Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
bfitzgerald wrote:$2000 isn't really affordable not by a lot of people's definition of the term.
OP talk about "professionals". If you make money with your equipment (in Europe, USA and some Asia countries) you can afford the A850
bfitzgerald wrote:I'll repeat it I think Sony badly need that A7xx replacement and they also need a really good not cut down mid range D90 ish body. Folks would flock to Sony if only they had the put more effort in.
I agree. But A700 was in between d300 and d90 (without the video) So we are talking about a higher A7xx and a A6xx type of cameras?
Contrast wrote: This appears to be a trend, like dumbing down the camera, that is designed to appeal to only the novice and (I guess therefore) mass consumer market. it is a pity that it isn't at the moment really balanced out by affordable models in the pro market.
I think the A850 for 2000 US$ affordable...
The A850 is a nice Camera, however it is $3499 Australian here, body only rrp. Given the average wage here is only 69k pa (before deductions I think) that is huge.. Whilst it is cheaper than the equivalent full frame Canon I'd have to really consider the 550d or 7d on features / price as a sensible alternative.
Contrast wrote: it is a pity that it isn't at the moment really balanced out by affordable models in the pro market.
And I answered:
pakodominguez wrote:I think the A850 for 2000 US$ affordable...
Contrast wrote:The A850 is a nice Camera, however it is $3499 Australian here, body only rrp. Given the average wage here is only 69k pa (before deductions I think) that is huge.. Whilst it is cheaper than the equivalent full frame Canon I'd have to really consider the 550d or 7d on features / price as a sensible alternative.
Now I don't understand what kind of "professionals" you were talking about...
In other hand, DK did a calculation about the cost of professional equipment in the 70s and now and equipment now was "cheap" David, can you find that article?
It is probably my fault in the first place that this thread has wandered so far off topic. I won't add to that by giving another IMO (re: what is my definition of a professional). Suffiice it to say for me personally the a390 doesn't cut it. Nor (again personally) does any other current alpha, for whatever reason;- features/capability/compatability/price/store outlet presence/ready availabilty of accessories/support. I will be waiting to the next round of model releases before committing further to one brand.
Contrast wrote:It is probably my fault in the first place that this thread has wandered so far off topic. I won't add to that by giving another IMO (re: what is my definition of a professional). Suffiice it to say for me personally the a390 doesn't cut it. Nor (again personally) does any other current alpha, for whatever reason;- features/capability/compatability/price/store outlet presence/ready availabilty of accessories/support. I will be waiting to the next round of model releases before committing further to one brand.
I do totally understand your point of view. Sony is taking too much time for introduce the new A7xx (I hope they'll bring a killer camera!) Buying an A700 now is not a good idea, unless you get it for really cheap. Otherwise it is a (fantastic) 3+ years old camera and I believe it's sensor provides a wonderful quality, even if only 12MP.
For the record, I mentioned the a700 because it offers a pro-level flash sync speed of 1/250 sec, as well as a dedicated PC port on the body. I do not know what the actual sync speeds are of the Canon products you mentioned, but they have a record of over-promising on that front. Sync speed is one of the most important specifications for your camera in studio photography. It allows you to control how much ambient light gets into your frame, versus your studio strobes. Higher speeds let you cut the ambient light to a minimum.
KevinBarrett wrote:For the record, I mentioned the a700 because it offers a pro-level flash sync speed of 1/250 sec, as well as a dedicated PC port on the body. I do not know what the actual sync speeds are of the Canon products you mentioned, but they have a record of over-promising on that front. Sync speed is one of the most important specifications for your camera in studio photography. It allows you to control how much ambient light gets into your frame, versus your studio strobes. Higher speeds let you cut the ambient light to a minimum.
That is certainly worth checking out, thanks for bringing that up. I'll be interested to see what the a700 replacement does, I wouldn't go secondhand nor below 17 or 18 mp now. I'd probably need to check the web out on my fellow students camera capabilities and sync speed for comparison, oddly enough they aren't a talkative bunch when it comes to camera gear. It may be an age thing, I'm a lot older than the rest.
Yes bulky, slow and unrefined as compared to a Lumix G2 is what they were saying. But seriously who cares what Sony does in this bracket, at least I for one only care what they do in the A100, KM5D through A700 spec. area.
What does bother me more is the the trend towards higher ISO's at the expense of low ISO, apparently, the A850, A500 and A550 all don't have ISO100 anymore, that's the base ISO from which all studio and flash/ambient light balance, and flash power angle of coverage vs. distance is calculated from and GN tables etc. are compiled from.
Greg
The A850 does have ISO 100, but in fact no DSLRs have had ISO for ages. Digital sensors really can't do ISO 100 easily, the ISO 100 settings are normally 'over saturated' exposure and the native true speed of the sensors tends to be in the ISO 200-400 range.
By using 200 as the base, Sony simply removes an oversaturated exposure level, and improves the apparent dynamic range marks for the camera.
I now have 4X neutral density filters for all my lenses and the NEX-5 zoom is fitted with one most of the time.
I'm pretty sure the 10mp CCD is base ISO of 100..in fact I'm dead sure DR is def better at ISO 100 than 200. On the 6mp CCD that's harder I might bet that ISO 200 is base level for that sensor..not certain but it would seem that way (D50 I think was ISO 200 and up no ISO 100)
CMOS ones seem to be ISO 200, but I'd still like to see an ISO 100 there native or not.
Yeah we need ISO 100 here in the tropics, why should photographers be forced too use ND's? ISO 100 should be mandatory in a camera. I know the KM5D has ISO Lo80 but that was for some special purpose zone matching situations or such from memory, I never really got around to experimenting with it so far to see if it was any better than ISO 100 for general use.
Greg
