Reading mode: Light Dark

Ditching Sony

Go to last post
aarif said:
Wish you best of luck
--
I shoot with Canon Nikon and Sony so rest assured I'm no fanboy
http://www.pbase.com/aarif
Click to expand...
aarif, you have confirmed my opinion of you as a gentleman.

--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill
 
I havne't read all the replies here (no time) just wondering if you'd considered the K7 yet.

I'd have emailed you privately but I think your setting is private.

Otherwise I wouldn't post here.

C
 
fjbyrne said:
copejorg1 said:
But the other thing he's been getting a free pass on in this thread is the other feature he mentioned as a factor in exchanging his new Sony for the Canon: MLU. I mean, not only did he obviously know the A550 didn't have MLU before he "purchased" it -- Mike is the guy who started that big thread back in August telling everyone that they shouldn't judge the A5xx cameras negatively for their lack of MLU, unless they could prove that MLU was actually needed on those cameras. The proposition being that perhaps Sony had done something revolutionary with the shutter/mirror mechanism on these new models, rendering them so slap-free that MLU would have been an unnecessary "distraction" on them. And that -- for some unfathomable reason -- the burden of proof on this should not fall upon Sony (to prove that MLU was of no benefit on these models), but upon the paying customers (to prove that MLU was indeed beneficial in some circumstances). A little memory jogger ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=32843893

And now, one of the two specific reasons he gives for returning the A550 and switching brands is that it doesn't have MLU? Wow.
--
Greg
Click to expand...
I forgot that Mike was the one championing the "A5XX doesn't need MLU because it might have as special mirror/shutter mechanism". I wonder what changed his mind.
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit unfair. IIRC Mike simply suggested the possibility - he didn't claim it was definitely right.
--

I'd love to engage in a battle of the wits with you, but it appears you're unarmed.
 
domk275 said:
fjbyrne said:
copejorg1 said:
But the other thing he's been getting a free pass on in this thread is the other feature he mentioned as a factor in exchanging his new Sony for the Canon: MLU. I mean, not only did he obviously know the A550 didn't have MLU before he "purchased" it -- Mike is the guy who started that big thread back in August telling everyone that they shouldn't judge the A5xx cameras negatively for their lack of MLU, unless they could prove that MLU was actually needed on those cameras. The proposition being that perhaps Sony had done something revolutionary with the shutter/mirror mechanism on these new models, rendering them so slap-free that MLU would have been an unnecessary "distraction" on them. And that -- for some unfathomable reason -- the burden of proof on this should not fall upon Sony (to prove that MLU was of no benefit on these models), but upon the paying customers (to prove that MLU was indeed beneficial in some circumstances). A little memory jogger ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=32843893

And now, one of the two specific reasons he gives for returning the A550 and switching brands is that it doesn't have MLU? Wow.
--
Greg
Click to expand...
I forgot that Mike was the one championing the "A5XX doesn't need MLU because it might have as special mirror/shutter mechanism". I wonder what changed his mind.
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit unfair. IIRC Mike simply suggested the possibility - he didn't claim it was definitely right.
--

I'd love to engage in a battle of the wits with you, but it appears you're unarmed.
Click to expand...
Well he did argue the point pretty aggressively. As the poster above said the burden of proof was with Sony. Why should we have expected there to be no need for MLU?

No hard feelings vs Mike. I just think he wanted to like the A550 so much that he was willing to let emotion run away with logic. If the age-old issue of mirror vibration had been solved by Sony (other than with MLU) I think we would have heard something from them or they would have at least patented it. We saw neither.

I give Mike credit for coming back here and posting the lack of MLU was one of the reasons he was getting rid of the A550. It is admirable to admit when you are wrong. I wish him well.

--
Rick
 
mike_2008 said:
I have decided to send the A550 back. I want a small aps-c camera that does video. Even if the a750 has video the body will be too big and heavy for my needs. So the rational thing to do is to quit sony and go with canon.

So all the best, have fun and good luck; ciao.
Click to expand...
The irony is that the video on the 500d sucks. No external mic means the video is pretty much useless (my view) when it comes to produce professional-looking video with sound. if you just want to put music on your clips, internal mic works well.

I would never buy a camcorder or anything for video that doesn't have input for mic.

The 5d mk2 however is excellent in that regard.
--
I want Sonys fullframe answer to the 5d mk2. Sensor live view and
video, hopefully with less mp than the 850/900.
 
Ken_5D said:
I would be interested in 6 months to see how much you really use the video after the newness wears off.
Click to expand...
I bought a video camera a few years ago... nice little thing... fits one hand well.

I used it for maybe 4 months, quite a bit. Then realized that the 10 gig files were filling up my hard drive really fast. Plus, the editing was taking forever... and besides, no one in my family was interested in looking at the finished product. My wife has yet to look at one of the productions I made... not even to check if they were good or bad. She was just simply not interested... even if most of the shots were of the grandkids, which she loves dearly.

To be fair, though, she looks ONCE at the pictures I take, then puts them away, never to see the light of day again. I try to put some on the walls, and she complains about having too many of them. She simply does not have ANY interest in photography or photos. Sigh!

Needless to say, my video taking times have dwindled away to zero. I still take pics here at school... and the occasional video... the students and other teachers appreciate them. :)

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada
 
Edward Karaa said:
That is an excellent point. The Sony system is lacking for my needs too, especially in high quality fast primes, but the color reproduction is what will make me stay with Sony, as long as they keep the same strategy of using dense CFA on their sensors thus producing their excellent tonality and color separation. This is the most important factor for me in a DSLR.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point

In a way I never chose SONY - they chose me (and many others) when they'd decided to acquire the Alpha mount. That said, I'm thrilled that SONY continued Minolta's attention to color fidelity as a core feature that defines the "character" and a core offering of their Alpha system. As a non-medium-format fashion / glamor / portraiture / fine art / architecture / landscapes / product photography camera system, the choices SONY made at the high end (color and resolution over AF speed and high-ISO) suit me just fine. Mind you, I would like them to evolve AF speed wise, but not at the cost of compromising lens designs for better AF performance; I would not say "no" to lower noise out of the camera, but not at the cost of even one iota of color fidelity.

In fact I would like them to build on their strengths - i.e. if they achieve a 6dB S/N improvement in a sensor, I would like to see them use perhaps 2dB of that to further strengthen the micro-filters. When they boost resolution to 40-50MP, I'd like to see some orange micro-filters sprinkled in, in addition to the red, blue, and two kinds of green they already got. I absolutely would love to see 14-16 bit native resolution in all channels - I do not care that a "large portion" of the lower bits would "very often" be noise. When I bathe the scene in light (at base ISO), I want that resolution.
 
Phixel said:
mike_2008 said:
I have decided to send the A550 back. I want a small aps-c camera that does video. Even if the a750 has video the body will be too big and heavy for my needs. So the rational thing to do is to quit sony and go with canon.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Not too long ago you criticized those complaining about the image noise of the a900 because they "ought to do a minimum of research, and if they do they will find plenty of information indicating about it's capabilities." and now you are returning your a550 because it does not have video?
mike_2008 said:
"The fact that the A900 has the noise characteristic it has is very well known. Anyone who is seriously thinking about spending so much money to buy such a camera ought to do a minimum of research, and if they do they will find plenty of information indicating about it's capabilities.
Click to expand...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=33237051

You may have fooled some on this Sony forum with your fake Sony fan-boy persona, but not all, as your provocative subject title of your post "Ditching Sony" gives you away.

If you had done "a minimum amount of research" you would not have purchased the Sony a550 in the first place, as you would have known it does not have video capabilities, unless of course, you had an ulterior motive for doing so .

IMO, you are nothing more than a clever troll , and you won't be missed by those smart enough to have also seen through your little game!

-Phil
Click to expand...
I AGREE with you.
 
Phixel said:
Who knows, if Sony makes a successor to the a700 I may outlast all my detractors.Now wouldn't that be ironic! LOL!
Click to expand...
Phixel said:
Adios!-Phil
Click to expand...
Phil I think you are right and will soon be a relatively happy camper. My guess is the announcement at latest by the end of February might then be a few months before available.

Sony needs a photographers APS-C as a lead in or upgrade path to the FF and Zeiss/G lenses. They are not stupid.

--
tom power
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
gpr2020 said:
Barry you think that what you want is what everyone else want. But it is not like that. You are just a minority of Sony's buyers. And it is obvious that Sony is not going to make money with people like you. So it is a very good thing that the majority of SOny's buyers have different needs that yours and that they are mostly satisfied with their purchased.
Click to expand...
Sadly you seem to ignore that others desire MLU too, such as the OP, and many other folks have asked for it too. If you cannot work that out, little point carrying on. It's not about "me" but trying to move forward for the benefit of all A mount users.
Click to expand...
i dont think he does .. he just says its not important to him ...
Member said:
Posters such as yourself have no logic, nor any sound thinking in saying MLU is either not important, nor should it be included, it's a sad day to see people asking for crippleware..you should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...
that is a very silly statement and i think insulting....
Member said:
Member said:
If Sony is waiting on you to have good business, they'll end up like Minolta did. So thanks God, you are not the majority of Sony's buyer. This said, the day when I'll not be satisfied with Sony, I'll go next door to the one that can give me what I need. I won't moan.
Click to expand...
Again I will repeat, moving forward..looking for useful stuff that costs nothing at all to include, MLU is important, it's a cost nothing add on, and it should never have been removed from the camera range.
Click to expand...
i also disagree, evevrything cost something, whatt he cost is i have no clue but i disagree with you statement
Member said:
It's also a sign of the times when you have to spend £1600 odd to get a camera on A mount that has MLU, very sad...(other models are discontinued)
Click to expand...
Well im not sure "prince " had anything to do with it but if they dont offer something go elsewhere. Or maybe atleast direct your lobbying to the peole whom make the choices...
 
gpr2020 said:
Barry Fitzgerald said:
gpr2020 said:
Barry you think that what you want is what everyone else want. But it is not like that. You are just a minority of Sony's buyers. And it is obvious that Sony is not going to make money with people like you. So it is a very good thing that the majority of SOny's buyers have different needs that yours and that they are mostly satisfied with their purchased.
Click to expand...
Sadly you seem to ignore that others desire MLU too, such as the OP, and many other folks have asked for it too. If you cannot work that out, little point carrying on. It's not about "me" but trying to move forward for the benefit of all A mount users.

Posters such as yourself have no logic, nor any sound thinking in saying MLU is either not important, nor should it be included, it's a sad day to see people asking for crippleware..you should be ashamed of yourself.
gpr2020 said:
If Sony is waiting on you to have good business, they'll end up like Minolta did. So thanks God, you are not the majority of Sony's buyer. This said, the day when I'll not be satisfied with Sony, I'll go next door to the one that can give me what I need. I won't moan.
Click to expand...
Again I will repeat, moving forward..looking for useful stuff that costs nothing at all to include, MLU is important, it's a cost nothing add on, and it should never have been removed from the camera range.

It's also a sign of the times when you have to spend £1600 odd to get a camera on A mount that has MLU, very sad...(other models are discontinued)
Click to expand...
Barry I understand you can not afford a Sony camera with MLU. I can buy you one, I do not mind. Would you send me your mailing address ?
Click to expand...
neither can i .. id like a a900 please
gpr2020 said:
--
In reviews we do not trust !
Click to expand...
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
GKasparov said:
We keep hearing this claim from Walt and a few anti-video crusaders. I am just going to cut and paste my response from now on every time I see a variant of this claim.

We keep hearing this claim with implication that if a camera includes video, it will have LESS emphasis on still photography. I have not seen an iota of evidence for this claim. In Pentax vs Sonny thread, I listed K-7 features and in everyway I could think of, k-7 is better, but it still includes video. DOF, MLU, DMF, 100% OVF (better than A700), better weather sealing, better AF sensor, better IS, lens distortion correction (not in A700), PRICE (k-7 MSRP is cheaper than A700's MSRP, and even today, despite the fact that A700 is 2-year old, the street price for k-7 is only $150 more). In fact, no Sony fan was able to list one thing – just one SINGLE thing --- that is better in A700. There is not an iota, not a shred of evidence, that video comes only at the expense of still photography. Both Canon 7D and D300s are pro-level cameras, both have video, and both have much better features for still photography than A700. Indeed, the opposite is true. No video. Less buyers. Smaller market share. Less profit. More costly to build cameras and lenses and more difficult to stay in business. Maybe Sony’s DSLRs business will go the same route as Minolta: that is, OUT of business. I guess that will “really” help still photography for all the A-mount users, when the lenses they own start collecting dust.
Click to expand...
I am no video fan, but I have to agree with your point. I am not seeing other makers cut down features, to get the video in there..far from it, they have more features. Have to be honest, the 7d is one pricey camera for APS users, and it's in a higher class than the A700, so is the D300..

BTW Minolta are not out of business, they just sold their camera division to Sony, probably not a bad move in the light of the global downturn as it happens.. I would not expect Sony to be a dead end maker, they are too big for that.

On the other hand the time has come to take off the gloves..fight harder, and work much harder. If Sony don't want to do video, they should be putting even more into their cameras, and they are not (least not for APS users)

And I don't believe any of this "we must do it right" stuff, thats just pr nonsense for ooops we got left behind. If no maker ever did something before it was done great, we would never have had autofocus! Duh!! Sometimes Sony's PR is just wafer thin.
Click to expand...
Not very well put , but i agree.
 
Good point, I feel the same way, some people must simply accept the results of there own decision's, and not to try to convience others of there behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top