Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT (
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 94078] (

maxxum7d Jun 6, 2006 2:22 PM

Does anyone else feel my pain...

Mercury694 Jun 6, 2006 2:54 PM

While I share your sentiment, I did not expect Sony to make their first DSLR anything but entry level. There are two reasons for this, 1. Entry level DSLR is where the money is. 2 Entry level DSLR is where the money is.

Okay, there are other reasons, but those are the biggest by far. There is also the fact that SLR owners are very brand loyal. Almost no current Canon or Nikon owners will be swayed to Sony even if it is a masterpiece of modern engineering. The only clear upgraders would be current KM SLR owners and even if all 3% of us bought a Sony, they'd fal far short of their 20-25% market share goals. They need to bring up new DSLR owners in the Sony mount. That cannot be donewith a $2,000+ body. There is also the fact that this Alpha has some new technology, way better totest onthe entry level guys than the pros. They're more forgiving and expect less. The entry level guys will also be far more impressed with 10mp than most of us are. (wahoo, more artifacts!)

I would expect to see higher end models perhaps this fall or next spring, and unless Sony comes up with something spectacular, that is way before I'll be replacing my 7d.

tmoreau Jun 6, 2006 3:38 PM

That, and I've been getting the feeling that the lens lineup needs a big boost before luring in more 7D type buyers. Right now, its all 3rd party and used lenses unless you want consumer zooms like the 18-200 and 18-70.

Mercury694 Jun 6, 2006 6:19 PM

Yeah, I have to admit the lens lineup only had a couple lenses (maybe 4) that really struck me as lenses I want to own- of course excepting the lenses I already do own, in KM skin.

tmoreau Jun 6, 2006 7:37 PM

That 16-80 and 70-200 f/2.8 G would make a killer combo and cover most anything, though I sure wish they would have made that a f/2.8 or at least constant f/4.

I'm sure the lineup will fill out a bit by this time next year, but just strikes me as anemic right now. There are some excellent third party lenses but thats not going to convince anybody to go with this mount.

JimC Jun 6, 2006 7:59 PM

I dunno.

My 35mm gear is Nikon and I went with a KM 5D (even though I had to buy lenses to use with it when I could have used my existing lenses with a Nikon solution).

The anti-shake was too important to pass up.

But, a big part of that decision was noise at higher ISO speeds.

Unfortunately, Sony seems to want to continue the "megapixel war" with a 10MP sensor in the new Alpha models. That's probably a great marketing approach (since megapixels seems to sell cameras). But, personally, I don't like that approach (although I can understand it if some shooters need it).

Sure, not everyone really needs high ISO speeds. But, if you like to shoot in low light clubs and restaurants with live music, high ISO speeds are a must, even with anti-shake (or a tripod).

As for the "feature war"... no big deal to me. I wouldn't care if I had to turn separate dials for shutter speed and aperture, using an old style meter to get exposure right. Dittto for frame rates. No big deal for the kind of shooting I do.

Lower Noise at Higher ISO speeds, combined with better dynamic range are the things I'm most interested in. The rest is "gravy"

I'll wait to see photos from a production camera before passing judgement.

Mercury694 Jun 7, 2006 6:46 AM

But you are the exception Jim. All you need to do to know this is make a post in the Canon or Nikon forum stating that your 5d has 1 feature that those cameras dont offer and you'll be pummeled with responses on how many more Nikons are sold or how many Canon lenses are available and reminded that you can get a Rebel XT in 3 colors. ( I'm fine with brand loyalty andNikon and Canon both do make some fine cameras)

I'm with you on the MP war thing. 6mp is good enough, having 10mp may yield only more noise with no noticeable increase in real resolution. I do like the idea that they're trying to combat sensor dust somehow. Sony also appears to be keeping CF alive which is smart. Prpbably by the time I'm ready to upgrade DSLR's, they'll all have 50mp sensors anyhow. The important thing to me is that the lenses will continue to roll out for quite some time.

JimC Jun 7, 2006 7:52 AM

I'm just a bit perturbed that they left out ISO 3200.

As long as they've had to improve the noise characteristics of this sensor (the Nikon D200 has been shipping for a while now), I would have expected it to be there, especially since it's in the Nikon.

Heck, the DSC-R1 has ISO 3200, and it's got a smaller sensor.

You can even get a pocket camera with ISO 3200 now (the Fuji F30 has ISO 3200).

Yet, Sony's new DSLR only goes through ISO 1600. What's wrong with that picture? :-)

They may want to keep it out to distinquish differences between products. That's been the approach Nikon and Canon have used (the Nikon D50 and Canon Rebel XT don't get it, yet the next models up do).

Or, they may have decided that they couldn't keep the noise under control. Heck, there are some pretty decent tools around to improve that part. Let the user decide whether or not the noise is acceptable for the print and viewing sizes needed. Noise/Grain can be preferrable to motion blur.

Whatever the reason, I don't like it. I don't want to underexpose ISO 1600 to try and simulate ISO 3200. I want to be able to underexpose ISO 3200 to simulate even higher ISO speeds when needed (I do that sometimes with my 5D, and at smaller viewing sizes, you can get away with it from time to time). lol

OK... so perhaps most users wouldn't care, and I'm in the minority.

The new Dynamic Range enhancement feature does look promising, since DR was a weak link in the 5D and 7D's JPEG images.

Mercury694 Jun 7, 2006 8:28 AM

I don't use ISO 3200 much, but I can appreciate yourdisappointment as far as the a100 not having the option. Perhaps you are right and it will find its way to models geared towards a more saavy crowd. I haveto remind myself that this camera is not marketed to me, but to the mass market where perhaps having ISO 3200 available would just get Sony's tech support swamped by calls from new DSLR owners that think a 10mp ISO3200 shot should be as good or better than a ISO 100 35mm frame.

One thing that does interest me is the continuous 3 fps until the media is full. I know it doesn't mean much to you, but I do shoot continuous at times.

One of the sad comments on todays society is the dumbing down of so many items just so the stupidest among us don't screw anything up. I noticed down at the Mcdonalds they now have pictures of the sanwiches on the register- I can only assume that is because they no longer require their employees to read english. Pretty soon they'll have trainde monkeys taking our orders. ( with a modest improvement in order accuracy, of course)

One other question though, is this actually the same sensor that is in the Nikon D200?

JimC Jun 7, 2006 8:48 AM

Mercury694 wrote:

One other question though, is this actually the same sensor that is in the Nikon D200?
I don't know.

But, it's the same size, same manufacturer (Sony), with the same same pixel count. lol

So, I wouldn't expect too much difference between them (if there is any at all). By using the same sensor design in their own models, and selling it to other manufacturers, they'd be able to keep cost down.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:04 AM.