The results are as I indicated above. The lab results for noise at Popular Photography magazine indicated very low noise at low ISOs for Sony A77 and I would trust lab results more than review opinions.  I should also note that these tests were not even done with fast frame noise reduction mode on which further reduces noise reduction while maintaining the high resolution and quality.
> 
> I would also point out that the Sony A77 is the ONLY camera with even 8 fps or faster at the full resolution of 24 megapixels, so complaints about 12 fps are a bit of a stretch. Moreover the viewfinder lag is apparently no greater than 1/10 of a second which is still faster than 5fps cameras or fast fps cameras at much lower resolution.
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way any sports photographer will buy the A77, I rang a friend at a shop and was able to tried one this afternoon to find out and i was not impressed so it is a big fail on Sony's part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just blatantly showing your hate for Sony. Maybe you should just stop posting in this section.
Click to expand...



i don't hate them, the A900 was a good camera


----------



## Crollo

skieur said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sony Alpha SLT-A77 Camera Operation - Hands-On Preview
> 
> "The Sony A77's EVF does an excellent job of gaining-up when the light gets dim. There's no free lunch, in that the trade-offs are that the image gets a bit grainy looking, and the refresh rate drops dramatically, but the net result is I was much more able to see what I was shooting after dark with the A77 than I've ever been with any optical-viewfinder camera I've used in the past."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still wouldn't buy one for studio use
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For serious studio use, rent a Red One, Epic Red, or Leica S9. Why consider anything else?
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


You're recommending somebody use a digital cinema video camera for studio photography use?

You clearly don't know what you're talking about if you seriously just called a red one or a red epic a medium format camera. The red sensor is super35 and it isn't even as large as a full frame photography sensor. 
Why they hell would you use a video camera with a small sensor for studio photography over a photography camera with a larger sensor designed for photography?


----------



## unpopular

I knew it would only be a matter of time until Skieur came here and took a giant poo on this thread also. 

OP: unless you have some specific need toe very fast AF in video or continuous drive mode, then there is no reason to get tha a77 over a similar traditional dslr or the NEX 5 or 7. Despite skieur's bizarre enthusiasm, the SLT series' drawbacks does not warrant it's advantages.


----------



## unpopular

Crollo said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still wouldn't buy one for studio use
> 
> 
> 
> For serious studio use, rent a Red One, Epic Red, or Leica S9. Why consider anything else?skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're recommending somebody use a digital cinema video camera for studio photography use?
Click to expand...

And he said I was ignorant of technology.

Skieur, can you please just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and at this point you're just fighting for your ego.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... YOU HAVE STARTED HIM OFF AGAIN! JUST AS I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL OVER!

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH! 

I think we at least know what Skieur does with his spare time, he sits going through www.imaging-resource.com again and again and again and well again! It really is camera porn all the way for him.


----------



## skieur

Crollo said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still wouldn't buy one for studio use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For serious studio use, rent a Red One, Epic Red, or Leica S9. Why consider anything else?
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're recommending somebody use a digital cinema video camera for studio photography use?
> 
> You clearly don't know what you're talking about if you seriously just called a red one or a red epic a medium format camera. The red sensor is super35 and it isn't even as large as a full frame photography sensor.
> Why they hell would you use a video camera with a small sensor for studio photography over a photography camera with a larger sensor designed for photography?
Click to expand...


Red One or Red Epic are modular cameras that can shoot 35mm, medium format and large format digital depending on the installed module. Sensors start at 2/3 of an inch and go up to 6 by 17 CENTimeters and over 200 megapixels.

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> For serious studio use, rent a Red One, Epic Red, or Leica S9. Why consider anything else?skieur
> 
> 
> 
> You're recommending somebody use a digital cinema video camera for studio photography use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he said I was ignorant of technology.
> 
> Skieur, can you please just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and at this point you're just fighting for your ego.
Click to expand...


Ah, you don't read very thoroughly, Red is a modular system camera.  With the appropriate module it can shoot 35mm, medium format or large format digital still photos.

skieur


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... YOU HAVE STARTED HIM OFF AGAIN! JUST AS I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL OVER!
> 
> ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH!
> 
> I think we at least know what Skieur does with his spare time, he sits going through www.imaging-resource.com again and again and again and well again! It really is camera porn all the way for him.
Click to expand...


Interesting the direction your posts take, when I prove my point.

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> For serious studio use, rent a Red One, Epic Red, or Leica S9. Why consider anything else?skieur
> 
> 
> 
> You're recommending somebody use a digital cinema video camera for studio photography use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he said I was ignorant of technology.
> 
> Skieur, can you please just admit you have no idea what you're talking about and at this point you're just fighting for your ego.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just admit that I have proved my point.  

skieur


----------



## unpopular

^^ I am not even sure where to begin with this.

The red is not designed to be a still camera, it's a cinema camera. It does great at what it's designed for, but it is not designed for studio use. It does not have a flash sync, or even single frame exposure. Maybe there is a traditional single frame exposure module?

But this is totally beside the point. You don't need a $30k+ to shoot in  the studio. That's just ridiculous.


----------



## gsgary

unpopular said:


> ^^ I am not even sure where to begin with this.
> 
> The red is not designed to be a still camera, it's a cinema camera. It does great at what it's designed for, but it is not designed for studio use. It does not have a flash sync, or even single frame exposure. Maybe there is a traditional single frame exposure module?
> 
> But this is totally beside the point. You don't need a $30k+ to shoot in  the studio. That's just ridiculous.



I just use my Mamiya C330 if i want big prints


----------



## unpopular

^ you do NOT use a $600 camera from the 1960's!


----------



## gsgary

unpopular said:


> ^ you do NOT use a $600 camera from the 1960's!



I do but it is not that old they were made in 70's to mid 90's and an old zorki 4 plus quite a few digital


----------



## o hey tyler

skieur said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


This is coming from the same person who thought that the A77 outperformed the 5D2 at ISO 1600. 

What a joke.


----------



## Derrel

hotelfm said:


> The A77 is great, but for professional use, no thanks.
> 
> Professionel fotograf i hele Danmark



"[h=3]Kamera liste[/h]

Hasselblad H4D - 200MS - studie/location
Phase One 645DF - IQ180 digital bagstykke - studie/location
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - studie og location
Canon EOS 1DX - sport og studio
Nikon D3S - sport
Nikon D3X - studie


----------



## Crollo

skieur said:


> Red One or Red Epic are modular cameras that can shoot 35mm, medium format and large format digital depending on the installed module. Sensors start at 2/3 of an inch and go up to 6 by 17 CENTimeters and over 200 megapixels.
> 
> skieur



"The Red One has a 11.5 megapixelbayer pattern CMOS sensor. The sensor, called Mysterium measures 24.4 mm by 13.7 mm, and has 4,520 by 2,540 active pixels, though the camera only records a window of those pixels in normal operation. The sensor is about the surface area of a traditional Super 35 film frame, creating a similar angle of view and depth of field as the Super 35 film format. When shooting at 2k resolution the used sensor window is the same as Super 16 film. This allows the camera to be used with Super 16 lenses."
"The camera sensor, called Mysterium-X, is a 27.7 by 14.6 mm 13.8 (5120 by 2700 pixels) megapixel bayer patternCMOS 14 bit sensor which is rated at ISO 800 at daylight with a dynamic range of 13.5 stops. It has approximately the same surface area of a traditional Super 35 film frame masked to the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, creating a similar angle of view and depth of field as the Super 35 film format."

Funny how it says nothing about other sensors.
You know why you can't change the sensor? Because you can't put a large format sensor in a camera designed to hold a s35 sensor. It's not physically possible, and it's not technologically possible because it would overload the processor which was only designed to function with a s35 sensor.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> ^^ I am not even sure where to begin with this.
> 
> The red is not designed to be a still camera, it's a cinema camera. It does great at what it's designed for, but it is not designed for studio use. It does not have a flash sync, or even single frame exposure. Maybe there is a traditional single frame exposure module?
> 
> But this is totally beside the point. You don't need a $30k+ to shoot in the studio. That's just ridiculous.



Of course it is ridiculous,....but not everyone does LOW end stuff and the competition at the high end is rather cut-throat.

skieur


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way any sports photographer will buy the A77, I rang a friend at a shop and was able to tried one this afternoon to find out and i was not impressed so it is a big fail on Sony's part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just blatantly showing your hate for Sony. Maybe you should just stop posting in this section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i don't hate them, the A900 was a good camera
Click to expand...


So, wait for the A99 at 36 megapixels full frame, if that is your style.

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> ^ you do NOT use a $600 camera from the 1960's!



Shows the level of technology of my attackers.:lmao::thumbdown:

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> I knew it would only be a matter of time until Skieur came here and took a giant poo on this thread also.
> 
> OP: unless you have some specific need toe very fast AF in video or continuous drive mode, then there is no reason to get tha a77 over a similar traditional dslr or the NEX 5 or 7. Despite skieur's bizarre enthusiasm, the SLT series' drawbacks does not warrant it's advantages.



Yes, unless you want very fast autofocus in continous shooting and video, handheld sweep panorama in regular and 3D, in camera HDR, simulated tilt shift mode to eliminate wide angle distortion, fast frame noise reduction at around 20,000 ISO for low light, and fully customizable features, ....then listen to those resistant to change and new features photographers above.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> simulated tilt shift mode to eliminate wide angle distortion



Do you even realize why this doesn't make any sense at all? Have you ever actually used a view camera?


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just blatantly showing your hate for Sony. Maybe you should just stop posting in this section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't hate them, the A900 was a good camera
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, wait for the A99 at 36 megapixels full frame, if that is your style.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


No thanks i will stick with a proper veiw finder


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ you do NOT use a $600 camera from the 1960's!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shows the level of technology of my attackers.:lmao::thumbdown:
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


It's shows i can use any camera handed to me, Digital wise i have 10D,1Dmk1 2x1Dmk2 5D and lots of L lenses


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read my first reveiw of the A77 in a pro UK mag can't see any pro sports shooters buying it write speads slow so you struggle to get 12fps and you can only use it in AE (auto exposure) mode set, so the only way to control exposure is by ISO or exposure compensation, another thing the was concerning was the *tester would not use it over ISO400* and didn't consider it suitable for low-light work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a biased tester.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is one of the top UK mags been going for decades, what i didn't know untill i read the reveiw was that it will only shoot 12Fps (and that is a stretch even with fast cards) in Auto if you shoot sports in manual like me it only shoots 8fps which is not the way i shoot anyway
Click to expand...


Well, you are certainly NOT shooting at 8 fps or faster with any other camera at 24 megapixels for sports, so what's your problem?

skieur


----------



## unpopular

This is a visual representation of the entire internet. It ranges from important stuff in red to all of skieurs posts in purple.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

unpopular said:


> This is a visual representation of the entire internet. It ranges from important stuff in red to all of skieurs posts in purple.



hahahahha love it!! :lmao:

What most gets to me about 'skieur', is the fact he has to write his name after every post? How pompous is that??

Is the name 'skieur' meant to mean something to me? I'm assuming your famous??

The list of famed photographers went like this- 

1- Ansel Adams
2- Henri Cartier Bresson
3- Skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> This is a visual representation of the entire internet. It ranges from important stuff in red to all of skieurs posts in purple.



Boy, you get silly, when I shoot down your arguments!

skieur


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a visual representation of the entire internet. It ranges from important stuff in red to all of skieurs posts in purple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahha love it!! :lmao:
> 
> What most gets to me about 'skieur', is the fact he has to write his name after every post? How pompous is that??
> 
> Is the name 'skieur' meant to mean something to me? I'm assuming your famous??
> 
> The list of famed photographers went like this-
> 
> 1- Ansel Adams
> 2- Henri Cartier Bresson
> 3- Skieur
Click to expand...


I am sure you do love it.  You are both at the same level of immaturity.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> Boy, you get silly, when I shoot down your arguments!
> 
> skieur



I'm pretty sure you are the only one who feels that way.


----------



## argieramos

Why some people bragging about the ISO performance of the a77? The 7D produce as much noise but I don't see people making it a big deal.  The IQ is better than any APS-C from Canon, Nikon (with the exception of D7000) based on test results. One of the things that I like about the a77  is the face registry which you can register up to 8 faces to the camera, and it will recognize the face and focus on them quickly even in crowded area. It is very useful when shooting a celebrity, wedding, or models


----------



## unpopular

^^ which is great for snapshots!


----------



## rexbobcat

skieur said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a biased tester.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is one of the top UK mags been going for decades, what i didn't know untill i read the reveiw was that it will only shoot 12Fps (and that is a stretch even with fast cards) in Auto if you shoot sports in manual like me it only shoots 8fps which is not the way i shoot anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are certainly NOT shooting at 8 fps or faster with any other camera at 24 megapixels for sports, so what's your problem?
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


I think they believe you're delusional. And I kind of have to agree. The A77 has bad ISO performance from the reviews that I've read. And the autofocus is nothing to gawk at either.

I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. The A77 is a decent camera. It broke into the consumer market for high megapixel cameras. However, I don't know any professionals who use Sony. Maybe it's just me, but Sony has limited lenses, and their cameras are 'neat', but they are not what a pro looks for.

That's just it. Sony is consumer friendly, and "neat." They have a lot of intuitive software. It's just that most of that software probably seems gimmicky to professionals.


----------



## ConradM

rexbobcat said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is one of the top UK mags been going for decades, what i didn't know untill i read the reveiw was that it will only shoot 12Fps (and that is a stretch even with fast cards) in Auto if you shoot sports in manual like me it only shoots 8fps which is not the way i shoot anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are certainly NOT shooting at 8 fps or faster with any other camera at 24 megapixels for sports, so what's your problem?
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they believe you're delusional. And I kind of have to agree. The A77 has bad ISO performance from the reviews that I've read. And the autofocus is nothing to gawk at either.
> 
> I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. The A77 is a decent camera. It broke into the consumer market for high megapixel cameras. However, I don't know any professionals who use Sony. Maybe it's just me, but Sony has limited lenses, and their cameras are 'neat', but they are not what a pro looks for.
> 
> That's just it. Sony is consumer friendly, and "neat." They have a lot of intuitive software. It's just that most of that software probably seems gimmicky to professionals.
Click to expand...


Why do people always come out with the "professionals don't use it" argument? Pro photography has little to do with photography as a hobby IMO. The truth is, Sony alphas offer much more than comparative DSLR's up to a certain range.

The things you say are "neat" are actually very useful features. Forget about all the auto stuff, that stuff is cool. Heck, forget about the A77 for a second... My entry level A33 has features that much more expensive cameras don't like phase-detect AF, In body IS, 7fps, an articulating screen etc... You can't deny that these are useful features packed into an affordable body. 

I honestly feel bad when I see all these new people popping up with their sub $700 nikons and canons... They probably spent more than I did just to get less. and for what? Popular choice! 

I researched every DSLR I could under $600 when I was shopping and there's simply nothing that topped the a33 in terms of bang for the buck. *Try and prove me wrong. *

I'm sure people will find a reason to right off everything I've said in this post. When you've spent more on your camera that does less then mine of course you have to try and right off all the useful features as "neat".


----------



## ConradM

Oh and the lens argument is a joke as for as the hobby is concerned too. Just stop talking about it. ~100 lenses is more than 90% of the people on this forum will ever need.


----------



## ConradM

Show me a $550 DSLR that can do this - 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqpg-NX9lYs

Here's your best bet and it's not even close - 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITTpsI8g7f8

Even the guy that posted that video said the AF is terrible. :lmao:


----------



## unpopular

The reason with the professionals argument is because Skieur insisted that the SLT series were professional cameras in another thread.

As for "bang for the buck" the A390 and a550 doesn't cut 1/3 of one stop before it even reaches the sensor. It doesn't have a 1/10 of 1 second delay between the lens and the viewfinder. 

Unfortunately, Sony seems to be going with this SLT "worst of both worlds" approach which isn't about any gain in function, but about saving money in production. Pellicle SLRs are cheap. That's the bottom line. They offer no significant advantage.


----------



## Crollo

ConradM said:


> Oh and the lens argument is a joke as for as the hobby is concerned too. Just stop talking about it. ~100 lenses is more than 90% of the people on this forum will ever need.



Yeah, it's not like people have collections of lenses for one brand or anything ridiculous like that. Just throw all those thousands of dollars worth investments just to get a cheaply made brand camera.


----------



## belial

It's not the number of lenses it's the fact that Sony has many missing areas. Also their lenses are ridiculously priced an there's just no good models.


----------



## ConradM

Crollo said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and the lens argument is a joke as for as the hobby is concerned too. Just stop talking about it. ~100 lenses is more than 90% of the people on this forum will ever need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not like people have collections of lenses for one brand or anything ridiculous like that. Just throw all those thousands of dollars worth investments just to get a cheaply made brand camera.
Click to expand...


Context perhaps? I never said anything about switching brands.


----------



## ConradM

belial said:


> It's not the number of lenses it's the fact that Sony has many missing areas. Also their lenses are ridiculously priced an there's *just no good models.*



What do you mean?


----------



## ConradM

unpopular said:


> The reason with the professionals argument is because Skieur insisted that the SLT series were professional cameras in another thread.
> 
> As for "bang for the buck" the A390 and a550 doesn't cut 1/3 of one stop before it even reaches the sensor. It doesn't have a 1/10 of 1 second delay between the lens and the viewfinder.
> 
> Unfortunately, Sony seems to be going with this SLT "worst of both worlds" approach which isn't about any gain in function, but about saving money in production. Pellicle SLRs are cheap. That's the bottom line. *They offer no significant advantage.*



Phase detect AF and 10 fps isn't an advantage?


----------



## kassad

belial said:
			
		

> It's not the number of lenses it's the fact that Sony has many missing areas. Also their lenses are ridiculously priced an there's just no good models.



What areas are they missing?


----------



## belial

Correct me if I'm wrong but in my dabbling into Sony lenses I haven't found a normal zoom range for a crop camera with a 2.8 aperture. There's lots of other small areas that aren't there. And the point is with both canon and Nikon there are many more options.


----------



## belial

Another example is the 70-200. Through say canon you have four pro options at different price ranges versus only one pro option at this focal length for Sony. The different price ranges allow someone to get good results cheaper and it also means that pros have lighter weight options too. Little things like that mean more to me than a body that has features that while convenient aren't really necessary


----------



## kassad

belial said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong but in my dabbling into Sony lenses I haven't found a normal zoom range for a crop camera with a 2.8 aperture. There's lots of other small areas that aren't there. And the point is with both canon and Nikon there are many more options.



They just released a 17-50 f2.8 if that's what you mean.   Plus sigma and tamron produce almost all of there line in the A mount.   The non stabilized version are more inexpensive.   My point is that it's not a valid argument against Sony.   The only area I have found them lacking is in the long telephoto range 400mm and longer.   If a photog can afford a Nikon or canon 400 f2.8 then they should get one.    

Don't get me wrong i'll never claim Sony are better than Nikon or Canon.   Sony is certainly lacking several areas.   Though I think they are a great choice for the more casual users.   Those who will never spend $1000 on a lens or shoot with off camera flash.    They have some great cameras a700 and a850/a900 in the pro range.   Their current development is aimed towards beginners where are doing a great job.   I will probably drop Sony in the next year or two.   The a77 isn't for me.   Though I'm curious what the a99 has to offer.


----------



## belial

ConradM said:
			
		

> Phase detect AF and 10 fps isn't an advantage?



But the question is, are they really needed?


----------



## kassad

belial said:
			
		

> Another example is the 70-200. Through say canon you have four pro options at different price ranges versus only one pro option at this focal length for Sony. The different price ranges allow someone to get good results cheaper and it also means that pros have lighter weight options too. Little things like that mean more to me than a body that has features that while convenient aren't really necessary



I'll concede that point.   Though I will say they the market Sony is trying to capture will never buy pro level lenses.


----------



## belial

Oh. Just to give a little background. I don't hate Sony. I came up from Sony point and shoots. I went with a canon rebel taking pros advice. Don't think ill ever be sure it was the right choice though which is why I read the sony threads


----------



## unpopular

ConradM said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason with the professionals argument is because Skieur insisted that the SLT series were professional cameras in another thread.
> 
> As for "bang for the buck" the A390 and a550 doesn't cut 1/3 of one stop before it even reaches the sensor. It doesn't have a 1/10 of 1 second delay between the lens and the viewfinder.
> 
> Unfortunately, Sony seems to be going with this SLT "worst of both worlds" approach which isn't about any gain in function, but about saving money in production. Pellicle SLRs are cheap. That's the bottom line. *They offer no significant advantage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phase detect AF and 10 fps isn't an advantage?
Click to expand...


not really given the disadvantages.


----------



## ConradM

kassad said:


> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but in my dabbling into Sony lenses I haven't found a normal zoom range for a crop camera with a 2.8 aperture. There's lots of other small areas that aren't there. And the point is with both canon and Nikon there are many more options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just released a 17-50 f2.8 if that's what you mean.   Plus sigma and tamron produce almost all of there line in the A mount.   The non stabilized version are more inexpensive.   My point is that it's not a valid argument against Sony.   The only area I have found them lacking is in the long telephoto range 400mm and longer.   If a photog can afford a Nikon or canon 400 f2.8 then they should get one.
> 
> Don't get me wrong i'll never claim Sony are better than Nikon or Canon.   Sony is certainly lacking several areas.   Though I think they are a great choice for the more casual users.   Those who will never spend $1000 on a lens or shoot with off camera flash.    They have some great cameras a700 and a850/a900 in the pro range.   Their current development is aimed towards beginners where are doing a great job.   I will probably drop Sony in the next year or two.   The a77 isn't for me.   Though I'm curious what the a99 has to offer.
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## ConradM

unpopular said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason with the professionals argument is because Skieur insisted that the SLT series were professional cameras in another thread.
> 
> As for "bang for the buck" the A390 and a550 doesn't cut 1/3 of one stop before it even reaches the sensor. It doesn't have a 1/10 of 1 second delay between the lens and the viewfinder.
> 
> Unfortunately, Sony seems to be going with this SLT "worst of both worlds" approach which isn't about any gain in function, but about saving money in production. Pellicle SLRs are cheap. That's the bottom line. *They offer no significant advantage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phase detect AF and 10 fps isn't an advantage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really given the disadvantages.
Click to expand...


Such as?


----------



## unpopular

If the a99 really will be using an APS-C or larger 3MOS sensor with 36 pixels per channel, it will be one hell of a camera (and i'd imagine pretty large) - it would work better if it was not a pellicle, but this arrangement should effectively compensate for lost signal.


----------



## argieramos

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> I think they believe you're delusional. And I kind of have to agree. The A77 has bad ISO performance from the reviews that I've read. And the autofocus is nothing to gawk at either.
> 
> I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. The A77 is a decent camera. It broke into the consumer market for high megapixel cameras. However, I don't know any professionals who use Sony. Maybe it's just me, but Sony has limited lenses, and their cameras are 'neat', but they are not what a pro looks for.
> 
> That's just it. Sony is consumer friendly, and "neat." They have a lot of intuitive software. It's just that most of that software probably seems gimmicky to professionals.



Show me the review that it says "bad" ISO performance. If you are not comparing the a77 to the Pentax K-5, Nikon D7000/D51000, Sony a580/Nex5n/7, and Full Frame cameras, you will see that the a77 is as good if not better than most DSLR. If you are saying that a77 has bad noise level, you might want to say that every single APS-C camera of Canon is also bad. You guys need to understand everything.


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a biased tester.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is one of the top UK mags been going for decades, what i didn't know untill i read the reveiw was that it will only shoot 12Fps (and that is a stretch even with fast cards) in Auto if you shoot sports in manual like me it only shoots 8fps which is not the way i shoot anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are certainly NOT shooting at 8 fps or faster with any other camera at 24 megapixels for sports, so what's your problem?
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



The veiwfinder, the noise, very slow writting to card, after shooting 12 shots it took 13 seconds to write to the card these are the problems


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> The veiwfinder, the noise, very slow writting to card, after shooting 12 shots it took 13 seconds to write to the card these ar the problem



Viewfinder - the advantage outweight the disadvantge of it over the OVF. whats the problem?
Writing to card- Get a fast card then
12 shots will take 13 seconds to write- Completely wrong
Noise- a77 noise level is as good as the Canon 7D. Are you saying all the canon suck?

How about the advantages?
face register- camera will remember the face of your subject and focus on them right away even in a crowded area
Dual Control Wheel- much easier to control the settings when doing manual mode
Live view- Sony LV is unmatch
Weather Sealed- Shoot in the rain
Extremely fast video autofocus
Extremely fast AF
In-body IS- Never to worry about not having IS lens
Panorama
Multi Frame Noise Reduction
Better Image quality than "all" Aps-c of Canon


----------



## kassad

argieramos said:
			
		

> Viewfinder - the advantage outweight the disadvantge of it over the OVF. whats the problem?
> Writing to card- Get a fast card then
> 12 shots will take 13 seconds to write- Completely wrong
> Noise- a77 noise level is as good as the Canon 7D. Are you saying all the canon suck?
> 
> How about the advantages?
> face register- camera will remember the face of your subject and focus on them right away even in a crowded area
> Dual Control Wheel- much easier to control the settings when doing manual mode
> Live view- Sony LV is unmatch
> Weather Sealed- Shoot in the rain
> Extremely fast video autofocus
> Extremely fast AF
> In-body IS- Never to worry about not having IS lens
> Panorama
> Multi Frame Noise Reduction
> Better Image quality than "all" Aps-c of Canon



Do you own an A77?


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The veiwfinder, the noise, very slow writting to card, after shooting 12 shots it took 13 seconds to write to the card these ar the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Viewfinder - the advantage outweight the disadvantge of it over the OVF. whats the problem?
> Writing to card- Get a fast card then
> 12 shots will take 13 seconds to write- Completely wrong
> Noise- a77 noise level is as good as the Canon 7D. Are you saying all the canon suck?
> 
> How about the advantages?
> face register- camera will remember the face of your subject and focus on them right away even in a crowded area
> Dual Control Wheel- much easier to control the settings when doing manual mode
> Live view- Sony LV is unmatch
> Weather Sealed- Shoot in the rain
> Extremely fast video autofocus
> Extremely fast AF
> In-body IS- Never to worry about not having IS lens
> Panorama
> Multi Frame Noise Reduction
> Better Image quality than "all" Aps-c of Canon
Click to expand...


This guy is either 

A. Extremely Sheltered 

or 

B. Hasn't done any research into the A77 and SLT cameras in general.

or 

C. Is Skieur's blood relative.


----------



## unpopular

or perhaps even Skieur himself!


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> This guy is either
> 
> A. Extremely Sheltered
> 
> or
> 
> B. Hasn't done any research into the A77 and SLT cameras in general.
> 
> or
> 
> C. Is Skieur's blood relative.



lol It's funny how you guys make such accusations without proving anything. I rented one from borrowlenses and I used to have the a33. I pretty much have knowledge about SLTs. If theres any error to my claim, tell me. Let's see which one of us who doesnt have a clue about this matter


----------



## unpopular

-1/3ev that's enough for me, at least with a traditional Bayer arrangement.


----------



## kassad

argieramos said:
			
		

> lol It's funny how you guys make such accusations without proving anything. I rented one from borrowlenses and I used to have the a33. I pretty much have knowledge about SLTs. If theres any error to my claim, tell me. Let's see which one of us who doesnt have a clue about this matter



I do have a  few questions.  How well does the face recognition work?  From what I read it sounded too good to be true.  How fast is then contrast detect autofocus compared to the phase detect autofocus?  Do you any sample images of low light high iso shots?


----------



## argieramos

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_7D-vs-Sony-A77
a77 pretty much destroy the Canon's top APS-C camera... the Canon 7D.

http://www.cameradebate.com/2011/canon-7d-vs-sony-a77/
It will tell you how good the EVF of a77


----------



## argieramos

kassad said:
			
		

> I do have a  few questions.  How well does the face recognition work?  From what I read it sounded too good to be true.  How fast is then contrast detect autofocus compared to the phase detect autofocus?  Do you any sample images of low light high iso shots?



Oh it is very good. Very helpful when doing wedding, Shooting a specific people. Once you got the the face register to the camera, it will focus to that face quickly. It works on video too. I will see if I find some high ISO shot. But for now, you can check the borrowlenses page they have some photos taken by the a77 with highISO. For what I can tell the results are very good unlike these haters making it sounds like its horrible.


----------



## belial

argieramos said:
			
		

> http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_7D-vs-Sony-A77
> a77 pretty much destroy the Canon's top APS-C camera... the Canon 7D.
> 
> http://www.cameradebate.com/2011/canon-7d-vs-sony-a77/
> It will tell you how good the EVF of a77



Yet most other sites disagree. Let's face it. Slt is a crap tech that'll never go anywhere


----------



## argieramos

kassad said:
			
		

> I do have a  few questions.  How well does the face recognition work?  From what I read it sounded too good to be true.  How fast is then contrast detect autofocus compared to the phase detect autofocus?  Do you any sample images of low light high iso shots?



a77 has phase detect AF. It is extremely fast.


----------



## argieramos

belial said:
			
		

> Yet most other sites disagree. Let's face it. Slt is a crap tech that'll never go anywhere



What sites is that? Care to post it here? You're just a big talk with no proof. Check the imagingresource.com and DXoMark test result. a77 destroy the very best APS-C camera of Canon. The 7D. See? I got three already to prove my claim. You got zero lol


----------



## kassad

belial said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> a77 pretty much destroy the Canon's top APS-C camera... the Canon 7D.
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony A77 &#8211; Camera Comparison
> It will tell you how good the EVF of a77
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet most other sites disagree. Let's face it. Slt is a crap tech that'll never go anywhere
Click to expand...



Ok now your just trolling.


----------



## belial

I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The veiwfinder, the noise, very slow writting to card, after shooting 12 shots it took 13 seconds to write to the card these ar the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Viewfinder - the advantage outweight the disadvantge of it over the OVF. whats the problem?
> Writing to card- Get a fast card then
> 12 shots will take 13 seconds to write- Completely wrong
> Noise- a77 noise level is as good as the Canon 7D. Are you saying all the canon suck?
> 
> How about the advantages?
> face register- camera will remember the face of your subject and focus on them right away even in a crowded area
> Dual Control Wheel- much easier to control the settings when doing manual mode
> Live view- Sony LV is unmatch
> Weather Sealed- Shoot in the rain
> Extremely fast video autofocus
> Extremely fast AF
> In-body IS- Never to worry about not having IS lens
> Panorama
> Multi Frame Noise Reduction
> Better Image quality than "all" Aps-c of Canon
Click to expand...



Have you used one ? it had a fast card fitted,


----------



## unpopular

belial said:


> I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology



The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.


----------



## belial

unpopular said:
			
		

> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.



Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative


----------



## unpopular

Oh. I misread your post. I thought you were asking what was wrong with a pellicle slr.

That's the other thing, Sony makes this out to be some kind of crazy new technology. It's a beamsplitter, a semi-silvered mirror. It's nothing "high tech" it's just a Pellicle SLR.


----------



## Crollo

ConradM said:


> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and the lens argument is a joke as for as the hobby is concerned too. Just stop talking about it. ~100 lenses is more than 90% of the people on this forum will ever need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not like people have collections of lenses for one brand or anything ridiculous like that. Just throw all those thousands of dollars worth investments just to get a cheaply made brand camera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Context perhaps? I never said anything about switching brands.
Click to expand...


You said you don't see why anybody would buy a Canon over a Sony of the same price range when the Sony is presumably better. I should have included your original post as well.


----------



## ConradM

unpopular said:


> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.
Click to expand...

 


belial said:


> Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative



That seems to be a non-issue at least at the lower end. The a33 has higher IQ than any camera below $700.


----------



## ConradM

unpopular said:


> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.
Click to expand...

 


Crollo said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not like people have collections of lenses for one brand or anything ridiculous like that. Just throw all those thousands of dollars worth investments just to get a cheaply made brand camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Context perhaps? I never said anything about switching brands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you don't see why anybody would buy a Canon over a Sony of the same price range when the Sony is presumably better. I should have included your original post as well.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wasn't talking about someone with an extensive collection of glass. Seems like it would be common sense.


----------



## Crollo

ConradM said:


> Yeah, I wasn't talking about someone with an extensive collection of glass. Seems like it would be common sense.



Fair enough.


----------



## Crollo

Can we just ban all the brandname elitists? Discussions might god forbid, _be constructive_ without them.


----------



## unpopular

Exactly. I never understood this mentality. It's just silly. If Canon made a short film to flange full frame mirrorless at an affordable rate before Sony does, I'd ditch Sony. If Sony comes out with a full frame camera similar to the NEX, I'd get it.

I got an a350 because it the time it was the only thing with an articulating LCD, in-camera IS, and was at the right price. I'm not about to forego features that are important to me at any given time just for the sake of brand loyalty. I owe the CEO's of the camera companies absolutely nothing.


----------



## skieur

belial said:


> I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology



Yes.  Nothing wrong with the Polaroid camera or twin lens reflex cameras either, but I don't see anyone using them.

skieur


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The veiwfinder, the noise, very slow writting to card, after shooting 12 shots it took 13 seconds to write to the card these ar the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Viewfinder - the advantage outweight the disadvantge of it over the OVF. whats the problem?
> Writing to card- Get a fast card then
> 12 shots will take 13 seconds to write- Completely wrong
> Noise- a77 noise level is as good as the Canon 7D. Are you saying all the canon suck?
> 
> How about the advantages?
> face register- camera will remember the face of your subject and focus on them right away even in a crowded area
> Dual Control Wheel- much easier to control the settings when doing manual mode
> Live view- Sony LV is unmatch
> Weather Sealed- Shoot in the rain
> Extremely fast video autofocus
> Extremely fast AF
> In-body IS- Never to worry about not having IS lens
> Panorama
> Multi Frame Noise Reduction
> Better Image quality than "all" Aps-c of Canon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you used one ? it had a fast card fitted,
Click to expand...


How many times do you have to be told gsgary that your speed issue is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, considering that NO OTHER CAMERA can shoot at even 8 frames per second at 24 megapixels.????

skieur


----------



## ConradM

Crollo said:


> Can we just ban all the brandname elitists? Discussions might god forbid, _be constructive_ without them.



Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products. 

The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do. 

Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.


----------



## skieur

belial said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative
Click to expand...


As in you would notice 1/3 of a stop less light....sure.....

skieur


----------



## skieur

ConradM said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems to be a non-issue at least at the lower end. The a33 has higher IQ than any camera below $700.
Click to expand...


Non issue at the high end too. I have shot in a mine..almost in the dark.  1/3 of an fstop is not even noticeable.

skieur


----------



## Crollo

ConradM said:


> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just ban all the brandname elitists? Discussions might god forbid, _be constructive_ without them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products.
> 
> The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do.
> 
> Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.
Click to expand...


Wasn't really aiming anything in there at you, you're a rational reasonable person. It's just the people that will defend a brand with their life, resorting to low jabs and blows at other brands in order to make the one they love look better.


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Nothing wrong with the Polaroid camera or twin lens reflex cameras either, but I don't see anyone using them.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Polaroids had a very specific quality which excluded them for general use, they are still used in art photography and to some extent in large format studio for proofing purposes. 

Twin Lens Reflex cameras had parallax problems and interchangeable lenses are somewhat more costly and problematic to manufacture.

TLRs are very reliable, and have very bright viewfinders. But for most people the problems outweigh the advantages.


----------



## skieur

Crollo said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just ban all the brandname elitists? Discussions might god forbid, _be constructive_ without them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products.
> 
> The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do.
> 
> Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't really aiming anything in there at you, you're a rational reasonable person. It's just the people that will defend a brand with their life, resorting to low jabs and blows at other brands in order to make the one they love look better.
Click to expand...


And then there are others who will attack any brand but one of the big 2, resorting to insulting the poster when nothing else works. 

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see how the tech can go anywhere or why it's em necessary. Nothing wrong with normal slr technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Nothing wrong with the Polaroid camera or twin lens reflex cameras either, but I don't see anyone using them.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polaroids had a very specific quality which excluded them for general use, they are still used in art photography and to some extent in large format studio for proofing purposes.
> 
> Twin Lens Reflex cameras had parallax problems and interchangeable lenses are somewhat more costly and problematic to manufacture.
> 
> TLRs are very reliable, and have very bright viewfinders. But for most people the problems outweigh the advantages.
Click to expand...


And the mirror is what is "wrong with normal slr technology", as even the camera manufacturers will agree.

skieur


----------



## kassad

skieur said:
			
		

> How many times do you have to be told gsgary that your speed issue is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, considering that NO OTHER CAMERA can shoot at even 8 frames per second at 24 megapixels.????
> 
> skieur



It's not irrelevant.   What good is 24 megapixels if your missing shots waiting for the buffer to clear?    Heck I would rather have the a700 5 fps than buffer issues.   

If you have an a77, how many shots can you take at 8 fps before you fill the buffer?    How long does the buffer take to clear?


----------



## Crollo

skieur said:


> Crollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check my sig :mrgreen: Before I bought the a33 I pretty much stayed away from sony products.
> 
> The reason why I push the a33 for would-be photogs like me is because I want people to have the same awesomeness that I do.
> 
> Someone looking for an entry level DSLR, who will probably stick with that body for a long time, would benefit more from an a33 than a comparable camera.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't really aiming anything in there at you, you're a rational reasonable person. It's just the people that will defend a brand with their life, resorting to low jabs and blows at other brands in order to make the one they love look better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then there are others who will attack any brand but one of the big 2, resorting to insulting the poster when nothing else works.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Yes but they're still elitists though... Not really in a class of their own.


----------



## ConradM

Ok, I'm confused about the FPS buffer talk. I literally just took 43 pictures in continuous mode. For the first 15 or so, they fired off at the normal rate of 7fps but after that it started shooting in bursts of 3. But it never had to stop and write to the card or anything.


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> And the mirror is what is "wrong with normal slr technology", as even the camera manufacturers will agree.
> skieur



You know, maybe. But I think at the moment the technology is not quite ready. Perhaps when imaging sensors incorporate avalanche diodes (and they will), the same old issues that prevented effective Pellicle SLRs exist today - I'll admit to a much lesser degree, but still nonetheless present.


----------



## unpopular

You know, there is also emerging technologies including variable transmission mirrors which are affected by voltage input. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to switch the transmission based on the amount of light with more transmission in low light settings, and then drop it down to a lower reflection level when the shutter is pressed - permitting just enough light to see what's going on.

You could even make it such that if the drive mode is in single exposure the mirror would turn completely transmissive.


----------



## mjhoward

skieur said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. In my opinion that's a huge negative
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That seems to be a non-issue at least at the lower end. The a33 has higher IQ than any camera below $700.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non issue at the high end too. I have shot in a mine..almost in the dark.  1/3 of an fstop is not even noticeable.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


You have become a belligerent fool.  The loss is 1/2 ev for starters, not 1/3 ev.  The reason you don't notice it is because sony increases the gain of the sensor to compensate for this loss.  This is why the images from it are so farking noisy... also something you can't seem to acknowledge.  Another down side to the translucent mirror is that it is another piece of glass between the subject and the sensor.  This introduces two issues... the first is a slight degradation in sharpness.  This is a slight degradation, similar to having a quality UV filter on your lens.  You may not notice the difference without pixel peeping.  The other downfall is shooting conditions which allow for 'ghosting' or multiple reflections.

These are just problems with having the mirror there.  This doesnt address any of the other problems with the body.  And sure, full time Phase Detect AF is nice for a video camera... but we arn't videographers here.  If I or anyone here wanted a video camera they would probably pick a more suitable product such as... a VIDEO camera... not a DSLR.


----------



## unpopular

^^ 1/2ev would be _absolutely _intolerable if true. 1/3ev is bad enough.


----------



## ConradM

kassad said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told gsgary that your speed issue is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, considering that NO OTHER CAMERA can shoot at even 8 frames per second at 24 megapixels.????
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant.   What good is 24 megapixels if your missing shots waiting for the buffer to clear?    Heck I would rather have the a700 5 fps than buffer issues.
> 
> If you have an a77, how many shots can you take at 8 fps before you fill the buffer?    *How long does the buffer take to clear?*
Click to expand...


I just read up on this and tested it on my A33. In Jpeg I can shoot up to ~20 frames before it'll slow down to 3 bursts. But it never actually stops for the buffer. So with my a33, I can easily take 5 - 10 shot bursts without ever having to wait for anything. 

I'm not sure where you guys got that there was a "write time" wait.


----------



## mjhoward

ConradM said:


> kassad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told gsgary that your speed issue is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, considering that NO OTHER CAMERA can shoot at even 8 frames per second at 24 megapixels.????
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant.   What good is 24 megapixels if your missing shots waiting for the buffer to clear?    Heck I would rather have the a700 5 fps than buffer issues.
> 
> If you have an a77, how many shots can you take at 8 fps before you fill the buffer?    *How long does the buffer take to clear?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read up on this and tested it on my A33. In Jpeg I can shoot up to ~20 frames before it'll slow down to 3 bursts. But it never actually stops for the buffer. So with my a33, I can easily take 5 - 10 shot bursts without ever having to wait for anything.
> 
> I'm not sure where you guys got that there was a "write time" wait.
Click to expand...


Well you are at only half the resolution.


----------



## ConradM

mjhoward said:


> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kassad said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not irrelevant.   What good is 24 megapixels if your missing shots waiting for the buffer to clear?    Heck I would rather have the a700 5 fps than buffer issues.
> 
> If you have an a77, how many shots can you take at 8 fps before you fill the buffer?    *How long does the buffer take to clear?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just read up on this and tested it on my A33. In Jpeg I can shoot up to ~20 frames before it'll slow down to 3 bursts. But it never actually stops for the buffer. So with my a33, I can easily take 5 - 10 shot bursts without ever having to wait for anything.
> 
> I'm not sure where you guys got that there was a "write time" wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you are at only half the resolution.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter. I tried it in RAW too. There's still no write to card time. Just slow down in between frames.


----------



## kassad

ConradM said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read up on this and tested it on my A33. In Jpeg I can shoot up to ~20 frames before it'll slow down to 3 bursts. But it never actually stops for the buffer. So with my a33, I can easily take 5 - 10 shot bursts without ever having to wait for anything.
> 
> I'm not sure where you guys got that there was a "write time" wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are at only half the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter. I tried it in RAW too. There's still no write to card time. Just slow down in between frames.
Click to expand...


I appreciate you testing this on your testing this on your camera.   The results your giving would be acceptable for me if they were on the a77.    Even with the advertising specs ie 14 shot buffer the a77 is the worst of the enthusiast level cameras.   Canon 7d 8fps 100+ shot buffer Nikon d300s 8fps @50 shot buffer. 

One of the major problems of the a55 and a33 when they first came out was that after some one did a full burst in the high speed mode the camera completely locked up for several seconds while the buffer cleared.   With the later firmware updates that problem was fixed.   Now they throttle back the burst rate when the buffer is full.   

I wish someone with a a77 would do this same test and post the results.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.



indeed, but look what you are gaining in return. Faster Liveview and Video Autofocus Speed, faster fps with uninterrupted AF, no mirror blur(for macro)..  The result could be better without that fixed mirror inside (see the NEX-7), but the fact that a77 IQ is still better in terms of IQ than most SLR based on DXoMark test result. If you compare the sample shot of a77 and Canon 7D in imagingresource.com, they're both equal in terms of noise level, but a77 has better color, dynamic range and has more detail if you do a pixel peeping.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Have you used one ? it had a fast card fitted,



SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC 95MB/sec  and it works fine


----------



## argieramos

kassad said:
			
		

> I appreciate you testing this on your testing this on your camera.   The results your giving would be acceptable for me if they were on the a77.    Even with the advertising specs ie 14 shot buffer the a77 is the worst of the enthusiast level cameras.   Canon 7d 8fps 100+ shot buffer Nikon d300s 8fps @50 shot buffer.
> 
> One of the major problems of the a55 and a33 when they first came out was that after some one did a full burst in the high speed mode the camera completely locked up for several seconds while the buffer cleared.   With the later firmware updates that problem was fixed.   Now they throttle back the burst rate when the buffer is full.
> 
> I wish someone with a a77 would do this same test and post the results.



The a55 and a33 had that issue. They said the sensor overheats quickly.. But if you turn the IS off, you can shoot longer in full burst. The issue has been fixed in a35. When I rented my a77,  I tried doing a full burst 12fps but for only like maybe 15-20 seconds and stopped. That's all I can tell bro. I just wanted to try out the 12fps but didn't want to break my rented camera.


----------



## belial

argieramos said:
			
		

> indeed, but look what you are gaining in return. Faster Liveview and Video Autofocus Speed, faster fps with uninterrupted AF, no mirror blur(for macro)..  The result could be better without that fixed mirror inside (see the NEX-7), but the fact that a77 IQ is still better in terms of IQ than most SLR based on DXoMark test result. If you compare the sample shot of a77 and Canon 7D in imagingresource.com, they're both equal in terms of noise level, but a77 has better color, dynamic range and has more detail if you do a pixel peeping.



Faster video focus doesn't exactly matter in a still camera


----------



## belial

The main disadvantage of Sony is always going to be inferior glass. They spend too 
much time making trendy bodies and fully lack in optics


----------



## argieramos

belial said:
			
		

> Faster video focus doesn't exactly matter in a still camera



But a77 is not only a still camera. Get the point


----------



## argieramos

belial said:
			
		

> The main disadvantage of Sony is always going to be inferior glass. They spend too
> much time making trendy bodies and fully lack in optics



Carl Zeiss glass put the Nikon and Canon glass to their place


----------



## belial

argieramos said:
			
		

> Carl Zeiss glass put the Nikon and Canon glass to their place



Zeiss offers lenses for both canon and Nikon. And a lot of zeiss glass for Sony gets horrible reviews. But the fact that there's Nikon glass for canon and Nikon as well as the normal pro offerings puts sony in more than its place


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that less light reaches the primary imaging sensor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indeed, but look what you are gaining in return. Faster Liveview
Click to expand...


can be obtained with a mirrorless



> Video Autofocus Speed



Who cares?



> faster fps with uninterrupted AF



can be obtained with a mirrorless



> no mirror blur(for macro)



Can be obtained with a traditional SLR in mirror lockup, and again, mirrorless



> ..  The result could be better without that fixed mirror inside (see the NEX-7), but the fact that a77 IQ is still better in terms of IQ than most SLR based on DXoMark test result.



statement about dslrs has nothing to do with mirrorless cameras. In the end SLTs are the worst of both world.



> a77 has better color, dynamic range and has more detail if you do a pixel peeping.



Perhaps true but I kind of doubt it. Though this statement shows how little you know about what makes a good camera a good camera. detail and dynamic range are far from features which appeal to "pixel peepers". They *are* what makes a camera.


----------



## argieramos

belial said:
			
		

> Zeiss offers lenses for both canon and Nikon. And a lot of zeiss glass for Sony gets horrible reviews. But the fact that there's Nikon glass for canon and Nikon as well as the normal pro offerings puts sony in more than its place



Nikon glass for Canon? You do know that it is only possible with an adapter, right? Do you want to see the comparison of Sony CZ,Nikon, and Canon 24-70mm? Canon got the worst review and CZ is the sharpest. CZ on  canon and nikon are old MF lens. Now let me see the reviews that you are talking about


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> kassad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you testing this on your testing this on your camera.   The results your giving would be acceptable for me if they were on the a77.    Even with the advertising specs ie 14 shot buffer the a77 is the worst of the enthusiast level cameras.   Canon 7d 8fps 100+ shot buffer Nikon d300s 8fps @50 shot buffer.
> 
> One of the major problems of the a55 and a33 when they first came out was that after some one did a full burst in the high speed mode the camera completely locked up for several seconds while the buffer cleared.   With the later firmware updates that problem was fixed.   Now they throttle back the burst rate when the buffer is full.
> 
> I wish someone with a a77 would do this same test and post the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The a55 and a33 had that issue. They said the sensor overheats quickly.. But if you turn the IS off, you can shoot longer in full burst. The issue has been fixed in a35. When I rented my a77,  I tried doing a full burst 12fps but for only like maybe 15-20 seconds and stopped. That's all I can tell bro. I just wanted to try out the 12fps but didn't want to break my rented camera.
Click to expand...


You didn't want to break a camera that is "capable" (I said capable, not good) of shooting 12fps which is in the scope of normal operation? 

OH JEEZE GUYS I DON'T WANT TO SHOOT THE 7D AT 8FPS BECAUSE THE SHUTTER MIGHT BREAK. IT'S NOT ENGINEERED TO DO THAT KINDA STUFF GUYZZZ.

Granted, the 12fps is kind of useless because you have to be in a fully auto mode to use the 12fps. The parameters of the auto mode lock the exposure for the first shot, and expose the frames at 12FPS based off of the first exposure. So if the metering is off in the first shot, it's off for the entire burst. Or if you are following a subject from bright sun, to shade you'll just have an underexposed series once they get into the shaded area. 

SICK FEATURE. Totally ditching my FF Canon gear and fast primes to use an A77 w/ 12FPS continuous drive at ISO1600 or above. You know, because the noise handling is REALLY GOOD... And then I can turn all the images into HDRs IN CAMERA! Because that's a really valuable feature for professional photographers in the field! THEY ALL WANT DAT HDR @ 12FPS BRO. 

OH WAIT, I can make 3D photos! Another thing that ALL PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS care about! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.


----------



## unpopular

belial said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Zeiss glass put the Nikon and Canon glass to their place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zeiss offers lenses for both canon and Nikon. And a lot of zeiss glass for Sony gets horrible reviews. But the fact that there's Nikon glass for canon and Nikon as well as the normal pro offerings puts sony in more than its place
Click to expand...


This was a big motivator for me to go into sony - and while the Zeiss glass appears extremely good, it does seem to be missing a certain "something" as compared to my Contax Zeiss lenses. Also Zeiss has always excelled at fast primes, of which there is a relatively limited selection for Sony. I also kind of feel that these premium lenses are a bit marked up, just for the name's sake. For comparison, a CZ Contax 50/1.4 planar cost me only $300 new, 28/2.8 Distagon something like $600, used - that is, iirc.


----------



## unpopular

As for HDR in camera, I won't buy it until the camera spits out a 32-bit OpenEXR.


----------



## argieramos

> ="unpopular"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can be obtained with a mirrorless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But slower
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care about having a fast video AF? Don't you like good stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can be obtained with a mirrorless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But slower
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can be obtained with a traditional SLR in mirror lockup, and again, mirrorless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you can use MLU without something like a tripod. SLT never suffers from mirror slap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> statement about dslrs has nothing to do with mirrorless cameras. In the end SLTs are the worst of both world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, But I was just using Nex-7 as an example because it uses the same sensor as the a77. Actually, in the end, SLR technology will be the worst. The advantages of SLT over the SLR are too great compare the SLR to SLT. a77 proved it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps true but I kind of doubt it. Though this statement shows how little you know about what makes a good camera a good camera. detail and dynamic range are far from features which appeal to "pixel peepers". They are what makes a camera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes a good camera a good camera is not the camera itself. It is the one behind the camera. I don't know why you troll too much and bragging about how bad the a77 ignoring the fact that it outperformed most camera on the market.
Click to expand...


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> What makes a good camera a good camera is not the camera itself. It is the one behind the camera.



Ok I get it. You're trying to drive me away with dopey cliches.

I am not "bragging" about anything. My point has always been that without the stationary mirror reflecting away up to 1/2 stop light the camera would perform _better; _it's a matter of physics, more signal means more information about the subject over noisy information about signal processing and thermal dissipation. It's the technology itself that I have a problem with, not any one particular camera.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Ok I get it. You're trying to drive me away with dopey cliches.
> 
> I am not "bragging" about anything. My point has always been that without the stationary mirror reflecting away up to 1/2 stop light the camera would perform better it's a matter of physics. It's the technology itself that I have a problem with.



Everyone knows that. But you have to understand 1/2 stop is not that much if you consider the advantages that you will gain in return. Even after the light loss, a77 output result is better than most camera on the market.


----------



## unpopular

Regardless how little 1/2 stop may be, it's something. I'm waiting on the 7 myself


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I get it. You're trying to drive me away with dopey cliches.
> 
> I am not "bragging" about anything. My point has always been that without the stationary mirror reflecting away up to 1/2 stop light the camera would perform better it's a matter of physics. It's the technology itself that I have a problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that. But you have to understand 1/2 stop is not that much if you consider the advantages that you will gain in return. Even after the light loss, a77 output result is better than most camera on the market.
Click to expand...


Yeah, a 1/2 stop is not a lot. Tell that to someone that actually cares about their photos. A 1/2 stop is a lot.


----------



## unpopular

But in all fairness, what you'd loose in shadow latitude you'd make up in hilight latitude, right? You could push the hilights up one half stop further, and the shadows would follow. No different than an 05 ND?

If you meter the way I do, it _may_ not make too much of a difference. But hardly nobody does, including the AE programs and fancypants multisegmented evaluative meters that most people prefer these days.

While I agree that 1/2 stop is significant, it's not that much time when you're considering shutter speed - plus doesn't the a77 have in body IS?

As for noise, perhaps I am wrong - but ONLY if you expose to the maximum right - something most aren't willing to do. Still, having something between my lens and the film plane makes me a bit queazy just in principle.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> You didn't want to break a camera that is "capable" (I said capable, not good) of shooting 12fps which is in the scope of normal operation?
> 
> OH JEEZE GUYS I DON'T WANT TO SHOOT THE 7D AT 8FPS BECAUSE THE SHUTTER MIGHT BREAK. IT'S NOT ENGINEERED TO DO THAT KINDA STUFF GUYZZZ.
> 
> Granted, the 12fps is kind of useless because you have to be in a fully auto mode to use the 12fps. The parameters of the auto mode lock the exposure for the first shot, and expose the frames at 12FPS based off of the first exposure. So if the metering is off in the first shot, it's off for the entire burst. Or if you are following a subject from bright sun, to shade you'll just have an underexposed series once they get into the shaded area.
> 
> SICK FEATURE. Totally ditching my FF Canon gear and fast primes to use an A77 w/ 12FPS continuous drive at ISO1600 or above. You know, because the noise handling is REALLY GOOD... And then I can turn all the images into HDRs IN CAMERA! Because that's a really valuable feature for professional photographers in the field! THEY ALL WANT DAT HDR @ 12FPS BRO.
> 
> OH WAIT, I can make 3D photos! Another thing that ALL PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS care about! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.



oh jeez, everything might break even if its designed to do something what its made to do. If you borrowed a Dodge Viper (no insurance), would you even dare to keep your gas pedal down and hurt the engine, or might crash with it? lol
Since you mentioned "professional" you should have seen the concept of the 12fps. The perfect settings will not be the same as the the subject/camera moves. Tracking down a subject, the camera gives the setting that it thinks its good, while doing the burst fps. It is designed to capture every moment. If you want a full control, you can do it with 8fps. It's not like 8fps is slow for you to cry about this matter. Noise handling is good depending your standard. If the Canon 7D, 60D, T2i, T3i noise is good for you, a77 is also good considering they are pretty much the same when it comes to noise level.

Nobody is as asking you to ditch your FF canon and gears. Don't be a cry baby when it something good come out on the other brand.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Yeah, a 1/2 stop is not a lot. Tell that to someone that actually cares about their photos. A 1/2 stop is a lot.



a lot?  well if you are coming fromCanon, it means nothing considering a77 IQ is far better than every single Canon aps-c camera. It is a proven fact.


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't want to break a camera that is "capable" (I said capable, not good) of shooting 12fps which is in the scope of normal operation?
> 
> OH JEEZE GUYS I DON'T WANT TO SHOOT THE 7D AT 8FPS BECAUSE THE SHUTTER MIGHT BREAK. IT'S NOT ENGINEERED TO DO THAT KINDA STUFF GUYZZZ.
> 
> Granted, the 12fps is kind of useless because you have to be in a fully auto mode to use the 12fps. The parameters of the auto mode lock the exposure for the first shot, and expose the frames at 12FPS based off of the first exposure. So if the metering is off in the first shot, it's off for the entire burst. Or if you are following a subject from bright sun, to shade you'll just have an underexposed series once they get into the shaded area.
> 
> SICK FEATURE. Totally ditching my FF Canon gear and fast primes to use an A77 w/ 12FPS continuous drive at ISO1600 or above. You know, because the noise handling is REALLY GOOD... And then I can turn all the images into HDRs IN CAMERA! Because that's a really valuable feature for professional photographers in the field! THEY ALL WANT DAT HDR @ 12FPS BRO.
> 
> OH WAIT, I can make 3D photos! Another thing that ALL PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS care about! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh jeez, everything might break even if its designed to do something what its made to do. If you borrowed a Dodge Viper (no insurance), would you even dare to keep your gas pedal down and hurt the engine, or might crash with it? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe if you weren't so young and naive, you'd understand why this analogy is ridiculous. Cameras are engineered to do certain things, if the camera broke during normal operation of shooting 12fps in full auto mode, the camera wasn't designed well. If you have SO MUCH FAITH in Sony, you would realize that. Something equivalent to driving full speed in a dodge viper without insurance would be borrowing a 1Dmk4 and taking underwater photos with it without an underwater housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you mentioned "professional" you should have seen the concept of the 12fps. The perfect settings will not be the same as the the subject/camera moves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This leads me to believe that you don't know very much about metering, and the 12fps continuous drive mode. It's not worth arguing something that you don't understand.  Because if you did understand it, you'd also see the limitations of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tracking down a subject, the camera gives the setting that it thinks its good, while doing the burst fps. It is designed to capture every moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's designed to capture "every moment" of an auto exposed image in JPEG format. Which leaves you with next to nothing in terms of a workable image. If you want to shoot at 8fps in full manual, you'd want to use a DSLR. WHY? Because the EVF can't refresh fast enough to keep track of movement. It's simple physics!
> 
> If you want a full control, you can do it with 8fps. It's not like 8fps is slow for you to cry about this matter. Noise handling is good depending your standard. If the Canon 7D, 60D, T2i, T3i noise is good for you, a77 is also good considering they are pretty much the same when it comes to noise level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is as asking you to ditch your FF canon and gears. Don't be a cry baby when it something good come out on the other brand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What other brand released something good? I thought we were talking about the Sony A77 and how bad it was?
Click to expand...


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I get it. You're trying to drive me away with dopey cliches.
> 
> I am not "bragging" about anything. My point has always been that without the stationary mirror reflecting away up to 1/2 stop light the camera would perform better it's a matter of physics. It's the technology itself that I have a problem with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that. But you have to understand 1/2 stop is not that much if you consider the advantages that you will gain in return. Even after the light loss, a77 output result is better than most camera on the market.
Click to expand...


1/2 stop is 30% of the light.  That is a LOT.


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, a 1/2 stop is not a lot. Tell that to someone that actually cares about their photos. A 1/2 stop is a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a lot?  well if you are coming fromCanon, it means nothing considering a77 IQ is far better than every single Canon aps-c camera. It is a proven fact.
Click to expand...


You are just as delusional as skieur.


----------



## skieur

o hey tyler said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read the ISO is the one thing that the canon 7d still beat the a77 at. This is crucial for night photography at concerts. of course 1600 is okay but i really wanted to see sony come out with something that could do 3200 or 6400 with less noise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you look at the Canon 7D image side by side with the A77 image on www.imaging-resource.com you will see a slightly better image from the A77 at 6400, although both the Canon 7D and Sony A77 show noise, the random noise from the Canon that shows up as incorrect coloured pixels in the grain is more pronounced in the 7D.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is coming from the same person who thought that the A77 outperformed the 5D2 at ISO 1600.
> 
> What a joke.
Click to expand...


Yes, since photos confirm that it does outperform the 5D2 at ISO 1600 and that is without using its fast frame low light mode.

skieur


----------



## skieur

mjhoward said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConradM said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be a non-issue at least at the lower end. The a33 has higher IQ than any camera below $700.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non issue at the high end too. I have shot in a mine..almost in the dark. 1/3 of an fstop is not even noticeable.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have become a belligerent fool. The loss is 1/2 ev for starters, not 1/3 ev. The reason you don't notice it is because sony increases the gain of the sensor to compensate for this loss. This is why the images from it are so farking noisy... also something you can't seem to acknowledge. Another down side to the translucent mirror is that it is another piece of glass between the subject and the sensor. This introduces two issues... the first is a slight degradation in sharpness. This is a slight degradation, similar to having a quality UV filter on your lens. You may not notice the difference without pixel peeping. The other downfall is shooting conditions which allow for 'ghosting' or multiple reflections.
> 
> These are just problems with having the mirror there. This doesnt address any of the other problems with the body. And sure, full time Phase Detect AF is nice for a video camera... but we arn't videographers here. If I or anyone here wanted a video camera they would probably pick a more suitable product such as... a VIDEO camera... not a DSLR.
Click to expand...


Well, maybe if your information was accurate and you actually did some research, I would seem less belligerant.  The supposed loss of 1/2 EV is for the A55, NOT the A77.  The loss for the A77 is 1/3 ev. (Get your models straight!)  Why would Sony increase the gain of the sensor for a mere 1/3 ev?  Where did you come up with that one?  The photos are not anymore noisy than the Canon or Nikon as I proved in the link comparing them....Of course, maybe you are like one of my other attackers who has NO experience whatsoever in looking carefully at images which he demonstrated by his comment about a test photo being out of focus.   If there is a slight degradation in sharpness from the translucent mirror then how relevant is that when the final image is still SHARPER than the same Nikon and Canon image?

As I pointed out your model confusion is demonstrated again.  The "ghosting" problem you mentioned is EXCLUSIVE to the A55.  Reviews have indicated that it has been corrected in the A77 by changing the coating on the mirror.

The full time fastest phase detection AF produces more accurate continuous focus in both stills and video and by the way I am a videographer as well and mix stills with video in my work, so going back and forth between the formats quickly is extremely convenient and time-saving.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

Whether or not the pellicle SLR should have gone the way of the traveling slit or been revived in Sonys latest pro/enthusiast/amateur line of cameras is an insignificant topic as compared to this bizarre obsession chronicled by Skieur in these two recent threads.

No matter what is what, you've embarrassed yourself.


----------



## Crollo

mjhoward said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, a 1/2 stop is not a lot. Tell that to someone that actually cares about their photos. A 1/2 stop is a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a lot?  well if you are coming fromCanon, it means nothing considering a77 IQ is far better than every single Canon aps-c camera. It is a proven fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just as delusional as skieur.
Click to expand...


Hahahah no that's insulting. Skeiur is persistent, but argieramos is just an idiot.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> Whether or not the pellicle SLR should have gone the way of the traveling slit or been revived in Sonys latest pro/enthusiast/amateur line of cameras is an insignificant topic as compared to this bizarre obsession chronicled by Skieur in these two recent threads.
> 
> No matter what is what, you've embarrassed yourself.



Not at all. You have embarassed yourself with your obsession with MISINFORMATION, admitted lack of understanding of the SLT viewfinder, and not knowing the difference between focus and detail resolution in a Nikon shot as demonstrated.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

Ok. now you've annoyed me.

If it were resolution then the flowers and mannequin would be equally blurry. This isn't the case. The flowers, which are a few inches into the foreground are *clearly* blurry, while the mannequin is relatively sharp.

And I didn't admit anything about the SLT's viewfinder except that in certain exposure conditions it may not matter. But I am the ONLY person I know of who explicitly exposes for the hilights. Sure, I think everyone should - but my method is not standard. With most people referencing off the mid tones, the shadow sensitivity declines by the degree of light lost to illuminate viewfinder: the exact same problem which has always existed in all pellicle SLRs.


----------



## Derrel

dPreview mentioned that the ghosting caused by the pellicle mirror HAS BEEN ELIMINATED in their test of the A77. They mention it specifically. As far as using the Canon 7D as the APS-C image quality benchmark--BAD idea....the sensor in the 7D is now "older", and it has ALWAYS suffered from high noise and low color saturation...the newer Sony-made sensors used in the newer Nikmon and Pentax cameras do a better job, because the sensor is better than the one Canon built for the 7D, and the electronics are better...however if one wants to make the Sony A77 look "good", using the Canon 7D's as a point of comparison does favor the Sony camera/sensor...

The images coming from the Canon 7D have quite a bit of noise, which must be "dealt with" by noise reduction after the fact. it's kind of interesting to open a 7D image and SEE, LITERALLY SEE, all the noise and speckles in the image, and then watch as the JPEG decompression routine applies the NR information that rides withy the file...not all image viewers will do this, but I have some that do, and it's very enlightening to see how noisy the 7D's images really are. HOWEVER, the same issue seems to affect the A77 images at moderate and elevated ISO levels--specifically, the megapixel count is quite high, so even with moderate, to moderately heavy Noise Reduction applied, the A77 images look pretty good. Although, as dPreview comments on repeatedly, the A77's in-camera JPEG images at moderately high ISO's and higher look "disappointing" is the word they use.

You know, this issue came up 18 months ago; the Canon 7D's image quality is good for a 1,6x body, but the FF cameras have better color depth, lower noise, and wider dynamic range...and better high-ISO performance. Canon's upcoming 1DX professional camera is showing the way the camera makers are going to go on their next pro cameras--LOWER MP counts, and better per-pixel image quality. ANd on their pro-sumer and enrhusiast bodies, HIGHER MP counts...


----------



## unpopular

Wait. Piss.

Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.

Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?


----------



## mjhoward

Derrel said:


> dPreview mentioned that the ghosting caused by the pellicle mirror HAS BEEN ELIMINATED in their test of the A77. They mention it specifically.



Ok so I stand corrected on this issue but the body still has its problems and should not even be compared to the D3x and the likes in terms of IQ and being a better body.  It's just silly.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> Wait. Piss.
> 
> Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.
> 
> Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?



Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:

skieur


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Piss.
> 
> Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.
> 
> Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



You must have bought an A77


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Piss.
> 
> Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.
> 
> Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


sometimes I am not even sure how to reply to you, skieur. I mean, wtf?


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Piss.
> 
> Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.
> 
> Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


I think you guys need to take a step back, Skier has been a professional photographer for over 30-50-70 years now and you guys keep questioning him... every thread he is on goes on for about twenty pages because simply put.. NO ONE listens to Skier, when he is an experienced PRO who values his Sony products. This one is currently 11 pages, ONLY 9 pages to go before you get the message Skier is correct!


----------



## unpopular

Maybe his advanced age is why I don't understand wtf he meant by that comment.

It was a decent enough question: when using a handheld meter do you need to compensate for the amount of light which is reflected into the finder. If you don't then these cameras are compensating _somehow_ automatically, either by misrepresenting the shutter speed, or, and more likely, increasing analog gain, or within the image processing software after the exposure is made.

I don't think that this question needed to have been met by such skepticism. I might not be 103, but I do know my way around a light meter.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Piss.
> 
> Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.
> 
> Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sometimes I am not even sure how to reply to you, skieur. I mean, wtf?
Click to expand...


Well, the only difference with the mirror is possibly 1/3 of a stop but that is only based on dpreview which can be taken with a grain of salt, unless it is confirmed by other reviews.

So, why are you suggesting that I would need a handheld meter to compensate. Do you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an fstop?

You keep making a big deal out of nothing in terms of criticizing the A77. ISO is not any worse on the Sony A77 than on Canon or Nikon as per the photos on the comparameter on imaging-resource and neither is picture noise. It is a joke to complain about the 12fps speed of the A77 at 24 megapixels when no other camera can do it with their mirrors. Canon by the way requires focus lock for burst mode, NOT the Sony which has continuous, fast phase detection autofocus even in burst mode.

Quit talking about the specs and issues with the A55 as if they were problems with the A77. How many times do I have to tell you???
THEY ARE DIFFERENT CAMERAS.

Why does Derrel have to tell you that you are WRONG? Why did you NOT go back and check your information, before he arrived? Why do you also have to jump on the bandwagon related to inaccurate information from others and reinforce misinformation? The Red information was incorrect and inaccurate. Ghosting was inaccurate. Light loss was inaccurate and irrelevant at 1/3 of an fstop. Writing times were inaccurate.
Noise could not be proven by images.


Then you compounded misinformation and inaccurate information by the ad hominem argument as in attack the person providing the information. I am tired of responding to such challenged research, experience and knowledge from most of you guys.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> So, why are you suggesting that I would need a handheld meter to compensate. Do you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an fstop?



No, not at all. I am asking if when you use a hand held meter, do you have to compensate for the pellicle? This would indicate if the in-camera meter is compensating, or if the sensor's analog gain or raw processor is compensating.

I mean, I know you think I'm as dumb as a box of rocks or something, but I'm really not.


----------



## o hey tyler

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you suggesting that I would need a handheld meter to compensate. Do you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an fstop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I am asking if when you use a hand held meter, do you have to compensate for the pellicle? This would indicate if the in-camera meter is compensating, or if the sensor's analog gain or raw processor is compensating.
> 
> I mean, I know you think I'm as dumb as a box of rocks or something, but I'm really not.
Click to expand...


Of course you're not dumb as a box of rocks. If you were, you'd own an A77.


----------



## Crollo

o hey tyler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why are you suggesting that I would need a handheld meter to compensate. Do you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an fstop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I am asking if when you use a hand held meter, do you have to compensate for the pellicle? This would indicate if the in-camera meter is compensating, or if the sensor's analog gain or raw processor is compensating.
> 
> I mean, I know you think I'm as dumb as a box of rocks or something, but I'm really not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're not dumb as a box of rocks. If you were, you'd own an A77.
Click to expand...


Zing!


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Of course you're not dumb as a box of rocks. If you were, you'd own an A77.



Now this guys is trolling. As you expect from most Canon users. lol


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> 1/2 stop is 30% of the light.  That is a LOT.



30% of light was just an estimated. The real thing proves that even after the light lost, a77 managed to outperform most camera on the market.


----------



## argieramos

If I decide to not overuse something, it is my personal choice. It has nothing to do with the camera. You are making it an issue because you got nothing else to say.
Burst mode is totally locked down for all settings, meaning the a77 is controlling everything on a frame by frame basis. That what I was trying to say. The concept of 12fps is more for "to capture every single moment" 
lol a77 EVF refresh rate is fast enough and it has no issue in regards of tracking a speedy subject. Where did you get the idea that it can't? Troll nowadays. lol
What brand released something good? Sony. Your opinion don't matter because everybody can see how fanboy you are. I posted some link stating how a77 destroy every single Aps-c camera of Canon. Why are you saying bad things to the camera that superior to Canon? You should start with canon first. Even Nikon destroy Canon eveybody knows that lol


----------



## argieramos

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_7D-vs-Sony-A77

A77 destroy the Canon 7D

http://www.cameradebate.com/2011/canon-7d-vs-sony-a77/

A77 destroy the Canon 7D again

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/davidchinphoto/6190618871/

Studio Shot sample of a77 vs the Canon 7D. A77 once again destroy the 7D 

You can call the a77 "suck, bad camera, noisy," etc. you cannot change the fact that it is better than most camera on the market.


----------



## unpopular

don't you people get this thread locked. i am really curious how the SLT compensates exposure!


----------



## argieramos

> Something equivalent to driving full speed in a dodge viper without insurance would be borrowing a 1Dmk4 and taking underwater photos with it without an underwater housing.



Not really. You can drive without insurance, but you cannot take pictures underwater without underwater housing. lol
Borrowing a camera with no insurance is like driving a car with no insurance. My example is more accurate than yours lol.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> don't you people get this thread locked. i am really curious how the SLT compensates exposure!



You loose light because of the pellicle, but the sensor in SLT's compensates for that light lost.


----------



## unpopular

So then, it's compensated in analog gain rather than the "right way", by exposure. Essentially instead of shooting at ISO 800, you're really at 1064. Instead of 400, you're really at 532.

And that's if it's just 1/3 stop.

I could deal with 1/3-1/2 stop less light if compensation was being done optically. It would have been pretty cool if you could choose how you wanted it compensated (can you?). But man. That kind of blows. 

I'll just wait for the 7.


----------



## Crollo

whooo! noise introduction!


----------



## unpopular

^^ and this coming from a 4/3 user :er:


----------



## Crollo

Wait, let me get this straight, the A77 has a translucent mirror that sheds the sensor of light, introduces noise by upping the iso to compenstate, and has a EVF?


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Piss.
> 
> Ok. you're right, Skieur. The meter would obviously be calibrated for the transmissive side of the pellicle. I don't think the mirror is the cause of any noise performance issues provided that this is the case. If it isn't, shame on sony, but this could be easily accounted for in EC.
> 
> Just curious - do you need to compensate for this with a handheld meter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you guys need to take a step back, Skier has been a professional photographer for over 30-50-70 years now and you guys keep questioning him... every thread he is on goes on for about twenty pages because simply put.. NO ONE listens to Skier, when he is an experienced PRO who values his Sony products. This one is currently 11 pages, ONLY 9 pages to go before you get the message Skier is correct!
Click to expand...


Well, you got everything else wrong, why should I not be surprised that you cannot even get my username correct either.  LEARN TO READ AND SPELL.

skieur


----------



## skieur

Crollo said:


> Wait, let me get this straight, the A77 has a translucent mirror that sheds the sensor of light, introduces noise by upping the iso to compenstate, and has a EVF?



Ah, try that in English that makes sense!!!!!

skieur


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> Something equivalent to driving full speed in a dodge viper without insurance would be borrowing a 1Dmk4 and taking underwater photos with it without an underwater housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. You can drive without insurance, but you cannot take pictures underwater without underwater housing. lol
> Borrowing a camera with no insurance is like driving a car with no insurance. My example is more accurate than yours lol.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. Coupled with the fact that you put "lol" after every statement you make. In turn negating your statements and making you look like an imbecile.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. Coupled with the fact that you put "lol" after every statement you make. In turn negating your statements and making you look like an imbecile.


Oh it's not? How? Explain it then. lol

"lol" has nothing to do with you. Why are you keep complaining about about simple little things? What a cry baby lol..


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> So then, it's compensated in analog gain rather than the "right way", by exposure. Essentially instead of shooting at ISO 800, you're really at 1064. Instead of 400, you're really at 532.
> 
> And that's if it's just 1/3 stop.
> 
> I could deal with 1/3-1/2 stop less light if compensation was being done optically. It would have been pretty cool if you could choose how you wanted it compensated (can you?). But man. That kind of blows.
> 
> I'll just wait for the 7.



Sony patented a vertical photodiode with greater light gathering ability. The ISO 400,800, are still the measurement.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and you use a handheld meter to compensate for 1/3 of an f stop. :lmao:
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you guys need to take a step back, Skier has been a professional photographer for over 30-50-70 years now and you guys keep questioning him... every thread he is on goes on for about twenty pages because simply put.. NO ONE listens to Skier, when he is an experienced PRO who values his Sony products. This one is currently 11 pages, ONLY 9 pages to go before you get the message Skier is correct!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you got everything else wrong, why should I not be surprised that you cannot even get my username correct either.  LEARN TO READ AND SPELL.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Sorry IMO, you are a SKIER as all your posts go down a sharp and slippery slope in to 'skieur' land.


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. Coupled with the fact that you put "lol" after every statement you make. In turn negating your statements and making you look like an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it's not? How? Explain it then. lol
> 
> "lol" has nothing to do with you. Why are you keep complaining about about simple little things? What a cry baby lol..
Click to expand...


I am sorry, I can't take you seriously. Not that I ever could... 

From UrbanDictionary: 


 


> [TD="class: word"]* lol theory
> *[/TD]
> [TD="class: tools"] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#
> [/TD]





> [TR]
> [TD][/TD]
> [TD="class: text, colspan: 2"]  February 15, 2009 Urban Word of the Day
> 
> 
> The theory that the internet phrase lol,meaning "laugh out loud", can be placed at any part in any sentence and make said sentence lose all credibilty and seriousness.
> ex 1
> Doc: We need to operate on your colon lol, you have cancer.
> 
> ex 2
> Jesus: Take this all of you and eat it, it is my body, lol.
> 
> ex 3
> Me: Will you marry me? Lol.




[/TD]
[/TR]


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I am sorry, I can't take you seriously. Not that I ever could...
> 
> From UrbanDictionary:
> 
> 
> lol theory
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#
> February 15, 2009 Urban Word of the Day
> 
> The theory that the internet phrase lol,meaning "laugh out loud", can be placed at any part in any sentence and make said sentence lose all credibilty and seriousness.
> ex 1
> Doc: We need to operate on your colon lol, you have cancer.
> 
> ex 2
> Jesus: Take this all of you and eat it, it is my body, lol.
> 
> ex 3
> Me: Will you marry me? Lol.






[/QUOTE]

"lol" I love putting that when replying to you. Because you are a mad fanboy who got nothing to do but to troll around the thread.  I am laughing at you son. Get a clue. Just taste your own medicine lol lol lol lol!!!


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you guys need to take a step back, Skier has been a professional photographer for over 30-50-70 years now and you guys keep questioning him... every thread he is on goes on for about twenty pages because simply put.. NO ONE listens to Skier, when he is an experienced PRO who values his Sony products. This one is currently 11 pages, ONLY 9 pages to go before you get the message Skier is correct!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you got everything else wrong, why should I not be surprised that you cannot even get my username correct either. LEARN TO READ AND SPELL.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry IMO, you are a SKIER as all your posts go down a sharp and slippery slope in to 'skieur' land.
Click to expand...


Non, je suis un skieur et te don bein gougoune! 

skieur


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I can't take you seriously. Not that I ever could...
> 
> From UrbanDictionary:
> 
> 
> lol theory http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "lol" I love putting that when replying to you. Because you are a mad fanboy who got nothing to do but to troll around the thread.  I am laughing at you son. Get a clue. Just taste your own medicine lol lol lol lol!!!
Click to expand...


O hey tyler, I wouldn't worry about this 'CREATURE'. I mean look at his profile photo, he isn't even Human??


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, it's compensated in analog gain rather than the "right way", by exposure. Essentially instead of shooting at ISO 800, you're really at 1064. Instead of 400, you're really at 532.
> 
> And that's if it's just 1/3 stop.
> 
> I could deal with 1/3-1/2 stop less light if compensation was being done optically. It would have been pretty cool if you could choose how you wanted it compensated (can you?). But man. That kind of blows.
> 
> I'll just wait for the 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony patented a vertical photodiode with greater light gathering ability. The ISO 400,800, are still the measurement.
Click to expand...


Can you supply me with a link regarding this? Are you saying that the sensor's native ISO is 400,800? Because you can literally increase ISO however far you want, but even images produced from the greatest sensor ever made will eventually look like TV snow.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you got everything else wrong, why should I not be surprised that you cannot even get my username correct either. LEARN TO READ AND SPELL.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry IMO, you are a SKIER as all your posts go down a sharp and slippery slope in to 'skieur' land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non, je suis un skieur et te don bein gougoune!
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


OH Are you Canadian French?


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Can you supply me with a link regarding this? Are you saying that the sensor's native ISO is 400,800? Because you can literally increase ISO however far you want, but even images produced from the greatest sensor ever made will eventually look like TV snow.



I read that couple months ago. I couldn't find the link. You can try looking it up. I can't keep babysitting you. Haha! 
What i was trying to say is if your ISO is 400, it is not going to be anything other than 400.


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> O hey tyler, I wouldn't worry about this 'CREATURE'. I mean look at his profile photo, he isn't even Human??



What a nonsense corny joke


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you supply me with a link regarding this? Are you saying that the sensor's native ISO is 400,800? Because you can literally increase ISO however far you want, but even images produced from the greatest sensor ever made will eventually look like TV snow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read that couple months ago. I couldn't find the link. You can try looking it up. I can't keep babysitting you. Haha!
> What i was trying to say is if your ISO is 400, it is not going to be anything other than 400.
Click to expand...


I did look, and I found nothing. You don't need to be condescending about it.

And yes. You're right, if your ISO is 400 it's going to be 400 because ISO is arbitrarily determined by _system_ sensitivity. However, because ISO in digital cameras is adjusted by analog gain, and because it appears that the SLT series compensates for the loss resulting from the pellicle, you _can_ estimate the equivalent ISO if the mirror were not there _within that particlaur system._ Because I am arguing that the technology is the problem, and not comparing it against other cameras it's a valid point.

Sony should have compensated this loss optically rather than electronically, or given the operator that option.


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you supply me with a link regarding this? Are you saying that the sensor's native ISO is 400,800? Because you can literally increase ISO however far you want, but even images produced from the greatest sensor ever made will eventually look like TV snow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read that couple months ago. I couldn't find the link. You can try looking it up. I can't keep babysitting you. Haha!
> What i was trying to say is if your ISO is 400, it is not going to be anything other than 400.
Click to expand...


So far you've had a lot of so called "factual" information (according to you) with no means to back it up. It shouldn't take long to do a google search if you'd read the article once and know exactly what it pertains to.


----------



## jake337

argieramos said:


> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> 
> A77 destroy the Canon 7D
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony A77 &#8211; Camera Comparison
> 
> A77 destroy the Canon 7D again
> 
> Welcome to Flickr!
> 
> Studio Shot sample of a77 vs the Canon 7D. A77 once again destroy the 7D
> 
> You can call the a77 "suck, bad camera, noisy," etc. you cannot change the fact that it is better than most camera on the market.



Ummm, yeah.  I don't think destroy is the right word.  Most of the features that push the A77 ahead in those "comparisons" are options that pros do not use.  You know, those "toy" features.

Also its sad when someone says this camera is better than most on the current market, considering this is one of sony's newer releases, and everyone keeps comparing it to bodies who's successors are on the way.  Sad.

Not knocking sony, just the fanboy's.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> So far you've had a lot of so called "factual" information (according to you) with no means to back it up. It shouldn't take long to do a google search if you'd read the article once and know exactly what it pertains to.



A lot of "factual" information? Your bff was asking for a link, it is not my fault that the link is buried. Whatever you find on google today  will not always be as easy to find in the future. Have you ever used the google search before. That is why I told your bff to look harder. Why would I do that for him? 
When I said that a77 destroy the the canon's top aps-c camera, I provided you links to prove my claim. That's not a factual information.


----------



## unpopular

I have never ever had a hard time finding an article I've once read - provided it was actually published and not just some doughhead making stuff up.

Speaking of which, the only reference I've found to this patent specifically was this thread.


----------



## unpopular

Wait, are you talking about back-illuminated cmos??


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> I did look, and I found nothing. You don't need to be condescending about it.
> 
> And yes. You're right, if your ISO is 400 it's going to be 400 because ISO is arbitrarily determined by system sensitivity. However, because ISO in digital cameras is adjusted by analog gain, and because it appears that the SLT series compensates for the loss resulting from the pellicle, you can estimate the equivalent ISO if the mirror were not there within that particlaur system. Because I am arguing that the technology is the problem, and not comparing it against other cameras it's a valid point.
> 
> Sony should have compensated this loss optically rather than electronically, or given the operator that option.



I don't disagree that there is a drawback with the SLT technology, but a couple IQ points drop is a small price to pay consider what you will achieve in return.
Sony has something in the sensor to help compensates for that lost light. It may not as good as not loosing any light at all, but it's helping. When you compare the NEX-7 and a77 that both uses the same sensor, DXoMark  overall IQ lab test result for the NEX-7 is 81, a77 is 78. It's not a lot considering the IQ test result of the Canon 7D is 66. Imagingresource picture tests showing the superiority of the a77 to 7D in terms of IQ with about the same noise level.
I know you are just looking for flaws of the SLT technology because you are a hater. But a camera that performs faster and better than most camera on the market because of this technology, who are you to complain?


----------



## jake337

argieramos said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far you've had a lot of so called "factual" information (according to you) with no means to back it up. It shouldn't take long to do a google search if you'd read the article once and know exactly what it pertains to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of "factual" information? Your bff was asking for a link, it is not my fault that the link is buried. Whatever you find on google today will not always be as easy to find in the future. Have you ever used the google search before. That is why I told your bff to look harder. Why would I do that for him?
> When I said that a77 *destroy *the the canon's top aps-c camera, I provided you links to prove my claim. *That's not a factual information.*
Click to expand...


Again, you used the term destroy, hardly fitting. Although the links you provide may have shown some factual information, how they derived at there final conclusion was based on features many professionals may, or may not ever use,



Again, not bashing sony. Just the fanboys.


----------



## Derrel

Man...I thought the Canon versus Nikon threads were drama-filled....

This Sony A77 versus A Real Camera thread is like the second one in two weeks...lots of exciting fanboy claims being bandied back and forth, back and forth!!

I think I'm going to have some vinyl bumper stickers made up, "Sony A77 versus A Real Camera", and sell them for $6 a pop!


----------



## unpopular

I am skeptical of the SLT, though I am also a Sony user. So this isn't about brand.

My criticism is not really about how the SLT camera compares against other cameras, but rather the technology itself - what it offers verses what you get back. There are advantages to the SLT, namely in focus performance. Video aside (this is a photography forum), how often though is the continuous focus really needed?

If continuous focus isn't that useful, then all you have is a boost in analog gain, which isn't very useful at all.

Other features like sweep pano are neat, but wholly unnecessary and are returned as 8-bit jpegs.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> I am skeptical of the SLT, though I am also a Sony user. So this isn't about brand.
> 
> My criticism is not really about how the SLT camera compares against other cameras, but rather the technology itself - what it offers verses what you get back. There are advantages to the SLT, namely in focus performance. Video aside (this is a photography forum), how often though is the continuous focus really needed?
> 
> If continuous focus isn't that useful, then all you have is a boost in analog gain, which isn't very useful at all.
> 
> Other features like sweep pano are neat, but wholly unnecessary and are returned as 8-bit jpegs.



Let me ask you first what camera are you using?


----------



## unpopular

a350. I plan to upgrade to the NEX 7 or that weird full frame hybrid thing they are talking about.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> a350. I plan to upgrade to the NEX 7 or that weird full frame hybrid thing they are talking about.



Another question. Are you happy with the a350?


----------



## unpopular

Relatively. The biggest problem I have is that I cannot use my whole selection of manual focus lenses without an infinity-corrected adapter.

It's a bit noisy at above ISO 400. What exactly is your point?


----------



## Nikon_Josh

Derrel said:


> Man...I thought the Canon versus Nikon threads were drama-filled....
> 
> This Sony A77 versus A Real Camera thread is like the second one in two weeks...lots of exciting fanboy claims being bandied back and forth, back and forth!!
> 
> I think I'm going to have some vinyl bumper stickers made up, "Sony A77 versus A Real Camera", and sell them for $6 a pop!



HAHAHAHA! :lmao: Ah Derrel, you really are the best!!! Skieur and ArgieRamos will appreciate this.


----------



## LightSpeed

PENTAX K5 BLOWS THE A77 AWAY.
PENTAX RULES!


----------



## gsgary

LightSpeed said:


> PENTAX K5 BLOWS THE A77 AWAY.
> PENTAX RULES!



No way my Zorki 4 with some tri-x will blow it out of the water


----------



## skieur

Derrel said:


> Man...I thought the Canon versus Nikon threads were drama-filled....
> 
> This Sony A77 versus A Real Camera thread is like the second one in two weeks...lots of exciting fanboy claims being bandied back and forth, back and forth!!
> 
> I think I'm going to have some vinyl bumper stickers made up, "Sony A77 versus A Real Camera", and sell them for $6 a pop!



My bumper sticker would read: "Wealth (not using a "real camera") vs Poverty using a Canon or Nikon. :lmao:

skieur


----------



## unpopular

My bumper sticker would say "m42 4 life"


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Relatively. The biggest problem I have is that I cannot use my whole selection of manual focus lenses without an infinity-corrected adapter.
> 
> It's a bit noisy at above ISO 400. What exactly is your point?



I just like to know where the hate is coming from. Do you do post-process?


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Man...I thought the Canon versus Nikon threads were drama-filled....
> 
> This Sony A77 versus A Real Camera thread is like the second one in two weeks...lots of exciting fanboy claims being bandied back and forth, back and forth!!
> 
> I think I'm going to have some vinyl bumper stickers made up, "Sony A77 versus A Real Camera", and sell them for $6 a pop!



It looks like you have no idea what a real camera is. You even looking through your VF and holding the camera wrong.


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHA! :lmao: Ah Derrel, you really are the best!!! Skieur and ArgieRamos will appreciate this.



Stop sucking his balls dude.....


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relatively. The biggest problem I have is that I cannot use my whole selection of manual focus lenses without an infinity-corrected adapter.It's a bit noisy at above ISO 400. What exactly is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> I just like to know where the hate is coming from. Do you do post-process?
Click to expand...

What does post processing have to do with anything?! Yeah, I expose to the right, so yes. I "post process".

My distrust of SLT comes from 1/3-1/2 stop decreased signal. Was I not clear?


----------



## unpopular

uh oh

READ: A77 true max ISO and something disturbing about A77 RAW [Page 1]: Sony SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## unpopular

And then there is this:

http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a77/sample_images/sony_a77_14.jpg

aside from looking like they used a potato for a lens, if you look in the tall bushes you'll find a LOT of noise here. Maybe it'd be normal at ISO 400, but, low and behold:

Sony A77 Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG

it's ISO 100. I even ran it through Raw Photo Processor, which tends to be a bit more precise than the software that comes from Sony.

Yeah. It's *really* noisy, and even at ISO 100.


----------



## Derrel

Sony A77 Review - Conclusion | PhotographyBLOG


"The inclusion of full 1080p movies, built-in GPS, 12fps burst shooting, dual control dials, top-panel LCD and an excellent 3-way rear screen make the A77 our new favourite prosumer DSLR."


and also, "There are some limitations of this ambitious design, most notably the almost complete inability to pan with your subject and rather noticeable jumps in focus if using continuous auto-focus during video recording, but overall the new A77 feels more mature and well-rounded than the first generation."


"*the almost complete inability to pan with your subject"*--that's why I was trying to make clear to the Number One Sony A77 Fan almost two weeks ago: specifically, that a 1/10 second lag in the viewfinder display and the actual action occurring in front of the camera, makes this  camera USELESS as a professional sports or action camera. But all he could seem to comprehend was the A77's high FPS rate...and he was consistently unable to grasp the reason why a camera that can NOT show what the lens is framing is USELESS for professional sports or action work.

A camera that can not follow along with a moving subject because the viewfinder's refresh rate is too slow to keep up with moving subjects???? OH, yeah baby, sign me up! NOT! As the reviewer's correctly state, the Sony A77 is a very nice prosumer camera. Their favorite prosumer model. For $1,400, it seems like a lot of camera, but yet the limitations of the SLT system and the slug-like viewfinder based on a video feed are still issues that the new technology does not handle the way the real "professional", traditional cameras have been developed to do over the past 60 years or so.


----------



## Crollo

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHA! :lmao: Ah Derrel, you really are the best!!! Skieur and ArgieRamos will appreciate this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop sucking his balls dude.....
Click to expand...


I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that just your username alone is enough to destroy any credibility of your posts, yet Derrel holds a much higher level of respect so I don't think it's likely anybody will hold your ass-backwards opinions over his.

I would watch your attitude and how you treat well respected members. It _will_ get you banned if you keep this up.


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> Sony A77 Review - Conclusion | PhotographyBLOG
> 
> "*the almost complete inability to pan with your subject"*



So even if continuous AF were important, what's the point if the finder can't keep up?


----------



## argieramos

Crollo said:
			
		

> I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that just your username alone is enough to destroy any credibility of your posts, yet Derrel holds a much higher level of respect so I don't think it's likely anybody will hold your ass-backwards opinions over his.
> 
> I would watch your attitude and how you treat well respected members. It will get you banned if you keep this up.



Respect for someone who obviously trying to troll on here by saying a77 is not a real camera? If you don't treat people with respect, dont expect get some in return. You can ban me from here for all I care, I can still come back.


----------



## unpopular

^^ you have a very unhealthy relationship with Sony Corp.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> uh oh
> 
> READ: A77 true max ISO and something disturbing about A77 RAW [Page 1]: Sony SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review



What are you trying to prove here?


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> And then there is this:
> 
> http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a77/sample_images/sony_a77_14.jpg
> 
> aside from looking like they used a potato for a lens, if you look in the tall bushes you'll find a LOT of noise here. Maybe it'd be normal at ISO 400, but, low and behold:
> 
> Sony A77 Review - Sample Images | PhotographyBLOG
> 
> it's ISO 100. I even ran it through Raw Photo Processor, which tends to be a bit more precise than the software that comes from Sony.
> 
> Yeah. It's *really* noisy, and even at ISO 100.



Who said that ISO 100 is really noisy? 
What firmware version is the a77?


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Sony A77 Review - Conclusion | PhotographyBLOG
> 
> "The inclusion of full 1080p movies, built-in GPS, 12fps burst shooting, dual control dials, top-panel LCD and an excellent 3-way rear screen make the A77 our new favourite prosumer DSLR."
> 
> and also, "There are some limitations of this ambitious design, most notably the almost complete inability to pan with your subject and rather noticeable jumps in focus if using continuous auto-focus during video recording, but overall the new A77 feels more mature and well-rounded than the first generation."
> 
> "the almost complete inability to pan with your subject"--that's why I was trying to make clear to the Number One Sony A77 Fan almost two weeks ago: specifically, that a 1/10 second lag in the viewfinder display and the actual action occurring in front of the camera, makes this  camera USELESS as a professional sports or action camera. But all he could seem to comprehend was the A77's high FPS rate...and he was consistently unable to grasp the reason why a camera that can NOT show what the lens is framing is USELESS for professional sports or action work.
> 
> A camera that can not follow along with a moving subject because the viewfinder's refresh rate is too slow to keep up with moving subjects???? OH, yeah baby, sign me up! NOT! As the reviewer's correctly state, the Sony A77 is a very nice prosumer camera. Their favorite prosumer model. For $1,400, it seems like a lot of camera, but yet the limitations of the SLT system and the slug-like viewfinder based on a video feed are still issues that the new technology does not handle the way the real "professional", traditional cameras have been developed to do over the past 60 years or so.



Pathetic. You failed to include some positive feedback about the camera like "excellent image quality, destroy the competitor" etc..
Tell me first, what is the real camera to you?


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> ^^ you have a very unhealthy relationship with Sony Corp.



That's a very harsh accusation coming from someone who couldnt prove anything


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> So even if continuous AF were important, what's the point if the finder can't keep up?



Again, what firmware was the a77 running when they did the review? A77 had bugs on lower firmware. Nobody is having a problem panning on a77. Try harder boy


----------



## unpopular

I'll admit I do not know what version that was taken on. Can you provide me a raw file to look at? This is all i could find.

The first link is saying that the raw files from the a77 are destructively manipulated before even being processed.


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ you have a very unhealthy relationship with Sony Corp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very harsh accusation coming from someone who couldnt prove anything
Click to expand...


What do I need to prove? All I have firmly said to this point is that the a77 presents less light at the imaging sensor which _by_ _definition_ will decrease signal relative to noise. I've never made any claim about this body's IQ as compared to any other because frankly I don't care. The technology itself is inherently flawed.


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even if continuous AF were important, what's the point if the finder can't keep up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what firmware was the a77 running when they did the review? A77 had bugs on lower firmware. Nobody is having a problem panning on a77. Try harder boy
Click to expand...


Can you cite the change log in which the delay and low ISO noise problems were fixed? It shouldn't be too hard to find. 

Since proof is so important to you and all.


----------



## Derrel

Every single review I have seen of the A77 lists the viewfinder's inability to keep up with moving subjects as a "problem". Also, there can often be a delay between Live View and the EVF switching. The review I quoted above was posted on December 13, of 2011. I looked at the review again this AM for a while, but could not find the firmware version listed. It's pretty obvious that there are multiple reviews where dispassionate reviewers (i.e. not Sony Fanboys) list the finder system's inability to keep up with panning as one of the main knocks against the SLT technology. I suppose it is possible that every single reviewer whose reviews I have read had a camera with "early firmware", and that within the last 20 days, new magical firmware has been made,delivered, and implemented. I will concede that point.


----------



## unpopular

There will always be some delay between the EVF and the lens. If Sony can speed this up to ideally 1/60s, or even 1/30 sec, it won't be a problem since our eyes can't perceive that rate anyway. Until then though, I just cannot call the a77 a remotely "professional" option, unless all your subjects are stationary.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHA! :lmao: Ah Derrel, you really are the best!!! Skieur and ArgieRamos will appreciate this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop sucking his balls dude.....
Click to expand...


Coming from a man who clearly represent's Sony corp... 

And also you say Derrel's comments are pathetic?? He knows his stuff! He is an accomplished photographer. WHAT and WHO are you?? Post some images that you have taken with your A77 and prove that you can take a half decent photograph. I highly doubt it though... (And hey, at the same time you can show off just how great the A77 truly is!)


----------



## unpopular

No worries, Josh. Eventually the sunk cost will be replaced with diminished return and this madness will finally be over with.


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Every single review I have seen of the A77 lists the viewfinder's inability to keep up with moving subjects as a "problem". Also, there can often be a delay between Live View and the EVF switching. The review I quoted above was posted on December 13, of 2011. I looked at the review again this AM for a while, but could not find the firmware version listed. It's pretty obvious that there are multiple reviews where dispassionate reviewers (i.e. not Sony Fanboys) list the finder system's inability to keep up with panning as one of the main knocks against the SLT technology. I suppose it is possible that every single reviewer whose reviews I have read had a camera with "early firmware", and that within the last 20 days, new magical firmware has been made,delivered, and implemented. I will concede that point.



You are right about the switching delay, as mentioned on DigiRev review on youtube. But another review has been made by them and confirmed that that issue has been fixed on the new firmware. About the inability to track a fast moving subject, show me other reviews stating that problem. 

I am still waiting for you answer to my question. What camera is the real camera to you? Give me specific model of the camera.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> There will always be some delay between the EVF and the lens. If Sony can speed this up to ideally 1/60s, or even 1/30 sec, it won't be a problem since our eyes can't perceive that rate anyway. Until then though, I just cannot call the a77 a remotely "professional" option, unless all your subjects are stationary.



How long is the delay? Make sure you are talking about the a77.

You havent answer my question. Do you do post process?


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Coming from a man who clearly represent's Sony corp...
> 
> And also you say Derrel's comments are pathetic?? He knows his stuff! He is an accomplished photographer. WHAT and WHO are you?? Post some images that you have taken with your A77 and prove that you can take a half decent photograph. I highly doubt it though... (And hey, at the same time you can show off just how great the A77 truly is!)



I wish I am a representative of the Sony Corp. That would be a nice job.
How do you define an accomplished photographer? Your daddy Derrel is nowhere near the behavior of the real accomplished photographer. He may take good pictures, make money out of it, but the attitude is nothing like the REAL accomplished photographer. What about you? What do you know about photography?


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> You havent answer my question. Do you do post process?



Unless you are accusing me of pushing exposure in post, I don't see what difference it should make. 

But for the record, I did answer your question. I ETTR, so yes, I do; but any edits I do make are subtractive.


----------



## kassad

unpopular said:
			
		

> There will always be some delay between the EVF and the lens. If Sony can speed this up to ideally 1/60s, or even 1/30 sec, it won't be a problem since our eyes can't perceive that rate anyway. Until then though, I just cannot call the a77 a remotely "professional" option, unless all your subjects are stationary.





Wouldn't you have the same issue with the nex-7?


----------



## unpopular

kassad said:


> Wouldn't you have the same issue with the nex-7?



Yes. I do not know the specifications on the 7, maybe it's faster - I kind of doubt it.

My subjects don't move, and I have never been so bold to conclude that the 7 is a professional-ready platform. For me, the delay is suitable provided that image quality isn't affected. 

My problem with the SLT's delay is that any advantage that you gain from continuous exposure, you loose in delay. Without a short film to flange distance, there is no advantage to an SLT body.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> *You havent answer my question. Do you do post process?*



DO YOU EVER GO DO SCHOOL????

I just realised something, here I am arguing with a boy who finds it hard to even write properly! It really isn't worth the effort, I think Skieur should take you on as an apprentice though.


----------



## unpopular

^^ at this point I'm just curious where he's heading with this.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> uh oh
> 
> READ: A77 true max ISO and something disturbing about A77 RAW [Page 1]: Sony SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review



"A lot of low level processing is built into this sensor according to Sony, so expecting RAW to be real RAW may be a bit over the top. My dedicated astro camera deliver real RAW files, and they are a nightmare to cope with (needing bias, flat, dark and dark for flat frames in addition to the light frames) - so real RAWs from an ordinary camera. No thanks!"


Looking at the RAW and jpeg side by side on the Sony A77, the jpeg is much sharper. The bayer filter on the sensor may be the problem and why Sony is taking it off on the A99.  Nevertheless those that are looking at the RAW can and are adding their own spin to their views.  Those that are looking at the jpeg are seeing different results.


skieur


----------



## unpopular

Skieur - do you think that the a99 really will be maskless? I've read the rumor that it will be a 3mos. But I am not sure I believe that. What are your thoughts?


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You havent answer my question. Do you do post process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are accusing me of pushing exposure in post, I don't see what difference it should make.
> 
> But for the record, I did answer your question. I ETTR, so yes, I do; but any edits I do make are subtractive.
Click to expand...


I see. Limited view of the value of postprocessing, eh?

skieur


----------



## unpopular

*100% opposite. *I see post processing as a continuum of the exposure, and make exposure decisions with this in mind. In fact currently I am working on a system which better integrates exposure and post processing in a way similar to the Zone system.

How did you come to that conclusion?


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> Skieur - do you think that the a99 really will be maskless? I've read the rumor that it will be a 3mos. But I am not sure I believe that. What are your thoughts?



Yes, it will be maskless. I hear more from companies in Canada than what floats around the U.S.

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> *100% opposite.*
> 
> How did you come to that conclusion?



Easy.  Editing is more than just subtractive.  The sensor as in any sensor for example has limited range and loses detail in the shadow and low light areas.  Those details need to be brought back into the image POSITIVELY through selective brightening.  That is just one example.  Ted Padova has indicated in his book that ALL digital photos require colour correction in post processing.  That is another kind of POSITIVE/ADDITION type of edit.  There are more non-subtractive edits possible.

skieur


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You havent answer my question. Do you do post process?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO YOU EVER GO DO SCHOOL????
> 
> I just realised something, here I am arguing with a boy who finds it hard to even write properly! It really isn't worth the effort, I think Skieur should take you on as an apprentice though.
Click to expand...


"Do you ever go DO school?" and you are telling him that he finds it hard to write properly!!!!!!


skieur


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> Editing is more than just subtractive



Unless you're already exposing as far right as possible, at which point it is _very_ seldom that you actually need to push. Although, I do push highlight fairly frequently - but this is not as problematic as pushing shadows.

As for color correction, this is one thing that drives me nutty about digital photography, I believe that it is possible to do this subtractively and my raw processor allows for this. But that's another topic entirely.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You havent answer my question. Do you do post process?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO YOU EVER GO DO SCHOOL????
> 
> I just realised something, here I am arguing with a boy who finds it hard to even write properly! It really isn't worth the effort, I think Skieur should take you on as an apprentice though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Do you ever go DO school?" and you are telling him that he finds it hard to write properly!!!!!!
> 
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Errr Skieur my old friend.. it was actually me imitating how this man types! The Sarcasm was lost on you quite clearly.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Editing is more than just subtractive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're already exposing as far right as possible, at which point it is _very_ seldom that you actually need to push. Although, I do push highlight fairly frequently - but this is not as problematic as pushing shadows.
> 
> As for color correction, this is one thing that drives me nutty about digital photography, I believe that it is possible to do this subtractively and my raw processor allows for this. But that's another topic entirely.
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, I can do both in post on jpegs without noise issues.

skieur


----------



## unpopular

The only way this is true is if you don't appreciate the value of post processing.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> The only way this is true is if you don't appreciate the value of post processing.



With the right plug-ins to Photoshop almost anything is possible.  

skieur


----------



## unpopular

lol. 

yeah! i don't even know why anyone even bothers to meter anymore. we have HDR!


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Yes. I do not know the specifications on the 7, maybe it's faster - I kind of doubt it.
> 
> My subjects don't move, and I have never been so bold to conclude that the 7 is a professional-ready platform. For me, the delay is suitable provided that image quality isn't affected.
> 
> My problem with the SLT's delay is that any advantage that you gain from continuous exposure, you loose in delay. Without a short film to flange distance, there is no advantage to an SLT body.



It's funny that you have problem with SLT delay with the fact that you never got your hands on one. 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39207284




I don't see anything for you to complain when it comes to panning.

You just saw that "delay" thing from one of the previous post, and now it is your problem? You're obvious bro lol


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> DO YOU EVER GO DO SCHOOL????
> 
> I just realised something, here I am arguing with a boy who finds it hard to even write properly! It really isn't worth the effort, I think Skieur should take you on as an apprentice though.



Huh? This guy lol. You're not making sense. If you want my attention, all you have to do is ask. The question was not even for you. 
 "DO YOU EVER GO DO SCHOOL?" Talks about writing properly.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Unless you are accusing me of pushing exposure in post, I don't see what difference it should make.
> 
> But for the record, I did answer your question. I ETTR, so yes, I do; but any edits I do make are subtractive.



As I told you, I am trying to see things through your point of view. I just don't get why simple things matter to you so badly.
I am also an a350 owner just like you. It's one of my back up camera. Complaining about the ISO400 being noisy makes me think that you're not using your camera properly. I start seeing noise on ISO800 but I do post-process on every picture so I am not complaining. If your standard is really that high when it comes to noise, get    the k5 then.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Skieur - do you think that the a99 really will be maskless? I've read the rumor that it will be a 3mos. But I am not sure I believe that. What are your thoughts?



Now you're trying to play nice with Skieur, and asking his thoughts about the a99. You hate the SLT tech right? Haters gonna hate, no matter how good the a99 will be.
I bet I will see you here again when the a99 comes out and start bashing it. lol


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> lol.
> 
> yeah! i don't even know why anyone even bothers to meter anymore. we have HDR!



Do you have auto-HDR? On what camera?


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO YOU EVER GO DO SCHOOL????
> 
> I just realised something, here I am arguing with a boy who finds it hard to even write properly! It really isn't worth the effort, I think Skieur should take you on as an apprentice though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? This guy lol. You're not making sense. If you want my attention, all you have to do is ask. The question was not even for you.
> "DO YOU EVER GO DO SCHOOL?" Talks about writing properly.
Click to expand...


Very good!

That is how you write.. I was mocking you! But your peanut brain couldn't process it. Your profile photo says it all... BRAINLESS! I saw one of your photos you posted for C and C, it was soft and underexposed, this is proof you have no credentials to criticise respected forum members.


----------



## Omofo

Grow up people, enough of this "my dick is bigger then yours" bs. If you don't knock it off my dad is gonna beat up your dad. ;-)

        The a77 isn't the best thing since sliced bread, but you get what you're paying for and a whole lot more.


----------



## Omofo

unpopular said:


> There will always be some delay between the EVF and the lens. If Sony can speed this up to ideally 1/60s, or even 1/30 sec, it won't be a problem since our eyes can't perceive that rate anyway. Until then though, I just cannot call the a77 a remotely "professional" option, unless all your subjects are stationary.



The refresh rate is 60Hz, correct me if I'm wrong but that should equate to 1/60 of a second.


----------



## gsgary

In the video it says it works better than any other SLT camera, isn't Sony the only firm that makes an SLR with an SLT viewfinder


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> Complaining about the ISO400 being noisy makes me think that you're not using your camera properly. I start seeing noise on ISO800 but I do post-process on every picture so I am not complaining. If your standard is really that high when it comes to noise, get the k5 then.




At ISO 400, I consider the a350 acceptable for general photography, start around ISO 800 I need to take into account noise. The a350 is a notoriously noisy body, and has always been the complaints about it. If you're accustomed to the a350, then perhaps it makes sense that you don't mind the a77.

This isn't to say that the a350 is a bad camera, it has excellent image quality below ISO 400, it handles nicely and is a good mid-end body. I'll prob. continue to use my a350 for some time yet since the NEX-7 is not yet available and is a bit expensive for me atm.



argieramos said:


> Now you're trying to play nice with Skieur, and asking his thoughts about the a99. You hate the SLT tech right? Haters gonna hate, no matter how good the a99 will be.
> I bet I will see you here again when the a99 comes out and start bashing it. lol



I'm not a hater. A maskless sensor will have considerably lower noise, especially if it's a 3mos sensor, as it has been suggested (though I doubt this). Maskless sensors have SO many advantages over masked sensors that if true, the a99 would be extremely attractive. A masked sensor does all sorts of funny business you're not even aware of.



argieramos said:


> Do you have auto-HDR? On what camera?



Until a camera spits out a 32 bit EXR, it's not HDR.

I don't know why cameras don't actually. EXR is an open format and any camera which has these silly "hdr" features should have all the resources necessary to generate a real hdr file. It would hardly cost anything to implement this feature.

---

argieramos - go play somewhere else. You're so far out of your league in this thread it's not even funny. Most of us here are adults, and those who are not are able to act like one. We're talking about cameras, not football teams. This isn't your highschool and there isn't any need to be true to your school.


----------



## unpopular

Omofo said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will always be some delay between the EVF and the lens. If Sony can speed this up to ideally 1/60s, or even 1/30 sec, it won't be a problem since our eyes can't perceive that rate anyway. Until then though, I just cannot call the a77 a remotely "professional" option, unless all your subjects are stationary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The refresh rate is 60Hz, correct me if I'm wrong but that should equate to 1/60 of a second.
Click to expand...


It depends on what 60hz is referring to. I am guessing that is refresh rate, not frame rate which is usually stated in frames per second and is likely dependent on available light.

There is a new type of diode called a avalanche photodiode which would be ideal for this kind of setting, provided that noise levels would be acceptable. I'd expect avalanche photodiode arrays to be used in pellicle slrs in the future once they are commercially viable.


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Very good!
> 
> That is how you write.. I was mocking you! But your peanut brain couldn't process it. Your profile photo says it all... BRAINLESS! I saw one of your photos you posted for C and C, it was soft and underexposed, this is proof you have no credentials to criticise respected forum members.



Underexposed? Soft? I guess you missed the part when I said it is processed and edited with an iPhone apps. Try editing some with your phone. lol.
Which of us is acting like a li'l boy now. I never said I am the best in taking pictures, so your statement don't mean anything. 
My profile photo says what? haha! It is just a regular picture taken by me. Isn't that animal looks cute? I am not hiding anything. If you have bad comments about my pictures, feel free to say it. I like to get better and better. 
With your way of thinking dude, you wont be able to bring me down. Try harder. Oh you were mocking me? Excuses, excuses... Hahaha!


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> I guess you missed the part when I said it is processed and edited with an iPhone apps.



Excuses, excuses. Hahaha!

--

If you look at a dog poo, do you wonder why it looks like sh!t?


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> Underexposed? Soft? I guess you missed the part when I said it is processed and edited with an iPhone apps .... Excuses, excuses... Hahaha!



biglols


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Excuses, excuses. Hahaha!
> 
> --
> 
> If you look at a dog poo, do you wonder why it looks like sh!t?



Just trying out some cool editing apps for the iPhone. It's funny how you guys making it like an issue.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> biglols



Yea, thats all you can say to me.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> At ISO 400, I consider the a350 acceptable for general photography, start around ISO 800 I need to take into account noise. The a350 is a notoriously noisy body, and has always been the complaints about it. If you're accustomed to the a350, then perhaps it makes sense that you don't mind the a77.



Even if the ISO400 is bad for your standard, that's not a hard job for post process,right?  Why are you crying about it? 



> This isn't to say that the a350 is a bad camera, it has excellent image quality below ISO 400, it handles nicely and is a good mid-end body. I'll prob. continue to use my a350 for some time yet since the NEX-7 is not yet available and is a bit expensive for me atm.



A350 having excellent IQ?  Then you criticise the a77 which is waaaayyy better in terms of IQ, noise, and everything else that your camera can deliver?



> I'm not a hater. A maskless sensor will have considerably lower noise, especially if it's a 3mos sensor, as it has been suggested (though I doubt this). Maskless sensors have SO many advantages over masked sensors that if true, the a99 would be extremely attractive. A masked sensor does all sorts of funny business you're not even aware of.



But you hate the concept of SLT. a99 will be an SLT. You're still going to hate it as a haters always do.




> Until a camera spits out a 32 bit EXR, it's not HDR.
> 
> I don't know what cameras don't actually. EXR is an open format and any camera which has these silly "hdr" features should have all the resources necessary to generate a real hdr file. It would hardly cost anything to implement this feature.



When you said "we have hdr" I thought you were telling people the auto hdr in-camera. My bad.

---



> argieramos - go play somewhere else. You're so far out of your league in this thread it's not even funny. Most of us here are adults, and those who are not are able to act like one. We're talking about cameras, not football teams. This isn't your highschool and there isn't any need to be true to your school.



So who in this thread are adults? Derrel who said a77 is not a real camera? Nikon_Josh who keep saying some random crap with no connection to the topic? Tyler who obviously just trolling around? You who only pinpoint the weaknesses of the SLT and ignore all the strengths, look and exaggerate flaws of the technology? If all the advantages of SLT means nothing to you, what makes you think it will be the same for others?
If you guys are actually acting like adults, this arguement wouldn't happen.


----------



## unpopular

1) I don't "do" noise reduction. Some are better than others, but they all suck.

2) My five year old camera is completely irrelevant.

3) Yep, and it is likely that the full frame NEX hybrid will use the same sensor as the a99. If this is the case, then this body would be better for me. Either way, I am pretty sure that a maskless sensor would so greatly out-perform any masked sensor that noise introduced wouldn't be a problem by comparison. STILL that said, IQ would be better if the mirror were not there - and if I had a choice between the same sensor on an uninterrupted image path I'd choose it.

4) you really have no sense of sarcasm, do you?

5) The advantages mean nothing to me, it's true. For one, I prefer manual focus. But that aside, fast AF doesn't mean anything unless the viewfinder can keep up, which I have not seen any evidence that this problem had been fixed except in your seemingly invented assertion that some firmware update had improved the finder's frame rate. 

Being that Sony has been making high end video cameras, I don't have any idea what this would be a problem for them. But according to multiple accounts, there is a significant lag between viewfinder feedback and the light entering the lens.

I am opposed to the SLT for the same reason I ETTR. I could expose normally and gain a stop or two in shutter speed. But it is my philosophy to maximize image quality. Placing a pellicle between the film plane and the lens diminishes quality. No matter how much or how little quality is affected or how many features are allowed as a result is insignificant. So long as I have a spot meter, I'm fine.


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, I can't take you seriously. Not that I ever could...
> 
> From UrbanDictionary:
> 
> 
> lol theory
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol theory#
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "lol" I love putting that when replying to you. Because you are a mad fanboy who got nothing to do but to troll around the thread. I am laughing at you son. Get a clue. Just taste your own medicine lol lol lol lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O hey tyler, I wouldn't worry about this 'CREATURE'. I mean look at his profile photo, he isn't even Human??
Click to expand...


Try growing up a little.  :thumbdown:

skieur


----------



## gsgary

unpopular said:


> 1) I don't "do" noise reduction. Some are better than others, but they all suck.
> 
> 2) My five year old camera is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 3) Yep, and it is likely that the full frame NEX hybrid will use the same sensor as the a99. If this is the case, then this body would be better for me. Either way, I am pretty sure that a maskless sensor would so greatly out-perform any masked sensor that noise introduced wouldn't be a problem by comparison. STILL that said, IQ would be better if the mirror were not there - and if I had a choice between the same sensor on an uninterrupted image path I'd choose it.
> 
> 4) you really have no sense of sarcasm, do you?
> 
> 5) The advantages mean nothing to me, it's true. For one, I prefer manual focus. But that aside, fast AF doesn't mean anything unless the viewfinder can keep up, which I have not seen any evidence that this problem had been fixed except in your seemingly invented assertion that some firmware update had improved the finder's frame rate.
> 
> Being that Sony has been making high end video cameras, I don't have any idea what this would be a problem for them. But according to multiple accounts, there is a significant lag between viewfinder feedback and the light entering the lens.
> 
> I am opposed to the SLT for the same reason I ETTR. I could expose normally and gain a stop or two in shutter speed. But it is my philosophy to maximize image quality. Placing a pellicle between the film plane and the lens diminishes quality. No matter how much or how little quality is affected or how many features are allowed as a result is insignificant. So long as I have a spot meter, I'm fine.




You are right it will not keep up, after trying one there is no way it will keep up with a race motorbike in a fast corner


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> Try growing up a little.  :thumbdown:
> 
> skieur



Coming from a man with a very shaky history and record, supposedly your a top pro and you have been for 50 years and also your mother was a pro who used to take photos of dangerous bears with a 50mm lens! But instead of being at celebrity bashes, you are spending most of your time on this forum making useless arguments about how the Sony A77 is a professional camera. 

In reality, you should be in the arctic taking photographs or jumping off trains as you have stated you do in previous posts. Instead your sitting at your computer making up your career as you go along! I will take notice of what you say, when you begin to tell the truth about yourself and begin to be a valid contributor to this forum, instead of being someone who acts as if they are superior to everyone else and like's to put their name at the end of every post acting as if someone here has actually heard of them. 

So when someone with a imaginary career accuses me of needing to grow up.. it simply makes me smile. :thumbup:


----------



## unpopular

^^  was that 50mm lens on a 110 camera?


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> 1) I don't "do" noise reduction. Some are better than others, but they all suck.



Then the problem is you. Why do you even do post processing?



> Yep, and it is likely that the full frame NEX hybrid will use the same sensor as the a99. If this is the case, then this body would be better for me. Either way, I am pretty sure that a maskless sensor would so greatly out-perform any masked sensor that noise introduced wouldn't be a problem by comparison. STILL that said, IQ would be better if the mirror were not there - and if I had a choice between the same sensor on an uninterrupted image path I'd choose it.



Blah blah blah. No matter how good the sensor will be, you're still going to hate it because the camera is going to be an SLT. As I said before, haters gonna hate. You talk like you ever got your hands on the a77. Low noise is not the a77 strength, but it's far from bad. imagingresource and DXoMark results of the a77 noise performance is about as good as Canon 7D but better image quality. Canon 7D is a good camera, right?



> you really have no sense of sarcasm, do you?



Have you try talking to a trash-talker like yourself? Don't blame me if I didn't sense the sarcasm on your comment.



> The advantages mean nothing to me, it's true. For one, I prefer manual focus. But that aside, fast AF doesn't mean anything unless the viewfinder can keep up, which I have not seen any evidence that this problem had been fixed except in your seemingly invented assertion that some firmware update had improved the finder's frame rate.who mostly talk trash



You didn't bother looking at my link? Perhaps you didn't try harder doing your research about how the firmware update for the a77 fixed and improved issues? You didn't watch the video where it shows how the a77 managed to capture the high speed bus in 12fps? Did it show any panning issue? You want me to post a youtube video where it shows the ability of the outdated a55 managed to keep up with the high speed plane flying around the sky? Tell me, what subject do you think that the a77 wouldn't be able to keep up? You are the only one whos having a problem. But the funny thing is, you haven't even touch the camera. lol



> Being that Sony has been making high end video cameras, I don't have any idea what this would be a problem for them. But according to multiple accounts, there is a significant lag between viewfinder feedback and the light entering the lens.



Bring them all here. Or post a link. 



> I am opposed to the SLT for the same reason I ETTR. I could expose normally and gain a stop or two in shutter speed. But it is my philosophy to maximize image quality. Placing a pellicle between the film plane and the lens diminishes quality. No matter how much or how little quality is affected or how many features are allowed as a result is insignificant. So long as I have a spot meter, I'm fine.



You are only looking on the fact that it looses light because of the pellicle mirror. But you are not looking on the other fact that even with degrade quality, the result is still better than most camera on the market. IQ of the a77 in ISO1600 is a bit better than 7D and D300s in their ISO100 according to PopPhoto lab test result. What's the point of having a full quality that the sensor can give, if you mis-focus the subject. If faster and full-time AF is not important to you, you don't have to put so much hate words in this thread. a77 has focus peaking which is good for MF users. I bet you don't even know that..


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I don't "do" noise reduction. Some are better than others, but they all suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the problem is you. Why do you even do post processing?
Click to expand...


Classic!


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> You didn't bother looking at my link? Perhaps you didn't try harder doing your research about how the firmware update for the a77 fixed and improved issues? *You didn't watch the video where it shows how the a77 managed to capture the high speed bus in 12fps?* Did it show any panning issue? You want me to post a youtube video where it shows the ability of the outdated a55 managed to keep up with the high speed plane flying around the sky? Tell me, what subject do you think that the a77 wouldn't be able to keep up? You are the only one whos having a problem. But the funny thing is, you haven't even touch the camera. lol



Yeah, the A77 managed to catch a bus going a blistering 35 MILES PER HOUR through a residential area at approx 150ft away while almost perpendicular to the front lens element. WOW! That's some real advanced technology. Sony must have spent a couple of hundred dollars devising that neat piece of SLT wizardry. 

You realize that we're saying the downside of EVF's involves tracking subjects in LESS THAN IDEAL lighting conditions. Like, where an OVF would do much better, as it has a refresh rate as fast as our eye can see! Do you grasp that, Argie?


----------



## jowensphoto

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I don't "do" noise reduction. Some are better than others, but they all suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the problem is you. Why do you even do post processing?
Click to expand...


:er:


----------



## dxqcanada

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get  along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people  and the kids?...It&#8217;s just not right. It&#8217;s not right. It&#8217;s not, it&#8217;s not  going to change anything."

- Rodney King


----------



## belial

dxqcanada said:
			
		

> "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get  along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people  and the kids?...It&rsquo;s just not right. It&rsquo;s not right. It&rsquo;s not, it&rsquo;s not  going to change anything."
> 
> - Rodney King



No


----------



## erotavlas

This thread is eating up all our resources! There's been no activity in other sony threads for two days


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Yeah, the A77 managed to catch a bus going a blistering 35 MILES PER HOUR through a residential area at approx 150ft away while almost perpendicular to the front lens element. WOW! That's some real advanced technology. Sony must have spent a couple of hundred dollars devising that neat piece of SLT wizardry.
> 
> You realize that we're saying the downside of EVF's involves tracking subjects in LESS THAN IDEAL lighting conditions. Like, where an OVF would do much better, as it has a refresh rate as fast as our eye can see! Do you grasp that, Argie?



You're in denial if that looks like a 35mph speed to you.  How about the high speed plane flying around? If the refresh rate drops on less than ideal lighting, tell me how much the drop would be. You're nothing but a big talk who knows nothing. When I rented the a77, i didn't have a problem catching a passing SVT Cobra on a highway in midnight. You are talking about the EVF in general, not specific to EVF of the a77. How about the advantages? Do you know OVF is pretty much useless in extreme darkness? OVF and EVF have their own advantages and weaknesses. It's just a matter of which one is you like better. You need to pick yourself up dude, you fail so hard.


----------



## Derrel

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Yeah, the A77 managed to catch a bus going a blistering 35 MILES PER HOUR through a residential area at approx 150ft away while almost perpendicular to the front lens element. WOW! That's some real advanced technology. Sony must have spent a couple of hundred dollars devising that neat piece of SLT wizardry.



Brilliantly stated. A HUGE, white subject surrounded by green foliage, at a long distance, moving almost entirely perpendicular to the film plane....I can focus on that kind of a target with a manual focus lens and NAIL focus. Easily. A bus! Really??? A bus!!! Hilarious! I know, I know, it's not quite a s big as a house...but you see, on the Digital Rev comparison with the A77 WITH UPDATED FIRMWARE, shot head-to-head with the Nikon D7000, the A77 doesn't perform all that well on one,single athlete at close range. 

Not surprisingly, the D7000's matrix pattern metering (invented by Nikon in the early 1980's) gives better and more-consistent exposures than the Sony A77 does, under pretty simple blue-sky lighting conditions. At 12 FPS, the A77's buffer fills really quickly, and then slows to a crawl...less than one frame per second...the Nikon shoots around 2 FPS after its  buffer has been filled and as it is being flushed to the storage media.

See for yourselves...


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> You're in denial if that looks like a 35mph speed to you.  How about the high speed plane flying around?



Relative to the camera, the bus may very well be moving faster.

Now. How is that possible, mr. post processing extraordinaire?

ETA: wait a minute .... wasn't THAT WAS A BIRD!


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Brilliantly stated. A HUGE, white subject surrounded by green foliage, at a long distance, moving almost entirely perpendicular to the film plane....I can focus on that kind of a target with a manual focus lens and NAIL focus. Easily. A bus! Really??? A bus!!! Hilarious! I know, I know, it's not quite a s big as a house...but you see, on the Digital Rev comparison with the A77 WITH UPDATED FIRMWARE, shot head-to-head with the Nikon D7000, the A77 doesn't perform all that well on one,single athlete at close range.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the D7000's matrix pattern metering (invented by Nikon in the early 1980's) gives better and more-consistent exposures than the Sony A77 does, under pretty simple blue-sky lighting conditions. At 12 FPS, the A77's buffer fills really quickly, and then slows to a crawl...less than one frame per second...the Nikon shoots around 2 FPS after its  buffer has been filled and as it is being flushed to the storage media.
> 
> See for yourselves...YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bXkRx2Jc0



I thought you are an accomplished photographer? You are not acting as one, no offense. First of all, the current firmware is 1.04. The a77 that DigitalRev used was running on old firmware 1.03, so you are very wrong. You do know that the reviewer was using the cheap kit lens on the a77, right? Not the kind of kitlens that comes with the a77 that optimized its resolution and speed. The fThat's one of the factor that you failed to point out. Camera speed means nothing if the lens can't keep up. You should know that. 
Let me quote this statement from one of the review of the a77;
" In stills, the autofocus surprises me in that it can generally grab subjects at the far extremes of the frame and track them well as they cross the frame. Great job, Sony. You solved the Autofocus DSLR problem. Nikon, Canon, take note."

Source: The Verge

Let's get back to video. When the reviewer changed lens with a kit lens something equal to Sony, the performance was about equal, right? The a77 was faster but filled the buffer quickly. Try not to fill the buffer, is that much big of a problem? Unless you do full burst on a full lap of racing, I don't see it as a big problem.

Oh yea, I was talking about the panning with EVF when I used the bus as an example. Not about the AF. Next time try to read everything.

You haven't answer my question. What is the real camera to you?


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Relative to the camera, the bus may very well be moving faster.
> 
> Now. How is that possible, mr. post processing extraordinaire?
> 
> ETA: wait a minute .... wasn't THAT WAS A BIRD!



Are you having a mental breakdown? Not surprised lol


----------



## Crollo

"THE A77 PERFORMS PERFECTLY FINE IN LESS THEN IDEAL CONDITIONS, I EVEN MADE UP A BULL STORY THAT HAS NO VALIDITY WHATSOEVER TO PROVE IT!"
"Well what about this video made by a highly respected knowledgeable show?"
"well no DUH if you give it less then ideal performance it's not going to perform well, what did you THINK was gonna happen?"

I can almost _feel_ my own IQ dropping reading his posts.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliantly stated. A HUGE, white subject surrounded by green foliage, at a long distance, moving almost entirely perpendicular to the film plane....I can focus on that kind of a target with a manual focus lens and NAIL focus. Easily. A bus! Really??? A bus!!! Hilarious! I know, I know, it's not quite a s big as a house...but you see, on the Digital Rev comparison with the A77 WITH UPDATED FIRMWARE, shot head-to-head with the Nikon D7000, the A77 doesn't perform all that well on one,single athlete at close range.
> 
> Not surprisingly, the D7000's matrix pattern metering (invented by Nikon in the early 1980's) gives better and more-consistent exposures than the Sony A77 does, under pretty simple blue-sky lighting conditions. At 12 FPS, the A77's buffer fills really quickly, and then slows to a crawl...less than one frame per second...the Nikon shoots around 2 FPS after its  buffer has been filled and as it is being flushed to the storage media.
> 
> See for yourselves...YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bXkRx2Jc0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you are an accomplished photographer? You are not acting as one, no offense. First of all, the current firmware is 1.04. The a77 that DigitalRev used was running on old firmware 1.03, so you are very wrong. You do know that the reviewer was using the cheap kit lens on the a77, right? Not the kind of kitlens that comes with the a77 that optimized its resolution and speed. The fThat's one of the factor that you failed to point out. Camera speed means nothing if the lens can't keep up. You should know that.
> Let me quote this statement from one of the review of the a77;
> " In stills, the autofocus surprises me in that it can generally grab subjects at the far extremes of the frame and track them well as they cross the frame. Great job, Sony. You solved the Autofocus DSLR problem. Nikon, Canon, take note."
> 
> Source: The Verge
> 
> Let's get back to video. When the reviewer changed lens with a kit lens something equal to Sony, the performance was about equal, right? The a77 was faster but filled the buffer quickly. Try not to fill the buffer, is that much big of a problem? Unless you do full burst on a full lap of racing, I don't see it as a big problem.
> 
> Oh yea, I was talking about the panning with EVF when I used the bus as an example. Not about the AF. Next time try to read everything.
> 
> You haven't answer my question. What is the real camera to you?
Click to expand...



Looks like your getting desperate now


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Looks like your getting desperate now



How am I getting desperate? Explain....


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like your getting desperate now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I getting desperate? Explain....
Click to expand...


I have used one of these cameras and was not impressed with the panning or veiwfinder


----------



## argieramos

Crollo said:
			
		

> "THE A77 PERFORMS PERFECTLY FINE IN LESS THEN IDEAL CONDITIONS, I EVEN MADE UP A BULL STORY THAT HAS NO VALIDITY WHATSOEVER TO PROVE IT!"
> "Well what about this video made by a highly respected knowledgeable show?"
> "well no DUH if you give it less then ideal performance it's not going to perform well, what did you THINK was gonna happen?"
> 
> I can almost feel my own IQ dropping reading his posts.



It's just you. If you are feeling that way, why stay here? It seems like your IQ is already reaching the lowest as it can get. You still have time.


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> It's funny that you have problem with SLT delay with the fact that you never got your hands on one.
> Good news for action panners with A77's EVF...: Sony SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review



2:10 - BIRD!



Besides it doesn't matter. The speed of the subject is relative to it's magnification not it's absolute speed. A high speed bird traveling at 600km/h, 5000' away will be slower _relative to the camera _than a bicycle traveling 5km/h three feet away using any given lens.

AND that's also beside the point because the frame rate, according to this video anyway, declines in continuous burst and does so in such a erratic way that you couldn't even hope to compensate for it.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> I have used one of these cameras and was not impressed with the panning or veiwfinder



What camera? If you used the a77, Ihjave questions for you.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> 2:10 - BIRD!
> 
> Besides it doesn't matter. The speed of the subject is relative to it's magnification not it's absolute speed. A high speed bird traveling at 600km/h, 5000' away will be slower relative to the camera than a bicycle traveling 5km/h three feet away using any given lens.
> 
> AND that's also beside the point because the frame rate, according to this video anyway, declines in continuous burst and does so in such a erratic way that you couldn't even hope to compensate for it.



You really don't want to move on from the bus huh? Compensate for what? 
Haters nowadays. They have infinite source of things to hate lol


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> What camera? If you used the a77, Ihjave questions for you.



DON'T ANSWER GARY! IT'S A TRAP!


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> DON'T ANSWER GARY! IT'S A TRAP!



Oh look, he found a friend lol


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2:10 - BIRD!
> 
> Besides it doesn't matter. The speed of the subject is relative to it's magnification not it's absolute speed. A high speed bird traveling at 600km/h, 5000' away will be slower relative to the camera than a bicycle traveling 5km/h three feet away using any given lens.
> 
> AND that's also beside the point because the frame rate, according to this video anyway, declines in continuous burst and does so in such a erratic way that you couldn't even hope to compensate for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't want to move on from the bus huh? How about the high speed plane?
> Haters nowadays. They have infinite source of things to hate lol
Click to expand...


OMG. You are so frustrating. You are prob just eating this up, aren't you.

If it cannot capture a bus traveling at the very most 45mph from 50' using about a 70mm lens on an APS C sensor, what are the chances of it capturing a high speed airplane of similar magnification? What the hell is your point?


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have used one of these cameras and was not impressed with the panning or veiwfinder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What camera? If you used the a77, Ihjave questions for you.
Click to expand...


I have use A55 which is a bag of **** in the studio and had a quick go with A77 didn't like it because i'm used to pro cameras


----------



## o hey tyler

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have used one of these cameras and was not impressed with the panning or veiwfinder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What camera? If you used the a77, Ihjave questions for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have use A55 which is a bag of **** in the studio and had a quick go with A77 didn't like it because i'm used to pro cameras
Click to expand...


Gary, you know you are all about the in camera HDR.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> OMG. You are so frustrating. You are prob just eating this up, aren't you.
> 
> If it cannot capture a but traveling at the very most 45mph from 50' using about a 70mm lens on an APS C sensor, what are the chances of it capturing a high speed airplane of similar magnification? What the hell is your point?



Ask yourself. Will you be able to follow a high speed plane in close magnification, when looking through the viewfinder?


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> I have use A55 which is a bag of **** in the studio and had a quick go with A77 didn't like it because i'm used to pro cameras



A55 is not meant for studio shooting. You said you are used to pro cameras? And you have used the a55? a55 is not a
Pro level camera just to let you know.

Since you have experienced  the a77, you ready for my questions?


----------



## unpopular

So you are asking if I didn't have a EVF, couldI track a high speed object at close proximity and your assertion being that it doesn't matter because it's impossible to do so anyway. That's kind of absurd, and you can look at any aerobatics enthusiast to see that is not the case. If you're talking about my personal ability, that doesn't matter.

Even if a traditional SLR can only reach at the most 12fps, it is still better than the EVF provided that the 1/10 sec lag is accurate. While teh shutter goes dark for the duration of the exposure plus a few microseconds after, there is no lag when the mirror is back in place and as a result you can correct your position.

However, if the information which you are using to adjust the pan is not synchronous with the subject, then you are operating under faulty information about the placement of the subject.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> So you are asking if I didn't have a EVF, couldI track a high speed object at close proximity and your assertion being that it doesn't matter because it's impossible to do so anyway. That's kind of absurd, and you can look at any aerobatics enthusiast to see that is not the case. If you're talking about my personal ability, that doesn't matter.



That is my point. The EVF ability to follow a high speed subject in close magnification bothers you, but you ignore the fact that you wouldn't be able to do that with OVF either. 



> Even if a traditional SLR can only reach at the most 12fps, it is still better than the EVF provided that the 1/10 sec lag is accurate. While teh shutter goes dark for the duration of the exposure plus a few microseconds after, there is no lag when the mirror is back in place and as a result you can correct your position.
> 
> However, if the information which you are using to adjust the pan is not synchronous with the subject, then you are operating under faulty information about the placement of the subject.



What information are you talking about? 
I hate to keep repeating myself. If an object is moving so quickly that it defeats the alleged evf lag, chances are you won't be able to follow that object even with OVF because you are looking through VF. With EVF, it will not be a problem to follow a football player, speedy plane, fast moving car, etc. so what's your problem?  You are just looking at a simple flaw of the technology, and exaggerate it without pointing out the advantages it will give to photographer. Haters gonna hate on simple things. Thats the problem with people who only look for flaws from the internet without even trying the camera.


----------



## unpopular

you're hopeless.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

The haters gonna hate, y'all! Dudes on this forum is straight tripping on Sony A77, playa's gonna hate the game but they gotta respect it!


----------



## Omofo

Must I repeat "the evf on the A77 has a refresh rate of 60Hz". End of discussion.


----------



## Derrel

In the side-by-side shootout between the Nikon D7000 and the Sony A77, they specifically mention that BOTH CAMERAS are using KIT LENSES. So, the footing is equal, kit lens vs kit lens.The Sony quickly burns through its buffer, then drops to around "less than one frame per second", and the Sony suffers from erratic light metering. The Nikon D7000 has excellent light metering throughout the entire sequence, and drops to around 2 frames per second after its buffer has been filled.

Nikon's in-camera light and flash metering technology and intellectual property is second to none. Nikon invented "matrix" metering and the use of computer chips and analysis of scenes compared against actual photographs stored in the computer's memory. Nikon "invented" Red-Green-Blue "color-aware" light metering. Nikon "invented" the use of subject color measurement and analysis paired with Autofocus, with both user-selected start points, and with the automated Scene Recognition System. Nikon has been making "professional" cameras since before the Korean War....that is decidedly not the case with Sony. Nikon cameras have been aboard every single US space mission,spanning from the 1960's to the 2010's.

There's very little doubt as to why a cheap Nikon with a cheap kit lens can out-meter, and out-focus a Sony camera. Only within the last year and a half has Canon figured out a method to get around Nikon's patented RGB color-aware metering and focusing; Canon did it by adding a FOURTH color to analyze!!! Yellow-Green!!! Which incidentally,is something the Japanese people and the Japanese language actually take note of: how much yellow there is in the greens!

So yeah, argie, I am aware, fully aware, that BOTH cameras used kit lenses in the test. And the Nikon was the better performer.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are asking if I didn't have a EVF, couldI track a high speed object at close proximity and your assertion being that it doesn't matter because it's impossible to do so anyway. That's kind of absurd, and you can look at any aerobatics enthusiast to see that is not the case. If you're talking about my personal ability, that doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point. The EVF ability to follow a high speed subject in close magnification bothers you, but you ignore the fact that you wouldn't be able to do that with OVF either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if a traditional SLR can only reach at the most 12fps, it is still better than the EVF provided that the 1/10 sec lag is accurate. While teh shutter goes dark for the duration of the exposure plus a few microseconds after, there is no lag when the mirror is back in place and as a result you can correct your position.
> 
> However, if the information which you are using to adjust the pan is not synchronous with the subject, then you are operating under faulty information about the placement of the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What information are you talking about?
> I hate to keep repeating myself. If an object is moving so quickly that it defeats the alleged evf lag, chances are you won't be able to follow that object even with OVF because you are looking through VF. With EVF, it will not be a problem to follow a football player, speedy plane, fast moving car, etc. so what's your problem?  You are just looking at a simple flaw of the technology, and exaggerate it without pointing out the advantages it will give to photographer. Haters gonna hate on simple things. Thats the problem with people who only look for flaws from the internet without even trying the camera.
Click to expand...



I didn't see any advantages, Sony don't tell you the A55 is not for studio people have to find out after buying it, i did a serch after using one


----------



## Omofo

Derrel said:


> The Sony quickly burns through its buffer, then drops to around "less than one frame per second", and the Sony suffers from erratic light metering. The Nikon D7000 has excellent light metering throughout the entire sequence, and drops to around 2 frames per second after its buffer has been filled.



The Sony is shooting at twice the fps, so it stands to reason that the buffer is going to fill faster...


----------



## unpopular

Omofo said:


> Must I repeat "the evf on the A77 has a refresh rate of 60Hz". End of discussion.



maybe. but look at my reply the first time your brought this up.


----------



## Derrel

Omofo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sony quickly burns through its buffer, then drops to around "less than one frame per second", and the Sony suffers from erratic light metering. The Nikon D7000 has excellent light metering throughout the entire sequence, and drops to around 2 frames per second after its buffer has been filled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sony is shooting at twice the fps, so it stands to reason that the buffer is going to fill faster...
Click to expand...


Yes,and while the buffer is full, the Nikon is shooting twice as fast with its filled buffer! Meaning the Sony's huge 24 megapixel files are a PITA to write to card!!!

But what explains the sucky light-metering from the Sony? Inferior technology I guess one might say...


----------



## Crollo

Derrel said:


> But what explains the sucky light-metering from the Sony? Inferior technology I guess one might say...



you cant not use a bad lens, it does not good when you don't give it good lens, like kit lens!


----------



## kassad

For the love of all that is good and holy,  please let this d@mn thread die.


----------



## skieur

jake337 said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> 
> A77 destroy the Canon 7D
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony A77  Camera Comparison
> 
> A77 destroy the Canon 7D again
> 
> Welcome to Flickr!
> 
> Studio Shot sample of a77 vs the Canon 7D. A77 once again destroy the 7D
> 
> You can call the a77 "suck, bad camera, noisy," etc. you cannot change the fact that it is better than most camera on the market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, yeah. I don't think destroy is the right word. Most of the features that push the A77 ahead in those "comparisons" are options that pros do not use. You know, those "toy" features.
> 
> Also its sad when someone says this camera is better than most on the current market, considering this is one of sony's newer releases, and everyone keeps comparing it to bodies who's successors are on the way. Sad.
> 
> Not knocking sony, just the fanboy's.
Click to expand...


Gee, when you don't like the info. provided by argiermos, you make up your own spin, eh Jake?  Jumping on the bandwagon of another post you echo the stupidity about so called "toy features"  Of course you would NOT know whether pros use them or not.  Let me assure you that they do.
Virtual tours are common in the real estate sold in Canada when large houses and properties are involved.  In camera panoramas, simulated tilt shift, and in camera HDRs are widely used by pros in this field.  I have also seen in camera panoramas on the front of magazines too.  So quit the stupid, inaccurate spin.

I said that the Sony A77 was equal to the Canon and Nikon cameras I mentioned, and it is SILLY of you to argue about present versus POTENTIAL new releases.  Sure the Nikon D8000 will come out with 36 megapixels, but then later the Sony A99 will come out as well with the same sensor.
Meanwhile Canon will come out with a new release as well.

What is sad is your silly spin and excuses!!!

skieur


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:


> In the side-by-side shootout between the Nikon D7000 and the Sony A77, they specifically mention that BOTH CAMERAS are using KIT LENSES. So, the footing is equal, kit lens vs kit lens.The Sony quickly burns through its buffer, then drops to around "less than one frame per second", and the Sony suffers from erratic light metering. The Nikon D7000 has excellent light metering throughout the entire sequence, and drops to around 2 frames per second after its buffer has been filled.
> 
> Nikon's in-camera light and flash metering technology and intellectual property is second to none. Nikon invented "matrix" metering and the use of computer chips and analysis of scenes compared against actual photographs stored in the computer's memory. Nikon "invented" Red-Green-Blue "color-aware" light metering. Nikon "invented" the use of subject color measurement and analysis paired with Autofocus, with both user-selected start points, and with the automated Scene Recognition System. Nikon has been making "professional" cameras since before the Korean War....that is decidedly not the case with Sony. Nikon cameras have been aboard every single US space mission,spanning from the 1960's to the 2010's.
> 
> There's very little doubt as to why a cheap Nikon with a cheap kit lens can out-meter, and out-focus a Sony camera. Only within the last year and a half has Canon figured out a method to get around Nikon's patented RGB color-aware metering and focusing; Canon did it by adding a FOURTH color to analyze!!! Yellow-Green!!! Which incidentally,is something the Japanese people and the Japanese language actually take note of: how much yellow there is in the greens!
> 
> So yeah, argie, I am aware, fully aware, that BOTH cameras used kit lenses in the test. And the Nikon was the better performer.



lol Kai was not using kit lens on D7000 on the first round you f0o! Can't you tell based on the form factor of the lens? A Honda Civic will be able to out-run a Mustang that has Government speed limiter.
So much for the so-called accomplished photographer. Kai then used the kit lens on the D7000 after the first round. You really didn't pay attention to the video. 
What's up with this Nikon invented blah blah blah? If Nikon invented something, that's great! Good for them.. But this thread is not about the brand. You don't see me bragging about how the exposure metering of "Nikon"D80 inferior to the "Sony"a100 based on the digitalcamerainfo test. You can shave your butt with that fanboyism attitude of yours. I like Nikon actually, more than Canon. But man, the fact is they wouldn't be able to even get close to Canon if it wasn't for the help of third parties like, uhhmm... Sony? 80% of Nikon DSLR uses Sony sensor.

Re-watch the video, aight?


----------



## argieramos

> I didn't see any advantages, Sony don't tell you the A55 is not for studio people have to find out after buying it, i did a serch after using one



You didn't see the advantages because you haven't tried the a77. We are talking about the a77 here boy. Man, you should have known that the a55 is an entry level DSLT. Were you expecting a lot from a camera on that level?


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> you're hopeless.



look who's talking lol


----------



## Omofo

Derrel said:


> Omofo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Sony quickly burns through its buffer, then drops to around "less than one frame per second", and the Sony suffers from erratic light metering. The Nikon D7000 has excellent light metering throughout the entire sequence, and drops to around 2 frames per second after its buffer has been filled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sony is shooting at twice the fps, so it stands to reason that the buffer is going to fill faster...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,and while the buffer is full, the Nikon is shooting twice as fast with its filled buffer! Meaning the Sony's huge 24 megapixel files are a PITA to write to card!!!
> 
> But what explains the sucky light-metering from the Sony? Inferior technology I guess one might say...
Click to expand...


Agreed, but if sony can supply Nikon with sensors then Nikon should do them a solid in return...


----------



## unpopular

No. Seriously. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. I may be wrong about certain aspects of what I've said, whatever. You though are _*completely*_ clueless.

You have demonstrated on several occasions that you really have no notion of the most basic principles of photography. What's worse is that you have embarrassed yourself on several occasions not only according to me, but almost anyone else who has happened upon what you've said - and not only regarding this topic, but also photography as a whole.

Just because your aunt paid you $35 to take some photos at her wedding doesn't make you a pro. Just because you took some smutty pictures of your sister on your ipod doesn't make you some kind of expert. While you have made a valid point or two, you have demonstrated over and over and over that you don't have ANY IDEA what you are doing.

The SLT fanboyism and insistence that I am absolutely opposed to the technology under any implementation is annoying enough. But then you go around as a charlatan with way more experience and knowledge than you  you do, which just makes you

an obnoxious little boy


----------



## Nikon_Josh

unpopular said:


> No. Seriously. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. I may be wrong about certain aspects of what I've said, whatever. You though are _*completely*_ clueless.
> 
> You have demonstrated on several occasions that you really have no notion of the most basic principles of photography. What's worse is that you have embarrassed yourself on several occasions not only according to me, but almost anyone else who has happened upon what you've said - and not only regarding this topic, but also photography as a whole.
> 
> Just because your aunt paid you $35 to take some photos at her wedding doesn't make you a pro. Just because you took some smutty pictures of your sister on your ipod doesn't make you some kind of expert. While you have made a valid point or two, you have demonstrated over and over and over that you don't have ANY IDEA what you are doing.
> 
> The SLT fanboyism and insistence that I am absolutely opposed to the technology under any implementation is annoying enough. But then you go around as a charlatan with way more experience and knowledge than you think you do just makes you
> 
> an obnoxious little boy



Err unpopular your wrong! He knows how to edit photos on iphone apps? Who else can do that? So credit where credit is due!


----------



## Omofo

unpopular said:


> Omofo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must I repeat "the evf on the A77 has a refresh rate of 60Hz". End of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe. but look at my reply the first time your brought this up.
Click to expand...

Ahh, yes frame rate and refresh aren't always the same.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony SLT A77
> 
> A77 destroy the Canon 7D
> 
> Canon 7D vs Sony A77 &#8211; Camera Comparison
> 
> A77 destroy the Canon 7D again
> 
> Welcome to Flickr!
> 
> Studio Shot sample of a77 vs the Canon 7D. A77 once again destroy the 7D
> 
> You can call the a77 "suck, bad camera, noisy," etc. you cannot change the fact that it is better than most camera on the market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, yeah. I don't think destroy is the right word. Most of the features that push the A77 ahead in those "comparisons" are options that pros do not use. You know, those "toy" features.
> 
> Also its sad when someone says this camera is better than most on the current market, considering this is one of sony's newer releases, and everyone keeps comparing it to bodies who's successors are on the way. Sad.
> 
> Not knocking sony, just the fanboy's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, when you don't like the info. provided by argiermos, you make up your own spin, eh Jake?  Jumping on the bandwagon of another post you echo the stupidity about so called "toy features"  Of course you would NOT know whether pros use them or not.  Let me assure you that they do.
> Virtual tours are common in the real estate sold in Canada when large houses and properties are involved.  In camera panoramas, simulated tilt shift, and in camera HDRs are widely used by pros in this field.  I have also seen in camera panoramas on the front of magazines too.  So quit the stupid, inaccurate spin.
> 
> I said that the Sony A77 was equal to the Canon and Nikon cameras I mentioned, and it is SILLY of you to argue about present versus POTENTIAL new releases.  Sure the Nikon D8000 will come out with 36 megapixels, but then later the Sony A99 will come out as well with the same sensor.
> Meanwhile Canon will come out with a new release as well.
> 
> What is sad is your silly spin and excuses!!!
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


skieur calling others people on this forum stupid??? :lmao: You may be ''intelligent'' skieur, but your career is a fantasy...

Accusations of spin? Coming from the king of spin, spin, spin


----------



## unpopular

Nikon_Josh said:


> Err unpopular your wrong! He knows how to edit photos on iphone apps? Who else can do that? So credit where credit is due!



you are absolutely right. I don't have ten bucks to waste on silly apps for the iPad.


----------



## o hey tyler

unpopular said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Err unpopular your wrong! He knows how to edit photos on iphone apps? Who else can do that? So credit where credit is due!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are absolutely right. I don't have ten bucks to waste on silly apps for the iPad.
Click to expand...


You would, if you bought an A77 over a 1D Mk IV.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> No. Seriously. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. I may be wrong about certain aspects of what I've said, whatever. You though are _*completely*_ clueless.
> 
> You have demonstrated on several occasions that you really have no notion of the most basic principles of photography. What's worse is that you have embarrassed yourself on several occasions not only according to me, but almost anyone else who has happened upon what you've said - and not only regarding this topic, but also photography as a whole.
> 
> Just because your aunt paid you $35 to take some photos at her wedding doesn't make you a pro. Just because you took some smutty pictures of your sister on your ipod doesn't make you some kind of expert. While you have made a valid point or two, you have demonstrated over and over and over that you don't have ANY IDEA what you are doing.
> 
> The SLT fanboyism and insistence that I am absolutely opposed to the technology under any implementation is annoying enough. But then you go around as a charlatan with way more experience and knowledge than you  you do, which just makes you
> 
> an obnoxious little boy



Wow! I dare you to make a summary of which things do you think I am clueless about.

If you really know better than I do, minor issue wouldn't be such a big problem to you. "I dont use noise reduction, they suck" Yea, you know a lot. Noise reduction is powerful tool mind you.

If you really know better, you wouldn't even dare to question the ability of EVF to follow a high speed plane with close magnification due to the fact that your human reflexes won't even be able to keep up even if you use OVF

If you really know better, you wouldn't just see the drawbacks of EVF, but also the advantages it will give you.Some people don't like EVF, but some do. Some people like to look the beauty and realism through the OVF, some people like to see the histogram, settings, the preview of the exposure even before they make a shot through the EVF. It's just a matter of opinion which you can't understand.

If you really know better, you wouldn't use the term "SLT fanboyism" on me. I never say SLT technology is better than SLR, but that depends on the eyes of a certain photographers.

I am not a fanboy. You just love to hate things.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> I didn't see any advantages, Sony don't tell you the A55 is not for studio people have to find out after buying it, i did a serch after using one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't see the advantages because you haven't tried the a77. We are talking about the a77 here boy. Man, you should have known that the a55 is an entry level DSLT. Were you expecting a lot from a camera on that level?
Click to expand...


I have use an A77 and i can't see any pro buying one


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Err unpopular your wrong! He knows how to edit photos on iphone apps? Who else can do that? So credit where credit is due!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are absolutely right. I don't have ten bucks to waste on silly apps for the iPad.
Click to expand...


Another hate statement coming from a person who only know to hate things. As expected


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Err unpopular your wrong! He knows how to edit photos on iphone apps? Who else can do that? So credit where credit is due!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are absolutely right. I don't have ten bucks to waste on silly apps for the iPad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would, if you bought an A77 over a 1D Mk IV.
Click to expand...


Why would you even put the APS-C a77 next to the FF 1DMkIV? Retard lol lol lol lol....


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see any advantages, Sony don't tell you the A55 is not for studio people have to find out after buying it, i did a serch after using one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't see the advantages because you haven't tried the a77. We are talking about the a77 here boy. Man, you should have known that the a55 is an entry level DSLT. Were you expecting a lot from a camera on that level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have use an A77 and i can't see any pro buying one
Click to expand...


Opinion. You wouldn't be prove anything here by only trying the camera in the store.


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> Why would you even put the APS-C a77 next to the FF 1DMkIV? Retard lol lol lol lol....



The guy's nuts you're swinging from pretty much did.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...6573-changing-field-professional-cameras.html

Who's the retard now?


----------



## Nikon_Josh

mjhoward said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you even put the APS-C a77 next to the FF 1DMkIV? Retard lol lol lol lol....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy's nuts you're swinging from pretty much did.
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...6573-changing-field-professional-cameras.html
> 
> Who's the retard now?
Click to expand...


The thing I am loving the most is how ArgieMoron is calling people 'retards'. When he is finding it hard to simply WRITE properly, his posts are hard to read because they are so poorly written. He quite clearly never went to school even.


----------



## unpopular

what I'm loving about Argie is that we're trying to argue with him in the first place. He thinks the only reason to PP is NR, and clearly has no idea what ETTR means. I wonder if he can even decode what I just said!

ttfn, have fun everyone, remember to EC by adjusting Av and Tv to get the right EV (except you, argie - you'll be better off with AE)!


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you even put the APS-C a77 next to the FF 1DMkIV? Retard lol lol lol lol....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy's nuts you're swinging from pretty much did.
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...6573-changing-field-professional-cameras.html
> 
> Who's the retard now?
Click to expand...


Why would someone making an option of comparison of APS-C to a FF? You are asking who is retard? Go find a mirror


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:


> The thing I am loving the most is how ArgieMoron is calling people 'retards'. When he is finding it hard to simply WRITE properly, his posts are hard to read because they are so poorly written. He quite clearly never went to school even.



Since when a "single" person is now considered people? People is a plurality of persons considered as a whole. You are the only one who is complaining and that shows your limitation of understanding things.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> what I'm loving about Argie is that we're trying to argue with him in the first place. He thinks the only reason to PP is NR, and clearly has no idea what ETTR means. I wonder if he can even decode what I just said!
> 
> ttfn, have fun everyone, remember to EC by adjusting Av and Tv to get the right EV (except you, argie - you'll be better off with AE)!



Did I say NR is the only reason to PP? Does underestimating the value of NR makes you know more? What makes you think I dont know what's ETTR? 
I told you to list all the things that you think I have no clue about. And here you are running away. That proves something bro.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> Just because your aunt paid you $35 to take some photos at her wedding doesn't make you a pro. Just because you took some smutty pictures of your sister on your ipod doesn't make you some kind of expert. While you have made a valid point or two, you have demonstrated over and over and over that you don't have ANY IDEA what you are doing.



I don't know where did you get all those stories. I never get paid or claim that I am a Pro. Stop making up stories. It don't matter to me if you are a better photographer, or see me as a beginner. This argument is about cameras right?


----------



## Derrel

I simply cannot BELIEVE that SOMEBODY has not posted a "popcorn" emoticon within the last ten pages of this thread!! If ever there was a time and place for it..this is *that place*!

WTH is wrong with you people??? Please, somebody, anybody--post the popcorn emoticon!!!


----------



## Nikon_Josh

Derrel said:


> I simply cannot BELIEVE that SOMEBODY has not posted a "popcorn" emoticon within the last ten pages of this thread!! If ever there was a time and place for it..this is *that place*!
> 
> WTH is wrong with you people??? Please, somebody, anybody--post the popcorn emoticon!!!



 Have to say,  I am enjoying winding up ArgieMoron! Hope all are enjoying the show.


----------



## mjhoward




----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> I don't know where did you get all those stories. I never get paid or claim that I am a Pro. Stop making up stories. It don't matter to me if you are a better photographer, or see me as a beginner. This argument is about cameras right?



But argie - you just don't get it. Your arguments are mostly invalid or even just don't make any sense at all. People here with more experience than you are doing a very good job of explaining why, but you're just stuck on this a77 defense thing - and I have no idea why.

The camera, as a result of it's technology that DOES permit some interesting features has problems which some of us cannot tolerate. It's great that you love the a77 so much, and I am glad that it works for you, but there are inherent flaws in it's design. Some people maybe like having their entire buffer filled in a few seconds or having fast AF at the expense of a slight delay in visual feedback. But you have to understand that these ARE flaws, and regardless of what ever benefit you gain, they are drawbacks.

IMO the technology just is not quite ready yet.


----------



## o hey tyler

argieramos said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you even put the APS-C a77 next to the FF 1DMkIV? Retard lol lol lol lol....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy's nuts you're swinging from pretty much did.
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...6573-changing-field-professional-cameras.html
> 
> Who's the retard now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone making an option of comparison of APS-C to a FF? You are asking who is retard? Go find a mirror
Click to expand...


Newsflash bro, the 1D Mk IV is a APS-H body. Last time I checked, it wasn't full frame.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing I am loving the most is how ArgieMoron is calling people 'retards'. When he is finding it hard to simply WRITE properly, his posts are hard to read because they are so poorly written. He quite clearly never went to school even.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when a "single" person is now considered people? People is a plurality of persons considered as a whole. You are the only one who is complaining and that shows your limitation of understanding things.
Click to expand...


Can we see some wonderful shots you have taken with the A77


----------



## Crollo

o hey tyler said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy's nuts you're swinging from pretty much did.
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...6573-changing-field-professional-cameras.html
> 
> Who's the retard now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would someone making an option of comparison of APS-C to a FF? You are asking who is retard? Go find a mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash bro, the 1D Mk IV is a APS-H body. Last time I checked, it wasn't full frame.
Click to expand...


To be fair I think many people are uneducated on the 1D series, as many of them could never dream of having one. I always thought all the 1Ds were full frame for a while too.


----------



## o hey tyler

Well, Crollo. You are correct, the 1Ds's are full frame... The 1D's however are not. So in a sense, your post is actually correct, only because you didn't use an apostrophe!  

But yes, I agree. It is easy for many people to think that any "pro level" camera is automatically a full frame camera, when in fact that is not true.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> But argie - you just don't get it. Your arguments are mostly invalid or even just don't make any sense at all. People here with more experience than you are doing a very good job of explaining why, but you're just stuck on this a77 defense thing - and I have no idea why.



You're wrong. I am just merely stating some other facts you tend to ignore because of that hate that consumes you. I've been asking you about what things that you think that I don't know about, but you keep answering me with  "nonsense,invalid argument,don't make sense". If you really got something, why is it hard for you to tell me?
Answer this. Who are these more experience people that doing a very good job of explaining? And what are they saying?



> The camera, as a result of it's technology that DOES permit some interesting features has problems which some of us cannot tolerate. It's great that you love the a77 so much, and I am glad that it works for you, but there are inherent flaws in it's design. Some people maybe like having their entire buffer filled in a few seconds or having fast AF at the expense of a slight delay in visual feedback. But you have to understand that these ARE flaws, and regardless of what ever benefit you gain, they are drawbacks.
> 
> IMO the technology just is not quite ready yet.



How do you know the buffer filled in a few seconds? In 12fps and 24mp, it is not surprising that the buffer filled sooner than the competition. But how it will do in 8fps with a Delkin Elite card?
Is the delay in VF really that bad that it seems like a huge deal to you? What about the other form of delay like the greater shutter lag of DSLR?
There are definitely some drawbacks, but at the same time there are advantages. If you don't care about the advantages, that doesn't mean others will feel the same.


----------



## argieramos

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Newsflash bro, the 1D Mk IV is a APS-H body. Last time I checked, it wasn't full frame.



ok cool. But correct me if I'm wrong, APS-H is still much bigger than APS-C?


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Have to say,  I am enjoying winding up ArgieMoron! Hope all are enjoying the show.



And I enjoy crushing you in this thread hehehe!


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Can we see some wonderful shots you have taken with the A77



You gotta say please.


----------



## cosmonaut

I own the a77 and have been popping in and out of the thread for awhile. I did jump brands to get the a77. After weeks of reading reviews, looking at DXO marks and comparing features I chose the a77. It came down to three cameras. The Nikon D7000, Sony a77 or the Sony A850. The 850 or 900 fails mention in this thread for some reason? If you are going to compare a FF Canon to a Sony how about at least comparing it to another FF camera.
  I didn't go with Nikon due to the fact their lenses are so expensive and I am not one to use kit lenses. I see no point in buying a sports car and putting cheap tires on it. Personally I think the a77 for it's price is the best camera on the market and the Nikon D7000 is it's equal. Sony makes Nikon sensors and from what rumors I have been reading Nikon is going to start making thier own, Nikon J1 is the first. The IQ isn't where you would expect with that camera. 
 I have been very pleased with the a77. So much so I also bought the NEX7. The IQ is incredible in large print. I have made prints as big as 24x36 and their are no jpeg artifacts, none. I mean not any. The 24mpix sensor doesn't produce more detail but a finer, smoother prints. 
 If I was on the sidelines at the Super Bowl and shot for a living would I have an a77, no. The buffer does fill up. I would be using a Canon or an A900. But for what I do the a77 more than fits. 
One last thing. Sony has been true to the Minolta mount and there are hundreds of lenses choices at bargain prices. Like I said I have popped in and out of this thread and read all of the Sony bashing and I am not sure anyone here even owns a a77, but take it from an owner that has done the homework I am beyond pleased. The focus speed of the a77 is quick. Even in low light and a slow lens it doesn't hunt much. I have shot landscapes in very dark situations and I am not one to AF shooting landscapes but it will AF if I need it to. Plus the focus peaking feature is sweet.


----------



## unpopular

Focus peeking is the big reason I want to get an NEX-7.


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> Is the delay in VF really that bad that it seems like a huge deal to you? What about the other form of delay like the greater shutter lag of DSLR?



It's really not that big of a deal to me, but when you're using it as the big reason why the pellicle is a good thing it is a big deal because it's really the only significant advantage.

If the lag really is an issue, then there is a *constant* minimum delay between the subject and the EVF. That means that no matter what is going on in the outside world, what is going on in the EVF is going to be behind. Reason tells me that this delay will increase in darker situations. There will always be some kind of delay, but if that delay is shorter than what we can perceive it's not an issue. People are saying though that this delay is significant, and the bus video confirms that when you need the delay to be the shortest, during rapid continuous drive, it actually becomes longer - which makes sense as the camera must reallocate it's resources to writing the file.

With a traditional SLR the delay not present at all. So while you cannot see the subject for the duration of the shutter plus a few microseconds as the mirror retracts and returns to it's original position, once it is at it's original position the subject and the image in the viewfinder are synchronous. I can very easily predict where an object will be within a few hundred milliseconds, provided that I have a biofeedback reference periodically about the position of the subject. The image between frames acts as that reference. 

So what I am hearing is that there are two significant advantages to the a77 which does not apply to the NEX or traditional SLRs. High speed focus and rapid continuous drive with the ability to always see the subject. However, if the EVF is not as responsive as those two features, then they serve no purpose - and in the end you are left only with the disadvantage of increased analog gain to compensate for the pellicle.


----------



## mjhoward

unpopular said:


> So what I am hearing is that there are two significant advantages to the a77 which does not apply to the NEX or traditional SLRs *when in live view mode*. High speed focus and rapid continuous drive with the ability to always see the subject.



Fixed.  

If not in live view mode, you get phase detect AF just like the A77.  I don't know many professional shooters or even enthusiasts that prefer an EVF over an OVF so for 95% of the photography world, I'd say these advantages are moot.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we see some wonderful shots you have taken with the A77
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta say please.
Click to expand...


Yes let's PLEASE see some of your photos.. lets see you have some abilty past TALK TALK TALK, ArgieMoron.


----------



## gsgary

And not just Landscape, i want to see sports shots, concert shots and we will see how they compare to a proper camera


----------



## Derrel

argieramos said:
			
		

> cool. But correct me if I'm wrong, APS-H is still much bigger than APS-C?



Yes, APS-H, which by the way is being ELIMINATED, as the 1DX system merges two camera segments into a SINGLE professional body, is larger. APS-H is nominally 28.7mm x 19mm, or around 548 mm square in area. APS-C from Canon at 22.2 x 14.8 mm is 329mm square in area.

Nikon's version of APS-C has been larger than Canon's at around 23.6mm x 15.7mm, or around 370mm square. The very-newest Nikons use ever-so-slightly smaller sensor areas, but still more than the 1.6x crop factor ones Canon is using.

But yes--APS-H (1.3x FOV,nominally) at 548 mm square versus APS-C Canon (1.6x FOV, nominally) at 329mm square is a SIGNIFICANT size difference.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> Focus peeking is the big reason I want to get an NEX-7.



a77 has focus peaking too.


----------



## cosmonaut

Yes the a77 has focus peaking and also a level in the finder.


----------



## Omofo

cosmonaut said:


> Yes the a77 has focus peaking and also a level in the finder.



I love that feature on the A55


----------



## unpopular

I know this. But the NEX 7 has both minus the pellicle. This has been my point all along, Argie ... The SLT really has no propose. All it has going for it is fast AF, which isn't much use with a finder that can keep up. Perhaps the NEX 7 has the same problem, but there is nothing between the sensor and the lens chewing up valuable optical resources, plus it has a shorter film to flange distance.

I'm just not sure what the point of SLT is in its present implementation.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> I know this. But the NEX 7 has both minus the pellicle. This has been my point all along, Argie ... The SLT really has no propose. All it has going for it is fast AF, which isn't much use with a finder that can keep up. Perhaps the NEX 7 has the same problem, but there is nothing between the sensor and the lens chewing up valuable optical resources, plus it has a shorter film to flange distance.
> 
> I'm just not sure what the point of SLT is in its present implementation.



The point of the SLT should be obvious.  The flipping mirror is dead as are reflex cameras.  How can you miss the fact that the A700 was replaced by the SLT A77 and the A900 will be replaced by the A99 with an even more advanced SLT design?  No wonder, you are impossible to get through to!

skieur


----------



## unpopular

The SLT is far from a proven technology and Sony is the only manufacturer to adopt it. I agree though that in the long run this is likely going to be true.

OTOH I think that there are going to be other ways which will make the mirror obsolete entirely. Improvements in contrast detection or active rangefinder could make the mirror itself obsolete. With multilayer primary sensors, it may be possible to even incorporate some kind of phase contrast detection. No matter what happens in the future, the Sonys fixed mirror cameras don't seem to be ready for prime time yet.


----------



## mjhoward

unpopular said:


> Improvements in contrast detection or active rangefinder could make the mirror itself obsolete. With multilayer primary sensors, it may be possible to even incorporate some kind of phase contrast detection.



Unfortunately, I can't imagine any MAJOR improvements in contrast detection AF.  I've implemented my own contrast detection AF for some computer controlled lenses before and it is just 'dumb' by nature.  The reason why the focus has to 'hunt' around is to determine what focus distance provides maximum contrast.  So it starts in one direction, calculating the contrast across some focus points.  It checks to see if the contrast increased or decreased from the previous frame.  If it increased, it keeps hunting in the same direction.  If contrast decreased, it hunts in the opposite direction.  It keeps hunting back and forth until it finds the point of maximum contrast.  This is a very big problem for low contrast scenes and for constantly changing scenes.


----------



## unpopular

I agree that contrast detection is prob the least likely candidate. But already in some Fujifilm P&S there is Phase Detection incorporated into the imaging sensor. To prevent a drop in IQ, this could done on a separate layer (foveon style) or have the phase detection sensitive to IR light.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, avalanche photodiodes can be used for the EVF and eventually a voltage-controlled variable beamsplitter could be used to compensate less than ideal lighting situations.


----------



## cosmonaut

The SLT also is extremely quiet, if you are a nature shooter this is important and camera shake is minimal as well. Without a flopping mirror. I also had doubts about the EVF coming from 20 plus years from using an SLR.  But I was made a believer and it's the future. Another advantage is what you see in the finder is what you get as an image. If it works why wouldnt a pro want to use it?


----------



## unpopular

Again, all these features exist on a mirrorless body.


----------



## cosmonaut

Well it's like this. The really good photographers of their time. Or most of them. Shot with the best they could get their hands on. They didn't fight technical achievement they embraced it. Cameras worked fine before they started using mirrors and they will work fine again without them. If you could have told Gary Winogrand what ever you see in your finder is going to be the final image on print I am sure he would have been thrilled not to have to spend hours in a darkroom.


----------



## unpopular

cosmonaut said:


> If you could have told Gary Winogrand what ever you see in your finder is going to be the final image on print I am sure he would have been thrilled not to have to spend hours in a darkroom.



o.my.god.

You are kidding. right?

ok. seriously. i'm done.


----------



## Derrel

skieur said:
			
		

> The point of the SLT should be obvious.  The flipping mirror is dead as are reflex cameras.  How can you miss the fact that the A700 was replaced by the SLT A77 and the A900 will be replaced by the A99 with an even more advanced SLT design?  No wonder, you are impossible to get through to!
> 
> skieur



The "point" is that Sony's d-slr sales are still poor compared to both Canon and Nikon. Sony had 11.9% of d-slr's sold last year. Nikon had just under 30%. Canons made up around 44% of all d-slr's sold last year. World-wide.

Sony is banking on their new SLR technology to attract customers...because they have been getting their asses kicked in the d-slr marketplace. Reflex cameras, with moving mirrors, began in the 1890's. That's not a typo--*eighteen-nineties*!!!! By 1959, with the Nikon F, the "modern" d-slr with instant return mirror and fully automatic lens diaphragm was a reality...fast forward 38 years or so, and the Ninon D3 and D3x had become the standard.

One thing you do NOT seem to understand skieur, is that there is no real technical superiority driving this...camera manufacturers have ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, sought to create what is called "the next big thing". When sales go flat, or profits grow thin and hard to make, the camera makers have ALWAYS resorted to creating "all-new" features, or entirely new "types" or "styles" of cameras, as a way to get people to BUY NEW GEAR!!!! YES, the A700 was replaced by the a77...Why? Sony is trying a new sales approach!!!

I have worked in the camera retail business, and have SEEN the way new technology actually affects consumers. First-hand. Real people. People with money in wallet, and credit cards in-wallet, and looking to BUY. The reason Sony has gone to the SLT system is that there is always a good percentage of people who love the technological side of camera gear. These people love high-tech and new-tech stuff, good or bad. They will buy just to say they have the "new thing". As most photo industry writers have noted, the A900,and A850,and A700 were poor sellers, and Sony went to the drawing board and came up with the SLT system, hoping to get better sales. Your statement that "the flipping mirror is dead" is patently ludicrous.

A much,much more accurate statement is this: "If you cannot win at the game, then find a new game where your skill set will let you win--or at least have a chance to win."

Sorry bud, but Sony could not compete in the traditional reflex market; that market is mature, with MOSTLY committed owners, and so trying to battle two companies that control roughly 75% of ALL d-slr sales was foolish for Sony to continue doing. Sony is trying to find a new poker game, as it were.The product line and the actions of a company with UNDER 12% of all d-slr sales is not indicative of what the market is doing. Sony sells a little over one out of each 10 d-slr's sold world-wide. It sounds a lot like you own an a77 and realllllly need to justify your purchasing decision. To a degree that I am really surprised by. I hope you enjoy your a77. It looks like a nice camera. But until Sony's d-slr sales threaten those of Nikon or Canon, I do not expect ANY movement toward SLT technology from Nikon,Canon,Pentax, or any other camera maker. Sony has very little to lose in this segment. Nikon and Canon have a lot to lose.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> It's really not that big of a deal to me, but when you're using it as the big reason why the pellicle is a good thing it is a big deal because it's really the only significant advantage.
> 
> If the lag really is an issue, then there is a constant minimum delay between the subject and the EVF. That means that no matter what is going on in the outside world, what is going on in the EVF is going to be behind. Reason tells me that this delay will increase in darker situations. There will always be some kind of delay, but if that delay is shorter than what we can perceive it's not an issue. People are saying though that this delay is significant, and the bus video confirms that when you need the delay to be the shortest, during rapid continuous drive, it actually becomes longer - which makes sense as the camera must reallocate it's resources to writing the file.
> 
> With a traditional SLR the delay not present at all. So while you cannot see the subject for the duration of the shutter plus a few microseconds as the mirror retracts and returns to it's original position, once it is at it's original position the subject and the image in the viewfinder are synchronous. I can very easily predict where an object will be within a few hundred milliseconds, provided that I have a biofeedback reference periodically about the position of the subject. The image between frames acts as that reference.
> 
> So what I am hearing is that there are two significant advantages to the a77 which does not apply to the NEX or traditional SLRs. High speed focus and rapid continuous drive with the ability to always see the subject. However, if the EVF is not as responsive as those two features, then they serve no purpose - and in the end you are left only with the disadvantage of increased analog gain to compensate for the pellicle.



"So what I'm hearing" 
That is the problem in your statement. What if you're hearing things from a person who love to hate things such as yourself? Or even worse, from clueless troll like Nikon_Josh? 
You see, you are just looking at the fact that EVF is electronic. There are things need to be process, reading datas off the sensor, converting to digital signal, and so on. That takes time, right? But whatever the delay will be, it cannot be distinguished by a human senses. A77 EVF has no known issue with ideal lighting, even with extreme high speed movement tracking. 
The real complain about the EVF delay that people are talking about is when you do the burst mode. it is showing the last image that you captured rather than the current view. You can say that as equivalent to not seeing anything with OVF for the duration of the shutter. It is greatly improved with 1.04 firmware which the issue is almost non existence
EVF in lowlight is also good. Whatever the changes in framerate,  it will not be a problem. Here is what the EVF is like in low light condition;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf-8NYaQ9XQ
I dont see any frame drop. In extreme darkness, that's where OVF become useless. You will see noise in EVF because of the signal boost, but that is better than not seeing anything at all with the OVF.

As an ex-owner of SLT (a33), I have problems with EVF. Not the same as yours. Remember, it's all about adapting techniques with the technology.


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:
			
		

> Again, all these features exist on a mirrorless body.



But slower


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Yes let's PLEASE see some of your photos.. lets see you have some abilty past TALK TALK TALK, ArgieMoron.



Argiemoron, is that the best you can come out with? 
Your attacks are pretty lame.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> And not just Landscape, i want to see sports shots, concert shots and we will see how they compare to a proper camera



Proper camera? That's a harsh statement coming from someone who thinks a55 is a professional camera lolz


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> The "point" is that Sony's d-slr sales are still poor compared to both Canon and Nikon. Sony had 11.9% of d-slr's sold last year. Nikon had just under 30%. Canons made up around 44% of all d-slr's sold last year. World-wide.
> 
> Sony is banking on their new SLR technology to attract customers...because they have been getting their asses kicked in the d-slr marketplace. Reflex cameras, with moving mirrors, began in the 1890's. That's not a typo--eighteen-nineties!!!! By 1959, with the Nikon F, the "modern" d-slr with instant return mirror and fully automatic lens diaphragm was a reality...fast forward 38 years or so, and the Ninon D3 and D3x had become the standard.
> 
> One thing you do NOT seem to understand skieur, is that there is no real technical superiority driving this...camera manufacturers have ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, sought to create what is called "the next big thing". When sales go flat, or profits grow thin and hard to make, the camera makers have ALWAYS resorted to creating "all-new" features, or entirely new "types" or "styles" of cameras, as a way to get people to BUY NEW GEAR!!!! YES, the A700 was replaced by the a77...Why? Sony is trying a new sales approach!!!
> 
> I have worked in the camera retail business, and have SEEN the way new technology actually affects consumers. First-hand. Real people. People with money in wallet, and credit cards in-wallet, and looking to BUY. The reason Sony has gone to the SLT system is that there is always a good percentage of people who love the technological side of camera gear. These people love high-tech and new-tech stuff, good or bad. They will buy just to say they have the "new thing". As most photo industry writers have noted, the A900,and A850,and A700 were poor sellers, and Sony went to the drawing board and came up with the SLT system, hoping to get better sales. Your statement that "the flipping mirror is dead" is patently ludicrous.
> 
> A much,much more accurate statement is this: "If you cannot win at the game, then find a new game where your skill set will let you win--or at least have a chance to win."
> 
> Sorry bud, but Sony could not compete in the traditional reflex market; that market is mature, with MOSTLY committed owners, and so trying to battle two companies that control roughly 75% of ALL d-slr sales was foolish for Sony to continue doing. Sony is trying to find a new poker game, as it were.The product line and the actions of a company with UNDER 12% of all d-slr sales is not indicative of what the market is doing. Sony sells a little over one out of each 10 d-slr's sold world-wide. It sounds a lot like you own an a77 and realllllly need to justify your purchasing decision. To a degree that I am really surprised by. I hope you enjoy your a77. It looks like a nice camera. But until Sony's d-slr sales threaten those of Nikon or Canon, I do not expect ANY movement toward SLT technology from Nikon,Canon,Pentax, or any other camera maker. Sony has very little to lose in this segment. Nikon and Canon have a lot to lose.


 
Cool story bro


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> You see, you are just looking at the fact that EVF is electronic. There are things need to be process, reading datas off the sensor, converting to digital signal, and so on. That takes time, right? But whatever the delay will be, it cannot be distinguished by a human senses.



Except there is a delay distinguishable by humans, perhaps not you, but rational humans.



argieramos said:


> A77 EVF has no known lag and delay issue *with ideal lighting*



THERE IT IS!  ...And even then, still some delay.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Except there is a delay distinguishable by humans, perhaps not you, but rational humans.
> 
> THERE IT IS!  ...And even then, still some delay.



Someone didn't get the point. Amateur lol


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Fixed.
> 
> If not in live view mode, you get phase detect AF just like the A77.  I don't know many professional shooters or even enthusiasts that prefer an EVF over an OVF so for 95% of the photography world, I'd say these advantages are moot.



How many professional shooters and enthusiasts do you know? You're fooling yourself lol


----------



## cosmonaut

No one will ever take shares fron Nikon and Canon, like Fender and Gibson, Sony and others are fighting the stigma, if you don't have this around your neck you don't have a real camera. The fact is I am no fanboy I shoot with what I am comfortable with and what gets the job done. I would have been just as happy with a Nikon or Canon. They are number one and two for a reason. But that doesn't change the fact there are equally good and better cameras on the market.  A friend I work with bought his daughter a Canon Ts something and showed me on the internet what he had bought her. She uses it for work. He stood right there and told me it was a better camera than mine. Never looking at the specs at mine and claimed hers is better it's a Canon. Well I bragged on her new Canon and left it at that.  It isn't like she didn't get an awesome camera but again they fell pray to the stigma. I almost did before I bought my a77 and I know better. For me it was Nikon lenses were to expensive for what I wanted and I never considered Canon. I am not sure why? I am sure I would have been just as happy with a 7d.





argieramos said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "point" is that Sony's d-slr sales are still poor compared to both Canon and Nikon. Sony had 11.9% of d-slr's sold last year. Nikon had just under 30%. Canons made up around 44% of all d-slr's sold last year. World-wide.Sony is banking on their new SLR technology to attract customers...because they have been getting their asses kicked in the d-slr marketplace. Reflex cameras, with moving mirrors, began in the 1890's. That's not a typo--eighteen-nineties!!!! By 1959, with the Nikon F, the "modern" d-slr with instant return mirror and fully automatic lens diaphragm was a reality...fast forward 38 years or so, and the Ninon D3 and D3x had become the standard.One thing you do NOT seem to understand skieur, is that there is no real technical superiority driving this...camera manufacturers have ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, sought to create what is called "the next big thing". When sales go flat, or profits grow thin and hard to make, the camera makers have ALWAYS resorted to creating "all-new" features, or entirely new "types" or "styles" of cameras, as a way to get people to BUY NEW GEAR!!!! YES, the A700 was replaced by the a77...Why? Sony is trying a new sales approach!!!I have worked in the camera retail business, and have SEEN the way new technology actually affects consumers. First-hand. Real people. People with money in wallet, and credit cards in-wallet, and looking to BUY. The reason Sony has gone to the SLT system is that there is always a good percentage of people who love the technological side of camera gear. These people love high-tech and new-tech stuff, good or bad. They will buy just to say they have the "new thing". As most photo industry writers have noted, the A900,and A850,and A700 were poor sellers, and Sony went to the drawing board and came up with the SLT system, hoping to get better sales. Your statement that "the flipping mirror is dead" is patently ludicrous.A much,much more accurate statement is this: "If you cannot win at the game, then find a new game where your skill set will let you win--or at least have a chance to win."Sorry bud, but Sony could not compete in the traditional reflex market; that market is mature, with MOSTLY committed owners, and so trying to battle two companies that control roughly 75% of ALL d-slr sales was foolish for Sony to continue doing. Sony is trying to find a new poker game, as it were.The product line and the actions of a company with UNDER 12% of all d-slr sales is not indicative of what the market is doing. Sony sells a little over one out of each 10 d-slr's sold world-wide. It sounds a lot like you own an a77 and realllllly need to justify your purchasing decision. To a degree that I am really surprised by. I hope you enjoy your a77. It looks like a nice camera. But until Sony's d-slr sales threaten those of Nikon or Canon, I do not expect ANY movement toward SLT technology from Nikon,Canon,Pentax, or any other camera maker. Sony has very little to lose in this segment. Nikon and Canon have a lot to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool story bro
Click to expand...


----------



## cosmonaut

unpopular said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could have told Gary Winogrand what ever you see in your finder is going to be the final image on print I am sure he would have been thrilled not to have to spend hours in a darkroom.
> 
> 
> 
> o.my.god.You are kidding. right?ok. seriously. i'm done.
Click to expand...

 and no i am not kidding. i have listened to some of Garrys podcast and he was more interested in getting a good shot while you can than spending time in a darkroom. It's why in he left behind so many rolls of film undeveloped and in later years when his health failed someone drove him around in a car and he shot from a car. In his time the camera he owned was the best thing going for what he did.


----------



## unpopular

So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.

I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.


----------



## gsgary

cosmonaut said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could have told Gary Winogrand what ever you see in your finder is going to be the final image on print I am sure he would have been thrilled not to have to spend hours in a darkroom.
> 
> 
> 
> o.my.god.You are kidding. right?ok. seriously. i'm done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and no i am not kidding. i have listened to some of Garrys podcast and he was more interested in getting a good shot while you can than spending time in a darkroom. It's why in he left behind so many rolls of film undeveloped and in later years when his health failed someone drove him around in a car and he shot from a car. In his time the camera he owned was the best thing going for what he did.
Click to expand...


And still is, you can't beat a rangefinder for street photography


----------



## argieramos

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> No one will ever take shares fron Nikon and Canon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSLR share is only a part of overall camera marketshare. Nikon camera marketshare is actually not even close to Sony and Canon worldwide.
Click to expand...


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> And still is, you can't beat a rangefinder for street photography



You can, in the hands of a better shooter.


----------



## cosmonaut

gsgary said:


> Just read my first reveiw of the A77 in a pro UK mag can't see any pro sports shooters buying it write speads slow so you struggle to get 12fps and you can only use it in AE (auto exposure) mode set, so the only way to control exposure is by ISO or exposure compensation, another thing the was concerning was the tester would not use it over ISO400 and didn't consider it suitable for low-light work



 That's why Sony makes an A900. Write times have as much to do with the cards you use as much as the camera. Let's compare apples to apples here. Is a Canon 7D that much faster? The Sony's have been doing 8FPS for a long time.


----------



## skieur

argieramos said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one will ever take shares fron Nikon and Canon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSLR share is only a part of overall camera marketshare. Nikon camera marketshare is actually not even close to Sony and Canon worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question however, is whether the Sony Nex cameras and the Sony SLT cameras were considered DSLRs or NOT in the totals for marketshare.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## cosmonaut

Somebody count.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## skieur

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still is, you can't beat a rangefinder for street photography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can, in the hands of a better shooter.
Click to expand...


The original advantage to the rangefinder such as the Leica M series was a very quiet shutter.  Now that you can shoot from the waist using the live view screen of the Sony, street shooting is super easy.

skieur


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.
> 
> I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.



No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.

skieur


----------



## argieramos

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> That's why Sony makes an A900. Write times have as much to do with the cards you use as much as the camera. Let's compare apples to apples here. Is a Canon 7D that much faster? The Sony's have been doing 8FPS for a long time.



I wouldn't mind Gary that much if I were you. He said a77 is a point and shoot camera and thinks a55 is a Pro level camera. He obviously not here for a regular discussion.


----------



## cosmonaut

gsgary said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> o.my.god.You are kidding. right?ok. seriously. i'm done.
> 
> 
> 
> and no i am not kidding. i have listened to some of Garrys podcast and he was more interested in getting a good shot while you can than spending time in a darkroom. It's why in he left behind so many rolls of film undeveloped and in later years when his health failed someone drove him around in a car and he shot from a car. In his time the camera he owned was the best thing going for what he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still is, you can't beat a rangefinder for street photography
Click to expand...


 I think you can. No more scale focusing or fooling with exposure. The world is a lot less innocent since the Winogrand era. It is much harder to catch the moment with so many paranoid people on the streets. A Leica is not as covert as you think. Many times people see you coming from a mile away. Many years ago everyone had to pay extra for a right angle finder.  Now the articulating screen is included on most cameras and hip shooting is easy.


----------



## cosmonaut

I am not at home so I don't have my a77 with me. But next week I'll post a short video of just how fast it is. It's as fast is not faster than the NEX7.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.
> 
> I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Ah Skieur your back, I was starting to worry about you!!:thumbup: These threads may end without you..and that would be a shame!

The long and short of the story is that this is an argument with two Sony fanboys who have too keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, resulting in a dull thread for all to read. Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about on this thread contributing decent arguments, ArgieMoron (nice pic by the way son, you look exactly how I imagined!) and Skieur keep on rehashing the same tired arguments that have no genuine basis or reality. But they do have a basis and reality in Sony world!


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.
> 
> I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


Adams did most of this in processing, just as real photographers do today. Do you REALLY think adams would settle on a crusty jpeg?


----------



## skieur

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of the SLT should be obvious. The flipping mirror is dead as are reflex cameras. How can you miss the fact that the A700 was replaced by the SLT A77 and the A900 will be replaced by the A99 with an even more advanced SLT design? No wonder, you are impossible to get through to!
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "point" is that Sony's d-slr sales are still poor compared to both Canon and Nikon. Sony had 11.9% of d-slr's sold last year. Nikon had just under 30%. Canons made up around 44% of all d-slr's sold last year. World-wide.
> 
> Sony is banking on their new SLR technology to attract customers...because they have been getting their asses kicked in the d-slr marketplace. Reflex cameras, with moving mirrors, began in the 1890's. That's not a typo--*eighteen-nineties*!!!! By 1959, with the Nikon F, the "modern" d-slr with instant return mirror and fully automatic lens diaphragm was a reality...fast forward 38 years or so, and the Ninon D3 and D3x had become the standard.
> 
> One thing you do NOT seem to understand skieur, is that there is no real technical superiority driving this...camera manufacturers have ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, sought to create what is called "the next big thing". When sales go flat, or profits grow thin and hard to make, the camera makers have ALWAYS resorted to creating "all-new" features, or entirely new "types" or "styles" of cameras, as a way to get people to BUY NEW GEAR!!!! YES, the A700 was replaced by the a77...Why? Sony is trying a new sales approach!!!
> 
> I have worked in the camera retail business, and have SEEN the way new technology actually affects consumers. First-hand. Real people. People with money in wallet, and credit cards in-wallet, and looking to BUY. The reason Sony has gone to the SLT system is that there is always a good percentage of people who love the technological side of camera gear. These people love high-tech and new-tech stuff, good or bad. They will buy just to say they have the "new thing". As most photo industry writers have noted, the A900,and A850,and A700 were poor sellers, and Sony went to the drawing board and came up with the SLT system, hoping to get better sales. Your statement that "the flipping mirror is dead" is patently ludicrous.
> 
> A much,much more accurate statement is this: "If you cannot win at the game, then find a new game where your skill set will let you win--or at least have a chance to win."
> 
> Sorry bud, but Sony could not compete in the traditional reflex market; that market is mature, with MOSTLY committed owners, and so trying to battle two companies that control roughly 75% of ALL d-slr sales was foolish for Sony to continue doing. Sony is trying to find a new poker game, as it were.The product line and the actions of a company with UNDER 12% of all d-slr sales is not indicative of what the market is doing. Sony sells a little over one out of each 10 d-slr's sold world-wide. It sounds a lot like you own an a77 and realllllly need to justify your purchasing decision. To a degree that I am really surprised by. I hope you enjoy your a77. It looks like a nice camera. But until Sony's d-slr sales threaten those of Nikon or Canon, I do not expect ANY movement toward SLT technology from Nikon,Canon,Pentax, or any other camera maker. Sony has very little to lose in this segment. Nikon and Canon have a lot to lose.
Click to expand...



On the contrary, considering the late start in comparison with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and others Sony managed to steal marketshare from all of them and get to third place worldwide in DSLRs and that may not include the Nex or SLT series sales.

What you don't seem to understand Derrel is the big picture.   Most of the pros here on this forum work in limited fields with limited scope.  Beyond this forum there is a super broad range of pros who use everything from medium and large format digital cameras and backs through to those that are using DSLRs and even point and shoots or pocket cameras and many who use all of the above.  I have used Sony, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Panasonic, Leica, and others and by the way I do not own an A77, so you jumped to another wrong conclusion.  I don't need to justify any purchase but I can put unique new features to good use in my work and that is important.

The flipping mirror is dead.  It is reaching its technological limitations.  It is time for a new approach to go beyond those limitations of speed and vibration problems.  Each Sony implimentation of the SLT has got better and the A99 will be better than the A77.  Nikon and Canon may play a wait and see approach to the marketplace reaction to the Sony SLT but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will copy or adapt the concept if they think that the public will buy it. Either way, Sony has started the move to drop the flipping mirror and that is how changes in technology take place.

skieur


----------



## mjhoward

Sooo.... does that answer the OP's question??


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.
> 
> I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adams did most of this in processing, just as real photographers do today. Do you REALLY think adams would settle on a crusty jpeg?
Click to expand...


No, he did it in the darkroom dodging and burning etc.  As far as jpeg or raw is concerned, part of the picture is how well you can manipulate either.  I would suspect that some do an equally "limited" processing job, no matter whether they start with jpeg or raw.

skieur


----------



## Nikon_Josh

mjhoward said:


> Sooo.... does that answer the OP's question??



 The OP is now dead! Skieur has bored him to death, he didn't realise it would cost him his life though, poor guy! This thread is so ridiculous that it's just a comedy show now in my opinion...


----------



## unpopular

The whole point of the zone system is to avoid dodging and burning and predict with a high degree of accuracy what the negative was going to look like. Listening to you and cosmo make it sound like everything was hit or miss.

I'm not saying Adams never had to do dodge or burn or anything... but did you actually use film?


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.
> 
> I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah Skieur your back, I was starting to worry about you!!:thumbup: These threads may end without you..and that would be a shame!
> 
> The long and short of the story is that this is an argument with two Sony fanboys who have too keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, resulting in a dull thread for all to read. Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about on this thread contributing decent arguments, ArgieMoron (nice pic by the way son, you look exactly how I imagined!) and Skieur keep on rehashing the same tired arguments that have no genuine basis or reality. But they do have a basis and reality in Sony world!
Click to expand...


No, this is an argument with some Nikon fanboys such as yourself who keep being obsessed with attacking some innovations in DSLR cameras and who are resistant to CHANGE despite the fact that Sony's innovations such as LIVE VIEW are copied by Nikon and Canon.  What is tiring are your stupid attacks.

"Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about in this thread.":lmao:  The number of corrections Argie and I made demonstrates that only one or two knew anything at all about what they were talking about.  

skieur


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Skieur your back, I was starting to worry about you!!:thumbup: These threads may end without you..and that would be a shame!
> 
> The long and short of the story is that this is an argument with two Sony fanboys who have too keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, resulting in a dull thread for all to read. Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about on this thread contributing decent arguments, ArgieMoron (nice pic by the way son, you look exactly how I imagined!) and Skieur keep on rehashing the same tired arguments that have no genuine basis or reality. But they do have a basis and reality in Sony world!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this is an argument with some Nikon fanboys such as yourself who keep being obsessed with attacking some innovations in DSLR cameras and who are resistant to CHANGE despite the fact that Sony's innovations such as LIVE VIEW are copied by Nikon and Canon.  What is tiring are your stupid attacks.
> 
> "Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about in this thread.":lmao:  The number of corrections Argie and I made demonstrates that only one or two knew anything at all about what they were talking about.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


I hate to say it Skieur, but as much as I have been irritated by your constant Sony promotion posts and 'outrageous claims'. I have grown to develop a strong liking for you, this forum would be a sadder place without you! :thumbup:


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Sony makes an A900. Write times have as much to do with the cards you use as much as the camera. Let's compare apples to apples here. Is a Canon 7D that much faster? The Sony's have been doing 8FPS for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind Gary that much if I were you. He said a77 is a point and shoot camera and thinks a55 is a Pro level camera. He obviously not here for a regular discussion.
Click to expand...



I didn't say the A55 was pro level because i used one and i won't be using one again, i tried an A77 for the day and was not impressed may be good for landscape but i tried it for sport, i got my old 1Dmk1 out and it was no match but the old 1Dmk1 is one of the best cameras i have used


----------



## Derrel

skieur said:
			
		

> The flipping mirror is dead.  It is reaching its technological limitations.  It is time for a new approach to go beyond those limitations of speed and vibration problems.  Each Sony implimentation of the SLT has got better and the A99 will be better than the A77.  Nikon and Canon may play a wait and see approach to the marketplace reaction to the Sony SLT but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will copy or adapt the concept if they think that the public will buy it. Either way, Sony has started the move to drop the flipping mirror and that is how changes in technology take place.
> 
> skieur



"The flipping mirror is dead." Yes---exactly. Just the way that motion pictures killed live theatre. It is as dead as motion pictures, which were officially killed off by television back in the 1950's. The flipping mirror is as dead as live music, which was killed off  by Edison's wax cylinder recordings. The flipping mirror is as dead as home cooking, which was made obsolete by the development of the TV dinner. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as doing math on paper became since the advent of the electronic calculator. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as draft beer after the development of the first successful canned beer.

Yeah....the flipping mirror is dead....as dead as FM Radio in the age of the MP3 player...Uh-huh, riiiiight....

Sony started a revolution! They will change the industry and convert all the other companies to their new, upstart ways!!! Let me give you an example of Minolta logic/aka Sony logic: Let's make a flash foot design that violates the ISO standard for flash mounting systems...let's create our OWN, NEW, BETTER FLASH FOOT DESIGN!!!

Sorry, skieur...but you are such a weak opponent it's a shame that I have to use this information on you and utterly crush your dreams...but SONY is the only company that uses their oddball flash mounting foot....none of their chit works with anything else. Minolta lost their ASSES by heralding the "APSC film system" back in the 1990's. Do you not remember that technical marvel, APSC film??? (sarcasm). The idea that they could make it big by jumping into the APSC film camera market JUST prior to the dawn of digital photography is what doomed Minolta to obscurity, then near bankruptcy. Minolta's camera division was then sold to ANOTHER loser camera company, Konica. Konica--the shutter priority auto company that never could understand why its products failed, time after time...so, two loser camera companies became Konica/Minolta, and began business, then FAILED, and were forced to sell out to SONY....

Sorry dude...the failed unique flash foot...the failed APSC camera gamble than almost killed Minolta....the massive legal fees incurred from patent infringement that forced so many Minolta executives to retire in disgrace...the carcass of Minolta rotting until the scavengers at Konica saw an opportunity to pick the bones of a former third-rate company...only to find that the carcass was already maggot-infested...the fire sale of Konica/Minolta to Sony, a company in search of "SOME" camera designs and lens designs...eh...my God man...I know history quite well...Sony purchased the "assets" (if that is the right way to categorize what they bought) of two, FAILED, disgraced camera companies. Two companies that were stocked with executives who worked for companies which could not "cut it" in the camera business.

"New technology" like a unique flash mounting foot....that awesome Sony memory stick format...that awesome and FAILED SONY Betamax video format...that FAILED Minolta venture into the new-technology APSC cartridge loading film format....that unique dual-sensor Minolta d-slr that failed...that FAILED shutter-priority-only automatic that Konica espoused for so long....see the pattern here?

"New technology" like the flash foot, Memory Stick, Betamax, APSC film>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Massive, massive, massive failures. New does not guarantee success, my dear skieur. Far,far from it. New tech carries with it huge risks.

Dream on and keep telling yourself "the flapping mirror is dead." Long live Betamax! Long live Memory Stick! Long live APSC film cameras!


----------



## Crollo

skieur said:


> Most of the pros here on this forum



Confirmed. Skieur really does live in a delusional world.


----------



## cosmonaut

Well in my area I see more hot babes with Sony's than any thing else that's reason enough for me there. You got to have your priorities right. LOL


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Ah Skieur your back, I was starting to worry about you!!:thumbup: These threads may end without you..and that would be a shame!
> 
> The long and short of the story is that this is an argument with two Sony fanboys who have too keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, resulting in a dull thread for all to read. Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about on this thread contributing decent arguments, ArgieMoron (nice pic by the way son, you look exactly how I imagined!) and Skieur keep on rehashing the same tired arguments that have no genuine basis or reality. But they do have a basis and reality in Sony world!



Your insertion of the term fanboy makes me laugh considering you put your own name next to the brand name "Nikon". 
I am no fanboy. I am just merely stating facts that nothing is created perfect. None of you are actually giving decent discussion because of the fact that you guys only see the ugly things. A real experienced photographer knows better that camera is only a tool. I bet you wouldn't be able to highlight all the things that you actually can call "decent" made by these so called "more experienced" photographers.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> I didn't say the A55 was pro level because i used one and i won't be using one again, i tried an A77 for the day and was not impressed may be good for landscape but i tried it for sport, i got my old 1Dmk1 out and it was no match but the old 1Dmk1 is one of the best cameras i have used



If you really are used to Pro cameras, you wouldn't bother yourself to own an entry level. Why would you even use an entry level a55 in studio, when you have something like professional camera? It didn't work out and you're bitching about it? If you liked 1D mk1 and didn't impress with the a77, then you really have issues. 

If you have used the a77, what kind of switch do you see when you open the battery cover?


----------



## Crollo

argieramos said:


> If you have used the a77, what kind of switch do you see when you open the battery cover?



The _switch_ to an inferior battery compartment.


----------



## argieramos

Crollo said:
			
		

> The switch to an inferior battery compartment.



Another failed attempt. Next? lol


----------



## argieramos

Crollo said:
			
		

> Confirmed. Skieur really does live in a delusional world.



Crollo having mental disorder is confirmed! lol


----------



## rexbobcat

skieur said:
			
		

> On the contrary, considering the late start in comparison with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and others Sony managed to steal marketshare from all of them and get to third place worldwide in DSLRs and that may not include the Nex or SLT series sales.
> 
> What you don't seem to understand Derrel is the big picture.   Most of the pros here on this forum work in limited fields with limited scope.  Beyond this forum there is a super broad range of pros who use everything from medium and large format digital cameras and backs through to those that are using DSLRs and even point and shoots or pocket cameras and many who use all of the above.  I have used Sony, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Panasonic, Leica, and others and by the way I do not own an A77, so you jumped to another wrong conclusion.  I don't need to justify any purchase but I can put unique new features to good use in my work and that is important.
> 
> The flipping mirror is dead.  It is reaching its technological limitations.  It is time for a new approach to go beyond those limitations of speed and vibration problems.  Each Sony implimentation of the SLT has got better and the A99 will be better than the A77.  Nikon and Canon may play a wait and see approach to the marketplace reaction to the Sony SLT but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will copy or adapt the concept if they think that the public will buy it. Either way, Sony has started the move to drop the flipping mirror and that is how changes in technology take place.
> 
> skieur



Totally. Just like Sony's Betamax system beat VHS decades ago...oh...wait...


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say the A55 was pro level because i used one and i won't be using one again, i tried an A77 for the day and was not impressed may be good for landscape but i tried it for sport, i got my old 1Dmk1 out and it was no match but the old 1Dmk1 is one of the best cameras i have used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really are used to Pro cameras, you wouldn't bother yourself to own an entry level. Why would you even use an entry level a55 in studio, when you have something like professional camera? It didn't work out and you're bitching about it? If you liked 1D mk1 and didn't impress with the a77, then you really have issues.
> 
> If you have used the a77, what kind of switch do you see when you open the battery cover?
Click to expand...


I was giving people an introduction into studio lighting when i used the A55 because one of the members at the club could not see anything through his veiwfinder so i went on the net and found out it was a big problem. I took the A77 out from a shop where a friend works to have a go, why would i have wanted to open the battery cover ? another problem with it for me was it was small for my hands


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo.... does that answer the OP's question??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is now dead! Skieur has bored him to death, he didn't realise it would cost him his life though, poor guy! This thread is so ridiculous that it's just a comedy show now in my opinion...
Click to expand...


Well, you are making a major contribution to this comedy show, with your ludicrous attacks.:lmao:

skieur


----------



## Fayf

I have found it pretty similar to the A55, which is my go-to camera. I have also found lots of great information on Sony cameras, lenses, and accessories on the Sony camera forum.


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> I was giving people an introduction into studio lighting when i used the A55 because one of the members at the club could not see anything through his veiwfinder so i went on the net and found out it was a big problem. I took the A77 out from a shop where a friend works to have a go, why would i have wanted to open the battery cover ? another problem with it for me was it was small for my hands



You said you used the a77 for a day right?  You got the a77 full charge? The battery didn't die on you? I can see that you are just making things up. You even said that your old 1D was no match and still think it's one of the best camera you ever had. You obviously have an issue. If I ask you another question, you wouldnt be able to give an answer. You better be careful on what you are claiming because it could be use against you.


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was giving people an introduction into studio lighting when i used the A55 because one of the members at the club could not see anything through his veiwfinder so i went on the net and found out it was a big problem. I took the A77 out from a shop where a friend works to have a go, why would i have wanted to open the battery cover ? another problem with it for me was it was small for my hands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you used the a77 for a day right?  You got the a77 full charge? The battery didn't die on you? I can see that you are just making things up. You even said that your old 1D was no match and still think it's one of the best camera you ever had. You obviously have an issue. If I ask you another question, you wouldnt be able to give an answer. You better be careful on what you are claiming because it could be use against you.
Click to expand...



You are a real prat i said the A77 is not a match for 1D and where did i say i had A77 for a day, i had it for about 2 hour and that was 2 hours too long, i won't be back fed up of trying to explain to a dick


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> The OP is now dead! Skieur has bored him to death, he didn't realise it would cost him his life though, poor guy! This thread is so ridiculous that it's just a comedy show now in my opinion...



Your lame, nonsense and stupid attacks are the reasons why this thread is looking like a comedy show. And attacking me in my inbox will do you no good dude. It wont work on me. Loser! lol


----------



## gsgary

Fayf said:


> I have found it pretty similar to the A55, which is my go-to camera. I have also found lots of great information on Sony cameras, lenses, and accessories on the Sony camera forum.



So it is crap in the studio ?


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> You are a real prat i said the A77 is not a match for 1D and where did i say i had A77 for a day, i had it for about 2 hour and that was 2 hours too long, i won't be back fed up of trying to explain to a dick



You might want to check your old post. You said you used it for a day. You didn't say that you used the a77 for 2 hours. It's there unless you edit the post lol. If you think a77 is no match to 1D, then it's confirmed. You have an issue. You are now running away because you know that you will get owned next time I ask you something. Smart move lol!


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> So it is crap in the studio ?



Why are you asking? I thought you used to  own one? Now I see hehe!


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a real prat i said the A77 is not a match for 1D and where did i say i had A77 for a day, i had it for about 2 hour and that was 2 hours too long, i won't be back fed up of trying to explain to a dick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to check your old post. You said you used it for a day. You didn't say that you used the a77 for 2 hours. It's there unless you edit the post lol. If you think a77 is no match to 1D, then it's confirmed. You have an issue. You are now running away because you know that you will get owned next time I ask you something. Smart move lol!
Click to expand...



Will you ever post any shots from the A77 ? here's one from my old 1Dmk1 that dosn't get used much now


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is crap in the studio ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking? I thought you used to  own one? Now I see hehe!
Click to expand...


Why would i own a Sony when i have thousands in Canon


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Will you ever post any shots from the A77 ? here's one from my old 1Dmk1 that dosn't get used much now



What are you trying to prove with that?
If you really know what you are talking about, that image is an easy capture with a77.  Post something with no edit. So people can see how bad your 1D compare to today's standard. Unless, that picture is not yours hehehe!!!


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Why would i own a Sony when i have thousands in Canon



You said you used to have the a55. Oh i see. You also used that camera for only 2 hours? Am i right? lol
You still didn't answer me. Why are you asking about the a55's performance in studio? You used one when you did an introduction about studio, right? Dont tell it was just a lie? Hehehe!!!


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever post any shots from the A77 ? here's one from my old 1Dmk1 that dosn't get used much now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove with that?
> If you really know what you are talking about, that image is an easy capture with a77.  Post something with no edit. So people can see how bad your 1D compare to today's standard. Unless, that picture is not yours hehehe!!!
Click to expand...



That was straight out of the camera at a show we were printing on  site so no time to process, your a joke A77 would not focus fast enough, why would i post someone elses photo


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would i own a Sony when i have thousands in Canon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you used to have the a55. Oh i see. You also used that camera for only 2 hours? Am i right? lol
Click to expand...


Do you speak English, i used an a55 that belonged to a club member, i tried to set it up so he could shoot some studio shots


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> That was straight out of the camera at a show we were printing on  site so no time to process, your a joke A77 would not focus fast enough, why would i post someone elses photo



Then it's confirmed. I can smell your lies from a distance dude. You never touched the a77 or even the a55. Sorry but your claim about a77 not focus fast enough prove that you are nothing but a big liar and doesn't know what you are talking about. You can't even prove to me anything to back up your claim the you used the a77. First you said you used  the a77 for a day. Today you are telling me that you used it for 2 hours only. You're getting owned bro haha!!
1D is nowhere near the the a77. Your claim means nothing. You said the a77 is point and shoot right? You know what? You're giving Canon users bad image


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> Do you speak English, i used an a55 that belonged to a club member, i tried to set it up so he could shoot some studio shots



Why? Do you think I'm typing in Spanish? 
Do you have some memory gap problem?
Go back to your old posts and look it up. Tell me, how long did you use the a55?
Why it was big deal to you about Sony not telling the consumer that the entry level a55 is not meant for studio? I can see holes in some of your statement hehee!


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever post any shots from the A77 ? here's one from my old 1Dmk1 that dosn't get used much now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to prove with that?
> If you really know what you are talking about, that image is an easy capture with a77. Post something with no edit. So people can see how bad your 1D compare to today's standard. Unless, that picture is not yours hehehe!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was straight out of the camera at a show we were printing on site so no time to process, your a joke A77 would not focus fast enough, why would i post someone elses photo
Click to expand...


That is an easy shot.  Any Sony would focus fast enough for that.

skieur


----------



## mjhoward

Easy shot?  Those dogs are relatively small and very fast.  I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot.  Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:


> Easy shot?  Those dogs are relatively small and very fast.  I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot.  Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.



Go educate yourself. lol


----------



## unpopular

Argie. Why though? Why have you dedicated yourself to this thread?

If the a77 is as good as you say it is, it will prove itself regardless of the brand name. If the technology is good, it will be adopted. It'll be the future. What could possibly be your motivation? Why do you so tirelessly defend this platform.


----------



## mjhoward

argieramos said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy shot?  Those dogs are relatively small and very fast.  I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot.  Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. lol
Click to expand...


This is coming from someone whom is seemingly still in high school?  I'm very well educated... not as much in photography as other areas, but well educated regardless.  I DO know enough about photography, however, to discount nearly everything you say.


----------



## skieur

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flipping mirror is dead. It is reaching its technological limitations. It is time for a new approach to go beyond those limitations of speed and vibration problems. Each Sony implimentation of the SLT has got better and the A99 will be better than the A77. Nikon and Canon may play a wait and see approach to the marketplace reaction to the Sony SLT but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will copy or adapt the concept if they think that the public will buy it. Either way, Sony has started the move to drop the flipping mirror and that is how changes in technology take place.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The flipping mirror is dead." Yes---exactly. Just the way that motion pictures killed live theatre. It is as dead as motion pictures, which were officially killed off by television back in the 1950's. The flipping mirror is as dead as live music, which was killed off by Edison's wax cylinder recordings. The flipping mirror is as dead as home cooking, which was made obsolete by the development of the TV dinner. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as doing math on paper became since the advent of the electronic calculator. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as draft beer after the development of the first successful canned beer.
> 
> Yeah....the flipping mirror is dead....as dead as FM Radio in the age of the MP3 player...Uh-huh, riiiiight....
> 
> Sony started a revolution! They will change the industry and convert all the other companies to their new, upstart ways!!! Let me give you an example of Minolta logic/aka Sony logic: Let's make a flash foot design that violates the ISO standard for flash mounting systems...let's create our OWN, NEW, BETTER FLASH FOOT DESIGN!!!
> 
> Sorry, skieur...but you are such a weak opponent it's a shame that I have to use this information on you and utterly crush your dreams...but SONY is the only company that uses their oddball flash mounting foot....none of their chit works with anything else. Minolta lost their ASSES by heralding the "APSC film system" back in the 1990's. Do you not remember that technical marvel, APSC film??? (sarcasm). The idea that they could make it big by jumping into the APSC film camera market JUST prior to the dawn of digital photography is what doomed Minolta to obscurity, then near bankruptcy. Minolta's camera division was then sold to ANOTHER loser camera company, Konica. Konica--the shutter priority auto company that never could understand why its products failed, time after time...so, two loser camera companies became Konica/Minolta, and began business, then FAILED, and were forced to sell out to SONY....
> 
> Sorry dude...the failed unique flash foot...the failed APSC camera gamble than almost killed Minolta....the massive legal fees incurred from patent infringement that forced so many Minolta executives to retire in disgrace...the carcass of Minolta rotting until the scavengers at Konica saw an opportunity to pick the bones of a former third-rate company...only to find that the carcass was already maggot-infested...the fire sale of Konica/Minolta to Sony, a company in search of "SOME" camera designs and lens designs...eh...my God man...I know history quite well...Sony purchased the "assets" (if that is the right way to categorize what they bought) of two, FAILED, disgraced camera companies. Two companies that were stocked with executives who worked for companies which could not "cut it" in the camera business.
> 
> "New technology" like a unique flash mounting foot....that awesome Sony memory stick format...that awesome and FAILED SONY Betamax video format...that FAILED Minolta venture into the new-technology APSC cartridge loading film format....that unique dual-sensor Minolta d-slr that failed...that FAILED shutter-priority-only automatic that Konica espoused for so long....see the pattern here?
> 
> "New technology" like the flash foot, Memory Stick, Betamax, APSC film>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Massive, massive, massive failures. New does not guarantee success, my dear skieur. Far,far from it. New tech carries with it huge risks.
> 
> Dream on and keep telling yourself "the flapping mirror is dead." Long live Betamax! Long live Memory Stick! Long live APSC film cameras!
Click to expand...


Misleading as usual, eh?

A History of Minolta Innovation

http://konicaminolta.ca/business/about/history.html

skieur


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flipping mirror is dead. It is reaching its technological limitations. It is time for a new approach to go beyond those limitations of speed and vibration problems. Each Sony implimentation of the SLT has got better and the A99 will be better than the A77. Nikon and Canon may play a wait and see approach to the marketplace reaction to the Sony SLT but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will copy or adapt the concept if they think that the public will buy it. Either way, Sony has started the move to drop the flipping mirror and that is how changes in technology take place.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The flipping mirror is dead." Yes---exactly. Just the way that motion pictures killed live theatre. It is as dead as motion pictures, which were officially killed off by television back in the 1950's. The flipping mirror is as dead as live music, which was killed off by Edison's wax cylinder recordings. The flipping mirror is as dead as home cooking, which was made obsolete by the development of the TV dinner. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as doing math on paper became since the advent of the electronic calculator. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as draft beer after the development of the first successful canned beer.
> 
> Yeah....the flipping mirror is dead....as dead as FM Radio in the age of the MP3 player...Uh-huh, riiiiight....
> 
> Sony started a revolution! They will change the industry and convert all the other companies to their new, upstart ways!!! Let me give you an example of Minolta logic/aka Sony logic: Let's make a flash foot design that violates the ISO standard for flash mounting systems...let's create our OWN, NEW, BETTER FLASH FOOT DESIGN!!!
> 
> Sorry, skieur...but you are such a weak opponent it's a shame that I have to use this information on you and utterly crush your dreams...but SONY is the only company that uses their oddball flash mounting foot....none of their chit works with anything else. Minolta lost their ASSES by heralding the "APSC film system" back in the 1990's. Do you not remember that technical marvel, APSC film??? (sarcasm). The idea that they could make it big by jumping into the APSC film camera market JUST prior to the dawn of digital photography is what doomed Minolta to obscurity, then near bankruptcy. Minolta's camera division was then sold to ANOTHER loser camera company, Konica. Konica--the shutter priority auto company that never could understand why its products failed, time after time...so, two loser camera companies became Konica/Minolta, and began business, then FAILED, and were forced to sell out to SONY....
> 
> Sorry dude...the failed unique flash foot...the failed APSC camera gamble than almost killed Minolta....the massive legal fees incurred from patent infringement that forced so many Minolta executives to retire in disgrace...the carcass of Minolta rotting until the scavengers at Konica saw an opportunity to pick the bones of a former third-rate company...only to find that the carcass was already maggot-infested...the fire sale of Konica/Minolta to Sony, a company in search of "SOME" camera designs and lens designs...eh...my God man...I know history quite well...Sony purchased the "assets" (if that is the right way to categorize what they bought) of two, FAILED, disgraced camera companies. Two companies that were stocked with executives who worked for companies which could not "cut it" in the camera business.
> 
> "New technology" like a unique flash mounting foot....that awesome Sony memory stick format...that awesome and FAILED SONY Betamax video format...that FAILED Minolta venture into the new-technology APSC cartridge loading film format....that unique dual-sensor Minolta d-slr that failed...that FAILED shutter-priority-only automatic that Konica espoused for so long....see the pattern here?
> 
> "New technology" like the flash foot, Memory Stick, Betamax, APSC film>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Massive, massive, massive failures. New does not guarantee success, my dear skieur. Far,far from it. New tech carries with it huge risks.
> 
> Dream on and keep telling yourself "the flapping mirror is dead." Long live Betamax! Long live Memory Stick! Long live APSC film cameras!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misleading as usual, eh?
> 
> A History of Minolta Innovation
> 
> About Us - History of Innovation | KONICA MINOLTA CANADA
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



Minolta were great cameras, i have their fantastic Minolta 4 flash meter, Sony bought into this and then spoilt a great name


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> Argie. Why though? Why have you dedicated yourself to this thread?
> 
> If the a77 is as good as you say it is, it will prove itself regardless of the brand name. If the technology is good, it will be adopted. It'll be the future. What could possibly be your motivation? Why do you so tirelessly defend this platform.



Dedicated? No I'm not. You see, I could ask you almost the same question. Why have you dedicated yourself to destroy a reputation of a camera? 

Did anyone from Sony gang bang you or something? Why can't you understand that the camera has good things that some people likes about and yet you tirelessly say otherwise? The camera is proving itself already.
Sony Alpha A77 Is About to Beat DSLRs at Their Own Game | PCWorld
Camera Test: Sony's A77 Is The New King of APS-C DSLRs | Popular Photography

I am not defending the camera because I like it. I am defending the camera because you guys are nuts! If an SLT fanboy start flaming and exaggerate the weaknesses of an SLR, I'd defend SLR too hehehe! 

You said you guys are adults. Start acting like real adults and see how nice this thread would turn out


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is now dead! Skieur has bored him to death, he didn't realise it would cost him his life though, poor guy! This thread is so ridiculous that it's just a comedy show now in my opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lame, nonsense and stupid attacks are the reasons why this thread is looking like a comedy show. And attacking me in my inbox will do you no good dude. It wont work on me. Loser! lol
Click to expand...


Not as bad as acting ghetto when you look like a Sissy though really! What is with all the ghetto talk dude? Are you from the ghetto? You look like a skinny little joke to me with bad dress sense.  In your own words 'The haters gonna hate y'all!

Just to confirm this thread is made to look a joke by people like you ArgieMoron and your friend Skieur with your useless information being repeated again and again. You think it's OK to go around insulting respected members, so I am happily here insulting you back as I feel it's right too.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy shot?  Those dogs are relatively small and very fast.  I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot.  Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is coming from someone whom is seemingly still in high school?  I'm very well educated... not as much in photography as other areas, but well educated regardless.  I DO know enough about photography, however, to discount nearly everything you say.
Click to expand...


Look how you responds to this thread. No slight evidence of being well educated. You seems like a complete copy of gary. You guys related? hehehe!


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is now dead! Skieur has bored him to death, he didn't realise it would cost him his life though, poor guy! This thread is so ridiculous that it's just a comedy show now in my opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lame, nonsense and stupid attacks are the reasons why this thread is looking like a comedy show. And attacking me in my inbox will do you no good dude. It wont work on me. Loser! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as bad as acting ghetto when you look like a Sissy though really! What is with all the ghetto talk dude? Are you from the ghetto? You look like a skinny little joke to me with bad dress sense.  In your own words 'The haters gonna hate y'all!
> 
> Just to confirm this thread is made to look a joke by people like you ArgieMoron and your friend Skieur with your useless information being repeated again and again. You think it's OK to go around insulting respected members, so I am happily here insulting you back as I feel it's right too.
Click to expand...


You have no clue what a ghetto really means. Why sending me a private message? It seems like you never get laid nyahahaha!!
And who are these respected members? Tell me!


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lame, nonsense and stupid attacks are the reasons why this thread is looking like a comedy show. And attacking me in my inbox will do you no good dude. It wont work on me. Loser! lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as bad as acting ghetto when you look like a Sissy though really! What is with all the ghetto talk dude? Are you from the ghetto? You look like a skinny little joke to me with bad dress sense.  In your own words 'The haters gonna hate y'all!
> 
> Just to confirm this thread is made to look a joke by people like you ArgieMoron and your friend Skieur with your useless information being repeated again and again. You think it's OK to go around insulting respected members, so I am happily here insulting you back as I feel it's right too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You have no clue what a ghetto really means. Why sending me a private message?* It seems like you never get laid nyahahaha!!
Click to expand...


Again, ENGLISH FAIL!


----------



## skieur

""Sony has, once again, radically changed the world of DSLRs with its A77. Plus, it has done so without compromises in the shooting experience or in image quality. The A77 now reigns supreme over APS-C format DSLRs. Neither Canon's EOS 7D nor Nikon's D300s can match the A77's AF speed or resolution. While the Canon 7D does beat the A77 in its noise performance and holds more resolution at the highest ISOs, the A77 ultimately beats it for the overall package, including the video-shooting experience and the versatility of the articulated LCD.
Seasoned photographers with extensive lens collections will likely have a hard time deciding if they should switch to Sony, especially if they've taken up video seriously. If this describes you, we'd advise you wait and see how Canon and Nikon react to the A77 before making up your mind.
We have to admit that we see this as a serious shakeup in the camera industry. For the first time, a camera without an optical finder can deliver the level of performance that we've all come to expect from an eye-level framing device. Furthermore, you can use it to shoot video, change menu settings, and overlay a variety of gridlines, even a leveling indicator.
Add to that that the A77 can match the burst capabilities of its competitors, while offering a limited 12-fps burst mode. Plus, the camera has the best automatic panorama stitching we've seen, and the Handheld Twilight mode significantly reduces noise in low-light images of still subjects."

This reviewer by the way Derrel is suggesting that Nikon and Canon will probably wait and see as I predicted in my earlier post and then perhaps copy what you guys call "toy features".

skieur


----------



## skieur

mjhoward said:


> Easy shot? Those dogs are relatively small and very fast. I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot. Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.



This dog is faster. Notice the sharpness.







As I said previously, an easy shot for a Sony camera.

skieur


----------



## dxqcanada

... I will have to give Sony one credit ... if they did not buy the Minolta/Konica DSLR/SLR technology I would of had to sell my Minolta Maxxum lenses.

That's all I am going to say.


----------



## skieur

argieramos said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is coming from someone whom is seemingly still in high school? I'm very well educated... not as much in photography as other areas, but well educated regardless. I DO know enough about photography, however, to discount nearly everything you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look how you responds to this thread. No slight evidence of being well educated. You seems like a complete copy of gary. You guys related? hehehe!
Click to expand...


Well, I think my 3 degrees will trump many in the area of education. 

skieur


----------



## Derrel

Every single month, Popular Photography has a headline that trumpets WHATEVER featured lens or camera they are highlighting in that month's issue. I've been a reader of Pop Photo since the mid-1970's. I am a current subscriber. Comments like "radically changed the world of DSLRs with its A77" and "reigns supreme over APS-C format DSLRs." ---those  types of comments are what we call *hyperbole. *That is the kind of language that makes the fanboys feel good, and which sell magazines.Please note, skieur, that the magazine ALSO mentions some facts that directly contradict YOUR assertions from earlier in this thread. Specifically, Pop Photo writes: "the Canon 7D does beat the A77 in its noise performance and holds more resolution at the highests ISOs..." Ooopsie!!!! So, the poor noise performance that I MENTIONED, and that OTHERS mentioned earlier in this thread, was also seen by the folks at Pop Photo. But you, skieur, maintained that the A77's images looked superior in EVERY EXAMPLE in the early pages of this lengthy thread. As dPreview mentioned, the A77's sensor gets NOISY, and does NOT look good as ISO levels go up...too much noise reduction  needs to be applied....so much so that Canon's 18.2 MP sensor in the 7D performs better than the 24.6 MP one in the A77.

The reviewer is Michael McNamara, of Pop Photo...yeah, like Canon and Nikon are "waiting on Sony"... LMFAO!!!! HILARIOUS! Canon and Nikon have cameras in development for well over a year in advance. Canon and Nikon have each, already, decades ago, made pellicle-mirrored single-lens reflex cameras. They barely sold any units. So, which company is copying which other TWO companies? Canon is leading the market in d-slr sales, with Nikon a very strong 2nd place, and Sony lags behind, roughly with 1/3 of the sales of 2nd place Nikon...and you think Canon and Nikon are copy-catting Sony???

Nikon introduced the first d-slr with video recording capabilities....followed extremely closely by Canon less than two months later! Sony is making some nice cameras, no doubt. As to who is leading and who is following...that's really a very minor point: what counts is which cameras people want to BUY and USE. I think Sony is a viable choice for people who have no investment in another system. I think that is the audience that Sony is actively trying to make their target market--newcomers to the d-slr market. First-time buyers. Because, as McNamara says, "_Seasoned photographers with extensive lens collections will likely have a hard time deciding if they should switch to Sony_, especially if they've taken up video seriously. If this describes you, *we'd advise you wait and see how Canon and Nikon react to the A77 *before making up your mind."

So, anybody who can read English well can understand: 1) McNamara is stating that Canon and Nikon users will probably not switch to Sony and 2) If you are into video, do NOT buy the A77 but instead ,and this is a quote, "*we'd advise you to wait and see how Canon and Nikon react to the A77*". In other words, wait to see what better, newer video features Canon and Nikon premier on their upcoming cameras.

Trying to pass off a short summary paragraph as entirely positive and pro-purchase is disingenuous, at best. The messages are mixed, and a good part of the real advice is, "wait to see what Canon and Nikon have coming out if you are interested in video features." If you have no investment in either company, then hey, this is an innovative, fun,exciting new camera. The Canon 7D is better in noise performance and resolution at elevated ISO settings, so, for low-light work, the Canon 7D is the better choice...


----------



## skieur

Nikon_Josh said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as bad as acting ghetto when you look like a Sissy though really! What is with all the ghetto talk dude? Are you from the ghetto? You look like a skinny little joke to me with bad dress sense. In your own words 'The haters gonna hate y'all!
> 
> Just to confirm this thread is made to look a joke by people like you ArgieMoron and your friend Skieur with your useless information being repeated again and again. You think it's OK to go around insulting respected members, so I am happily here insulting you back as I feel it's right too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You have no clue what a ghetto really means. Why sending me a private message?* It seems like you never get laid nyahahaha!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, ENGLISH FAIL!
Click to expand...


Well, I suspect you would probably fail at Spanish, or Canadian French for that matter.

skieur


----------



## Derrel

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy shot? Those dogs are relatively small and very fast. I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot. Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dog is faster. Notice the sharpness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, an easy shot for a Sony camera.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


An easy shot for almost ANY AF system...the only moving target visible against a field of pure white snow...wow...an easy shot for a Nikon, or Canon, or Pentax, or Olympus!!!


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is coming from someone whom is seemingly still in high school? I'm very well educated... not as much in photography as other areas, but well educated regardless. I DO know enough about photography, however, to discount nearly everything you say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look how you responds to this thread. No slight evidence of being well educated. You seems like a complete copy of gary. You guys related? hehehe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think my *3 degrees* will trump many in the area of education.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


You have 3 degrees aswell now do you? My my my... you have achieved so much haven't you?? hahahaha!

You are great! You are just a complete FRAUD! You have a made up photographic career and now your an academic genius aswell.. :lmao:


----------



## skieur

Derrel said:


> Every single month, Popular Photography has a headline that trumpets WHATEVER featured lens or camera they are highlighting in that month's issue. I've been a reader of Pop Photo since the mid-1970's. I am a current subscriber. Comments like "radically changed the world of DSLRs with its A77" and "reigns supreme over APS-C format DSLRs." ---those types of comments are what we call *hyperbole. *That is the kind of language that makes the fanboys feel good, and which sell magazines.Please note, skieur, that the magazine ALSO mentions some facts that directly contradict YOUR assertions from earlier in this thread. Specifically, Pop Photo writes: "the Canon 7D does beat the A77 in its noise performance and holds more resolution at the highests ISOs..." Ooopsie!!!! So, the poor noise performance that I MENTIONED, and that OTHERS mentioned earlier in this thread, was also seen by the folks at Pop Photo. But you, skieur, maintained that the A77's images looked superior in EVERY EXAMPLE in the early pages of this lengthy thread. As dPreview mentioned, the A77's sensor gets NOISY, and does NOT look good as ISO levels go up...too much noise reduction needs to be applied....so much so that Canon's 18.2 MP sensor in the 7D performs better than the 24.6 MP one in the A77.
> 
> The reviewer is Michael McNamara, of Pop Photo...yeah, like Canon and Nikon are "waiting on Sony"... LMFAO!!!! HILARIOUS! Canon and Nikon have cameras in development for well over a year in advance. Canon and Nikon have each, already, decades ago, made pellicle-mirrored single-lens reflex cameras. They barely sold any units. So, which company is copying which other TWO companies? Canon is leading the market in d-slr sales, with Nikon a very strong 2nd place, and Sony lags behind, roughly with 1/3 of the sales of 2nd place Nikon...and you think Canon and Nikon are copy-catting Sony???
> 
> Nikon introduced the first d-slr with video recording capabilities....followed extremely closely by Canon less than two months later! Sony is making some nice cameras, no doubt. As to who is leading and who is following...that's really a very minor point: what counts is which cameras people want to BUY and USE. I think Sony is a viable choice for people who have no investment in another system. I think that is the audience that Sony is actively trying to make their target market--newcomers to the d-slr market. First-time buyers. Because, as McNamara says, "_Seasoned photographers with extensive lens collections will likely have a hard time deciding if they should switch to Sony_, especially if they've taken up video seriously. If this describes you, *we'd advise you wait and see how Canon and Nikon react to the A77 *before making up your mind."
> 
> So, anybody who can read English well can understand: 1) McNamara is stating that Canon and Nikon users will probably not switch to Sony and 2) If you are into video, do NOT buy the A77 but instead ,and this is a quote, "*we'd advise you to wait and see how Canon and Nikon react to the A77*". In other words, wait to see what better, newer video features Canon and Nikon premier on their upcoming cameras.
> 
> Trying to pass off a short summary paragraph as entirely positive and pro-purchase is disingenuous, at best. The messages are mixed, and a good part of the real advice is, "wait to see what Canon and Nikon have coming out if you are interested in video features." If you have no investment in either company, then hey, this is an innovative, fun,exciting new camera. The Canon 7D is better in noise performance and resolution at elevated ISO settings, so, for low-light work, the Canon 7D is the better choice...



Let's try again. I will try and keep it simple. If you are looking at jpegs at 1600 ISO or higher on the Comparometer, then Sony is slightly better at a higher sharpness level than both the Nikon and Canon cameras I was comparing. Nevertheless photos from all 3: Canon, Nikon and Sony were lousy, but Sony gives me the option of eliminating noise at very high ISO using twilight mode. Noiseware Professional would further reduce noise. Bottom line however is that I would not use any DSLR above 800 ISO unless absolutely necessary and I seldom have any need to do so.

As to speed, Sony has the fastest burst speed at 24 megapixels. It can still shoot slower than 12 frames per second and be faster than any other DSLR at a full 24 megapixels. Not all photographers will need or use this speed but it is available. However, only fanboys of the other brands rather than users will complain about it. 

The Sony A77 produces the best HD video so far with full time, continuous phase detection autofocus and stereo sound. Anyone who integrates stills and video, like I do, finds this feature very useful.

As to what you call toy features, I consider to be useful tools. In camera panorama is high quality at 49 megapixels and it is used frequently in real estate virtual tours and in church wedding shots, web site advertising etc. Simulated tiltshift, enhanced dynamic range, HDR etc. are all very useful for creative photographers.

Minolta produced sturdy, excellently designed, cameras with lenses that tested out as better than Nikon at the time. I got a lot of successful use out of a variety of Minolta cameras so they more than paid for themselves, irrespective of marketting or the company.

Sony has deep pockets and sells one heck of a lot of digital cameras. They were certainly successful with the Sony Betacam which certainly was the standard for television production at one point. Again however, irrespective of the company, the A77 has less plastic than the Nikon D3x, is more feature rich and has a better price point.

One photography writer said that more "professional" cameras are bought by professionals, as in doctors, lawyers, executives etc. then are bought by professional photographers. Serious pros are in it to make money rather than spend money.

skieur


----------



## skieur

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy shot? Those dogs are relatively small and very fast. I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot. Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dog is faster. Notice the sharpness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, an easy shot for a Sony camera.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An easy shot for almost ANY AF system...the only moving target visible against a field of pure white snow...wow...an easy shot for a Nikon, or Canon, or Pentax, or Olympus!!!
Click to expand...


Well, you can't have it both ways.  Not exactly any speed focus problem with the Sony, eh?

skieur


----------



## mjhoward

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dog is faster. Notice the sharpness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, an easy shot for a Sony camera.
> 
> skieur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An easy shot for almost ANY AF system...the only moving target visible against a field of pure white snow...wow...an easy shot for a Nikon, or Canon, or Pentax, or Olympus!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can't have it both ways.  Not exactly any speed focus problem with the Sony, eh?
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


I like how you and your boyfriend both dodged the entire point of my post.  Focusing speed was not the point... the TIMING of his shot was.  Gary TIMED his shot so that the dog was at the peak of his leap.  The POINT of the post was to point out that it would be more difficult to TIME that kind of action shot with live view, which inherently has delay, even if a small delay.  If Sony live view is anything like that of Canon's (I've never developed software for the Sony Alpha's but have for Canon), the frame rate to the EVF will vary depending on available light (I'm assuming it has to do with additional processing time required for NR or something) which would make TIMING an action shot even more difficult.

With that said, there's no point in arguing with either of you.  You claim that others cannot acknowledge the benefits of this outstanding A77 whiz-bang camera.  I have acknowledged that phase detect AF would be very appealing for video shooters however the loss of 1/2 stop light due to the mirror (which you are hell bent on claiming _only_ 1/3 stop: Light loss in A77 mirror exactly measured - Dyxum forums) and the inherent delays of an EVF would prevent most photographers from being interested.  The hypocrisy comes with the fact that YOU are the one that can't seem to acknowledge it's flaws... which are many.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

skieur said:


> Let's try again. I will try and keep it simple.* If you are looking at jpegs at 1600 ISO or higher on the Comparometer, then Sony is slightly better at a higher sharpness level than both the Nikon and Canon cameras I was comparing. Nevertheless photos from all 3: Canon, Nikon and Sony were lousy, but Sony gives me the option of eliminating noise at very high ISO using twilight mode. *Noiseware Professional would further reduce noise. Bottom line however is that I would not use any DSLR above 800 ISO unless absolutely necessary and I seldom have any need to do so.
> 
> As to speed, Sony has the fastest burst speed at 24 megapixels. It can still shoot slower than 12 frames per second and be faster than any other DSLR at a full 24 megapixels. Not all photographers will need or use this speed but it is available. However, only fanboys of the other brands rather than users will complain about it.
> 
> The Sony A77 produces the best HD video so far with full time, continuous phase detection autofocus and stereo sound. Anyone who integrates stills and video, like I do, finds this feature very useful.
> 
> As to what you call toy features, I consider to be useful tools. In camera panorama is high quality at 49 megapixels and it is used frequently in real estate virtual tours and in church wedding shots, web site advertising etc. Simulated tiltshift, enhanced dynamic range, HDR etc. are all very useful for creative photographers.
> 
> Minolta produced sturdy, excellently designed, cameras with lenses that tested out as better than Nikon at the time. I got a lot of successful use out of a variety of Minolta cameras so they more than paid for themselves, irrespective of marketting or the company.
> 
> Sony has deep pockets and sells one heck of a lot of digital cameras. They were certainly successful with the Sony Betacam which certainly was the standard for television production at one point. *Again however, irrespective of the company, the A77 has less plastic than the Nikon D3x, is more feature rich and has a better price point.*
> 
> One photography writer said that more "professional" cameras are bought by professionals, as in doctors, lawyers, executives etc. then are bought by professional photographers. Serious pros are in it to make money rather than spend money.
> 
> skieur



Dp Review were wrong then when they said the A77 had mushy output at Higher ISO's?

And the D3X has more plastic than the A77?? Article to back up this statement please??


----------



## cosmonaut

I don't think the translucent mirror effects anything that much.....
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side


----------



## Derrel

Just a point of clarification for skieur: I do not believe that I have referred to "toy features" in any of my posts in this thread; now, skieur you keep stating that I have referred to "toy" features on the Sony A77...I would like to see an example of that in a post that "I" have made using that exact language. Good luck finding it.

Anyway...the people who want a Sony A77 can buy one any time they feel like it: Best Buy, and Fry's Electronics, and other big box retailers, have boatloads of Sony A77's in-stock and ready for customers to come in and snap up! The camera is available wherever fine TV sets, stereos, and DVD players are sold. I called my local Best Buy tonight, and was told they had six A77's in-stock...I asked if I could get a Nikon D7000...nope...sold out...and that the next D7000 shipment would likely sell out the day it came in. Anyway, I am, like roughly 88 percent of the entire d-slr market, committed to cameras made by other companies besides Sony (I am a Nikon AND a Canon d-slr user). Best of luck with your Sony cameras and Zeiss/Cosina lenses. The Tamron/Sony 28-75 f/2.8 is one of the better lenses for walk-around, outdoor use. If you want the lens with the Sony-style rubber, it's available; it is also available for A-mount with the Tamron brand name on it.

The ODDEST thing about this entire A77 love-fest is that I do not think that there has been even ONE mention of the only real advantage Sony has over Canon and Nikon, and that is their in-body stabilization system, like the one Pentax and Samsung both use. All this talk, over 30 pages' worth, about the viewfinder and the sensor and the A77's 12 FPS burst rate, but no discussion of the in-body sensor shift technology that helps steady the shaky hands of Sony users.

Well, like Popular Photograph's Michael McNamara said, "wait and see what Canon and Nikon come out with."


----------



## cosmonaut

I just checked Adorama, B&H and Amazon no a77s is stock, neither the new lenses. I expect the same is true for the NEX7 I will not own a camera without in body IS because like I said. Nikon glass is to expensive. I am very happy with my Sony and the added features is a bonus to a superb tool. The menu is a dream to navigate and use.  If you want to talk toy cameras take a look at the N1. One has to get big name actors to sell a camera with inferior IQ and real toy features. Yes the are flying off the shelf too. Just because a big tiime actor is pushing them along a little. The Nikon 1 is a great camera if you like to shoot in AE or program mode, manual controls are buried in the menu and even Olympus has a sensor bigger than 10mpix. Also better IQ. The NEX3 has better IQ than the Nikon 1 and it's two upgrades behind the NEX 7. I don't think in need worry about Sonys future. Nikon and Canon are going to set back and rely on there old technology and the world is going to pass them by and they will be playing catch up to everyone else just like they are in the mirrorless area.
 I expected more from Nikon and will put my toy NEX 7 up against the Nikon 1 any day. Yes I am waiting, to see what amazing new technology the deep pocketed Sony people come up with next. It's already happening just look at the D4. It's not to much of an upgrade to the dated D3 and Sony made its sensor. I wonder how many Nikon parts the a77 has in it?


Derrel said:


> Just a point of clarification for skieur: I do not believe that I have referred to "toy features" in any of my posts in this thread; now, skieur you keep stating that I have referred to "toy" features on the Sony A77...I would like to see an example of that in a post that "I" have made using that exact language. Good luck finding it.Anyway...the people who want a Sony A77 can buy one any time they feel like it: Best Buy, and Fry's Electronics, and other big box retailers, have boatloads of Sony A77's in-stock and ready for customers to come in and snap up! The camera is available wherever fine TV sets, stereos, and DVD players are sold. I called my local Best Buy tonight, and was told they had six A77's in-stock...I asked if I could get a Nikon D7000...nope...sold out...and that the next D7000 shipment would likely sell out the day it came in. Anyway, I am, like roughly 88 percent of the entire d-slr market, committed to cameras made by other companies besides Sony (I am a Nikon AND a Canon d-slr user). Best of luck with your Sony cameras and Zeiss/Cosina lenses. The Tamron/Sony 28-75 f/2.8 is one of the better lenses for walk-around, outdoor use. If you want the lens with the Sony-style rubber, it's available; it is also available for A-mount with the Tamron brand name on it.The ODDEST thing about this entire A77 love-fest is that I do not think that there has been even ONE mention of the only real advantage Sony has over Canon and Nikon, and that is their in-body stabilization system, like the one Pentax and Samsung both use. All this talk, over 30 pages' worth, about the viewfinder and the sensor and the A77's 12 FPS burst rate, but no discussion of the in-body sensor shift technology that helps steady the shaky hands of Sony users.Well, like Popular Photograph's Michael McNamara said, "wait and see what Canon and Nikon come out with."


----------



## mjhoward

cosmonaut said:


> I expected more from Nikon and will put my toy NEX 7 up against the Nikon 1 any day.



I should hope so... you're comparing apples and oranges.  The NEX 7 APS-C sensor has more than 3 TIMES the area of a Nikon 1 CX sensor.  That's a larger gap than from DX to FX.



cosmonaut said:


> I wonder how many Nikon parts the a77 has in it?



Sony being sony tries to make everything proprietary so I would doubt any parts are.  The funny thing though is that even though sony supplied the sensor to Nikon, Nikon was able to do BETTER with it than sony was!  The A55 uses the same sensor (I believe) and look how much better the D7000 performs with the SAME sensor.


----------



## Omofo

Derrel said:


> Just a point of clarification for skieur: I do not believe that I have referred to "toy features" in any of my posts in this thread; now, skieur you keep stating that I have referred to "toy" features on the Sony A77...I would like to see an example of that in a post that "I" have made using that exact language. Good luck finding it.
> 
> Anyway...the people who want a Sony A77 can buy one any time they feel like it: Best Buy, and Fry's Electronics, and other big box retailers, have boatloads of Sony A77's in-stock and ready for customers to come in and snap up! The camera is available wherever fine TV sets, stereos, and DVD players are sold. I called my local Best Buy tonight, and was told they had six A77's in-stock...I asked if I could get a Nikon D7000...nope...sold out...and that the next D7000 shipment would likely sell out the day it came in. Anyway, I am, like roughly 88 percent of the entire d-slr market, committed to cameras made by other companies besides Sony (I am a Nikon AND a Canon d-slr user). Best of luck with your Sony cameras and Zeiss/Cosina lenses. The Tamron/Sony 28-75 f/2.8 is one of the better lenses for walk-around, outdoor use. If you want the lens with the Sony-style rubber, it's available; it is also available for A-mount with the Tamron brand name on it.
> 
> The ODDEST thing about this entire A77 love-fest is that I do not think that there has been even ONE mention of the only real advantage Sony has over Canon and Nikon, and that is their in-body stabilization system, like the one Pentax and Samsung both use. All this talk, over 30 pages' worth, about the viewfinder and the sensor and the A77's 12 FPS burst rate, but no discussion of the in-body sensor shift technology that helps steady the shaky hands of Sony users.
> 
> Well, like Popular Photograph's Michael McNamara said, "wait and see what Canon and Nikon come out with."



Interesting, Best Buy doesn't even list the A77 on their website and my local store doesn't plan on carrying them, nor does Frys. Whoever you talked to must have been thinking of the A55.


----------



## Omofo

My A55 didn't have any problems with AF at 10fps...


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Again, ENGLISH FAIL!



lol. Oh ok. You can't beat me in this thread that is why you are trying to attack me in a different way hahaha! You are being desperate now bro lol. Your way of attacking has no effect on me. Try harder.  You didn't see me making fun of you when you said "DO YOU GO DO SCHOOL?" lol
You may speak more fluent than I am, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a dumbass who gives corny jokes and lame attacks. This ain't english class you f0ol. You are the only one who is complaining here. I guess your limitation of understanding things is not as good as I thought. Hehehe!!!


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> You have 3 degrees aswell now do you? My my my... you have achieved so much haven't you?? hahahaha!


Your sentence construction is terrible.


----------



## cosmonaut

I am not implying the Nikon is a bad system. They have had the best image quality for some time. I just saying Sony is as just as good. Sony is not a fly by night company and a commented to the DSLR market. They are innovative and think outside the box. I doubt Sony will ever have equal shares in the market one reason being Nikon has been around longer and have a lot of people tied to the system.If you look at the DXO marks there's not enough difference in the a77 and D7000 to worry about. Give Sony five more years and see what the a99 looks like.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> I like how you and your boyfriend both dodged the entire point of my post.  Focusing speed was not the point... the TIMING of his shot was.  Gary TIMED his shot so that the dog was at the peak of his leap.  The POINT of the post was to point out that it would be more difficult to TIME that kind of action shot with live view, which inherently has delay, even if a small delay.  If Sony live view is anything like that of Canon's (I've never developed software for the Sony Alpha's but have for Canon), the frame rate to the EVF will vary depending on available light (I'm assuming it has to do with additional processing time required for NR or something) which would make TIMING an action shot even more difficult.
> 
> With that said, there's no point in arguing with either of you.  You claim that others cannot acknowledge the benefits of this outstanding A77 whiz-bang camera.  I have acknowledged that phase detect AF would be very appealing for video shooters however the loss of 1/2 stop light due to the mirror (which you are hell bent on claiming only 1/3 stop: Light loss in A77 mirror exactly measured - Dyxum forums) and the inherent delays of an EVF would prevent most photographers from being interested.  The hypocrisy comes with the fact that YOU are the one that can't seem to acknowledge it's flaws... which are many.



Just to let you know, EVF has no delay when viewing things through the VF. The issue is the lag when you shoot in burst. Even you timed your frame when you do the shot with OVF, the greater shutter lag in DSLR still delay the capture. Again, it's about knowing your camera and adapt a technique. You better know your stuff before posting like that. 

This 1/3 stop light loss discussion is over. It is proven that even with that issue, a77 iQ is better than most camera on the market with noise level as good as the 7D. Again, 7D is a good camera right?
I suggest you go back to earlier pages and start reading. You are late to the party


----------



## argieramos

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> I am not implying the Nikon is a bad system. They have had the best image quality for some time. I just saying Sony is as just as good. Sony is not a fly by night company and a commented to the DSLR market. They are innovative and think outside the box. I doubt Sony will ever have equal shares in the market one reason being Nikon has been around longer and have a lot of people tied to the system.If you look at the DXO marks there's not enough difference in the a77 and D7000 to worry about. Give Sony five more years and see what the a99 looks like.



Nikon is good. Just these fanboys giving Nikon bad image. If it wasn't for the Sony sensor, Nikon D7000 wouldn't be in the top APS-C camera in terms of IQ and Noise performance. (NEX 5n,a580,D7000,K-5)
But Canon? They're terrible hehehe


----------



## unpopular

I don't think the a99 is five years out, its it?

I am starting to agree though that Canon's line is starting to look just a bit stale. They've understandably been the top dog for so long that I think they've started to fall behind some.

And what's up with SLT users and dogs?


----------



## argieramos

Derrel said:
			
		

> Just a point of clarification for skieur: I do not believe that I have referred to "toy features" in any of my posts in this thread; now, skieur you keep stating that I have referred to "toy" features on the Sony A77...I would like to see an example of that in a post that "I" have made using that exact language. Good luck finding it.
> 
> Anyway...the people who want a Sony A77 can buy one any time they feel like it: Best Buy, and Fry's Electronics, and other big box retailers, have boatloads of Sony A77's in-stock and ready for customers to come in and snap up! The camera is available wherever fine TV sets, stereos, and DVD players are sold. I called my local Best Buy tonight, and was told they had six A77's in-stock...I asked if I could get a Nikon D7000...nope...sold out...and that the next D7000 shipment would likely sell out the day it came in. Anyway, I am, like roughly 88 percent of the entire d-slr market, committed to cameras made by other companies besides Sony (I am a Nikon AND a Canon d-slr user). Best of luck with your Sony cameras and Zeiss/Cosina lenses. The Tamron/Sony 28-75 f/2.8 is one of the better lenses for walk-around, outdoor use. If you want the lens with the Sony-style rubber, it's available; it is also available for A-mount with the Tamron brand name on it.
> 
> The ODDEST thing about this entire A77 love-fest is that I do not think that there has been even ONE mention of the only real advantage Sony has over Canon and Nikon, and that is their in-body stabilization system, like the one Pentax and Samsung both use. All this talk, over 30 pages' worth, about the viewfinder and the sensor and the A77's 12 FPS burst rate, but no discussion of the in-body sensor shift technology that helps steady the shaky hands of Sony users.
> 
> Well, like Popular Photograph's Michael McNamara said, "wait and see what Canon and Nikon come out with."



You know Derrel, if you really are an "accomplished photographer" you wouldn't say some fanboyism things and stupid lies. Those big stores that you mentioned barely stocks alpha system and accesorries. A77 is very hard to find right now. Give me that number of bestbuy. 
You called your local bestbuy and they told you they have 6 in-stock? Why would they tell you that? Were you asking for a77? lol. My local best buy, fry, Sears, or even Adorama and B&H have no stocks. C'mon, give me the numbers lol..

As an "accomplished photographer", you should know that  this debate is nonsense.
A camera is only as good as the person behinds it.


----------



## Derrel




----------



## cosmonaut

Well I can tell you first hand the a77 focuses faster than my Olympus E5 with the 12-60 mm.


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:


> Sony being sony tries to make everything proprietary so I would doubt any parts are.  The funny thing though is that even though sony supplied the sensor to Nikon, Nikon was able to do BETTER with it than sony was!  The A55 uses the same sensor (I believe) and look how much better the D7000 performs with the SAME sensor.



You're also comparing an apple to orange. Yes, a55 and D7000 uses the same sensor, and so are the a580 and Pentax K-5. The a580 and D7000 scored equal overall in the lab test of DXoMark. It is also not about the sensor, processor also makes difference. You better educate yourself more


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> It is also not about the sensor, processor also makes difference.



Like compensating for less signal at the sensor?


----------



## argieramos

unpopular said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not about the sensor, processor also makes difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like compensating for less signal at the sensor?
Click to expand...


Ask your doctor


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, ENGLISH FAIL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol. Oh ok. You can't beat me in this thread that is why you are trying to attack me in a different way hahaha! You are being desperate now bro lol. Your way of attacking has no effect on me. Try harder.  You didn't see me making fun of you when you said "DO YOU GO DO SCHOOL?" lol
> You may speak more fluent than I am, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a dumbass who gives corny jokes and lame attacks. This ain't english class you f0ol. You are the only one who is complaining here. I guess your limitation of understanding things is not as good as I thought. Hehehe!!!
Click to expand...


I still can't understand anything your saying?????? Again, ENGLISH FAIL. You write badly written gibberish.. and you still look like the sort of person I could 'knock out' with a flick of my finger. So end of discussion!


----------



## unpopular

argieramos said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is also not about the sensor, processor also makes difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like compensating for less signal at the sensor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask your doctor
Click to expand...


I am not sure why his opinion would matter (careful, bro. I wouldn't go there if I were you. not with me anyway.)


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:


> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, ENGLISH FAIL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol. Oh ok. You can't beat me in this thread that is why you are trying to attack me in a different way hahaha! You are being desperate now bro lol. Your way of attacking has no effect on me. Try harder.  You didn't see me making fun of you when you said "DO YOU GO DO SCHOOL?" lol
> You may speak more fluent than I am, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a dumbass who gives corny jokes and lame attacks. This ain't english class you f0ol. You are the only one who is complaining here. I guess your limitation of understanding things is not as good as I thought. Hehehe!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't understand anything your saying?????? Again, ENGLISH FAIL. You write badly written gibberish.. and you still look like the sort of person I could 'knock out' with a flick of my finger. So end of discussion!
Click to expand...


Because you're a dumbass that's why hahaha.. 
*"I still can't understand anything your saying?" *-- _*your*_ saying? And a question mark?  Talks about writing properly bwuahahaha!!!!
I am doing better than you loser. You can't change that hehehe  You fail so hard lol

_*"So end of discussion! "*_-- you're chickening out?
Knock me out? They say the weakest dogs bark the loudest.


----------



## Nikon_Josh

argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have 3 degrees aswell now do you? My my my... you have achieved so much haven't you?? hahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> Your sentence construction is terrible.
Click to expand...

 


argieramos said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argieramos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. Oh ok. You can't beat me in this thread that is why you are trying to attack me in a different way hahaha! You are being desperate now bro lol. Your way of attacking has no effect on me. Try harder.  You didn't see me making fun of you when you said "DO YOU GO DO SCHOOL?" lol
> You may speak more fluent than I am, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a dumbass who gives corny jokes and lame attacks. This ain't english class you f0ol. You are the only one who is complaining here. I guess your limitation of understanding things is not as good as I thought. Hehehe!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still can't understand anything your saying?????? Again, ENGLISH FAIL. You write badly written gibberish.. and you still look like the sort of person I could 'knock out' with a flick of my finger. So end of discussion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're a dumbass that's why hahaha..
> *"I still can't understand anything your saying?" *-- _*your*_ saying? And a question mark?  Talks about writing properly bwuahahaha!!!!
> I am doing better than you loser. You can't change that hehehe  You fail so hard lol
> 
> _*"So end of discussion! "*_-- you're chickening out?
> Knock me out? They say the weakest dogs bark the loudest.
Click to expand...


 Just looked at your photo again internet thug! From now on, I will only answer to men who look like men and you most certainly don't! :lmao:

Actually, I won't have the joy of having to respond to anything you ever have to say again 'Lady boy', as you are now on ignore, smart little boy's like you are made for the ignore button! Thank you for the interesting conversation though! As derrel just stated with the video he posted, arguing with you is very similar to arguing with a Spitting Goat. Enjoy your life! :thumbup:


----------



## Omofo

unpopular said:


> And what's up with SLT users and dogs?


Some one posted a dog action shot and stated that the A77 couldn't focus fast enough to produce the same shot.


----------



## argieramos

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> Just looked at your photo again internet thug! From now on, I will only answer to men who look like men and you most certainly don't! :lmao:
> 
> Actually, I won't have the joy of having to respond to anything you ever have to say again 'Lady boy', as you are now on ignore, smart little boy's like you are made for the ignore button! Thank you for the interesting conversation though! As derrel just stated with the video he posted, arguing with you is very similar to arguing with a Spitting Goat. Enjoy your life! :thumbup:



If I know, your face look disgusting. You're just mad because I didn't respond to your private message, homo. lol

So ignore me if you want. I don't give a damn, chicken. lol.. You got owned by me, so cry to the side and leave this thread to straight people.  Bwuahahaha!!!!

PS: Stop sending me private message you dirty old pedophile lol


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> ""Sony has, once again, radically changed the world of DSLRs with its A77. Plus, it has done so without compromises in the shooting experience or in image quality. The A77 now reigns supreme over APS-C format DSLRs. Neither Canon's EOS 7D nor Nikon's D300s can match the A77's AF speed or resolution. While the Canon 7D does beat the A77 in its noise performance and holds more resolution at the highest ISOs, the A77 ultimately beats it for the overall package, including the video-shooting experience and the versatility of the articulated LCD.
> Seasoned photographers with extensive lens collections will likely have a hard time deciding if they should switch to Sony, especially if they've taken up video seriously. If this describes you, we'd advise you wait and see how Canon and Nikon react to the A77 before making up your mind.
> We have to admit that we see this as a serious shakeup in the camera industry. For the first time, a camera without an optical finder can deliver the level of performance that we've all come to expect from an eye-level framing device. Furthermore, you can use it to shoot video, change menu settings, and overlay a variety of gridlines, even a leveling indicator.
> Add to that that the A77 can match the burst capabilities of its competitors, while offering a limited 12-fps burst mode. Plus, the camera has the best automatic panorama stitching we've seen, and the Handheld Twilight mode significantly reduces noise in low-light images of still subjects."
> 
> This reviewer by the way Derrel is suggesting that Nikon and Canon will probably wait and see as I predicted in my earlier post and then perhaps copy what you guys call "toy features".
> 
> skieur




I thought it was not classed as an SLR, i would not switch to Sony


----------



## mjhoward

Where's a moderator or admin when you need one.  This circus we call skeiur and argie has gone on long enough.


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy shot? Those dogs are relatively small and very fast. I wouldn't say it was an 'easy' shot. Timing that shot with the delay of live view (even if small delay) would be difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This dog is faster. Notice the sharpness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, an easy shot for a Sony camera.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



That dog is not running fast you can tell by its positioning, i have the same dog


----------



## gsgary

cosmonaut said:


> I just checked Adorama, B&H and Amazon no a77s is stock, neither the new lenses. I expect the same is true for the NEX7 I will not own a camera without in body IS because like I said. Nikon glass is to expensive. I am very happy with my Sony and the added features is a bonus to a superb tool. The menu is a dream to navigate and use.  If you want to talk toy cameras take a look at the N1. One has to get big name actors to sell a camera with inferior IQ and real toy features. Yes the are flying off the shelf too. Just because a big tiime actor is pushing them along a little. The Nikon 1 is a great camera if you like to shoot in AE or program mode, manual controls are buried in the menu and even Olympus has a sensor bigger than 10mpix. Also better IQ. The NEX3 has better IQ than the Nikon 1 and it's two upgrades behind the NEX 7. I don't think in need worry about Sonys future. Nikon and Canon are going to set back and rely on there old technology and the world is going to pass them by and they will be playing catch up to everyone else just like they are in the mirrorless area.
> I expected more from Nikon and will put my toy NEX 7 up against the Nikon 1 any day. Yes I am waiting, to see what amazing new technology the deep pocketed Sony people come up with next. It's already happening just look at the D4. It's not to much of an upgrade to the dated D3 and Sony made its sensor. I wonder how many Nikon parts the a77 has in it?
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a point of clarification for skieur: I do not believe that I have referred to "toy features" in any of my posts in this thread; now, skieur you keep stating that I have referred to "toy" features on the Sony A77...I would like to see an example of that in a post that "I" have made using that exact language. Good luck finding it.Anyway...the people who want a Sony A77 can buy one any time they feel like it: Best Buy, and Fry's Electronics, and other big box retailers, have boatloads of Sony A77's in-stock and ready for customers to come in and snap up! The camera is available wherever fine TV sets, stereos, and DVD players are sold. I called my local Best Buy tonight, and was told they had six A77's in-stock...I asked if I could get a Nikon D7000...nope...sold out...and that the next D7000 shipment would likely sell out the day it came in. Anyway, I am, like roughly 88 percent of the entire d-slr market, committed to cameras made by other companies besides Sony (I am a Nikon AND a Canon d-slr user). Best of luck with your Sony cameras and Zeiss/Cosina lenses. The Tamron/Sony 28-75 f/2.8 is one of the better lenses for walk-around, outdoor use. If you want the lens with the Sony-style rubber, it's available; it is also available for A-mount with the Tamron brand name on it.The ODDEST thing about this entire A77 love-fest is that I do not think that there has been even ONE mention of the only real advantage Sony has over Canon and Nikon, and that is their in-body stabilization system, like the one Pentax and Samsung both use. All this talk, over 30 pages' worth, about the viewfinder and the sensor and the A77's 12 FPS burst rate, but no discussion of the in-body sensor shift technology that helps steady the shaky hands of Sony users.Well, like Popular Photograph's Michael McNamara said, "wait and see what Canon and Nikon come out with."
Click to expand...



But will you put it up again the Panasonic Lumix GX1 because in UK pro mag this month it came out top but iSony NEX7 equaled Nikon V1


----------



## argieramos

mjhoward said:
			
		

> Where's a moderator or admin when you need one.  This circus we call skeiur and argie has gone on long enough.



Dont put me on your shoes. Everything I say here are facts. Everything you say are BS. My behavior in here, is just the reflection of yours. This thread is going to be better, if you stop talking nonsense from now on.


----------



## kassad

mjhoward said:


> Where's a moderator or admin when you need one.  This circus we call skeiur and argie has gone on long enough.



I agree.   It's like some sort of horrible car accident I keep trying to leave but I keep coming back to see the progress of this circus.


----------



## cosmonaut

Just how many frickin pictures you want to take before the buffer fills up, what the heck you going to be shooting?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## o hey tyler

cosmonaut said:


> Just how many frickin pictures you want to take before the buffer fills up, what the heck you going to be shooting?
> 
> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="
> 
> 
> 
> " frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Well, I'd want to take more than 16 shots consecutively, without the buffer slowing down to 1 fps.


----------



## cosmonaut

Well you aren't comparing equal cameras either considering the Canon cost twice as much, I guess he paid so much he couldn't afford a lens? Show me the 7D.


----------



## mjhoward

cosmonaut said:


> Well you aren't comparing equal cameras either considering the Canon cost twice as much, I guess he paid so much he couldn't afford a lens? Show me the 7D.


----------



## gsgary

cosmonaut said:


> Well you aren't comparing equal cameras either considering the Canon cost twice as much, I guess he paid so much he couldn't afford a lens? Show me the 7D.



Reminds me of an ACDC song "Shot Down In Flames"
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Still-Life/Still-Life-1/i-G3gwv9f/0/L/IMG6884-L.jpg


----------



## cosmonaut

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## cosmonaut

mjhoward said:


> cosmonaut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you aren't comparing equal cameras either considering the Canon cost twice as much, I guess he paid so much he couldn't afford a lens? Show me the 7D.
Click to expand...


 I see that that's a trick now. Watch the above Bloody Hell video, the a77 will do the same, just much faster........


----------



## cosmonaut

That 7D sounds like a tractor running.LOL


----------



## Overread

33 pages is more than enough I think - esp as things are getting very derailed and people are getting very riled up over nothing. Start a new, thread if you so desire to continue debating about the a77.


----------

