Sony's new prosumer: Canon going to cringe?

Don Wiss wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:22:26 +1200, frederick wrote:

Otherwise if you can wait until next week and a Nikon D300 with a
1:1.1 crop 12.8 mp 5fps dslr is released, then you could ask Tony
Polson...

What I want is a replacement for my D200 that does not focus old
lenses. I have none. I don't like all the extra weight in the body
with a focus motor I will never use*.

* Well, maybe never. My mom does have a bunch of old Nikon lens. But
I'd rather pass them up and have a lighter camera.

Don www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Sounds like the D40x might suit?

David

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...

What I want is a replacement for my D200 that does not focus old lenses. I
have none. I don't like all the extra weight in the body with a focus
motor
I will never use*.

I can't see this happening while so many of Nikon's *current* lenses still
require a motor in the camera. I can see why they ditched the motor in the
D40/D40x as this is aimed mainly at people who will stick with the kit lens,
but the D200 is only one step below their pro bodies so will appeal to
people who likely have a collection of lenses including lenses which don't
have built in motors.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:16:14 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Don Wiss wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:22:26 +1200, frederick wrote:

Otherwise if you can wait until next week and a Nikon D300 with a
1:1.1 crop 12.8 mp 5fps dslr is released, then you could ask Tony
Polson...

What I want is a replacement for my D200 that does not focus old
lenses. I have none. I don't like all the extra weight in the body
with a focus motor I will never use*.

* Well, maybe never. My mom does have a bunch of old Nikon lens. But
I'd rather pass them up and have a lighter camera.

Don www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Sounds like the D40x might suit?

I did not state that I wanted a reduction in camera quality.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article .com,
RichA wrote:

The day Sony makes a decent digital camera monkeys will fly out my butt.


Covered in cr*p no doubt. Hope the painkiller are working, because it's
an unusual chronic condition to have been in for the last two decades :-)

David

On Aug 15, 8:18 pm, RichA wrote:
What if this thing comes in at $1500-$2000 for the body?

Lens magnification - (Crop factor) 1.25 x
Sensor type and size - CCD sensor (28.6 X 19.8 mm)
Resolution - 14.4 mega pixels
Maximum resolution - 4648 x 3098
Processor - image processing system and two standard of Bionz pixels
LCD screen - 2.5 inch (230,000 pixels TFT display)
Viewfinder - 95% view coverage

Magnification - 0.9 times magnification with diopter adjustment and
eye-function

"What if"?

What if we put wings on a bullfrog. Then he won't bump his ass so hard
when he lands.

Don Wiss wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:16:14 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
Sounds like the D40x might suit?

I did not state that I wanted a reduction in camera quality.

Isn't it image quality which matters, though? G

David

In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote:

The pain must have been terrible: both the S85 (solidly built P&S) and F717
(superb design, fast sharp lens) were excellent small-sensor cameras.

A lot of people liked the Minolta SLR design, which Sony inherited. With the
reissued Zeiss lenses, Sony's very likely to have a winner on their hands.

Back in my film days, I always thought that Minolta made some of the
crappiest cameras out there.

On Aug 15, 10:10 pm, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
In article .com,

RichA wrote:

The day Sony makes a decent digital camera monkeys will fly out my butt.

The A100 was as good as the Canon Rebel XTi, maybe better. But then
the XTi was a toy....

On Aug 16, 1:31 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
RichA wrote:
What if this thing comes in at $1500-$2000 for the body?

Why would anybody care? A decent camera isn't decided by megapixels
or processor. If they make a decent camera then people will pay
attention, but I don't see that Canon has much to worry about.

I hope they'll make something that Canon has to worry about.

I'd like to see a 5DII next January that makes me be happy I've been
squirreling away my spare change (17.5MP and an extra stop of dynamic range
at ISO 100 (even at a slight cost in high-ISO performance) would be nice).
But with no competition, Canon won't be in any rush.

Go, Sony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Please)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Curious, but how is Canon going to squeeze out more DR if the pixel
count climbs? Look what happened to Olympus's DR when they went to 10
megapixels.

On Aug 16, 8:06 am, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
In article , David J.

Littleboy wrote:
The pain must have been terrible: both the S85 (solidly built P&S) and F717
(superb design, fast sharp lens) were excellent small-sensor cameras.

A lot of people liked the Minolta SLR design, which Sony inherited. With the
reissued Zeiss lenses, Sony's very likely to have a winner on their hands.

Back in my film days, I always thought that Minolta made some of the
crappiest cameras out there.

Their XD11 was light-years better than anything else out then for
consumeers, when program cameras started to appear. That's when Canon
began the insinuation of plastic into their SLRs.