No pro's shoot Sony? Frank Doorhof long time Canon & Hasselblad shooter just got himself the a99

Sometimes I see people reading tables and graphs and conclude that a certain camera can't do this or can't do that in real life. But then it turns out that they in fact misread the figures, and turn neglible real world differences to huge academic problems. I bit funny ... and tragic.

I am pragmatic about what my cameras can do or not -- trying them out in real life situation, and then trying to find ok workarounds if needed.

An few examples:

One stop more or less noise? Ok, use the camera and choose lenses according to this, and the noise level is a non-problem!

Auto focus layout is not what I think would be best? Ok, then learn the AF system and different settings to know both for static and moving objects, and you will increase the numbers of keepers.

Lack of lenses? Which lenses do I use, and which do I miss? I think most people are worrying about which lenses other's might miss (professionals), not what they miss themselves. Sure there are some glitches in the Sony lens lineup, but with third party lenses much are covered. And many of those specialized lenses don't sell much. How many members of this foum have bought third party Tilt & Shift lenses for their Sony cameras (i.e. Schneider)?

Too small pixels for low light photography? Do you actually do low light photography, and if so, have you compared the performance when comparing the total area of the sensor? Also, have you tested how these high ISO files will do for a magazine full page or spread? People would be surprised to find how well high ISO pictures work when the content is worth looking at!