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.
Greg Beetham wrote:Actually I haven't bougt a single Sony lens, because of numerous reasons, (Macro flash debacle brought to us by Sony is one), one of the other reasons is Sony aren't consistant, one never knows what is going to be a dead end in 6 months or not so why would anyone risk investing in Sony gear...going by the discussions over at dpr there are quite a few in the same frame of mind.
The bottom line = lost sales for Sony.
Greg
I can see that being such a big spender sony will be devastated to lose your business...
It's clear that sony is taking a non-traditional approach to imaging. You have a clear choice if you don't like it. Personally I think sony are making a great decision that will guarantee minolta lens use far into the future, and which will greatly improve the overal choice consumers have for photographic solutions. Unlucky for you if you don't like it, but the die is cast now.
mike2008 wrote:
Have you ever looked through a nikon OVF when the camera is turned off. Looks very dark because the aperture is closed down.
I guess thinks like lens aberrations, internal reflections in the mirror box and double reflections from filters simply don't affect your images. You're a lucky guy. Or maybe simply a little ignorant of the limitations and undesirable features inherent in any imaging system. By the way don't diss people at dpr so casually, I know it makes you feel good but it makes you look like a bit of a fool, to be honest.
Nope have to admit I haven't looked through a Nikon at all....yet. Yep and with an SLT you get all of the above AND mirror distortion as well.
Greg
mike2008 wrote:
How can a motor replace a horse for crying out loud. A horse and cart is how man was meant to travel. Plus at high speeds you can't breathe.
Ha ha good one mike2008, this discussion is about choice of whether one wants a horse and cart, or not, they way it is now you can choose among a couple of carts only.
Greg
No, before dslt and nex all we had was one style of camera. Now we have three. What's the problem? If you have no sony lenses then it's not like you have this massive unamortized investment to lose if you sell on ebay. Just switch to canikontax, what's the big deal?
mike2008 wrote:I can see that being such a big spender sony will be devastated to lose your business...
It's clear that sony is taking a non-traditional approach to imaging. You have a clear choice if you don't like it. Personally I think sony are making a great decision that will guarantee minolta lens use far into the future, and which will greatly improve the overal choice consumers have for photographic solutions. Unlucky for you if you don't like it, but the die is cast now.
Actually I don't care if Sony are devastated or not. I'm talking about common sense.
Greg
mike2008 wrote:
Have you ever looked through a nikon OVF when the camera is turned off. Looks very dark because the aperture is closed down.
I guess thinks like lens aberrations, internal reflections in the mirror box and double reflections from filters simply don't affect your images. You're a lucky guy. Or maybe simply a little ignorant of the limitations and undesirable features inherent in any imaging system. By the way don't diss people at dpr so casually, I know it makes you feel good but it makes you look like a bit of a fool, to be honest.
Nope have to admit I haven't looked through a Nikon at all....yet. Yep and with an SLT you get all of the above AND mirror distortion as well.
Greg
Yes, and the aberrations created by the SLTY mirror are so bad that the IQ from the camera has been rewarded with awards from practically all review sites and in my personal experience produces better IQ than the A550. So go figure. Perhaps these distortions are more in your mind than reality; why not try actually picking an A55 up and using it for a month as opposed to fretting about how bad it might be.
mike2008 wrote:
No, before dslt and nex all we had was one style of camera. Now we have three. What's the problem? If you have no sony lenses then it's not like you have this massive unamortized investment to lose if you sell on ebay. Just switch to canikontax, what's the big deal?
Again it's a matter of common sense, I can still use the lenses and camera I have, but I don't have an option of an A750 in the future...so far, unless things change, that's what I'm talking about. Maybe I should be a good little Sony fan and rush off and buy a bunch of Zeiss lenses and a FF camera....?
Greg
mike2008 wrote:
No, before dslt and nex all we had was one style of camera. Now we have three. What's the problem? If you have no sony lenses then it's not like you have this massive unamortized investment to lose if you sell on ebay. Just switch to canikontax, what's the big deal?
Again it's a matter of common sense, I can still use the lenses and camera I have, but I don't have an option of an A750 in the future...so far, unless things change, that's what I'm talking about. Maybe I should be a good little Sony fan and rush off and buy a bunch of Zeiss lenses and a FF camera....?
Greg
You should do what you want. The fact is you're out in the cold, and have to make a choice. Sony will not be giving you an A750, and all the whingeing in the world won't change that. I'm sorry, I can see it's irritating, but at least your investment in minolta glass still has some value so there's something to be positive about.
mike2008 wrote:
Yes, and the aberrations created by the SLTY mirror are so bad that the IQ from the camera has been rewarded with awards from practically all review sites and in my personal experience produces better IQ than the A550. So go figure. Perhaps these distortions are more in your mind than reality; why not try actually picking an A55 up and using it for a month as opposed to fretting about how bad it might be.
mike2008 I never said anywhere the image quality of the SLT was no good, it's actually very good, I've said so in the past. The design IS capable of producing non existing artifacts, meaning it is possible, not all the time, but SOMETIMES, that is something I don't want or need in a camera period.
Greg
mike2008 wrote:
Yes, and the aberrations created by the SLTY mirror are so bad that the IQ from the camera has been rewarded with awards from practically all review sites and in my personal experience produces better IQ than the A550. So go figure. Perhaps these distortions are more in your mind than reality; why not try actually picking an A55 up and using it for a month as opposed to fretting about how bad it might be.
mike2008 I never said anywhere the image quality of the SLT was no good, it's actually very good, I've said so in the past. The design IS capable of producing non existing artifacts, meaning it is possible, not all the time, but SOMETIMES, that is something I don't want or need in a camera period.
Greg
The problem with such absolutism is that it implies you should immediately trash your current camera as it too can produce artifacts under specific conditions. Or are you claiming that all images you make are optically perfect at the pixel level?
mike2008 wrote:
You should do what you want. The fact is you're out in the cold, and have to make a choice. Sony will not be giving you an A750, and all the whingeing in the world won't change that. I'm sorry, I can see it's irritating, but at least your investment in minolta glass still has some value so there's something to be positive about.
If when the day arrives that all my camers don't work any more, I'll either sell my lenses then or see what Sony is making at that point, maybe sooner if Sony comes out with something I like.
Greg
ps. If no one bothers to point out that we aren't all singing and dancing in the streets about having a choice of one, Sony will never take any notice...hmmm they do that now... but anyway at least some of us tried to get their attention.
mike2008 wrote:
The problem with such absolutism is that it implies you should immediately trash your current camera as it too can produce artifacts under specific conditions. Or are you claiming that all images you make are optically perfect at the pixel level?
Nothing is perfect, but at least moving the dang mirror out of the way gives the photo a fighting chance of being better than what a SLT can do. If Sony don't hobble the equivalent DSLR to make sure the SLT wins, that is.
Greg
mike2008 wrote:
You should do what you want. The fact is you're out in the cold, and have to make a choice. Sony will not be giving you an A750, and all the whingeing in the world won't change that. I'm sorry, I can see it's irritating, but at least your investment in minolta glass still has some value so there's something to be positive about.
If when the day arrives that all my camers don't work any more, I'll either sell my lenses then or see what Sony is making at that point, maybe sooner if Sony comes out with something I like.
Greg
ps. If no one bothers to point out that we aren't all singing and dancing in the streets about having a choice of one, Sony will never take any notice...hmmm they do that now... but anyway at least some of us tried to get their attention.
Do you honestly think that sony didn't think through the implications of the radical new strategy they were taking? The thing which screwed the pooch for traditional dslr on sony was the bottom line; dslt and nex got them more sales and positive reviews than anything they'd ever done in DSLR. All the forums comments in the world don't mean anything in comparison with the sales numbers, like 'em or not.
mike2008 wrote:
The problem with such absolutism is that it implies you should immediately trash your current camera as it too can produce artifacts under specific conditions. Or are you claiming that all images you make are optically perfect at the pixel level?
Nothing is perfect, but at least moving the dang mirror out of the way gives the photo a fighting chance of being better than what a SLT can do. If Sony don't hobble the equivalent DSLR to make sure the SLT wins, that is.
Greg
You seem to be able to accept imperfection in a DSLR but not in a DSLT. I have actually used both systems quite a bit and can clearly state that you are grossly, grossly exaggerating the magnitude of the issue to a point which is simply bizarre and twisted. You are being irrational.
mike2008 wrote:
Do you honestly think that sony didn't think through the implications of the radical new strategy they were taking? The thing which screwed the pooch for traditional dslr on sony was the bottom line; dslt and nex got them more sales and positive reviews than anything they'd ever done in DSLR. All the forums comments in the world don't mean anything in comparison with the sales numbers, like 'em or not.
Which makes me wonder how hard they tried to make a great DSLR, they have made some good ones sure, but not an outstanding bug free one with all the working features that a great one should have.
Greg
mike2008 wrote:
You seem to be able to accept imperfection in a DSLR but not in a DSLT. I have actually used both systems quite a bit and can clearly state that you are grossly, grossly exaggerating the magnitude of the issue to a point which is simply bizarre and twisted. You are being irrational.
Nope, quite rational actually, the issue of the artifacts is as I have admitted quite minor in the broad spectrum of photo taking, I just don't necessarily want a camera that can produce them even if it is on rare occasions. My objection is really associated with astrophotography, where accuracy is essential, the SLT might even produce error free astrophotograps on most occasions, but what if on an occasion there is an asteroid lurking in an camera produced artifact? and you are the only one who photographed that tiny section of space?
Greg
