.A900 and A850 are not barebones. Just because you want them to be , doesn't make it true. You just don't get the point that Sony made a very good, solid, high resolution tool for photographers.
High res. Yup, got that part and already stated so. Capability and features, that's what I was talking about, that none of you sony lovers are getting. You girls need to lighten up and not be so defensive. The sonys are nice cameras, but they do not have the features/capability that I'm talking about. Capability and features are important to a large segment of the market, or there wouldn't be any cameras that had those features and capability.
Nonsense. High ISO performance, frame rates, AF capability, and so on and so on. Those are things that I use every day. Now, if you don't want them and are willing to give up those things, the sony looks like a good deal.
More nonsense. Any FF camera owner is in the minority, even in sony land. LOL Regardless, I'd much rather have my d700 or even a d300, than a bare bones camera with 24mp. Features that enhance capability are important and are worth money, whether you understand that or not.
Kerry
Your entire post was that you already have a D300 and D700 so the sony camera to you is irrelevant. Again is not about "you" is about how the Sony pricing and sensor affect the market and I think it affects it in positive way.It's not personal.As JJ wrote below, features are worth money. Capability is worth money. None of the sonys are as capable as the cameras that I already have,
--
--
--
I think this is the very well said. I shoot mostly fine art/landscapes/studio, so the FF Sonys make sense for me, but, if I was into lowlight/sport shooting, I'd add a D700 in a second. Different tools for different jobs.
--
--
Not true at all. Canon has raised prices on their existing lenses as well–although their continual rebates take the sting out for the consumers. And their bodies, with the exception of the XD-series, are mostly loss-leaders, I suspect–enticements to consumer lenses and other accessories where margins are higher.
Sony sensors are the basis for a great many of the sensors in Nikon cameras, but not all of them. Specifically, the D2H/s and D3/D700 use sensors designed from scratch by Nikon and not manufactured by Sony. And even in the cases of Nikon uses Sony chips, their customizations often add up to substantially different (very often better) results.
Indeed, Canon always competes on price and the breadth/strength of their lens system. No suprises there. It only gets them so far, though.
Yet, Canon and Nikon still sell far more entry-level cameras than Oly, which hasn't seen a significant increase in market share in years, IIRC. So, how smart is their strategy, really?
The D700 doesn't need to compete on brand recognition. It's the single most versatile camera on the market today. 95% of users don't need more than 8MP let alone 12. And, short of lacking video and some esoteric Live View functions than most users would never know existed, it'll be years before the D700's total potential is exceeded by the competition. Do you realize how large a market there is for a single DSLR that does most everything well? Why do you think Canon is selling so many 5DIIs? It's a jack of all trades, that's why. Do you think there's be nearly as much interest if it were a stripper like the a850, regardless of price? That, essentially, is what the original 5D was, and sales were never what Canon (or the market) anticipated.
Now when they give up so many of the features and functions they've become accustomed to with their D40/50/60/80/90. Very few hobbyists want to deal with the need for additional processing power and mass storage that comes with snapshooting at 21MP.
There was a time when I'd have agreed with you, but lately I'd say Nikon is doing far more right than wrong.
--I don't see how that sony would affect the price of a d700x. It's a stripped down, bare bones camera. If you want high MP and don't care about any other features, it's probably a nice camera to have. Might even be worth adding to a nikon kit, for specific jobs.
If one assumes that the d700x will have the same feature set that the d700 has, there's no way that they'll price it below the d700.......
If I had to choose between a d300 or the new sony, it's a no brainer for my needs, the d300 would be in my bag, no question. Given that I already own a d700, it's really not even a consideration for what I do.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
FWIW, Konica Minolta used to make a version of this Tamron as well, and it tested better and had slightly better optical qualities compared to the Tamron. I expect the Sony to follow suit.
Konica Minolta also had a modified variant of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 (which I own and love) and by most accounts was a better lens than the base Tamron. Apparently different coatings, aperture blades and better QC from what I had read. In any case the KM 28-75/2.8 is fairly well regarded in the A-mount camp - no CZ 24-70 but still a very good lens. Hopefully the Sony version will follow a similar path.
