Agree
But the Nikon V has on sensor PDAF that makes it revolutionary. The NEX has performance, but nothing technologically revolutionary.
Very very true. I love Nikon ergonomics. I also hate Canon ergonomics, which is why I will not buy a Canon DSLR. I also know people who feel the exact opposite of me. Choice is good.
Actually, Sony have a pretty good selection of lenses, including some stellar Sony/Minolta 'G' and Carl Zeiss lenses. Remember that there are a lot of Minolta Alpha mount lenses available too.
The NEX-7 brings everything together in one package. That makes it (sort of) revolutionary. More, I think it will be the effect it will have on other manufacturers, that will be the real revolution. Maybe now we will get to see more cameras aimed at the serious shooter and not so much at the p&s crowd (ie: GF2 and GF3)
I know about the on sensor PDAF of the Nikon 1, but the camera as a whole is still lame.
They are also easy marks because they are rarely photographers, and even more rarely well-informed about the technology.
Too bad Nikon put that "revolutionary" focus technology on such a tiny sensor. The problem with this decision is that the so-called "revolutionary...next generation focus technology" won't be so "revolutionary" or "next generation" in a year or so. But the Nikon 1 sensor will always be small. Hence, it's "lame".
I also wonder how much the focus system will be helped by the increased DOF of the small sensor? It might be as large a sensor as Nikon was willing to risk. Large DOF could mask the limitations of the system. I guess if you want to say that the new Nikon is revolutionary based on the focus system, one might argue that putting a digital sensor behind a pin hole camera would be most revolutionary?
This is both amusing and offensive. The original poster indicated that he liked the camera. Do you have any reason why he should return it other than that it's not a Sony? The 50D is a very good crop body camera. Perhaps you should return your camera, should you own one, and get a 50D.
Ah, so you are implying that such complaints are valid today, which is when the O.P. is using his camera. Are you suggesting that he just tough it out for "a few years" until Sony gets up to par with Canon?
Yours was not a fanboy post? Smells like one to me. Your post was "carefully worded?" I think not. OP wrote, "I just bought my first SLR, a Canon 50D ( I love it by the way )" and "more and more people seem to be joining the Sony bandwagon, but I just don't get it ," and your reply to that is to suggest that the OP may still have time to return his camera.
It wasn't? Recommending that someone get rid of a camera that they like isn't a fanboy post? You didn't even give a reason.
I was not insensible at the time. I can't post when I'm insensible.
Agreed. The O.P. specifically noted that he was happy. It doesn't matter that you're unhappy.
What do you mean "we", Sony fanboy? If you don't like my responses, don't read them.
I invested in Canon because when I bought my first DSLR (10D) in May of 2003, Canon was king of the hill for low high-ISO noise.
That does not mean that the Canon or Nikon cameras are better. There are other considerations, that do not apply to those who are just starting out in the photogrpahy:
OTOH, beginners will discover later that they have no upgrade path with Sony. No pro cameras, only one fast telephoto prime (300/2.8), no T/S lenses, no fast or macro 200mm primes, no 14mm prime, and fewer third party lens options. Minolta lenses can be very good, but they're old and overpriced, and if they break you will be in a bad place when it comes time to repair them.
Canon and Nikon users can also rent lenses in every major city, and that's not often available for Sony users.
They won't and it's not even close.
The generally adequate system here is Sony's system. Nikon and Canon have complete systems which are more than adequate, and in most ways better than Sony's system.
