Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canonand Nikon APS cameras

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Sad story, but the real reason is that point and shoot digital cameras
now
offer quality acceptable to most consumers, leaving a much smaller
prosumer
segment to buy full frame DSLR's.

Given that Minolta's A series film cameras were just a few hundred
pounds,
Sony are still pricing themselves out of their own market with a DLSR
costing several times as much.

Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The
a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800
and below.

Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera
first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that
game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong).

Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now).


The a700 is a fine camera as well, in APS-C.

Thence the lower levels 500 series and lower for more casual DSLR users
or those on tighter budgets.

It's not a bad lineup at all.

The dpreview report was right to be brief. There are only a few
differences between the a900 and a850, the important one being the
slightly cropped viewfinder. By cropping the VF they cut out a time
consuming mask alignment procedure that lowers production cost.

The sole incentive to get the a900 is the slightly faster frame rate or
for die-hard 100% VF users. Had the a850 come out first, I would have
been entirely happy with it. I may get one as a backup but there are
lenses I would rather get first.

People are quick to bash Sony, often for good reason, but as one who has
carefully built his kit I know what superb cameras they are.

I just wish Pentax would step up to FF and that Oly hadn't painted
themselves into a corner with 4/3.

The more competition, the better.



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Sad story, but the real reason is that point and shoot digital
cameras now
offer quality acceptable to most consumers, leaving a much smaller
prosumer
segment to buy full frame DSLR's.

Given that Minolta's A series film cameras were just a few hundred
pounds,
Sony are still pricing themselves out of their own market with a DLSR
costing several times as much.

Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The
a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO
800 and below.

Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera
first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that
game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong).

Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now).

I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Sad story, but the real reason is that point and shoot digital
cameras now
offer quality acceptable to most consumers, leaving a much smaller
prosumer
segment to buy full frame DSLR's.

Given that Minolta's A series film cameras were just a few hundred
pounds,
Sony are still pricing themselves out of their own market with a DLSR
costing several times as much.

Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The
a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO
800 and below.

Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera
first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that
game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong).

Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now).

I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx.

See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony.

Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50
Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95
Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95

Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99
Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99

Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95
Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95




--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:06:17 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Sad story, but the real reason is that point and shoot digital
cameras now
offer quality acceptable to most consumers, leaving a much smaller
prosumer
segment to buy full frame DSLR's.

Given that Minolta's A series film cameras were just a few hundred
pounds,
Sony are still pricing themselves out of their own market with a
DLSR costing several times as much.

Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The
a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO
800 and below.

Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera
first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that
game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong).

Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now).

I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx.

See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony.

Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50
Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95
Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95

Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99
Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99

Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95
Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95

The Canon 1D MkIV is not FF. And you missed the 5D MkII.



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On 10-04-24 17:06 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Sad story, but the real reason is that point and shoot digital
cameras now
offer quality acceptable to most consumers, leaving a much smaller
prosumer
segment to buy full frame DSLR's.

Given that Minolta's A series film cameras were just a few hundred
pounds,
Sony are still pricing themselves out of their own market with a DLSR
costing several times as much.

Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The
a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO
800 and below.

Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera
first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that
game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong).

Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now).

I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx.

See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony.

Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50
Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95
Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95

Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99
Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99

Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95
Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95

Nothing worth worrying about. It's not like I'd want to replace:
135 f/1.8
80-200 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8
100 f/2.8 macro
20 f/2.8


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 2010-04-24 14:08:58 -0700, Robert Spanjaard said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:06:17 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Sad story, but the real reason is that point and shoot digital
cameras now
offer quality acceptable to most consumers, leaving a much smaller
prosumer
segment to buy full frame DSLR's.

Given that Minolta's A series film cameras were just a few hundred
pounds,
Sony are still pricing themselves out of their own market with a
DLSR costing several times as much.

Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The
a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO
800 and below.

Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera
first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that
game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong).

Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now).

I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx.

See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony.

Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50
Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95
Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95

Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99
Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99

Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95
Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95

The Canon 1D MkIV is not FF. And you missed the 5D MkII.

As one of the unwashed Nikon masses, what could I know about the
subtleties of Canon offerings?


--
Regards,

Savageduck