Photoclubalpha

It just does not make sense; more noise than Nikon, etc. I think that Sony's been checking these forums and litened to the critics, who want no noise reduction, etc. I think that by now they realize that they have to listen to their own experts and pro photographers, not some forum freaks. So I believe that what we have experienced so far will not happen again and Sony will provide stellar low light performance, and hopefully better kit lenses to match their new higher MP cameras.

Didn't they have that chance between the A100 and A700 then again between the A700 and the A300/350/200? you may be right but 2 points. they are in 3rd plce so they have been sucessfull with what they've been doing so you really can scream at hem too hard. and these board offer them a lot of good information they could use to their advantage. and often letting the engineers have their way is not the best thing for the marketplace. Putting out a low noise camera that was on par of beter than Nikon according to the testing methods used by the sites that generate the discussion may eem like sacrilidge to the engineers but may be necessary. the Vid card guys all play this same game. tweak the hardware to blow the tests away and get good reviews. If what I have been rading in theses forums is true then this might alreay be happening to a certain extent.

You would think that since the A100 Sony would've thrown the entire bank at getting at LEAST Nikon low noise level quality software to process there images. By now, we shouldve seen Sony be at the number 2 spot because they got aggressive with producing tools that make photographers salivate. For example the A700 is the equivalent to the Nikon D2x (in my opinion). The A900 is the in-between of the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D300 (cant say its like the D3 or D3x because the noise level is just an expanded version of the A700). However I am glad they refrain from callin the A900 pro. I guess another FF or Larger than FF DSLR is in the works that will be the Pro model will probably have the low noise we all desire. Well until that comes out I'm maxed out with my A700 at ISO 1000.

actually I'm not all that interested in high ISO. 1600 works fine on the A700 v4 and I get great shots and prints anytime i've gone that fast so no complaints here. I think they spent a lot of resources getting LV to work properly and good for them, thats what sells cameras to new users. at some point they will have to get as good as nikon at noise I just think they have bigger fish to fry in the mean time.

Considering that Sony had 0 market share a few years ago and are at the #3 spot now is amazing. I hadn't tracked Minolta since they became KM, but I recall them always being #3 in the old SLR film days, so I guess we have to consider that. Maybe someone here knows how much market share KM + Sony had just before Sony bought out KM's camera division?

Anyway, Javelin is right in that Sony needs first and foremost to add market share. Otherwise they'll never be able to recoup R&D costs enough to put resources into new features that don't have as much payback. Keep your eye on the Sony Survey thread I started. I was able to get back into it and will be posting a more detailed synopsis of it soon. They ask fairly detailed questions on what features you use or don't, how well they're implemented and what features you would like in future models.

Dusty

Javelin wrote:actually I'm not all that interested in high ISO. 1600 works fine on the A700 v4 and I get great shots and prints anytime i've gone that fast so no complaints here. I think they spent a lot of resources getting LV to work properly and good for them, thats what sells cameras to new users. at some point they will have to get as good as nikon at noise I just think they have bigger fish to fry in the mean time.

Dusty wrote:Considering that Sony had 0 market share a few years ago and are at the #3 spot now is amazing. I hadn't tracked Minolta since they became KM, but I recall them always being #3 in the old SLR film days, so I guess we have to consider that. Maybe someone here knows how much market share KM + Sony had just before Sony bought out KM's camera division?

Anyway, Javelin is right in that Sony needs first and foremost to add market share. Otherwise they'll never be able to recoup R&D costs enough to put resources into new features that don't have as much payback. Keep your eye on the Sony Survey thread I started. I was able to get back into it and will be posting a more detailed synopsis of it soon. They ask fairly detailed questions on what features you use or don't, how well they're implemented and what features you would like in future models.

Dusty

These are the most intelligent points I've heard in the "ISO race," yet. Sony had to be competitive in the area that consumers were demanding when they got into the game, and consumers wanted pixels. Now the game is ISO and DR, and still for the most part, the pixel wars have not petered out. I think Sony is well equipped to meet the challenges before them in this new race.

Javelin wrote:actually I'm not all that interested in high ISO. 1600 works fine on the A700 v4 and I get great shots and prints anytime

If only they could get iso1600 on the a350 has good has the a700 v4, I would be happy has wel

stevecim wrote:If only they could get iso1600 on the a350 has good has the a700 v4, I would be happy has wel

So far, I'm happy with it at 1600. Just remember I'm a recent convert from film, which is fairly grainy at 1600. Also remember that the 350 is about 1/2 the cost of the 700, w/ 2MP more resolution.

Not that I wouldn't be happy with a firmware update to help!

Dusty