Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 224

Thread: SONY a99

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,415
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    No RF-solution exists for SONY by SONY. It only exists via third-party
    so what ? what does it matter what the brand name is ? there are options out there that ALL WORK.

    and SONY is now having some fun with these folks by introducing a variant in the very hot shoe design. Compatibility... don't make me laugh. What used to work... no longer can w/o an adapter.
    either way, there is an RF solution that works with an adaptor and there are options that work without an adaptor. you're chopping and changing your desperate argument now aswell, there used to be no options without an adaptor, now that they have a standard hotshoe, there are plenty of options WITHOUT an adaptor. smart move sony. thumbs up.

    Obviously, they mean to have you use their proprietary IF-solution, only. Having access to such a solution, you are trapped entirely with the SONY/late-Minolta TTL strata... with no way out.
    inconsequential blabbing.

    I'm sorry... they can keep their solution. I want more! There's a big world of lighting just waiting on this freedom/ownership of the air waves!
    yepp, there sure is a big world of lighting out there. your failure to harness it is your own.

    Consider you standing in a field of tall grass... and over fifty-feet (50) away there are three enormous flash groups you want to sequentially trigger and individually ratio-control from where you are standing. You look down at your SONY a99 and... keep looking, because nothing it comes with will do that.
    ahhh...so ? you buy a set of cybersyncs...VOILA ! by using your ludicrous argument I could give you 2 more scenarios...

    1. you are in the dark, you need a flash that's more powerful than the PUF and want to bounce it off the ceiling...You look down at your SONY a99 and... keep looking, because nothing it comes with will do that

    2. you are taking a long exposure and need a 30 second shutter speed, You look down at your SONY a99 and... keep looking, because nothing it comes with will do that

    You just dropped $3000 for the camera for what? It cannot take this image without a tremendous amount of help from three different devices... and even that is risky, because they went and changed the flippin' hot shoe!
    what 3 devices ? and how is there a risk ?
    device 1. the flash...will a change in hotshoe matter to the off camera flash ? nope.
    device 2. the receiver for the flash...will a change in hotshoe make a difference here ? nope.
    device 3. the transmitter for the camera. will a change to the hotshoe make a difference ? sure it will...it means you just lost $10 by buying the adaptor.

    so this big complicated drama you invented is for the sake of a $10 adaptor ! HA!!!!

    hey guess what ? I did drop almost $3k for a new camera and guess what ? I used the EXACT same device that I used 4 years ago which does the EXACT thing that you seem to think doesn't exist. and here's another pearler for you...I just bought a Fuji xe1...and guess what ? I used the EXACT same device that I used 4 years ago, the EXACT same system that I just used with my d800...which does the EXACT thing that you seem to think doesn't exist. oh...and another one for the dummies mr president...I buy a backup cheaper body...say a d5200...and guess what ? I used the EXACT same device that I used 4 years ago which is the EXACT same device that I used on the xe1 which is the EXACT same device I used on my d800 and does the EXACT thing that you seem to think doesn't exist. and just one more for you...a mate of mine is a canon shooter and he wants a crack at off camera flash and guess what ? I used the EXACT same device that I used 4 years ago which is the EXACT same device that I used on the xe1 which is the EXACT same device I used on my d800 which is the EXACT same device I used on the d5200 and does the EXACT thing that you seem to think doesn't exist.

    so there you have it...you are running and spinning and jiving and dodging and squirming but you fail to make a single argument that makes any sense whatsoever. you present utter fabrications in your attempt to justify your inherently disingenuous position.

    and all of that...but still not an answer to the question. what will this enable you to do that cant be done already ? oh that's right....you get "finesse". ive never heard such utter nonsense from a grown man. you should be embarrassed.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    316
    I really enjoy Rooz and Don's exchanges. Always entertaining lol
    Don, you want stuff added to cameras but haven't said if you are willing to pay for it in both dollars and added size & weight of the camera(s). And like you said yourself, it'd be proprietary, so it'd be less flexible than third party...so why would you want that?

    Don, my questions to you are: can you give an example of a shot or shots that you KNOW would have been better with the inclusion of the technology you want in the camera? Or give a detailed anecdote of how you missed a shot because of the lack of the tech? Is it affecting your professional photography work? Please show how this is affecting your work or how the "lack of finesse" makes you look bad.

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    Quote Originally Posted by jr_rodriguez View Post
    I really enjoy Rooz and Don's exchanges. Always entertaining lol
    I am glad to be of some amusement, as this is classified as an entertainment medium... and what are images, if not entertaining, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by jr_rodriguez View Post
    Don, you want stuff added to cameras but haven't said if you are willing to pay for it in both dollars and added size & weight of the camera(s). And like you said yourself, it'd be proprietary, so it'd be less flexible than third party...so why would you want that?
    JR... I am not trying to re-invent the wheel, here. The wheel is here. The RF-technology has also been here for almost 7-years. IR-technology has had its day and needs to be retired or used as a backup feature, not the main feature. I conceed that it would be good to have BOTH technologies built-in and no reason not to have that. The expense is truly minimal, with no real development cost at all. Regardless, IR-technology needs replacement with a MORE RELIABLE & ROBUST method. RF is that answer. Daylight; Enclosed rooms; Bright ambient light; optical interference... RF is entirely immune! I know it, Uncle Sam knows it... heck, I would fathom your child knows that it is the best way to conduct your business. I do not see any value in continuing the old IR-standard as the main method of future flash control/synchronization and shutter release communication, going forward. Even Canon knows that! (See above reference post)

    Quote Originally Posted by jr_rodriguez View Post
    Don, my questions to you are: can you give an example of a shot or shots that you KNOW would have been better with the inclusion of the technology you want in the camera? Or give a detailed anecdote of how you missed a shot because of the lack of the tech? Is it affecting your professional photography work? Please show how this is affecting your work or how the "lack of finesse" makes you look bad.
    JR - I do not see the need to justify the sales of PIXEL, PocketWizard, RadioPopper and Phottix. Just look them up... you're a crafty fellow. You have to know that people are investing big bucks in these systems just to have the RF option. All I want is this feature IN THE CAMERA BODY, so that when a manufacturer's update is made to the camera's FIRMWARE... the RF-flash control feature is forced to be addressed, if something changes. As it stands, currently, third-party is so screwed with every manufacturer's software or hardware change. That's expensive and stupid.

    After all this discussion, my friend, if you are not nodding in agreement, then you have missed the point entirely and deserve to flounder in the ash heap of history. Rooz and his many mates are waiting for ya.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-25-2013 at 11:06 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

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,415
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    JR... I am not trying to re-invent the wheel, here. The wheel is here. The RF-technology has also been here for almost 7-years. IR-technology has had its day and needs to be retired or used as a backup feature, not the main feature. I conceed that it would be good to have BOTH technologies built-in and no reason not to have that. The expense is truly minimal, with no real development cost at all. Regardless, IR-technology needs replacement with a MORE RELIABLE & ROBUST method. RF is that answer. Daylight; Enclosed rooms; Bright ambient light; optical interference... RF is entirely immune! I know it, Uncle Sam knows it... heck, I would fathom your child knows that it is the best way to conduct your business. I do not see any value in continuing the old IR-standard as the main method of future flash control/synchronization and shutter release communication, going forward. Even Canon knows that! (See above reference post)
    again discussing the red herring of IR which no one is talking about. again repeating the benefits of RF which everyone knows. why do you think its so important to pad your posts with things people already know ?

    JR - I do not see the need to justify the sales of PIXEL, PocketWizard, RadioPopper and Phottix. Just look them up... you're a crafty fellow. You have to know that people are investing big bucks in these systems just to have the RF option.
    well...this is progress of a kind. now you've moved away from the ludicrous position of this being some revolution and limitation, which it is NOT, to saying that putting it in the body would save money by not having to buy third party. hat in and of itself is arguable anyway. how would I control my sb80's with your in-camera RF device ? and more to the point, if I run multiple bodies how will your option help me ? as I see it I go backwards.

    All I want is this feature IN THE CAMERA BODY, so that when a manufacturer's update is made to the camera's FIRMWARE... the RF-flash control feature is forced to be addressed, if something changes. As it stands, currently, third-party is so screwed with every manufacturer's software or hardware change. That's expensive and stupid.
    ahhh...but now we take a step back again. i call this an outright fabrication and a lie. if it isn't pls justify your statements. 3rd party isn't screwed at all. what's screwed about it ? be specific and describe what has failed and where its costing you more money regardless of a manufacturers changes. it works flawlessly and is cheaper than the option you are proposing.

    After all this discussion, my friend, if you are not nodding in agreement, then you have missed the point entirely and deserve to flounder in the ash heap of history. Rooz and his many mates are waiting for ya.
    and another step back. once again, this is not a revolution and no significant advancement is being made here. so the question is posed again, what can you not do now that this new system will allow you to do ? don't think i'm going to let you off the hook here don. you can keep spinning this to try and squirm out of it but until you articulate a reasonable argument im calling you on it.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    don't think i'm going to let you off the hook here don. you can keep spinning this to try and squirm out of it but until you articulate a reasonable argument im calling you on it.
    You know... if you keep chasing your tail like this Rooz, you're just going to melt.

    I invite you to take a moment and read the following article, written by one the "more informed" of us. I grow tired of hearing you droning on how great SONY was to create the a99. I still dispute that... and tell you the a850 may be the better choice.

    a99 EVAL
    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

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,415
    So you change the subject cos you can't answer the simple question ? You've gone for squirming to running.

    And I did read the article, more glowing reports about how outstanding the a99 is for people who know how to take photographs rather than obsessing over gadgetry and gimmicks. The a850 is a better choice ? Laughable stuff. Utterly laughable.

    Is the a99 perfect ? Hell no. There is no such thing.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    That's expensive and stupid.

    After all this discussion, my friend, if you are not nodding in agreement, then you have missed the point entirely and deserve to flounder in the ash heap of history. Rooz and his many mates are waiting for ya.
    So now you're inferring that all these professional photographer who use third party RF lighting systems are stupid. Yet somehow they make their images and make money...so it must be a worthwhile investment. Unless they're stupid like you imply, which I do not agree with at all.

    Don here are two other issues I have with your reply: first, you didn't answer my questions which is no big surprise since you haven't answered Rooz's, and second, you didn't show how this supposed gadgetry would improve your images or how the lack of it affected an image (read my post) or kept you from getting it. After all, the images are what matter, right?

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    It's what's inside... you guys

    Look, guys... all that is CURRENTLY available in studio flash is -> half-assed third-party solutions for SONY. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, RIGHT NOW!!! What are YOU not understanding?


    The "pros" have nothing else they can do... and as such, they are hosed... by SONY not stepping up to the plate.

    My recommendation is that SONY put together a reasonable IR/RF flash-control package INSIDE THEIR NEXT CAMERA RELEASES.

    It is not a mistake... and everyone can reap the benefits of a sound idea who's time has come. Third-party just is not good enough with what is coming in the next decade. You're being silly to think that SONY will ever share their proprietary control systems. The best third-party might do is get close, but still no cigar. It still is only a "brainless" hot shoe adapter. Remember, all the manufacturers are within one model change from making the whole thing extinct and starting over, again.

    Therefore, it is incumbent upon SONY to cater to the photographer (their user) with a control system that is reliable, sound and most of all... supported 24/7 - w/o fail! Is it wrong to want to reduce the photographer's overhead and costs?

    I am sick & tired of having to "make do"... with all of this, supposedly, half-baked advanced camera stuff. Horse-puckey! Make the camera do it all, doggone it!

    Step aside and let a photographer take over.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 04-27-2013 at 12:59 AM.
    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. #169
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,415
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Look, guys... all that is CURRENTLY available in studio flash is -> half-assed third-party solutions for SONY. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, RIGHT NOW!!! What are YOU not understanding?
    I call BULLSH*T !! lol. What is half assed about it ? Explain yourself. What will your system do so differently ?

    My recommendation is that SONY put together a reasonable IR/RF flash-control package INSIDE THEIR NEXT CAMERA RELEASES. It is not a mistake... and everyone can reap the benefits of a sound idea who's time has come.
    That's not the argument. The argument here is what will that do that cannot be done already ? No one could possibly argue that rf in a body is a BAD idea.

    Third-party just is not good enough with what is coming in the next decade. You're being silly to think that SONY will ever share their proprietary control systems. The best third-party might do is get close, but still no cigar. It still is only a "brainless" hot shoe adapter.
    Why ? What new nonsense is this ? lol

    Remember, all the manufacturers are within one model change from making the whole thing extinct and starting over, again.
    Says who ? How ? Well come on, explain yourself Nostradamus.

    Therefore, it is incumbent upon SONY to cater to the photographer (their user) with a control system that is reliable, sound and most of all... supported 24/7 - w/o fail!
    More bullsh*t here. The current systems are sound and reliable. And where does this 24/7 support come from ? lmaoooo great stuff, in your desperation you're getting more and more ludicrous.

    I am sick & tired of having to "make do"... with all of this, supposedly, half-baked advanced camera stuff. Horse-puckey! Make the camera do it all, doggone it!
    What will the system do that cannot be done already ?

    Step aside and let a photographer take over.
    Ha! You'd be to photography what Homer Simpson was to the family car !!
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    You know, Rooz? You all probably should.

    Mate, you have contributed absolutely nothing to this conversation. I mean... I'm looking to find SOMETHING... and not only am I disappointed... I am trying to figure out why you even bother? Are you just running your participation count up, for the sake of being on top?

    Offer your own ideas, rather than pulling mine apart. I have been very specific about my concerns. You... not so much.

    Maybe it is just me... but, I suspect it is not. Think... then type. It's a process.
    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
  •