Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,406
    lol yes, you continue to argue the point and each time you are disappointed and Sony continues on their merry way in the opposite direction...so what does that tell you ?

    What your looking for already exists and has done for years, it started with the 5d and now includes superb offerings like the mkii and mkiii. Switch to Nikon and you have the d700, d800, d800e or if you really want to go pro, get a d4 and you have your hands on the best dslr ever made. Wait till next year and you'll also likely to have a d800s which will be a d800 with the d4 sensor.

    Alternately, stick with Sony and snap up the a99 which i bet will be fabulous for what it is. If you don't like any of those options, buy another a900, take big lights and accept the compromise.

    Minolta users are an irrelevant minority nowadays. I doubt anyone at Sony has even mentioned minolta is the last 2 years.
    Last edited by Rooz; 03-02-2012 at 09:26 PM.
    D800e l V1 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l EP5 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    Admittedly, the Minolta-DNA runs a little thin, these days. SONY has done a "bang-up" job of NOT being there for its users. Not that I had ever heard of their Customer Service ever being anything to brag about. It definitely has not been, by me... or many others. I suspect that if they finally run off the A-mount contingent, it will work against them, in the long run. No serious user is going to be drawn in with what is currently offered, at this point. All they are doing is ignoring the high-end product and, as such, making the "serious" users get up and leave. I have to ask, rhetorically, what kind of business decision is that? And perhaps more importantly, what was the point of adopting the alpha-mount... just to, through neglect, toss it away? Could it have been to get and leverage the TAMRON shares and have a strong interest in the development of the e-mount?

    Again, confusing... and annoying, this lack of cognizant direction to the public.

    I still SHUDDER when I consider Canon and Nikon's lack of internal (camera body) stabilization. It still places these two manufacturers on the "back burner" of technology, as far as I am concerned. There is simply no reason to have to make EVERY lens with a stabilization element in it. A common solution still seems more prudent... or the OPTION of having stabilization selectable in either. I mean this is still stupidity on a grand scale, in my book.

    You know, since 2006, I have come here, on an almost daily basis, to review and discuss issues that I have faced in my photography (furthermore referenced as "the sport"). While I feel I have been positive, negative and even uncommitted about various topics, it never fails that every time a solid suggestion for marked improvement comes up, someone or a collective chimes in and tears into the idea, saying it is not worthwhile or simply cannot be considered. Friends, that is nonsense. In fact, if you do not try it, I would hazard to say you are just lazy or really not too concerned about improvement. I suppose that would be fine, but judging from what I have experienced with the current crop of newbies, there is not much in the way of new ideas coming down the pike. These effectively "cloned" individuals would not know a new idea if it whacked them in the chops. Everything is pre-package, "apped" and provided for them by "the corporation."

    Like many others, I am in the trenches, on a daily basis, camera in hand, and trying a lot of different solutions out. I happen to have firsthand experience on what I would like to see in my camera and I go ahead and propose what I believe might work a lot better than other currently-in-use ideas.

    Many times, the positive things I have posted go... well, relatively uncommented on or supported. Then, when I do object to what I see as "tedious" or inane, the pile-on begins. "Oh my God, he's a non-traditionalist." There are usually solid reasons for my objections and as much as some might not believe it, I am here for the "improvement" of the sport.

    More often than not, I see many things as "beg-offs," because the powers-that-be just want to milk our wallets for what they can get from it. They really seem unconcerned about "true" improvement of the sport or providing a solid response to relatively practical suggestions. That seems rather maddening, because their Research & Development arms are not coming up with these observations, yet the problems are never solved, either.

    One problem that continues to plague the "flash shooter" across ALL of the camera manufacturers is Infrared unreliability. If you have any experience with this, there are so many reasons that IR will not work reliably (e.g., bright lights directed at the strobes, sunlight overpowering the strobe trigger, objects blocking the line-of-sight path between the strobe and the transmitter, etc.) that the refusal to change over to the much more reliable and improved range Radio Frequency is simply inexcusable. Yet, here we are, 2012-2013... with no camera body employing this long-time available improvement. You would think that everyone would be anxious to improve this aspect of their sport, but no. By not insisting that this be included in their camera body, they allow these manufacturers to keep pumping out this unreliable technology in their cameras and flash accessories, forcing the masses to go to expensive third-party solutions, which are partially incompatible or not compatible at all (e.g., SONY/PocketWizard--> I dare you to show me a SONY hotshoe foot on a PocketWizard). To me, that's shameful abuse of the manufacturer's customers and their good will. If you are going to make proprietary items, you need to carry it through. No one seems to want to work with SONY on this. I wonder why?

    The bottom line in this is: You should not have to bastardize your manufacturer's system to be able to get what would be commonly-reliable images. These companies have been around for nearly 50 years or more. I think we can safely say, "They have the experience under their belt. Do something with it!"

    This is just one common issue that needs real resolution. I could go over other issues, but the proposals are already out there... and it appears that no one is acting on them, either. "Build it and they will come," right?

    I suggest that you quit arguing with me... take my suggestions and run with a few of your own, because the current level of disappointment in all of this nonsense is plenty as it is. Hopefully the "squeaky-wheel" will get the grease.

    These are not shooting gimmicks... they are shooting tools.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 03-02-2012 at 11:08 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,406
    lol what trenches are you in exactly ? you're a hobbyist with alot of cash to spend on the latest gizmo. we're talking about high end and pros. thats not a trench you're in nor do you seem to understand particularly well.
    D800e l V1 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l EP5 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    ... When you step back and look at it, Canon has stepped up and provided SONY's "replacement" and "alternative" for the

    a900, on the very same day, with the EOS 5D Mk III. That's "cross-pollination" if ever I saw it.
    Is it really a "replacement" or just an alternative if you want to switch brands? It's certainly no alternative for me and I hear a lot of dissatisfaction from Canonites over the new camera but we need to wait for some actual results before reaching any conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    ... Man, this is not what I would have expected. Also, I have been hearing from some unhappy campers with regard to the

    a77. It still seems to lack the low-light sensitivity of the other manufacturers, specifically the Nikon.
    Which Nikon would that be? I'm not aware of any direct competitor from Nikon.

    There's always going to be complaints, no camera is one size fits all. If you compare it with the camera it replaces, the A77 betters the ISO sensitivity of the A700 even though it has twice the resolution with correspondingly smaller photosites. That's quite acceptable to most users and those unhappy campers you mention are not owners, haven't tried the camera, they've just decided they won't accept an SLT.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by DWessel View Post
    Don, I almost hate to say it, but your comments impliedly confirm what Rooz has been saying for quite some time ... Sony is interested in the mass consumer market, not the pro consumer market. Why invest the time and money to improve the low light sensitivity and quality of the sensors when the majority of the mass consumer photography market will rarely be shooting in low light without FLASH. .....
    Darin, I'm sure you're right about the mass market and Sony definitely wants a bigger share, they're just not going about it in the way that Don would prefer, but you're way off beam to suggest that Sony Sensors are lacking in sensitivity or quality. I think, no I know I'm right in saying that Sony's 16MP is the best APS-C sensor out there right now.

    It's not just the mass market that doesn't need low light capability, it's of no great value to landscape, portrait or studio photographers either. Low light photography is a niche market; if you have a need to shoot in venues for instance, then you make an appropriate purchase that probably won't include a Sony product unless it's a NEX. Horses for courses and all that.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Erad View Post
    It only makes sense sony will still focus on prosumer photographers or else why release a $13,000 500mm f/4 G? Sony has something up they're sleeve and is going to hit us with a BANG! Although there is a lot of rumors about an a99 SLT FF camera, i still feel in my gut we will see a new FF DSLR, possibly an a950?
    No, that's not going to happen, a FF OVF I mean, neither will there be one for APS-C.

    That doesn't mean they have thrown in the towel or that they are going for a niche market. Sony are looking to take a much bigger market share and they are going about it in a way that just may bring home the bacon. Sony cannot compete with CaNikon in the DSLR market; not now, not ever. The DSLR is a dead end and Sony sees the short term future in SLT, and longer term in EVIL. Not that the OVF DSLR is going away any time soon, it will live on in a shrinking market until it fades away.

    So the next Sony FF will be the A99, the only question is what are the specs. Of course no one knows or if they do, no one is saying which doesn't stop the speculation and rumour.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Is it really a "replacement" or just an alternative if you want to switch brands? It's certainly no alternative for me and I hear a lot of dissatisfaction from Canonites over the new camera but we need to wait for some actual results before reaching any conclusions.
    If your are speaking of the "POTN" craziness, that is very typical of that site. Everyone is bitching because the camera isn't exactly what they want. It doesn't have enough resolution, it's too expensive, it has too much resolution, the samples are soft, it's not as good as a 1DX, it's not as good as a Noink D800, it goes on and on. If it's not the camera built exactly for them, then it's junk. Similar to Don's views here...IMO the 5DIII is just about as far as they could go without seriously encroaching on 1D territory. It looks like a good body to me, time will tell.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    I have to ask... who the heck are they building these cameras for? Certainly not the serious DSLR shooters. The REAL needs are relatively straightforward and they're still out playing "let's make a better P&S" wrapped in an interchangeable body style for the under-30 people. Under-30 people rarely pony-up $3000! They are usually buying the >$500 "flavor-of-the-quarter" crap at the electronic retailers.

    Imagine all the whining, again, when you tell these folks that a serious camera body has become $3000! My God, they were going out of their respective minds at $2000! Not even mentioning $5.00/gallon gasoline. Who's got the coin for these cameras that still cannot seem to do half of what they need to, these days?

    Arrggghhhh! This is soooooooooooooooooooooo out of control!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 03-03-2012 at 08:31 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Why would you not put as many features as possible in your camera body? Are you afraid some newbie is going the be shooting the same body as you are? Appeal to a bigger audience. In the meantime the 5D/D800 has everything you could need in the trenches, whatever that means. I want a body that can shoot a decent frame rate, with a full frame sensor and a great AF system, there is nothing else I need in or out of the trenches The 5D and D800 deliver, everything else is frosting, with those new bodies I have everything I need to make a great photograph. Sure bells and whistles make this easier, but the truth is the greats never had a lot of this "essential" stuff, they did just fine. Everything else is gee whiz, I don't care if it's there or not, it doesn't make a difference, the basics are still there.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545

    The technological edge...

    Digital Photography, by its very nature, demands that we develop our technological edge to its pinnacle... consider the speed of production and the demands of the Internet and WiFi. The photographer is challenged with being able to repeat and swiftly shoot his subject, then get the goods to the printer or Internet location. Unlike the film days, where your production was held up by your darkroom or your selected developer... you are now responsible with reliable digital "turn-around."

    Time is money, more so, now, than ever before. This point was clearly made as I attended the WPPI Conference, last week, and sat through many of the provided Platform classes. If you want to be competitive, significant considerations have to be made concerning the reliability and capability your equipment. What you made due with in the past simply will not be competitive in the coming years. Software advancement, Internet speeds, access points and the expectations of the client all come into play and exert their respective pressure.

    Why the manufacturers are choosing to ignore significant advances in technologies eludes reasonable explanation, as far as I can tell. It tends to be embarrassing to try and explain the manufacturer's rather short-sighted nature by their not addressing and adopting these changes. The clients are raising their expectations. The up and coming photographers are also.

    I took the time to seek out the SONY Engineering Representative, at the WPPI Trade Show, to discuss building a camera body with RF Flash control inside of it. All he did was run behind the counter and show me a couple RF solutions that third party manufacturers had come up with, that required the use of the Hot Shoe and an SONY/Std. Hot Shoe-adapter. It had none of the true TTL control aspects of the SONY flash system and as such, was not a true solution, as there was no ratio control or flash group segregation. What is needed is a true SONY solution, because SONY (by choice) is a proprietary flash system (You make your own bed, you must lie in it). Again, through discussion, I made clear the advantages of having complete menu-control of the flash system, from the camera, itself. The representative understood the concepts involved and the restrictions currently experienced trying to make use of the third-party offerings.

    SONY is unique in that it only has its OWN flashes to consider, not Canon or Nikon. Whatever road they want to take, it is exclusively their baby. Compliance is at their choice, not some outside force. Making their system reliable and improved for longer distance only improves their offerings, not those of the other manufacturers... placing SONY in the forefront of the technology... not in rear, as they are now, because SONY is not compliant with the accepted standard the other manufacturers have stuck with.

    Now, I suppose ducking under a rock and saying... "the old ways still work" might be some recourse, but that attitude is just in error. You are only deluding yourself with the belief that the world is not changing. News flash... it is and it has. Change is the one constant we all can take comfort in, annoying as it may be.

    I would say that those who can grasp the bleeding edge of this business are the ones who will eventually walk away with the lion's share of the profits. Those who want to play it safe, will safely retire... early! You want to do everyone a favor? Grasp the concept of an improved, better thought-out tool to work with. Forget the idea of resisting change... just make sure it is change for the right reason and one we can all live with.

    The edge belongs to those willing to push their ideas forward, not sit in a cave waiting for someone to come knocking to see what's up.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 03-03-2012 at 11:52 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •