A800 Rumor

[Dusty]

You are completely clueless...if you shoot anything indoors without a flash you need 800 and above. If you shoot birds many times you need 800 or more. If you want enough DOF shooting macro or anything else at times you need 800 or more. Etc, etc, etc!

And yes, I grew up in a time where we had to pay for film, developing and printing, so I learned to take good shots w/o taking 100 of the subject. My first 35mm was an Argus C3 - which I still have! Frame rates were pretty slow, cock the shutter, set the shutter speed on the front dial - there was no read-out in the viewfinder - set the aperture - you're either guessing on exposure or you've used your hand held Weston meter - focus using a split frame viewfinder, shoot and wind via a knob.

I get more action keepers in a day with digital than you probably got in three years on film.

You must not shoot a wide range of subjects, and you must shoot very little action and low light.

Those who do should buy cameras with that in mind. I want a great, high resolution, medium cost system. Better DR, a bit lower noise above ISO400, and I'm fine.

LOL....Many of us are looking for great ISO 3200 and beyond....12MP FF easily does Alamy size and that's more resolution than most folks will ever need.

-Sonolta

Don, I think that you're completely clueless - at least to the millions of photos that were shot before we had high ISOs or fast frame rates. We used to shoot a lot of macro on Kodachrome 64. We used this thing called a tripod sometimes, but sometimes we just did hand held. We wished we had something like SSS to help! There are times I wished I had higher speed, I admit. Shooting sans flash inside the Pharaoh's tombs with 1600 ISO film was a bit tight - they only put a 40 watt bulb every block to keep the hieroglyphics from fading - but I managed. Lots of good sports photos were taken on film when 400 ISO was high speed.

If you want 3200+ ISO and fast frame rates, look for a low light sports camera. General camera users are NOT clamoring for that.

Dusty

[PhotoTraveler]

Don, it was the D700 that was tanking in price the last few months till the global situation bounced the price back up, the A900 price wasn't shifting.

You are also re-inventing history. The Canon 5D was not a low resolution body. It was a high res body. When it came out the only thing topping it was a 16MP canon 1Ds. It only became low res as new models came and it sat around getting old with Canon chopping prices left and right to where they were certainly selling at a loss. Sure, by end of life it looked like a low res body, but it wasn't designed as such. It's been long since forgotten with the 5DII out.

What you are looking for is more out of line with the market Sony can sell to than what they are currently doing. Further you are asking Sony to make a body that takes on Canon and Nikon main pro markets head on. That's a waste of money for Sony. They will attack that in time. But Sony needs to grab markets they can take over.

Canon and Nikon haven't done much with the high res pro market for medium format replacement stuff much at all. Canon had the 1Ds bodies, but not a core body to them. Both brands made gear to support it (macros, Tilt Shits (nikon caught up), but it's not a market they are pounding on. It's company suicide right now to put their efforts into Sport Shooter body and matching Sporting lenses. They need to grab the markets they can truly get. The A900 is on the right path. Zeiss lenses help. Some TS lenses, a few more studio primes, a 200mm macro, built in GPS and they can begin to own the product shot, landscape, independent pro's and so forth.

Once sony has dug in some of those markets which they can very much get into, they can attempt to launch a sport shooter body with ~4-6 SSM telephotos and such all at once.

The number of folks not buying A900s because it's not a low res body is less than those who are buying it because it's a super cheap high res body. Sony is making in roads with the Micheal Richmanns of the world right now, not people at sidelines of football games.

We don't know when Sony will bring Pro Bodies out. I no longer think it will be 09, I'm thinking it will be 2010 at the earliest. When they do it, they can bring 2 bodies and various Pro-Teles. 2010, expect something like a 16-18MP FF high speed body, and a 30-40MP high rez body to go against similar offerings from Nikon and Canon. 12MP FF nikons a thing of the past then.

[PhotoTraveler]

Don, it was the D700 that was tanking in price the last few months till the global situation bounced the price back up, the A900 price wasn't shifting.

You are also re-inventing history. The Canon 5D was not a low resolution body. It was a high res body. When it came out the only thing topping it was a 16MP canon 1Ds. It only became low res as new models came and it sat around getting old with Canon chopping prices left and right to where they were certainly selling at a loss. Sure, by end of life it looked like a low res body, but it wasn't designed as such. It's been long since forgotten with the 5DII out.

What you are looking for is more out of line with the market Sony can sell to than what they are currently doing. Further you are asking Sony to make a body that takes on Canon and Nikon main pro markets head on. That's a waste of money for Sony. They will attack that in time. But Sony needs to grab markets they can take over.

Canon and Nikon haven't done much with the high res pro market for medium format replacement stuff much at all. Canon had the 1Ds bodies, but not a core body to them. Both brands made gear to support it (macros, Tilt Shits (nikon caught up), but it's not a market they are pounding on. It's company suicide right now to put their efforts into Sport Shooter body and matching Sporting lenses. They need to grab the markets they can truly get. The A900 is on the right path. Zeiss lenses help. Some TS lenses, a few more studio primes, a 200mm macro, built in GPS and they can begin to own the product shot, landscape, independent pro's and so forth.

Once sony has dug in some of those markets which they can very much get into, they can attempt to launch a sport shooter body with ~4-6 SSM telephotos and such all at once.

The number of folks not buying A900s because it's not a low res body is less than those who are buying it because it's a super cheap high res body. Sony is making in roads with the Micheal Richmanns of the world right now, not people at sidelines of football games.

We don't know when Sony will bring Pro Bodies out. I no longer think it will be 09, I'm thinking it will be 2010 at the earliest. When they do it, they can bring 2 bodies and various Pro-Teles. 2010, expect something like a 16-18MP FF high speed body, and a 30-40MP high rez body to go against similar offerings from Nikon and Canon. 12MP FF nikons a thing of the past then.

[alphaomega]

I basically agree with Sonolta that you buy the camera system that suits your requirements and if a particular player cannot meet these requirements you change. That is what many do with cars etc. and the same should apply to camera systems. Each individual photographer has his/her own specific requirements. Mine differ from Sonolta's and others to some extent. I am retired now and have settled on APS-C. I will not join the FF crowd now. I have a specific requirement in mind if I am to replace my A700/A350 combo and that is an upgraded A700 with a +/- 16 Mp APS-C sensor with at least the A700 V. 4
higher ISO performance and a 3" LV like that found in the A350 but with the A700 OVF or larger. I shoot for Alamy and that will give me the scope to crop more without losing the quality required.
Others have other requirements. I now have so many Alpha lenses that makes it unattractive to change. In any event whatever Nikon now bring out is likely to be replicated by Sony but regrettably at a lower level of quality and performance, but so far cheaper. I think we should realise that we all have different requirements and we will never agree on a single camera to suit us all. I very much look forward to seeing new cameras with larger Mp sensors and lower noise at all ISO settings. The great time for photography has already arrived and it is down to us to exploit the opportunities our equipment now provide.

[Dusty]

We are not talking price, we are talking performance.

Well, with some of us its a price/performance trade-off. I don't have 3K to spend on a body, and neither does much of the public.

True...And 12MP FF bodies are being released today still, in-fact they are the high ISO kings.

Yep...and notice Nikon has released 12MP bodies recently, the best high ISO machines on the planet.

Then buy one, if that's what you have a need for. Obviously Sony has decided that's not what most people want.

Besides saving the mount and the single cheap FF model Sony has not done much other than jack up the KM color and high ISO JPGs, let us not forget that they use the M/KM AS/SSS system, they have no live view on the up-line models, and no video on anything, Sony needs to get with the program! I don't care if they saturate the market with a million cheapos for gosh sake! With Nikon I could have chose between the D300, D3, D3X, or D700 lately, and had the D90 as a backup or second backup with video. With Sony, for my needs, I have basically only the a700 and the a900 to choose from as a #1 camera.

Then you need to switch to Nikon. They have what you need, Sony doesn't.

They need to keep some peeps happy...many won't wait forever when the competition has what we need at a good price already.

Then go plop down $8000 for a D3X and quit complaining. That's NOT Sony's market.

Many are buying it because they are fanboys and/or they think it will make them better photographers, just because it is an a900.

-Sonolta

Sony took over from Minolta, and Minolta was never known as a Sports camera company. That belonged mainly to Nikon. Minolta was, and I believe that so far Sony has been - a price/performance leader that brings a lot of technical innovation to the camera world. Minolta was good enough for many Pros to use, but was never THE pro camera, as Nikon was.

I was the oddball in the press corps with my Minoltas, as were the guys who used Pentax or Olympus. The oddballs on the other end who used Hasselblads or Leicas were looked upon with some amount of jealousy. Canon users were just the alternate pros. Bring a Nikon or Canon, and you're probably not going to be asked for your press pass. Bring a Minolta, and anybody who knew what's what would want to see yours.

Sony is in the exact same spot today. For less than half the price of the D3x, you can get a a900. Of course, you won't be able to borrow the lenses of your buddy on the competing daily for a couple of shots, but then that's the price you pay for being the oddball.

Once again, if you want to do high speed indoor sports shoots, get a camera that's designed for that, and quit complaining that that the prosumer models aren't pro models.

Dusty

[A1000]

Quit talking about sports and cameras you clueless fool. It's quite clear you are a technical infant, you have no clue on when to use high ISO, and I am betting you have the skills and the range of a dead toad. Sony needs to release a camera similar to the D700 and that's that. Now that you have proved you don't have a clue on how to run a camera please do find another thread spew your nonsense on...

If you want to sound less like an idiot on the boards I suggest finding a threads to post on that are more your speed. It really is too bad you don't know how to properly setup a camera or read simple exif information...

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =45#p15294" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Sonolta

This is what Sonolta answered to Photo Traveler, after spamming the forum with all those pictures.



Who is the fool, the clueless, infant, dead toad, and idiot here - Sonolta's words.






a

[Dusty]

Quit talking about sports and cameras you clueless fool. It's quite clear you are a technical infant, you have no clue on when to use high ISO, and I am betting you have the skills and the range of a dead toad.
-Sonolta

Don, all you've proven is that you're flash-phobic and a basher. You have no idea what my skills are nor my body of work. I don't know of many technical infants who had photos published in books and newspapers back when everything was on film. Maybe now, because it's so easy to snap a million photos and post them somewhere where someone may want them, but back when I was doing film it was a different story.

You obviously like to do high ISO work, instead of using a tripod or flash. That's your prerogative, but there's no need to bash someone just because they don't have the same needs or techniques as you do. I'm thick skinned, so go ahead and slam me all you want, you're just proving to the world that you're a jackass, not that you're better than I am.

Dusty

[Mike-Photos]

Quit talking about sports and cameras you clueless fool. It's quite clear you are a technical infant, you have no clue on when to use high ISO, and I am betting you have the skills and the range of a dead toad. Sony needs to release a camera similar to the D700 and that's that. Now that you have proved you don't have a clue on how to run a camera please do find another thread spew your nonsense on...

If you want to sound less like an idiot on the boards I suggest finding a threads to post on that are more your speed. It really is too bad you don't know how to properly setup a camera or read simple exif information...

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =45#p15294" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-Sonolta

This is what Sonolta answered to Photo Traveler, after spamming the forum with all those pictures.



Who is the fool, the clueless, infant, dead toad, and idiot here - Sonolta's words.a

Thanks, at least I know that the posts I am not seeing anymore are still the same tone.

[Dusty]

I don't care about your antiquated shooting techniques and lack of range.

-Sonolta

Yeah. Ansel Adams used antiquated techniques and had a lack of range, too, but he'll be remembered as a great photographer, and you'll never make it there.

Then you keep telling me that I this isn't about sports shooting, yet you keep injecting sports shooting into it.

I've seen your work Don, and I like it, but that doesn't mean that only you have the proper technique. There are those of us who are happy with cameras that give great ISO 400 or 800 results, and don't want to pay for Sony to put ISO 6400000 into their cameras.

If YOU feel the need to have higher ISOs, buy the body that does what you want, and stop complaining that someone else doesn't feel the need to have that.

Dusty

[PhotoTraveler]

Don,

Sorry but posting a ton of photos and such just makes me tune you out. I don't know what you think you are doing on such post. But soon as you start posting tons of links or images, you just become a spammer yelling aimlessly and aren't making any kind of point at all.

You have still missed the point I'm trying to make to you. There is nothing wrong with the camera you want. One could show up any day, and folks would be happy, I'd be happy, just means another option. But this is unlikely as you are asking for something that in 2.5 years of Sony DSLRs is completely off their path.

Every Sony Alpha body to date has set a record for Pix/Pri (pixel per price ratio). From the first 10MP sub 1K body, first 14MP sub 1k body, first sub 3k 24MP body (heck first 24MP body, while nearly 1/3rd the price of the next closest res body). Every Sony body has gone for More Pixels, Less Price compared to the competition. What you are asking for is a body that goes completely against everything Sony has done to date.

It's not that people wouldn't like such a body, as mentioned their are people who want one. But Sony has shown no sign of that path yet. So no reason to expect one to show up anytime soon. You need to separate the use of such a body from the likelihood of it happening. Everything your trying to say about performance and shots of cats and all that is fine and good, everyone knows what a high iso performance body can do. It's simply Sony doesn't look to be going there anytime soon.

Nikon and Canon have those markets in their pockets. Taking on Nikon and Canon core niches is not what you want to do if you are Sony and trying to dig into marketshare. The pix/pri path Sony is on has been working for them pretty darn well, why switch horses.

[Dusty]

You've got it exactly right, PhotoTraveler. Sony, like Minolta before them, is the price/performance leader who keeps bringing new tech to the industry. Guys who have $8k or so to dump into a body are not who they target. They target the beginner, the middle class, the advanced amateur and semi-pro.

Minolta tried a few times to target the pros, but weren't all that successful. Maybe Sony will go after that market themselves some day. The A900 is actually a great stab at that. Maybe they want to see if they get any traction in that direction before they commit a lot of resources to it.

Dusty

[alexramos7]

If the rumors are trut and those 23 AF points, I hope them will be that:

[Dusty]

Dusty does not care about frame rates, high ISO, noise control, mid/high ISO IQ, subject isolation, etc, etc, etc....To be honest I am guessing Dusty could get along quite well with a good pNs since shallow DOF, fast frame rates, good noise control, and good IQ at mid/high ISO is not a concern for him. BTW..I guess he has not heard of crop mode on the a900 either...BTW, if he wants more DOF and a long tele then maybe a superzoom is the perfect ticket for the low ISO, low FR shooting man living in yesteryear.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Im ... and2)/Sony

-Sonolta

Don, I HAVE said I would like more MPs and more DR. That's where I'm coming from. I like film, especially LARGE film. Digital give a lot of options that film doesn't, like the ability to see instant results, the advantage of taking more shots w/o additional expense, and the ability it instantly integrate photos into the modern electronic world. However there are trade-offs. One of those is that you can't switch to a high ISO film for when you want it. You're stuck with whatever ISO rating your model has, with all the problems it has at the time.

I, too, want less noise, just as I always wanted less grain in film. However, since I don't shoot many subjects requiring high ISO, I would trade that for the qualities I want in a new digital camera. You, on the other hand, tend to focus on the ISO range and high ISO quality. To each his own. My concerns are no less valid than yours, just different. If you can't accept that without making ad hominem attacks, perhaps you need a good debate class.

Dusty

[Dusty]

You are still as clueless as the come! Most of us want TOP IQ not more MP! BTW....you can not compare high sensitivity film grain with today's ultra clean high ISO performance.

Look you antiquated yesteryear loving rookie....IQ is what I am after....DR, TR, CF, CA, and all the rest. You just don't have a clue as manufacturers have been making cameras decent at ISO 1600 for the past several years. If you choose to limit yourself to IS0 400 and below fine...I don't care what shots you are missing! BTW....I have posted more discussions about DR on this board than anyone else in here. You are the sorry individual that is so narrow minded you don't have a clue on how and when to use ISO's over 400.

Please give us a break and stop spewing your silly incorrect nonsense all over these boards! And do stop speaking for me since you don't shoot the wide range of subjects under the wide range of conditions that I do, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Talk to you later, ISO400 man living in yesteryear. BTW...don't even bother bringing your lies and nonsense to a real debate as you would not even be allowed the privilege to sit at the table since all you can bring to the debate is nonsense and lies and almost ZERO facts.

You are a high MP pNs man and nothing more....You really are High MP Count APS-C loving fool.

-Sonolta

Again with the ad hominem attacks! I do think that I've sat at a few more debate tables in the real world than you have. In the real world your antic would get you kicked out of the debate no matter what your accomplishments. You have a keen eye for photography, and I've stated that before. But your mind lacks the mental discipline to engage in real debate. You simply believe that yelling that someone else is stupid because they don't have the same requirements as you do makes their opinions nonsense, which is never the case. As I often tell my 12 year old, "Grow up and act your age".

Dusty

[Dusty]

You are ignorant on many aspects of photography and to be honest you don't really know musch what you are talking about most of the time. It has nothing to do with me. If you would not spew so much nonsense to this forum you would not find yourself rebutted so forcefully and so often. You just don't have a clue and it is costing you bigtime!

-Sonolta

Don, you seem to be the only one rebutting me "so forcefully and so often" Ignorant on many aspects of photography? Not so. As stated before, just because someone has different techniques or needs does not make them ignorant of what others do or the means they use to employ them.

Oh, and "costing me bigtime?" I wonder how many people have banned my post, as opposed to banning yours. That's really too bad, in some ways, for, as I've said, you're a good photographer. You just don't know how to properly express your beliefs.

Dusty