Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: jasonrandolph on August 27, 2009, 11:36:43 am
-
This camera may be the game changer. With the announcement of this camera (and the almost unanimous rave reviews the A900 got), I'm sure Canon and Nikon are rethinking their strategies. Sony is here to stay. They have the brand recognition and the product quality to directly compete with the big two. The fact that they are driving the price war is incredible, and I think we all stand to benefit. As a Nikon shooter, I already use a Sony sensor, and unless they put their D3X sensor in a D700-size body, and offer it at sub-$2300, I may have to change. Since I'm still in the DX world and don't have the FX glass yet, I'm positioned almost perfectly to move into FX full-force. The clock is ticking, Nikon. You have until Christmas!
-
Good for Sony, cranking up the competition. I still think the lack of sensor-based LiveView is a fatal flaw for serious tripod work in the field or in the studio though.
-
It's definatlely attractive. The Live View may be an issue for some.
A question: the A900 does not show ISO unless the ISO button is pressed. This is a big deal for me (and something that bugs me on my 5D). Does anyone know if the A850 has added permanent ISO in the viewfinder? I doubt it, given that the A950 doesn't have it, but one can hope.
At some stage my 5D will pass on, and most likely I would stay with Canon given my lens investment, but I have to say this is attractive: an A850 with the Sony / Zeiss 50/1.4, 24-70 and 70-200 would be really nice: the $2k price tag on the body helps a lot.
Of course, Canon and Nikon will respond. Interesting times.
-
It's good to have 3 major players in the higher end dslr market.
I probably would have preferred the A900 instead of my D700 but I already had manual focus nikon lenses and the prices of the sony lenses were too much to justify. The flash system is a relative unknown too (for me) whereas nikon's is well proven and I understand it.
-
I think the real value is in the response from Canon and Nikon. I really don't want to switch from Nikon, because I know it and like it. If the A850 drives Nikon to introduce a D700X/D800/whatever at an affordable price, I will stay with Nikon. For those of you who have big investments in full-frame glass, when it comes time to replace your D700/5D, you'll have Sony to thank in part for making the new bodies much more affordable. So, to echo Michael's comment, "Well played, Sony."
-
I think the real value is in the response from Canon and Nikon. I really don't want to switch from Nikon, because I know it and like it. If the A850 drives Nikon to introduce a D700X/D800/whatever at an affordable price, I will stay with Nikon. For those of you who have big investments in full-frame glass, when it comes time to replace your D700/5D, you'll have Sony to thank in part for making the new bodies much more affordable. So, to echo Michael's comment, "Well played, Sony."
I agree. I will now hope my 5D lasts a while longer, to see what Canon comes up with as a 5D Mk3 or some other model.
-
I still think the lack of sensor-based LiveView is a fatal flaw for serious tripod work in the field or in the studio though.
That is mysterious, since the new Sony A500 and A550 do both have sensor-based LiveView, under the name "MF check Live View", and Sony's EXMOR CMOS sensors are capable of LiveView. Sony seems committed to the idea that a camera with LiveView must include its "fast AF Live View" option, which requires a second sensor in the OVF and forces the use of a low quality, rather low magnification penta-mirror OVF, not suitable in a $2,000 body.
Otherwise, I like Sony's approach to 24x36mm format of leaving the high frame rate action camera sector to Canon and Nikon and instead pursuing the high resolution, low to medium ISO speed "medium format replacement" market. I wonder how well the new 28-75/2.8, apparently a modified version of the $400 Tamron, will keep up with the sensor.
-
My concern is that every Sony product that I have owned over the years has been crap. It has broken prematurely and they like to charge high flat rates for repair. I wonder if these DSLR's will be of higher quality. I agree that the best for me is to force Canon to get on their game and compete aggressively with Sony.
-
I think this is excellent news and should hopefully prevent the complacency that Canon and Nikon appear to have (had?). It's interesting how quickly the Sony machine have come from nearly nowhere to become a clear competitor with the DSLR market. Will not be switching, but will not say never!
-
Will not be switching, but will not say never!
Agreed. This is a very compelling offering - certainly coupled with the 24-70 Zeiss.
[Thinking out loud] Say that the 850 plus 24-70 is $3600, what would I want to pay for a D3xlite / D700x body for use with my existing Nikon lenses 24-70, 70-200 and 14-24 (and SB900), bearing in mind a couple of advantages that the new Nikon (think flash, AF) will presumably have over the 850?
Mark
-
My concern is that every Sony product that I have owned over the years has been crap. It has broken prematurely and they like to charge high flat rates for repair. I wonder if these DSLR's will be of higher quality. I agree that the best for me is to force Canon to get on their game and compete aggressively with Sony.
FWIW, I can say with full confidence that Sony DSLRs, at the very least, are no more problem prone than Canon or Nikon, and the repair rates are competitive.
-
Hi,
I had three Sony Alphas, 100, 700 and 900. No problems, so far.
Best regards
Erik
Agreed. This is a very compelling offering - certainly coupled with the 24-70 Zeiss.
[Thinking out loud] Say that the 850 plus 24-70 is $3600, what would I want to pay for a D3xlite / D700x body for use with my existing Nikon lenses 24-70, 70-200 and 14-24 (and SB900), bearing in mind a couple of advantages that the new Nikon (think flash, AF) will presumably have over the 850?
Mark
-
I echo Erik's findings with the A100, A700 & A900. QC matches Nikon & Canon. Since no one mentioned, I suspect the A850 does not have a built-in flash for fill-in & wireless triggering. However, Sony has solved this problem with with the F20-AM (slightly overpriced but more effective than a built-in unit). As for lenses, my only regret is that Nikon doesn't make the 12-24 available in an A mount;) The issue of LV is that Sony offers a post production view. To get an LV with as low a shutter lag as Sony offers in their entry level and 5xx series required a pentamirror. Apparently they do have a patent using a pentaprism but the recent economic crisis prevented them from introducing it on an A700 or A900 replacement. Perhaps they're reserving it for future DSLR's that will feature the Exmor R sensor. For those of you who want to get a sense of how good the technology behind Exmor R and what a leap forward it will offer to DSLRs, sauter over to a Sonystyle store and try the HDR-XR500 camcorder. Obviously Sony is ready to up the ante even further than the A850.
-
I don't see how this changes the game when there is no video (!), no live view, slower shooting rate than the a900, more high-ISO noise than the Canon/Nikons and it's not that much cheaper than the 5D2.
(Sure you save $500-$700 on the body, but you give up any hope of renting if something goes south, Canon/Nikon's slew of lens options, etc., etc.)
I agree that this new Sony looks like good value, but a game changer? What am I missing here?
-
I don't see how this changes the game when there is no video (!), no live view, slower shooting rate than the a900, more high-ISO noise than the Canon/Nikons and it's not that much cheaper than the 5D2.
(Sure you save $500-$700 on the body, but you give up any hope of renting if something goes south, Canon/Nikon's slew of lens options, etc., etc.)
I agree that this new Sony looks like good value, but a game changer? What am I missing here?
Better low ISO than 5dii (DR, no banding, color separation, resolution,) higher flash sync (1/250,) bigger/brighter VF (with built-in shutter,) built in stabilization, better build, slightly better AF. It was worth it to me to pay $300 more for the A900 vs. 5Dii for those things, and now the A850 for 25% less than the 5Dii seems like an incredible deal. I've never shot the A900 over 1fps, personally. Regardless, any new FF breaking the $2K price barrier is a big deal.
-
Good points Douglas, but I guess for me as a pro, the lack of lenses and lack of rental support could be deal breakers. And no video is a real let down - I am just now starting to tinker with video, and there is no turning back. Video is being asked for by many clients these days...and it can be very lucrative.
Anyway, how are you liking the a900? I handled it a couple times and it seemed pretty nice. (the noise some people were getting off of that chip scared me out of buying it though.) Which is the best RAW converter for it?
-
It's definitely tempting for me. I'm just about to dive into a FF DSLR and the a900 did have a nice feel the little bit I used it and I don't have any existing kit to carry over (still shooting on Olympus OM system). It's funny because I'd pretty much settled on the a900 but then started to be tempted by the d700 and thought to myself, "if it were $1000 cheaper I'd by the Nikon". Now we have the a850 that's pretty close to that much cheaper without too much compromise, for that price difference and the price difference in the ZA 24-70 compared to the Nikon I can pick up a 50 1.4 and the 70-300, or am pretty close to the ZA 85 or 135, so that's a very compelling package.
What concerns me is there are still a few cons that I'm not sure are deal breakers for me, the non-standard flash shoe for instance and the vastly smaller system (lenses, flashes, accessories, etc) that go with the whole package. I also really liked the d700 and obviously pick up a very substantial system there but I'm not really sure I can justify the extra costs compared to what Sony brings to the table.
The big question is what Nikon will do to compete since Sony supplies their sensors so I doubt they'll be able to put something with a 24mp sensor in the exact price bracket and it's hard to say if they can even put it out in the same price range as the 5dII. If they put too much of a premium on it (either due to costs or to prevent cannibalising the d3x's sales) then I suspect they'll have a hard sale on their hands. Now if they could drop the d700's price into the same territory as the a850 and put out a 24mp d700 body (call it the d700x or d800, or whatever) at a price comparable to the 5dII is then they might be on to something (they'd likely have to drop the d3x price as well and I'm not sure if keeping the d3 would make much sense at that point).
Canon seems to be in a better position as they do manufacture their own sensors, I could see them trimming down the 5dII a bit and putting it up against the a850.
-
The option to shoot image stabilized with glass such as this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463922-REG/Sony_SAL85F14Z_SAL_85F14Z_Telephoto_85mm_f_1_4.html) matters far more to me than video.
I have a video camera for that.
-
Good points Douglas, but I guess for me as a pro, the lack of lenses and lack of rental support could be deal breakers. And no video is a real let down - I am just now starting to tinker with video, and there is no turning back. Video is being asked for by many clients these days...and it can be very lucrative.
Anyway, how are you liking the a900? I handled it a couple times and it seemed pretty nice. (the noise some people were getting off of that chip scared me out of buying it though.) Which is the best RAW converter for it?
Yeah, Lisa, the noise thing with the A900 is there, but overstated. About the same as 5dii at ISO 800, and starts loosing ground at ISO 1600 or so. Still, it's way better than many cameras before it at high ISO. Hilariously, I sometimes shoot at ISO 1600 on purpose, because I like the subtle grain, but my normal shooting never goes much above ISO 400-800, anyways. Video is quite a cool feature for the 5Dii, and I guess it really depends on what you shoot. My work requirements are pretty simple in that I only ever shoot a 24-70, 50mm and 85mm, and Sony is doing well in that regard. Their main weakness is t/s and long primes. As far as rentals, I have to know a little ahead of time to do it through the mail, but, like I said, I don't use a large number of lenses (product of medium format photography.) I guess if I had an emergency, I could just rent a Nikon or Canon body along with lenses in a pinch, but I haven't really ever been in that situation (or I could break out the Hasselblads and rent MFDB.)
As you can see, I'm probably a narrower market of intended users, and the A900 was a perfect fit for me, but the 5Dii, while not exactly being the best at some things (outside of video,) is very good at most things, and it sounds like the perfect fit for you. The A900, like the D700, is a little more specialized. I happily paid $3k for the A900, so the A850 seems like an outrageous price to me
As far as RAW converters, that is a huge subject on its own, but I use C1 Pro for large batches and Raw Therapee for smaller ones. C1 is great, but the color is a bit off in the A900 profile. RT is outstanding. Adobe really kills the A900, especially at high ISO.
Take care, Douglas
-
...What concerns me is there are still a few cons that I'm not sure are deal breakers for me, the non-standard flash shoe...
FWIW, there is a small, cheap adapter available on ebay for <$10 that works with Pocket wizards and such. I use them all the time. Or....there is the $100 Sony branded adapter. lol.
-
By the way the 5D2 is not the perfect fit for me, I'd really like better AF and a fix for the intermittent banding issues. I just mention the 5D2 because it's the one to beat in the price range. And it's killing the competition in terms of sales ( according to the sales dudes in NYC pro camera shops.)
-
This camera may be the game changer. With the announcement of this camera (and the almost unanimous rave reviews the A900 got), I'm sure Canon and Nikon are rethinking their strategies. Sony is here to stay. They have the brand recognition and the product quality to directly compete with the big two. The fact that they are driving the price war is incredible, and I think we all stand to benefit. As a Nikon shooter, I already use a Sony sensor, and unless they put their D3X sensor in a D700-size body, and offer it at sub-$2300, I may have to change. Since I'm still in the DX world and don't have the FX glass yet, I'm positioned almost perfectly to move into FX full-force. The clock is ticking, Nikon. You have until Christmas!
Will we ever see a Canon to Sony lens adapter? The Hartblei tilt/shift lenses will work on Sony but at a very steep price.
-
By the way the 5D2 is not the perfect fit for me, I'd really like better AF and a fix for the intermittent banding issues. I just mention the 5D2 because it's the one to beat in the price range. And it's killing the competition in terms of sales ( according to the sales dudes in NYC pro camera shops.)
Doh, sorry to be presumptive. I should have asked more questions first. It doesn't surprise me that the 5Dii is selling so well. There was a gigantic 5D user base to begin with, and the D700 is a year old. Sony never really had a chance to compete in that regard. Plus, in my daily non-camera-forum-geek life, the issues of the 5dii (like banding,) are largely unknown, and it is a great camera. I don't think the A900's AF would be good enough to warrant a switch from the 5Dii. If you can deal with no video, the 1Dsiii or D3x may be the better choice (or D700 if you don't need the resolution.)
I would characterize the my time with the A900 (and I guess the A850) like this:
-Wonderful low ISO (100-400), good mid ISO (625-1250), acceptable high ISO (1600-3200)
-great (maybe the best) center point AF, pedestrian outside points/tracking
-Outrageous viewfinder that is big and bright (A850 supposedly looks near-identical, even though it is only 98%)
-Average battery life
-Huge file sizes (36MB RAWs)
-Flash system better than Canon, worse than Nikon (but I'm not the best authority here)
-two memory cards is nice, but no auto-switching is ridiculous
-best vertical grip of any camera made (although a bit ugly)
-non-standard flash shoe is slightly annoying, but it has its strengths, too
-AF Zeiss lenses are incredible.
-I love shooting stabilized below 100mm
-I actually like the uncluttered, big numbered top LCD, but I'm in the minority
-The feel, handling, and overall "vibe" of this camera is unlike anything I've used in a while. Uh oh, could this be love? lol.
-
... the 5D2 because it's the one to beat in the price range. And it's killing the competition in terms of sales ( according to the sales dudes in NYC pro camera shops.)
That's changed now.
A little Leitz glass goes a long way. I'll gladly move my 5D II and Canon glass to ebay when the 850 becomes available.
I shot Leica R for years and though the cameras left a lot to be desired that was because of the arrogance of Leica. The lenses were (are) unparalleled.
I'd be willing to bet there are more good things to come from Sony. The 850 is probably an interim body to bring the market to them before introducing a refined 900 and new lenses.
-
I'd be willing to bet there are more good things to come from Sony. The 850 is probably an interim body to bring the market to them before introducing a refined 900 and new lenses.
I think you're right, the price difference between the 850 and the 900 is too much to suggest that the 900 is going to stay around given how little you give up. This seems like a very astute move from Sony, strip down last year's model a little bit and drop the price into territory never seen before in a FF DSLR; that's going to involve minimal R&D time which should help keep their margins pretty good and should bring some more converts over to their brand. Then, next year when the economy's recovered a bit and you're making lots of money off of what's mostly existing stock, put out a 900 replacement that's a higher spec'd body that throws in the few pro features people have found lacking from the 900.
-
Good for Sony, cranking up the competition. I still think the lack of sensor-based LiveView is a fatal flaw for serious tripod work in the field or in the studio though.
I agree, awesome on Sony for mixing it up but as a landscape photographer i've fallen in love with live view and thats a deal breaker for me. Having said that I think this looks to be a perfect camera in terms of price/performance ratio for a whole boat load of people and I would suspect that there will be some interesting meetings going on inside the board rooms of Nikon and Canon in the coming weeks...
So about 7 years ago canon introduced the 1Ds at $8,000 with 11 MP and today you can get a Sony with 25 MP for $2,000.... So what will we be talking about in another 7 years?
-
a 24mpix FF under 2000 is a big deal....i was tempted by the 900 and i am tempted again....i really only use a 35 50 and 85 with my system and sony has that covered...maybe even better then canon/nikon.....but i shoot leica r glass on my canon now....the huge viewfinder is another reason for the sony....and their obvious drive to make a splsh in the market....
the 5DII is amazing..really is...but af, finder and a few other niggles make me want more, better,.....the video is also amazing, but there is no way to shoot video and stills and just switch back and forth and to really shoot video there has to be an articulated screen....
nikon is totally missing from this discussion, as they have been for a couple of years....the D3x maybe has the best 100 quality but the price and missing features (video, sensor clean?!?!) make it only soso.....
the question is what will canon and nikon announce in the next couple of months? sony obviously put the price pressure on...canon can probably follow (they can keep the price of the 5dIII or what ever it will be roughly the same...i don't think anyone will sell all their canon gear only to save a couple of 100 on the body...only to blow it on more expensive lenses! for the sony....i can get supercheap, good backup and filler lenses for canon...the top of the line are the same price but the variety and options at lower prices clearly speak for canon...)....nikon will have a hard time justifying a d700x for twice the 850.....
fun times for shoppers...the 850 is almost at the point where it can be picked up just to have....if those lenses weren't that expensive....
i am hoping for the m9....that will be the first true digi back substitute....
-
My concern is that every Sony product that I have owned over the years has been crap. It has broken prematurely and they like to charge high flat rates for repair. I wonder if these DSLR's will be of higher quality. I agree that the best for me is to force Canon to get on their game and compete aggressively with Sony.
That is one of my concerns too. There is even a joke in Japan about the "Sony Timer" which cause whatever Sony product you have to break just as soon as the warranty expires. I do worry about Sony longevity and durability.
-
Hi,
The Minolta/Sony mount has much longer flange distance than the Canon, it is one of the advantages with Canon that there are a lot of mounting options.
So no, it cannot be done. There are adapters with built in lenses but they extend focal length by 1.2 (or so) and won't give optimal image quality.
There is some Ukrainian stuff from Arax: http://araxfoto.com/specials/tilt-shift-35/ (http://araxfoto.com/specials/tilt-shift-35/)
I happen to have an Arax tilt adapter and a Zeiss Jena 50 mm lens. Another option is stuff from Zork http://www.zork.com (http://www.zork.com) which is intended to be used with enlarging lenses. No real wideangles, but cheapers options to the Hartblei stuff.
Best regards
Erik
Will we ever see a Canon to Sony lens adapter? The Hartblei tilt/shift lenses will work on Sony but at a very steep price.
-
Hi Lisa,
I'd suggest that DxO-mark ( http://www.dxomark.com (http://www.dxomark.com) ) has some data on "raw" image quailty. in DxO-mark the Alpha 900 and the 5DII are pretty close with the Nikon 3DX being significantly better. (It's said to take 5 DxO-mark points to make a difference). DxO-marks are absed on raw data.
I cannot compare with other systems and very seldom shoot at high ISO, so noise has seldom been an issue for me. I use Lightroom normally.
Best regards
Erik
Good points Douglas, but I guess for me as a pro, the lack of lenses and lack of rental support could be deal breakers. And no video is a real let down - I am just now starting to tinker with video, and there is no turning back. Video is being asked for by many clients these days...and it can be very lucrative.
Anyway, how are you liking the a900? I handled it a couple times and it seemed pretty nice. (the noise some people were getting off of that chip scared me out of buying it though.) Which is the best RAW converter for it?
-
I think you're right, the price difference between the 850 and the 900 is too much to suggest that the 900 is going to stay around given how little you give up. This seems like a very astute move from Sony, strip down last year's model a little bit and drop the price into territory never seen before in a FF DSLR; that's going to involve minimal R&D time which should help keep their margins pretty good and should bring some more converts over to their brand. Then, next year when the economy's recovered a bit and you're making lots of money off of what's mostly existing stock, put out a 900 replacement that's a higher spec'd body that throws in the few pro features people have found lacking from the 900.
Totally agreed. They have learned from Nikon (think D3 -> D700), cannialize your own products yourself or somebody else will do it for you. Good for photographers, not sure if it is good for innovation on the long run, but future will tell.
I am wondering who is going to buy an A900 now though. Sony has basically pushed the barrier very far in terms of giving away the body at or below cost to secure money from the lenses.
Let's see how the other guys react.
cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, I don't know. I mean I think at the moment the 850 is to expensive. I mean it has to fall quite fast in price. I can buy a a900 for 2000EURs right now. So the a850 should be more towards 1500EUR.
What is the price for the a900 in the US ?
-
Well, I don't know. I mean I think at the moment the 850 is to expensive. I mean it has to fall quite fast in price. I can buy a a900 for 2000EURs right now. So the a850 should be more towards 1500EUR.
What is the price for the a900 in the US ?
The A850 is $2000 in the US, and apparently just over $1800 US in Taiwan. The A900 is $2700 in US, and so is the 5dii
-
Sony has basically pushed the barrier very far in terms of giving away the body at or below cost to secure money from the lenses.
I doubt that's the case here.
All they had to do was take 2 or 3 steps back from the final development of the 900 and they have the 850. Simplified assembly and less strict tolerances in production means it's cheaper to build and repair.
This is an interim camera. The 850 drives the market with little effort and it's based on what they already had. Pretty clever.
-
I doubt that's the case here.
All they had to do was take 2 or 3 steps back from the final development of the 900 and they have the 850. Simplified assembly and less strict tolerances in production means it's cheaper to build and repair.
This is an interim camera. The 850 drives the market with little effort and it's based on what they already had. Pretty clever.
Aye, 100% viewfinders (especially when dealing with IS) are very expensive. Nikon claims they can't even put a dust shaker on their 100% VFs. I think Sony miscalculated that the A900 VF would make a splash, but it apparently wasn't neccessary in this price range. A parts list for the A850 leaked a few weeks back, and the price difference between the a900 and A850's VF and PC board was in the neighborhood of a few hundred bucks, which would translate into the retail price difference.
-
I doubt that's the case here.
All they had to do was take 2 or 3 steps back from the final development of the 900 and they have the 850. Simplified assembly and less strict tolerances in production means it's cheaper to build and repair.
This is an interim camera. The 850 drives the market with little effort and it's based on what they already had. Pretty clever.
The price of a FF is mainly "dictated" by the price of the sensor, so is their sensor cheap to produce ?!
Thierry
-
The price of a FF is mainly "dictated" by the price of the sensor, so is their sensor cheap to produce ?!
Thierry
That used to be the case, and still is for medium format (for the highest density sensors), but is not so much the case any more for FF 35mm.
And remember, Sony designs and makes their own sensors, and is a supplier to many other companies.
The price for full frame cameras is largely dictated by marketing and business concerns. Sony vs the others has proven that.
Michael
-
That used to be the case, and still is for medium format (for the highest density sensors), but is not so much the case any more for FF 35mm.
And remember, Sony designs and makes their own sensors, and is a supplier to many other companies.
The price for full frame cameras is largely dictated by marketing and business concerns. Sony vs the others has proven that.
Michael
I would agree: FF sensors have been in production long enough, and in great enough volumes, to allow much greater flexibility in pricing and marketing decisions.
My sense is that Canon will feel the heat a little more than Nikon. The latter is on something of a rol, and has made some interesting moves in the past 2 years. To my mind Canon has not made any significant moves since the 5D, which was all about the sensor size, since the body was pretty standard.
Setting aside lens investment, I would find it hard to choose a Canon over a Nikon if I were shopping today. Now Sony have gone and complicated the mix. For my needs their lenses are somewhere between great and incredible. Just one or two small tweaks to their bodies and it will all be good.
I am sure Canon will evolve their game. They have to. So when I am ready for a new investment in 12-18 months I should have even greater choice, and hopefully good prices too.
-
FWIW, Nikon may be showing us in the very near future whether or not the A850 changed the game. I've heard that some stores aren't restocking D700 bodies...
-
So about 7 years ago canon introduced the 1Ds at $8,000 with 11 MP and today you can get a Sony with 25 MP for $2,000.... So what will we be talking about in another 7 years?
Seven years ago the price of entry to 35mm format DLSR was $5,000 for the Kodak 14N (which also offered 13.5MP) and that was obviously over-priced as it was quickly reduced to $4,500 and eventually discounted to $3,500. On the non-digital side, the Sony A850 body is better than the 14N, but far from the class of the 1Ds series, so looking only at 1Ds pricing gives a misleading picture of price trends. It looks to me that prices are down to between 1/3 and 1/2 of what they were then, adjusting for body quality. Meanwhile, prices for mainstream formats are down by a similar but larger proportion: from about $2000 then to under $500 now for the basic models.
And if you want a body of 1Ds quality, the 1DsIII and D3x are not a lot cheaper now than the 1Ds was then; each came to market at that same $8,000. The high end seems stuck in a very low volume, high mark-up sector. And improving quality in the sub-$3000 options will probably make that even more so in the future.
Pixel count trends are fairly similar too: roughly doubling from then to now, though a bit less for 35mm format, a bit more for the smaller SLR formats.
-
My sense is that Canon will feel the heat a little more than Nikon.
Well hopefully prices will come down across the board. I have my doubts about Canon "feeling the heat" when it comes to the 5D2 sales. I mean what do you suppose the sales ratios are between the a900 vs 5D2? 1:300? 1:500? (again, going my my dealers' comments...) Seems like even after 9 months on the market they are still selling 5D2s as fast as they can make them. Just saying I am not sure if this particular camera is going to directly impact Canons pricing on the 5D2...but time will tell I guess.
-
will be interesting to see the 850 showing up on the used mkt at an even lower price point,, it takes about three to four months to see a new camera on the forums FS area,, of course teh glass will still be tough to buy,,
Derry
-
It could be around $1,500 and still I won't buy it.
I'm stocked with Canon glass. Also I rather keep myself within a "camera" brand than a TV brand. (in few years this will change).
Sony's incentive to discount this camera from factory is to win adepts. Canon doesn't need that. They only need a killer autofocus system, that's it.
Eduardo
will be interesting to see the 850 showing up on the used mkt at an even lower price point,, it takes about three to four months to see a new camera on the forums FS area,, of course teh glass will still be tough to buy,,
Derry
-
My sense is that Canon will feel the heat a little more than Nikon. The latter is on something of a rol, and has made some interesting moves in the past 2 years. To my mind Canon has not made any significant moves since the 5D, which was all about the sensor size, since the body was pretty standard.
I tend to agree. I have some questions on how well Nikon can react since Sony is their supplier but the general "vibe" I get from Canon is that they were pushing the market for a long time but got comfortable with being on top and have gotten lazy over the last few years. Nikon has suffered through several years of playing second fiddle to Canon and has clearly come on strong (and hungry) in the last few years. I think that puts the advantage to Nikon as they should have a very recent memory of what it was like to be over-shadowed and Canon has to wake up.
Now what I'd love to see from Nikon is the following:
Drop the D700 down to around $2000-2200, a lot of the NY stores have been selling them for $2400 recently so that's not really a huge cut and would give them something FF in the same price range as the a850. It's also enough higher that it likely wouldn't kill the sales of the D300s as you have some that prefer APS-C (say a large stable of lenses) and/or want video. Suddenly Nikon has a high-end APS-C body with video and LV priced cheaper than the 850 and a FF body that offers better frame rate, LV, AF and (possibly) build quality at slightly more at the sacrifice of resolution. Plus, they could make this change tomorrow since they don't have to push out any new models.
Discontinue the D3 or replace it with a "D3s" adding HD video (ideally, 1080p) and the few other tweaks. This could be a bit of a coup as it would be the first unquestionably "pro" body with video.
Come out with a "D700x" at the $3000-3500 price range. This should cannibalize parts from the D700 and D3x so shouldn't need too much new and at this price would really throw down the gauntlet against the 5dII.
Drop the price of the D3x by about $1500-2000. Using the same sensor in the D700x will increase their volume of that sensor so they should be able to take advantage of that economy of scale to make this happen.
I think if Nikon did this they'd have an extremely compelling pro product line and they'd be competing with Sony on features rather than trying to copy their product line which should help push their brand distinction.
-
... Also I rather keep myself within a "camera" brand than a TV brand. (in few years this will change).
Eduardo
I swear, I am going to explode if I read something like this again. Sony is no more a TV brand than Canon is a $40 printer brand. Sony has long been known as a professional audio/video brand, and they make things that make our little DSLRs look silly.
:LINK: Ever seen this stuff:? (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/home.do)
this camera is hundreds of thousands of dollars:
(http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/public/product_images/altimage/26%2005%2020081211758468sony_f35_srw1.jpg)
-
Lots of interesting insights here. Any thoughts about how the new Sony camera will affect prices at lower price points (not just the effect on prices of the obvious direct competitors)? I'm more in the 50D/D300 price range -- will the Sony affect pricing and/or features on the "60D" or "D300x" or whatever Canon and Nikon introduce as their next entries in the higher-end crop-frame models?
zeke
-
Lots of interesting insights here. Any thoughts about how the new Sony camera will affect prices at lower price points (not just the effect on prices of the obvious direct competitors)? I'm more in the 50D/D300 price range -- will the Sony affect pricing and/or features on the "60D" or "D300x" or whatever Canon and Nikon introduce as their next entries in the higher-end crop-frame models?
zeke
Good question, Zeke. It'll be interesting to see how the different line-ups square off in price/features. It looks like the upcoming Canon "7D" is gonna be a mini 1D with an APS-C 18mp sensor, but hopefully the Best Buy price rumors of well over $2k US aren't true. Once the A850's street price drops a little, it'll really be pushing hard up against the APS-C cameras. Fun times.
-
Also I rather keep myself within a "camera" brand than a TV brand.
You are only demonstrating your lack of awareness with that statement.
Sony is developing their DSLR market, which they are relatively new to. If they have half the success they've had in the video realm they'll dwarf Canon in the market quickly.
-
Lots of interesting insights here. Any thoughts about how the new Sony camera will affect prices at lower price points (not just the effect on prices of the obvious direct competitors)? I'm more in the 50D/D300 price range -- will the Sony affect pricing and/or features on the "60D" or "D300x" or whatever Canon and Nikon introduce as their next entries in the higher-end crop-frame models?
zeke
Good question, hard to say for sure because the higher end crop sensor cameras tend to have some features that the 850 doesn't, like higher frame rates, live video or video. I suspect that we're going to start seeing more differentiation in products based on features rather than resolution and I suspect that will be the case for across brands as well.
-
I agree, awesome on Sony for mixing it up but as a landscape photographer i've fallen in love with live view and thats a deal breaker for me. Having said that I think this looks to be a perfect camera in terms of price/performance ratio for a whole boat load of people and I would suspect that there will be some interesting meetings going on inside the board rooms of Nikon and Canon in the coming weeks...
So about 7 years ago canon introduced the 1Ds at $8,000 with 11 MP and today you can get a Sony with 25 MP for $2,000.... So what will we be talking about in another 7 years?
So what is it that makes you fall in love with live view?
-
So what is it that makes you fall in love with live view?
If you've ever shot a 5d2 on semi static subjects, it's almost a no brainer to hit focus. Frame, two quick push buttons and you've zoomed into eyelashes, set the focus push the button and shoot.
Digital is hard to focus and live view takes a lot of angst out of hitting focus and of course the beauty of the 5d2 is what you see is what you get.
Now in regards to the Sony.
I don't think this Sony is amazing because of quality or features but for still photography it does change the game.
Nobody would have thought even a few years ago that a company would make a 20+ megapixel camera under $2,000, much less one that is coming out with a new lens set of Ziess lenses.
I have a friend that's moved 95% of his work away from medium format backs to the Sony a900 and hasn't missed a thing and his work is in most major publications monthly.
Right now we're into this strange middle territory where 35mm cameras have gotten very close to the file quality of any medium format back and with the Sony's, Canons, maybe soon the Nikons they are not doing it for 1/2 the price of past 20 megapixel cameras but now 1/10th and I doubt seriously if shot in professional conditions, once an image goes through post production few buyers of photography at any level, any genre could tell the difference between this camera and any other, from $7,900 Nikons, to $40,000 digital backs.
I know nobody wants to hear this, but Sony has quietly moved into the market. A few years ago at Photoplus they still had 1.5 cropped consumer cameras though mounted on the front was big honking Ziess glass, so you just knew the day was coming where they would go head to head with everyone.
They obviously weren't making those lenses for the amateur down the street.
What does amaze me most is the video functions of Sony and even Nikon and Canon seem somewhat stalled. Sure there's live view generated 720 to 1080 high def, that require manual focus, shoot some form of camera processed video and though the quality and look can be quite amazing, they are still limited in their use and scope.
You would think Sony would be way ahead on this, given their experience in video and already have at minimum a cine full frame camera with a serious lens set, that shot a raw file, Kind of a poor man's RED.
Imagine if their next video camera was compatible to their still lenses, then the game really get's changed and honestly it would be hard to ignore a system, that might require two cameras, but all the other parts, especialy glass were interchangable.
Regardless of video, or where Sony lens line is at the moment, it is very hard to ignore what they have recently done and you just kind of get the feeling that when they are ready they could change everything.
It really depends on how fast, how good, how soon.
BC
-
If you've ever shot a 5d2 on semi static subjects, it's almost a no brainer to hit focus. Frame, two quick push buttons and you've zoomed into eyelashes, set the focus push the button and shoot.
Digital is hard to focus and live view takes a lot of angst out of hitting focus and of course the beauty of the 5d2 is what you see is what you get.
Now in regards to the Sony.
I don't think this Sony is amazing because of quality or features but for still photography it does change the game.
Nobody would have thought even a few years ago that a company would make a 20+ megapixel camera under $2,000, much less one that is coming out with a new lens set of Ziess lenses.
I have a friend that's moved 95% of his work away from medium format backs to the Sony a900 and hasn't missed a thing and his work is in most major publications monthly.
Right now we're into this strange middle territory where 35mm cameras have gotten very close to the file quality of any medium format back and with the Sony's, Canons, maybe soon the Nikons they are not doing it for 1/2 the price of past 20 megapixel cameras but now 1/10th and I doubt seriously if shot in professional conditions, once an image goes through post production few buyers of photography at any level, any genre could tell the difference between this camera and any other, from $7,900 Nikons, to $40,000 digital backs.
I know nobody wants to hear this, but Sony has quietly moved into the market. A few years ago at Photoplus they still had 1.5 cropped consumer cameras though mounted on the front was big honking Ziess glass, so you just knew the day was coming where they would go head to head with everyone.
They obviously weren't making those lenses for the amateur down the street.
What does amaze me most is the video functions of Sony and even Nikon and Canon seem somewhat stalled. Sure there's live view generated 720 to 1080 high def, that require manual focus, shoot some form of camera processed video and though the quality and look can be quite amazing, they are still limited in their use and scope.
You would think Sony would be way ahead on this, given their experience in video and already have at minimum a cine full frame camera with a serious lens set, that shot a raw file, Kind of a poor man's RED.
Imagine if their next video camera was compatible to their still lenses, then the game really get's changed and honestly it would be hard to ignore a system, that might require two cameras, but all the other parts, especialy glass were interchangable.
Regardless of video, or where Sony lens line is at the moment, it is very hard to ignore what they have recently done and you just kind of get the feeling that when they are ready they could change everything.
It really depends on how fast, how good, how soon.
BC
Good points, BC. I'd certainly like main sensor live view in my A900 for some applications. I'm a little miffed that the new consumer A550 has a single button main sensor live view that apparently zooms in to 14X, so it would only be one button, then shoot. Me and a lot of my fellow A900 owners have been hoping for a firmware upgrade in this regard, but I think that window is closing Regardless, like you've mentioned about your friend, I sold my older Leaf back, went Sony, and haven't looked back.
-
Good points, BC. I'd certainly like main sensor live view in my A900 for some applications. I'm a little miffed that the new consumer A550 has a single button main sensor live view that apparently zooms in to 14X, so it would only be one button, then shoot. Me and a lot of my fellow A900 owners have been hoping for a firmware upgrade in this regard, but I think that window is closing Regardless, like you've mentioned about your friend, I sold my older Leaf back, went Sony, and haven't looked back.
Well isn't live great. We will see a very soon 7D from canon which, if they really can raise the MP count to 18 and not worsen DR and ISO sensitivity it will be fun to watch what a 1DsMk4 with around 30+ MP will do next year. With current technology they probably could go close to 40Mp, but I would gues they stick more towards 30 to really improve Noise and DR more. Than we will see similar cameras from Nikon and Sony soon after. I mean I like the S2 System, but would I ever buy one if I knew I can have a similar Mp count from a Canon, Nikon or Sony with all modern bells and whistles? Yes there is the argument for lesnes, but than again, if I spent money on the best primes, than they are quite good as well. Leica is not the only company making great lenses.
However back to the topic. I'm really interested in these to different ideas from Canon and Sony. If it is true that the 7D will be a 18Mp 1.6 Cropped Sensor than that would be more or less in the other direction of sony. I prefer Sony's way of bringing FF cameras to us cheaper, but I could understand a lot of wildlife and sports shooter how would love a 7D with 18Mp, 8fps and Prograde AF. (Especially after the 1DMk3 disaster. :-P )
Here a question how good is the AF from a a900 or similar? I mean I have never shot anything moving or wildlife like with the camera.
-
Seven years ago the price of entry to 35mm format DLSR was $5,000 for the Kodak 14N (which also offered 13.5MP) and that was obviously over-priced as it was quickly reduced to $4,500 and eventually discounted to $3,500. On the non-digital side, the Sony A850 body is better than the 14N, but far from the class of the 1Ds series, so looking only at 1Ds pricing gives a misleading picture of price trends. It looks to me that prices are down to between 1/3 and 1/2 of what they were then, adjusting for body quality. Meanwhile, prices for mainstream formats are down by a similar but larger proportion: from about $2000 then to under $500 now for the basic models.
And if you want a body of 1Ds quality, the 1DsIII and D3x are not a lot cheaper now than the 1Ds was then; each came to market at that same $8,000. The high end seems stuck in a very low volume, high mark-up sector. And improving quality in the sub-$3000 options will probably make that even more so in the future.
Pixel count trends are fairly similar too: roughly doubling from then to now, though a bit less for 35mm format, a bit more for the smaller SLR formats.
Good point about the 14n. Forgot about that camera. Agree in regards to the high end. I would bet the farm that from now until the earth crashes into the sun canon's highest resolution pro body will stay right around the $7-8 grand mark and that Phase 1 will always have some Uber camera that costs more then most cars. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that yes the latest technology will always cost a premium its just that now the mid range of the market offers some very serious high quality products and only give up a fraction to the stuff at the high end of the market. Thoughts?
Thomas
-
So what is it that makes you fall in love with live view?
Working on a tripod I quickly move the little white box to whatever it is that I want to have be tack sharp, push the zoom button twice, focus and shoot. Its really a dream come true for me. Its like getting to check focus on a ground glass but without a sheet draped over my head. Out of focus shots are never an issue for me now when shooting landscapes.
Thomas
-
My concern is that every Sony product that I have owned over the years has been crap. It has broken prematurely and they like to charge high flat rates for repair. I wonder if these DSLR's will be of higher quality. I agree that the best for me is to force Canon to get on their game and compete aggressively with Sony.
You must have been really unlucky, never had anything unfortunate like that happen to me with my Sony products. If it was universally true they'd probably be out of business by now, so you're probably the victim of a statistical anomaly.
-
... so you're probably the victim of a statistical anomaly.
99% of the discussions on this board a based in statistical anomalies.
-
99% of the discussions on this board a based in statistical anomalies.
-
Setting aside lens investment, I would find it hard to choose a Canon over a Nikon if I were shopping today. Now Sony have gone and complicated the mix. For my needs their lenses are somewhere between great and incredible. Just one or two small tweaks to their bodies and it will all be good.
The real gem here is that the older Minolta lenses also work great on it. That gives a serious photographer a massive number of older and inexpensive lenses to add to fill in those gaps. In fact, it's to find a gap at all if you add in those lenses(other than maybe super-mega-telephotos).
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp)
That's a lot of lenses.
-
In fact, it's to find a gap at all if you add in those lenses(other than maybe super-mega-telephotos).
Well....
Don't forget the old Minolta 600/4, 400/4.5 and 300/4. All pretty stellar lenses that still show up regularly on e-bay and other second hand places.
Today there's already the 300/2.8G as well as 70-400G, the latter had pretty good reviews and can be used wide open. Finally there is the rumoured new 500/4.5, but don't hold your breath for that one, as I will believe it when it's announced (and not a 2 year old mock-up)
-
I wonder how the low iso images from the Sony a850 compare to the Canon 5D mkII ?
I shoot mostly beauty under studio conditions. I rarely... if ever shoot above 100 ISO.
It is coming time to replace my aging 5D mkI . I am not hugely invested in lenses.
-
I wonder how the low iso images from the Sony a850 compare to the Canon 5D mkII ?
I think it'll do great, and the big advantage is in-body stabilization (but probably not that important in studio-beauty shooting)
Maybe read this (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml) review from Michael comparing the 5DMkII with the A900. The only practical differences between the A900 and A850 is a drop to 3 fps (from 5) and a 98% viewfinder (from 100%), but else (incl. sensor and IQ) they're identical (except for minor cosmetics).
In the end it's just a tool you need to be comfortable with, so can you go to a shop nearby and just handle both side-by-side? That will probably give you the best indication.
-
I wonder how the low iso images from the Sony a850 compare to the Canon 5D mkII ?
The Sony A900 is a wedding and studio camera to be sure. The thing's just not optimized for low light(ISO400 is about as high as it goes). A camera pretty much is like that - the sensors can be designed for high or low light performance, much like film(many of the same optical and physics limitations apply). If you want low-light, get a Fuji. Their new binning methods and on-chip HDR is really incredible for city type photography and night time work. But they suffer from lower resolution to obtain that, which is a killer in studio work where every last pixel matters to the client(people as a rule examine studio work very closely compared to a picture of say, a building or some people at a cafe).
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA90...00HI_ISO_NR.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900HI_ISO_NR.HTM)
You can see that 400 is about as far as it can be pushed before noise is a problem(800 looks nasty without NR). NR of course is too strong above 400 as well, IMO.
But for lower ISOs it looks gorgeous.
-
I wonder how the low iso images from the Sony a850 compare to the Canon 5D mkII ?
I shoot mostly beauty under studio conditions. I rarely... if ever shoot above 100 ISO.
It is coming time to replace my aging 5D mkI . I am not hugely invested in lenses.
Try the Zeiss 85 and 135 with the A850. You'll put you Canon gear on ebay.
-
It's been known and discussed to death for nearly a year that the A900 IR images are underexposed. Their tests aren't exactly the best for comparison. According to Andrey Tverdokhleb and Iliah Borg (RPP developers,) the ideal ISO range of the A900 is ISO 320-800 with this camera. ISO 800 is quite comparable to the competition, and it's at ISO 1600 where real ground is lost, but great high ISO comes at a cost of the low ISO color separation of the A900, which is class leading. If you're primarily a low ISO shooter, the A900 is the easy choice over the 5Dii in regards to IQ. For Iliah, the A900 is also usually the choice over his D3x cameras as well, unless the scene has a very high DR range, since the D3x has better shadow noise performance.
-
The Sony A900 is a wedding and studio camera to be sure. The thing's just not optimized for low light(ISO400 is about as high as it goes). A camera pretty much is like that - the sensors can be designed for high or low light performance, much like film(many of the same optical and physics limitations apply). If you want low-light, get a Fuji. Their new binning methods and on-chip HDR is really incredible for city type photography and night time work. But they suffer from lower resolution to obtain that, which is a killer in studio work where every last pixel matters to the client(people as a rule examine studio work very closely compared to a picture of say, a building or some people at a cafe).
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA90...00HI_ISO_NR.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900HI_ISO_NR.HTM)
You can see that 400 is about as far as it can be pushed before noise is a problem(800 looks nasty without NR). NR of course is too strong above 400 as well, IMO.
But for lower ISOs it looks gorgeous.
Process those same shots in DxO... you'll see the files stay very clean up to 1600.
I have some very nice ISO 4000, 5000, and 6400 shots taken with the a900. Expose and process properly and the results beat 99% of the samples on the web.
No, it isn't a D700, but the default jpgs, and the way ACR and others deal with the high ISO files from the a900 make it look much worse than it actually is in reality.
-
Well, that's certainly good to hear, then.
The important thing to remember is that Sony bought Minolta but kept the employees and pretty much left them alone to do what they do best. Yes, it's slow in getting into the semi-pro market, but they don't build junk, either. Canon, OTOH, I think moved a bit too fast into this market and their quality issues are showing as a result. Nikon always was the 2000lb gorilla of course and they work as expected, though at a price.
-
Doh, sorry to be presumptive. I should have asked more questions first. It doesn't surprise me that the 5Dii is selling so well. There was a gigantic 5D user base to begin with, and the D700 is a year old. Sony never really had a chance to compete in that regard. Plus, in my daily non-camera-forum-geek life, the issues of the 5dii (like banding,) are largely unknown, and it is a great camera. I don't think the A900's AF would be good enough to warrant a switch from the 5Dii. If you can deal with no video, the 1Dsiii or D3x may be the better choice (or D700 if you don't need the resolution.)
I would characterize the my time with the A900 (and I guess the A850) like this:
-Wonderful low ISO (100-400), good mid ISO (625-1250), acceptable high ISO (1600-3200)
-great (maybe the best) center point AF, pedestrian outside points/tracking
-Outrageous viewfinder that is big and bright (A850 supposedly looks near-identical, even though it is only 98%)
-Average battery life
-Huge file sizes (36MB RAWs)
-Flash system better than Canon, worse than Nikon (but I'm not the best authority here)
-two memory cards is nice, but no auto-switching is ridiculous
-best vertical grip of any camera made (although a bit ugly)
-non-standard flash shoe is slightly annoying, but it has its strengths, too
-AF Zeiss lenses are incredible.
-I love shooting stabilized below 100mm
-I actually like the uncluttered, big numbered top LCD, but I'm in the minority
-The feel, handling, and overall "vibe" of this camera is unlike anything I've used in a while. Uh oh, could this be love? lol.
I agree for most of your points and I would add that noise at 640/1250 iso is actually quite good if processed with raw converter as RPP. Eventually we can give a light pass on noise ninja or equivalent just to fine tune the noise, but the noise from the a900 prints very well and the over all look of the image, even if shot with a regular sony lens and not a zeiss, is IMO more interesting than a canon image.
I'm actually glad that many colleague actually snub the Sony, one of the reason that I switched was that I did not want to use the same camera and lenses that everybody use.
If the 5d sells like "panini" at lunch time, it does not really matter to me. that is not going to make my bank account or my life style any better.
BTW, for the NYorkers, Adorama has two complete kits with all the best lenses for the a900 available for rental at a fraction of the cost of the other dslr.
And last but not the least, the sony cameras, using a little trick with the Pocket wizards can sink studio strobes up to 1/8000 of a second.
I do not know of many other cameras that can do that.
I have used canon for years and I do not regret one bit having replaced it with a sony system.
-
Try the Zeiss 85 and 135 with the A850. You'll put you Canon gear on ebay.
so true.
-
Greetings,
to me the 900 was a true revelation for a very reasonable price, and of course, offers such as ZA 135 and so on make it a serious package. Yes, it looks a little like a zapper from a sience fiction movie but I quite like the looks, which is not a important factor, but much more so, the usability is just plain excellent which came as a big surprise to me.
IQ is truly excellent with smooth tonal transitions and very usable up to ISO800 without any doubts. Also, the fun factor is extremly high, it is just a joy to work with the zapper.
The final outputs, most important to me, even really large prints, on my Epson 11880 are excellent.
-
I wonder how the low iso images from the Sony a850 compare to the Canon 5D mkII ?
I shoot mostly beauty under studio conditions. I rarely... if ever shoot above 100 ISO.
It is coming time to replace my aging 5D mkI . I am not hugely invested in lenses.
I do the same kind of work you do and I had a 5d classic and a 1ds markII.
I sold everything on ebay at the right time. I had canon lenses that were bought 4 to 5 years before, like the 85mm 1.2 and 135mm 2.0 to name a few, they were in good cosmetic condition and I sold them for about 50 to 150$ lees than the price I paid for new.
getting rid of canon gear is never going to be a problem.
As somebody said before, you put the Zeiss 85mm and 135mm on an a900 and will never miss a canon.
-
It could be around $1,500 and still I won't buy it.
I'm stocked with Canon glass. Also I rather keep myself within a "camera" brand than a TV brand. (in few years this will change).
Sony's incentive to discount this camera from factory is to win adepts. Canon doesn't need that. They only need a killer autofocus system, that's it.
Eduardo
Sony digital imaging technology may go well further back than canon's, if I'm not wrong.
We could argue that you are using cameras from a color copier brand, since that has been the core of Canon business for years.
On the press release from the Formula1 team Brawn GP, when they announced that Canon was going to sponsor them for the Singapore GP, they wrote that they "were very happy to welcome the famous "printer brand" on sponsoring their team".
So if you care about those things, you should be blushing when you go around with the thingy around the neck.
-
On the press release from the Formula1 team Brawn GP, when they announced that Canon was going to sponsor them for the Singapore GP, they wrote that they "were very happy to welcome the famous "printer brand" on sponsoring their team".
So if you care about those things, you should be blushing when you go around with the thingy around the neck.
Canons presence in the professional office equipment market is far greater than in any other market they serve. Each division of the company operates with independent advertising and it is the professional office equipment division that is sponsoring Brawn in Formula 1.
-
Canons presence in the professional office equipment market is far greater than in any other market they serve. Each division of the company operates with independent advertising and it is the professional office equipment division that is sponsoring Brawn in Formula 1.
Therefore it is a "printer" brand more than a camera brand.
-
Can someone explain what making copiers (or TV's, game consoles or.......) has to do with Image Quality from DSLR's?
-
Can someone explain what making copiers (or TV's, game consoles or.......) has to do with Image Quality from DSLR's?
And what any of this has to do with a Sony Alpha 850?
Mike.
-
And what any of this has to do with a Sony Alpha 850?
Mike.
A thread digressing off topic ?
Nah, never happens here.
-
Can someone explain what making copiers (or TV's, game consoles or.......) has to do with Image Quality from DSLR's?
Nothing.
But if you read quite a few posts back, you may understand where all this came from.
cheers.
-
Ziocan, what is the 1/8000 sec pocketwizard trick? How does it work? Thanks.
-
Ziocan, what is the 1/8000 sec pocketwizard trick? How does it work? Thanks.
Yes, please do give us the details on that technique.
My A850 and 24-70 CZ zoom arrived today. The build quality of both is exceptional.
-
Ziocan, what is the 1/8000 sec pocketwizard trick? How does it work? Thanks.
here we go:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=30873172 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=30873172)
this thread is about the a700, but it applies to the a900/a850 as well.
from the original poster technique, few variations are explained down the thread.
I like the one of "boxing" the optical trigger on front of the flash mounted on the hot shoe and then wiring it to a PW.