sony a77

[argieramos]

That's why Sony makes an A900. Write times have as much to do with the cards you use as much as the camera. Let's compare apples to apples here. Is a Canon 7D that much faster? The Sony's have been doing 8FPS for a long time.

I wouldn't mind Gary that much if I were you. He said a77 is a point and shoot camera and thinks a55 is a Pro level camera. He obviously not here for a regular discussion.

 

[cosmonaut]

o.my.god.You are kidding. right?ok. seriously. i'm done.

and no i am not kidding. i have listened to some of Garrys podcast and he was more interested in getting a good shot while you can than spending time in a darkroom. It's why in he left behind so many rolls of film undeveloped and in later years when his health failed someone drove him around in a car and he shot from a car. In his time the camera he owned was the best thing going for what he did.

And still is, you can't beat a rangefinder for street photography

I think you can. No more scale focusing or fooling with exposure. The world is a lot less innocent since the Winogrand era. It is much harder to catch the moment with so many paranoid people on the streets. A Leica is not as covert as you think. Many times people see you coming from a mile away. Many years ago everyone had to pay extra for a right angle finder. Now the articulating screen is included on most cameras and hip shooting is easy.

 

[cosmonaut]

I am not at home so I don't have my a77 with me. But next week I'll post a short video of just how fast it is. It's as fast is not faster than the NEX7.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.

I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.

No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.

skieur

Ah Skieur your back, I was starting to worry about you!!:thumbup: These threads may end without you..and that would be a shame!

The long and short of the story is that this is an argument with two Sony fanboys who have too keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, resulting in a dull thread for all to read. Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about on this thread contributing decent arguments, ArgieMoron (nice pic by the way son, you look exactly how I imagined!) and Skieur keep on rehashing the same tired arguments that have no genuine basis or reality. But they do have a basis and reality in Sony world!

 

[unpopular]

So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.

I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.

No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.

skieur

Adams did most of this in processing, just as real photographers do today. Do you REALLY think adams would settle on a crusty jpeg?

 

[skieur]

The point of the SLT should be obvious. The flipping mirror is dead as are reflex cameras. How can you miss the fact that the A700 was replaced by the SLT A77 and the A900 will be replaced by the A99 with an even more advanced SLT design? No wonder, you are impossible to get through to!

skieur

The "point" is that Sony's d-slr sales are still poor compared to both Canon and Nikon. Sony had 11.9% of d-slr's sold last year. Nikon had just under 30%. Canons made up around 44% of all d-slr's sold last year. World-wide.

Sony is banking on their new SLR technology to attract customers...because they have been getting their asses kicked in the d-slr marketplace. Reflex cameras, with moving mirrors, began in the 1890's. That's not a typo--eighteen-nineties!!!! By 1959, with the Nikon F, the "modern" d-slr with instant return mirror and fully automatic lens diaphragm was a reality...fast forward 38 years or so, and the Ninon D3 and D3x had become the standard.

One thing you do NOT seem to understand skieur, is that there is no real technical superiority driving this...camera manufacturers have ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, sought to create what is called "the next big thing". When sales go flat, or profits grow thin and hard to make, the camera makers have ALWAYS resorted to creating "all-new" features, or entirely new "types" or "styles" of cameras, as a way to get people to BUY NEW GEAR!!!! YES, the A700 was replaced by the a77...Why? Sony is trying a new sales approach!!!

I have worked in the camera retail business, and have SEEN the way new technology actually affects consumers. First-hand. Real people. People with money in wallet, and credit cards in-wallet, and looking to BUY. The reason Sony has gone to the SLT system is that there is always a good percentage of people who love the technological side of camera gear. These people love high-tech and new-tech stuff, good or bad. They will buy just to say they have the "new thing". As most photo industry writers have noted, the A900,and A850,and A700 were poor sellers, and Sony went to the drawing board and came up with the SLT system, hoping to get better sales. Your statement that "the flipping mirror is dead" is patently ludicrous.

A much,much more accurate statement is this: "If you cannot win at the game, then find a new game where your skill set will let you win--or at least have a chance to win."

Sorry bud, but Sony could not compete in the traditional reflex market; that market is mature, with MOSTLY committed owners, and so trying to battle two companies that control roughly 75% of ALL d-slr sales was foolish for Sony to continue doing. Sony is trying to find a new poker game, as it were.The product line and the actions of a company with UNDER 12% of all d-slr sales is not indicative of what the market is doing. Sony sells a little over one out of each 10 d-slr's sold world-wide. It sounds a lot like you own an a77 and realllllly need to justify your purchasing decision. To a degree that I am really surprised by. I hope you enjoy your a77. It looks like a nice camera. But until Sony's d-slr sales threaten those of Nikon or Canon, I do not expect ANY movement toward SLT technology from Nikon,Canon,Pentax, or any other camera maker. Sony has very little to lose in this segment. Nikon and Canon have a lot to lose.

On the contrary, considering the late start in comparison with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and others Sony managed to steal marketshare from all of them and get to third place worldwide in DSLRs and that may not include the Nex or SLT series sales.

What you don't seem to understand Derrel is the big picture. Most of the pros here on this forum work in limited fields with limited scope. Beyond this forum there is a super broad range of pros who use everything from medium and large format digital cameras and backs through to those that are using DSLRs and even point and shoots or pocket cameras and many who use all of the above. I have used Sony, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Panasonic, Leica, and others and by the way I do not own an A77, so you jumped to another wrong conclusion. I don't need to justify any purchase but I can put unique new features to good use in my work and that is important.

The flipping mirror is dead. It is reaching its technological limitations. It is time for a new approach to go beyond those limitations of speed and vibration problems. Each Sony implimentation of the SLT has got better and the A99 will be better than the A77. Nikon and Canon may play a wait and see approach to the marketplace reaction to the Sony SLT but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will copy or adapt the concept if they think that the public will buy it. Either way, Sony has started the move to drop the flipping mirror and that is how changes in technology take place.

skieur

 

[mjhoward]

Sooo.... does that answer the OP's question??

 

[skieur]

So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.

I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.

No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.

skieur

Adams did most of this in processing, just as real photographers do today. Do you REALLY think adams would settle on a crusty jpeg?

No, he did it in the darkroom dodging and burning etc. As far as jpeg or raw is concerned, part of the picture is how well you can manipulate either. I would suspect that some do an equally "limited" processing job, no matter whether they start with jpeg or raw.

skieur

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Sooo.... does that answer the OP's question??

The OP is now dead! Skieur has bored him to death, he didn't realise it would cost him his life though, poor guy! This thread is so ridiculous that it's just a comedy show now in my opinion...

 

[unpopular]

The whole point of the zone system is to avoid dodging and burning and predict with a high degree of accuracy what the negative was going to look like. Listening to you and cosmo make it sound like everything was hit or miss.

I'm not saying Adams never had to do dodge or burn or anything... but did you actually use film?

 

[skieur]

So then the role of the darkroom is to fix mistakes made in the field.

I'm sure Ansel Adams would be right behind you on this one. And maybe he would be. But you're looking at the camera, the raw file and processing all wrong.

No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.

skieur

Ah Skieur your back, I was starting to worry about you!!:thumbup: These threads may end without you..and that would be a shame!

The long and short of the story is that this is an argument with two Sony fanboys who have too keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, resulting in a dull thread for all to read. Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about on this thread contributing decent arguments, ArgieMoron (nice pic by the way son, you look exactly how I imagined!) and Skieur keep on rehashing the same tired arguments that have no genuine basis or reality. But they do have a basis and reality in Sony world!

No, this is an argument with some Nikon fanboys such as yourself who keep being obsessed with attacking some innovations in DSLR cameras and who are resistant to CHANGE despite the fact that Sony's innovations such as LIVE VIEW are copied by Nikon and Canon. What is tiring are your stupid attacks.

"Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about in this thread.":lmao: The number of corrections Argie and I made demonstrates that only one or two knew anything at all about what they were talking about.

skieur

 

[Nikon_Josh]

No, he wouldn't, Ansel Adams spend more time in the darkroom adjusting tones and exposure levels in different parts of his image, which could not be done in camera at the time.

skieur

Ah Skieur your back, I was starting to worry about you!!:thumbup: These threads may end without you..and that would be a shame!

The long and short of the story is that this is an argument with two Sony fanboys who have too keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, resulting in a dull thread for all to read. Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about on this thread contributing decent arguments, ArgieMoron (nice pic by the way son, you look exactly how I imagined!) and Skieur keep on rehashing the same tired arguments that have no genuine basis or reality. But they do have a basis and reality in Sony world!

No, this is an argument with some Nikon fanboys such as yourself who keep being obsessed with attacking some innovations in DSLR cameras and who are resistant to CHANGE despite the fact that Sony's innovations such as LIVE VIEW are copied by Nikon and Canon. What is tiring are your stupid attacks.

"Despite photographers who actually know what they are talking about in this thread.":lmao: The number of corrections Argie and I made demonstrates that only one or two knew anything at all about what they were talking about.

skieur

I hate to say it Skieur, but as much as I have been irritated by your constant Sony promotion posts and 'outrageous claims'. I have grown to develop a strong liking for you, this forum would be a sadder place without you! :thumbup:

 

[gsgary]

That's why Sony makes an A900. Write times have as much to do with the cards you use as much as the camera. Let's compare apples to apples here. Is a Canon 7D that much faster? The Sony's have been doing 8FPS for a long time.

I wouldn't mind Gary that much if I were you. He said a77 is a point and shoot camera and thinks a55 is a Pro level camera. He obviously not here for a regular discussion.

I didn't say the A55 was pro level because i used one and i won't be using one again, i tried an A77 for the day and was not impressed may be good for landscape but i tried it for sport, i got my old 1Dmk1 out and it was no match but the old 1Dmk1 is one of the best cameras i have used

 

[Derrel]

The flipping mirror is dead. It is reaching its technological limitations. It is time for a new approach to go beyond those limitations of speed and vibration problems. Each Sony implimentation of the SLT has got better and the A99 will be better than the A77. Nikon and Canon may play a wait and see approach to the marketplace reaction to the Sony SLT but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will copy or adapt the concept if they think that the public will buy it. Either way, Sony has started the move to drop the flipping mirror and that is how changes in technology take place.

skieur

"The flipping mirror is dead." Yes---exactly. Just the way that motion pictures killed live theatre. It is as dead as motion pictures, which were officially killed off by television back in the 1950's. The flipping mirror is as dead as live music, which was killed off by Edison's wax cylinder recordings. The flipping mirror is as dead as home cooking, which was made obsolete by the development of the TV dinner. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as doing math on paper became since the advent of the electronic calculator. The flipping mirror is dead, as dead as draft beer after the development of the first successful canned beer.

Yeah....the flipping mirror is dead....as dead as FM Radio in the age of the MP3 player...Uh-huh, riiiiight....

Sony started a revolution! They will change the industry and convert all the other companies to their new, upstart ways!!! Let me give you an example of Minolta logic/aka Sony logic: Let's make a flash foot design that violates the ISO standard for flash mounting systems...let's create our OWN, NEW, BETTER FLASH FOOT DESIGN!!!

Sorry, skieur...but you are such a weak opponent it's a shame that I have to use this information on you and utterly crush your dreams...but SONY is the only company that uses their oddball flash mounting foot....none of their chit works with anything else. Minolta lost their ASSES by heralding the "APSC film system" back in the 1990's. Do you not remember that technical marvel, APSC film??? (sarcasm). The idea that they could make it big by jumping into the APSC film camera market JUST prior to the dawn of digital photography is what doomed Minolta to obscurity, then near bankruptcy. Minolta's camera division was then sold to ANOTHER loser camera company, Konica. Konica--the shutter priority auto company that never could understand why its products failed, time after time...so, two loser camera companies became Konica/Minolta, and began business, then FAILED, and were forced to sell out to SONY....

Sorry dude...the failed unique flash foot...the failed APSC camera gamble than almost killed Minolta....the massive legal fees incurred from patent infringement that forced so many Minolta executives to retire in disgrace...the carcass of Minolta rotting until the scavengers at Konica saw an opportunity to pick the bones of a former third-rate company...only to find that the carcass was already maggot-infested...the fire sale of Konica/Minolta to Sony, a company in search of "SOME" camera designs and lens designs...eh...my God man...I know history quite well...Sony purchased the "assets" (if that is the right way to categorize what they bought) of two, FAILED, disgraced camera companies. Two companies that were stocked with executives who worked for companies which could not "cut it" in the camera business.

"New technology" like a unique flash mounting foot....that awesome Sony memory stick format...that awesome and FAILED SONY Betamax video format...that FAILED Minolta venture into the new-technology APSC cartridge loading film format....that unique dual-sensor Minolta d-slr that failed...that FAILED shutter-priority-only automatic that Konica espoused for so long....see the pattern here?

"New technology" like the flash foot, Memory Stick, Betamax, APSC film>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Massive, massive, massive failures. New does not guarantee success, my dear skieur. Far,far from it. New tech carries with it huge risks.

Dream on and keep telling yourself "the flapping mirror is dead." Long live Betamax! Long live Memory Stick! Long live APSC film cameras!

 

[Crollo]

Most of the pros here on this forum

Confirmed. Skieur really does live in a delusional world.