If it wasn't for pointless...
it would have no point at all.
Rooz, I guess there is a point of diminishing returns that is reached. You know, where you throw money at something and hope it gets better. In this case, it really did not get "markedly" better... yet, a release was due.
If you look at the Canon 30D and 40D over the original 20D. Not enough advancement for many to jump from one to the next. You are seeing similar results in both the D700 to D800 migration and the EOS5DMkII to EOS5DMkIII. It just hurts your wallet for what little you would notice in your hand.
Hey, it was so much less, this round... that SONY did not even bother to go there. They just abandoned the camera DSLR-a900 design and built something different, the enhanced version of the SLT-a77 - tada, the SLT-a99. Again... even that is a point of diminished returns and will not be available until... SURPRISE, it is! (<- It is hard to mark your calendar for that one, eh?) :rolleyes: Everyone seems so... "overjoyed" with the SLT-a77, as you say, what could the full frame version provide that would make it so "markedly" different, that would be compelled to buy it over the a77?
Now, follow me on this...
- If low-light continues to be "the dog in this fight"... what level of sensor have they designed that is going to deliver real IMPROVEMENT on this?
- In an SLT-design, 30% of the light through-the mirror is completely lost (in a puff of photon-energy) to augment the 24/7 autofocusing focusing system. You cannot shoot "mirror-up," anymore. The mirror does not move.
- If the Nikon D800 (the mirror still lifts out of the way) did not "see" significant improvement over the 4-year old Nikon D700 with 100% of the light still going to the sensor ...
My question is: Where does the SLT-a99 check in at with the sensor getting ONLY 70% of the light through the lens to the same type of sensor?
Oh, I know, SONY has, just now, come up with "in-the-lens light-augmentation," right? Hardly. So, light amplification will have to take place in the camera, post-sensor... because amplification at the CMOS sensor has that inherent NOISE that we "users" all abhor. Arguably, if the sensor is not reacting better than the earlier one did with noise-handling, pumping it up another notch... does not sound like it is going be a terrific idea, either.
If this "sacrifice to the light-God" was done, just for the for the sake of making movies with an interchangeable lens system... the still-market will leave... and that, mate, would be a diminished return, indeed. Oh my, do you also hear that rumble in the Minolta-graves?
Ooooh, I am so excited... NOT. Laugh as you will... the financial drain is obvious, as corporate, the engineers and the users... still are not aligned and we still cannot get what we have asked for as professional or otherwise occupied photographers.
In other words... right, Rooz?
Originally Posted by Rooz
@Rooz: I suppose something finally sunk in, huh?
Originally Posted by DonSchap
So what defines the photographer? Feeling the moment... or are we all destined to become photographic production designers... choosing the shots from a selection of offerings instead of the ones we were "physically there" to take.
A thin line, I suspect.
The OVF Mantra: See your image... be your image