Photoclubalpha

sorry to hear of your troubles.
If you were in the UK I would tell you just to phone Pencoed direct but I don't know if that is where cameras from Eire go?

Oh, I'm sure that it will sell - I just don't think that it will sell well. I agree that there are gaps in the A-mount lineup & imo a 70-200/4 wouldn't be a priority especially as for Canon & Nikon FF is under 5% of their body sales & I'm sure that in Sony it's even less. If they were to...

By your theory Sony can't compete across the board on lenses as they don't have the volume so should they shut up shop? Of course not, but they need to be selective about what they do develop & produce - & that's even ignoring Sony's apparent lens capacity issues. Lenses are only high margi...

Canon manage to sell their one under £500 so sorry I don't buy the "can't be done for a profit argument" Canon will have something like 10x the volume & of course by now all the basic R&D cost (done at 1990s costs) will have been written down. By comparison the new Canon 70-200 IS...

bfitzgerald wrote:They could easily make a 70-200mm f4 (or new beercan) for half that price

not & make a profit.
Even the 3rd party manufacturers with a higher potential volume per basic design can't do that.

They have released the A99 FF and per SAR delaying further A-mount FF cameras focusing instead on FF NEX with E-mount. At the same time they release an expensive 300mm F2.8 lens (for whom?). for those who would use the A99 (& A77)? From what I understand they could already sell every 300/2.8 th...

Sony might not have the volume, but they're also missing out on potential sales. Maybe they could charge £1300 for a 70-200mm f2.8 v the £1500 for the Canon IS one. To charge as much for a non IS lens seems like a poor way to promote mount adoption. This could be said on other lenses in the range t...

classiccameras wrote:I'm only guessing here, but do you need a lens with built in VC when you are using a Sony body that already has built in IS.

No, you don't need it but it's nice to have the option for which as 1 or the other can perform better under different circumstances.

the Sony wins for build, quietness of operation, slightly wider & in-body support e.g. lens correction. That of course can also be done in PP especially if shooting RAW but if Sony has things like AF-D planned to trickle down to APS-C on future bodies then the 16-50 has a far, far higher chance ...

I know Tamron get some stick for for having the same price for all their lenses ala non VC A Mount ones. But would I bet a bit nuts to suggest that Sony also benefit from not having to make VR/IS in lens, and this could "maybe" help on the prices. I don't know why Tamron remove VC from Al...

£5799 at Park Cameras. dearer than the Canon but not by much & the Canon has been out for 18 months. Sony just don't have the nos. to benefit from economies of scale on products like these - they probably order a couple hundred lenses in a batch when Canon is probably doing a couple thousand. Al...

anybody do macro with an A77 & flashes? Have the opportunity to get an A77 & grip at a decent price. 1 main use would be for macro of butterflies, dragonflies etc. Haven't really been keeping up but I'm aware that there have been complaints about both delay (not good with moving beasties) wi...

I wonder what the deal is with the Pentax Q (white) sales ranked at #8 in Japan, http://dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking I think that you will find that those sales figures are derived only from something like Amazon Japan & not for the whole Japanese market. But Japan does seem to be a...

I think that Barry meant fast as in wide aperture rather than AF speed?

1) Will I see ANY bump in IQ using the stock/kit a65 lens or Konica/Minolta lenses between the a65 and a99, should I go that route? hard question to answer without knowing exactly which lenses that you have. 2) I have read there is only a handful of compatible Sony lenses for the a99. Assuming this...