Calling all Sony Alpha users! (Part 4)

Status
Not open for further replies.
@ Puddleduck.

Sorry to cross post, but are you based in Histon, it's just that I drove through yesterday and was sure I saw a sign for Puddleduck Photography. If not you then huge coincidence.
 
puddleduck said:
Personally it wouldn't surprise me if Sony stopped making FF sensors.

The D3X and the A900 didn't sell well - although Sony sold lots more A900 / A850 than Nikon sold D3X there isn't the volume sales to sustain an FF sensor fab.

I think we'll see one more full frame body - probably with Liveview, Video (:gag:) and it'll be 30 megapixels. That'll sell even less than the A900 and then Sony will exit quietly.

BTW the Nikon D700x won't be using a Sony sensor - in fact.. I suspect the reason that Nikon hasn't done a D700 with the D3X / A900 sensor is because they know Sony are canning the sensor..
Click to expand...

if they ditch FF I'm ditching them ! ;) . tv, phones, laptops etc. as a brand.
they should try to make even cheaper FF in the future, with the same 24mp, maybe a liveview just to be different from a850/a900.
but yeah - I had the feeling that they are going to focus on Nex series when they announced the NEX VG10 .
 
Skeleton1200 said:
@ Puddleduck.

Sorry to cross post, but are you based in Histon, it's just that I drove through yesterday and was sure I saw a sign for Puddleduck Photography. If not you then huge coincidence.
Click to expand...

Its an imposter :D
 
Starastin said:
if they ditch FF I'm ditching them ! ;) . tv, phones, laptops etc. as a brand.
they should try to make even cheaper FF in the future, with the same 24mp, maybe a liveview just to be different from a850/a900.
but yeah - I had the feeling that they are going to focus on Nex series when they announced the NEX VG10 .
Click to expand...

Well I might sound rather blase about this.. but the A900 is a camera I think will last me for a long time. It gave me what Nikon still hasn't delivered. But I probably wouldn't buy the A900 replacement as I don't need more megapixels, video or liveview. I wouldn't ditch it it - actually I'm looking to get another before supplies dry up and we get a £3k A950+ and no A900's left :)
 
Where do you think Sony have gone wrong with their venture into full frame Andy. I remember readings articles/advertising guff about how they wanted to make inroads into the professional market. I'm assuming they haven't succeeded because if they'd made a good job of it I doubt they'd consider pulling out.

Is it because they haven't really had the lens line up to compete against the big two? Was the A900/850 the wrong product for the professional market in general?

Perhaps if they do ditch the high end FF market they'll concentrate more on the high end APS-C market and stop introducing an ever growing range of introductory cameras.:shrug:
 
Kev M said:
Where do you think Sony have gone wrong with their venture into full frame Andy. I remember readings articles/advertising guff about how they wanted to make inroads into the professional market. I'm assuming they haven't succeeded because if they'd made a good job of it I doubt they'd consider pulling out.

Is it because they haven't really had the lens line up to compete against the big two? Was the A900/850 the wrong product for the professional market in general?

Perhaps if they do ditch the high end FF market they'll concentrate more on the high end APS-C market and stop introducing an ever growing range of introductory cameras.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Sony's problem is that their lenses and bodies don't say "Canon" or "Nikon" on them.

There is nothing wrong with the lenses - the 70-400 SSM is a class leading. The Zeiss 24-70 smokes the Canon 24-70L, and is as good as the Nikon 24-70. As sharp - if not sharper - but not as good bokeh.
The Zeiss 16-35 is also a stunner.

They've got 16 to 400mm covered with a lovely set.

I honestly believe the main reason is that is has the "wrong" label on them.

Having said that the A900 has attracted loads of Nikon shooters - ie switchers or dual shooters like me.
 
puddleduck said:
Well I might sound rather blase about this.. but the A900 is a camera I think will last me for a long time. It gave me what Nikon still hasn't delivered. But I probably wouldn't buy the A900 replacement as I don't need more megapixels, video or liveview. I wouldn't ditch it it - actually I'm looking to get another before supplies dry up and we get a £3k A950+ and no A900's left :)
Click to expand...

It is ! no one would actually need more than that. but I would like to see them fight more for the pro market and make some more pro equipment. I don't believe that they think that they can conquer the market so quickly.
 
Starastin said:
It is ! no one would actually need more than that. but I would like to see them fight more for the pro market and make some more pro equipment. I don't believe that they think that they can conquer the market so quickly.
Click to expand...

Loads of Pros shoot Sony already.

Last years (2009) UK Wedding Photographer of the Year was a Sony A850 shooter. Stunning portfolio.
 
They seem to have all the folcal lengths covered but are they doing it at the right apertures do you think? i.e. all tele lenses being 2.8.

The A900/850 aren't suited to sports shooting, do you think Sony missed a trick by not making a camera to appeal to this market or do you think it would have come down to brand snobbery again anyway?
 
Kev M said:
They seem to have all the folcal lengths covered but are they doing it at the right apertures do you think? i.e. all tele lenses being 2.8.

The A900/850 aren't suited to sports shooting, do you think Sony missed a trick by not making a camera to appeal to this market or do you think it would have come down to brand snobbery again anyway?
Click to expand...

It's basically down to the brand at the end of the day. There is saying that no one ever got fired for buying IBM (when the IBM brand meant a damn), and same is with Nikon and Canon. They make excellent gear.

Now I know the A900 is superior to any camera Nikon has on the market (D3X excluded) with class leading resolution, and 2/3rd stop better dynamic range than even the new D3s. But folks don't look at that.. they go for a safe choice...
 
puddleduck said:
Loads of Pros shoot Sony already.

Last years (2009) UK Wedding Photographer of the Year was a Sony A850 shooter. Stunning portfolio.
Click to expand...

that's not my point. It's just that if they dump FF I would feel betrayed and so wouldn't buy anything Sony . I know that the a850/900 are amazing.

oh ! wedding togs don't count ! :lol: . are there any photojournalists using them ? or fashion, editorial etc.

could you maybe remember the name of the wed. tog of the year ?
 
Starastin said:
you will spend more money to get equipment that is worse than the one you already have ?
Click to expand...

well this was my thought exactly, I also looked into a body and 50mm f1.8 and the cheapest there was is a d3000 and 50mm f1.8 which doesn't even autofocus and i'll be £400 out of pocket!

my plan is to keep saving up cash for the lenses (50mm f1.4, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, 35mm f1.8) and then try and find a second hand body, heck by the time i can afford it the d90's successor will probably be out and so d90's might be cheap.
 
Last edited:
mastertrinity said:
well for me I will stick with my Sony a300 and 50mm f1.7 and then try and save up some money and buy a second hand D80 with 50mm f1.8 and 18-70mm f3.5-4.5:(
Click to expand...

Don't quite get the logic - you have an A300 so aren't not really affect if Sony do stop producing FF sensors.

Going from an A300 to a D80 would not be an upgrade for you.

The Comet A450 deal with a lens for £299 is a stunning deal - you can't get close that that sort of value in Nikon fit:

http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/645370

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
 
puddleduck said:
Alex Whittle, nice chap. Really loves the A900.

There is another Pro who switched, having shot 4, systems!

http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00V98v

Lots of Pro's shoot with Sony - but they all use the full frame bodies, as that is where Sony are winners along with the Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...

exactly! Sony have taking the video market by storm and they need to do the same with the photography market, this is why Zeiss lenses where made and even though APS-C is getting better it's still not catching up to FF standards and sony specialising in APS-C is pointless.

sony could be the best at crop factor cameras but no one will purchase them because they would rather have an inferior canon/nikon and be able to go FF. this is be contradictory because sony don't want to make FF because it's too expensive and not many people where buying but if they scrap FF then most people will change to either canon or nikon.

it's ashame because sony were doing really well and something like this is just a disaster.
 
mastertrinity said:
it's ashame because sony were doing really well and something like this is just a disaster.
Click to expand...

It might not be true - I can certainly understand the logic and personally given that the market for that FF sensor is small (D3X + A850 / A900) I think the story has legs, but who knows? Probably only Sony and probably Nikon do know for sure.
 
puddleduck said:
It might not be true - I can certainly understand the logic and personally given that the market for that FF sensor is small (D3X + A850 / A900) I think the story has legs, but who knows? Probably only Sony and probably Nikon do know for sure.
Click to expand...

you could be right, not to mention that a FF sensor with 24 mega pixels is a bit over the top even if for studio work.
 
mastertrinity said:
do you know what would be perfect for sony?

a 1.3x sensor that way they are cheaper than FF sensors however better than the 1.5x sensor it would be a good system for sony.
Click to expand...

No, its not about the sensor size. Its all about the brand, and getting over brand name resistance.

You go down the 1.3x route and you'll be compared to Canon's 1.3x range. And there some excellent cameras you are lined up against. Bad move.

People won't suddenly buy a Sony camera because it has 1.3x APS-C in it.
 
puddleduck said:
No, its not about the sensor size. Its all about the brand, and getting over brand name resistance.

You go down the 1.3x route and you'll be compared to Canon's 1.3x range. And there some excellent cameras you are lined up against. Bad move.

People won't suddenly buy a Sony camera because it has 1.3x APS-C in it.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying that people will buy it because of that, however it seems more niche and its like a half way stop between APS-C and FF. It's never been a camera war it's been a popularity contest and that's why half of the reviews on cameras are biased, i've even contemplated going mirrorless however i wan't to go pro in the future and the technology and lenses aren't up to scratch the moment.
 
mastertrinity said:
that's why half of the reviews on cameras are biased
Click to expand...

Yes, you only need to look at how say the Nikon D3000 gets raves while the A500 gets panned.

The A900 did get very good reviews - it got a bad rep for noise handling due to use ACR which as we know is way better with 6.0x then it was two years ago.

The A900 is actually very good at high ISO, but reviewers shoot a picture of a postage stamp in JPEG then come to conclusions so its stuck with a bad at high ISO rep.
 
puddleduck said:
Just got this today (thanks to a very pleasant face to face trade via Dxyum)

Very nice lens - I was testing out a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM last week which I had to return as it was soft and hazy..Tamron is excellent.

Loved this in Nikon fit, but hated the slow focusing - on my A900, as its screwdriven focusing is nice and quick :)
Click to expand...

Quoting myself - last week I returned a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II as it was rubbish wide open at 100% at 200mm.

Here is last weeks test shot, compared with the Tamron 70-200 - both wide open, on the A900

Test image:


sigma-tamronfull.jpg


sigma-tamron100crop.jpg

​

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di absolutely smokes the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II - no contest.
 
I was talking to one of the guys on the Intro2020 stand at Focus this year about Tamron and Bronica stuff and he was telling me that when Tamron took over Bronica they'd already decided to scrap the MF cameras. They only wanted Bronica for their knowledge of manufacturing lenses.
 
looks to be true , but for an honest review you should've had compared them at the same time + no stills. but - I still believe you ! :)
 
Starastin said:
looks to be true , but for an honest review you should've had compared them at the same time + no stills. but - I still believe you ! :)
Click to expand...

Didn't have them at the same time - I sent the Sigma straight back when I saw how rubbish it was! Did the same test with the Tammy, close as I could.

But the shot on the left was the best I could get out of the Sigma lens sharpness wise. Here is a raw if anyone wants to have a look :gag:

http://www.andydrakeimages.co.uk/LensTests/DSC00116.ARW

Lens absolutely sucked!
 
Starastin said:
have you tried other copies ?
Click to expand...

I went through two - both from Sigma UK, 3 months apart. I slated the first one on Dyxum as well - it was a little better, but not an acceptable standard at 200mm f/2.8 either.

I've owned a superb one in Nikon fit, but that was the old 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM - I find the "macro' versions sub-par.

I know the Tamron is excellent as I had one in Nikon fit - in Nikon fit the lens has problems with a very poor built-in AF motor.. but optically its 2-0 to Tamron so far :)
 
hmm.. interesting.

the raw in the link - it only looks good at max 12% . at 100% it looks utterly rubbish :( .
I so wanted to believe that sigma 70-200 is good as I have a 24-70mm that I really like.
 
puddleduck said:
Don't quite get the logic - you have an A300 so aren't not really affect if Sony do stop producing FF sensors.

Going from an A300 to a D80 would not be an upgrade for you.

The Comet A450 deal with a lens for £299 is a stunning deal - you can't get close that that sort of value in Nikon fit:

http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/645370

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Click to expand...

I think you may have pursuaded me to stick with Sony:clap: I love my a300 and couldn't stand having to get used to another system and hopefully Sony might create a FF in the £1000 area that could help there asses.

I think it's just paranoia kicking in for me because I would love to turn pro and Sony was a brand I wanted to stick with and when I heard the shocking news I immediately thought "oh sheet"!

Also I thought the D80 would be better than the a300?
 
I requested one stop digital (£337.30) if they can price match Jessops Tamron 10-24mm (£249.00)

They replied

Hi,

Thank you very much for your price match request.

I'm afraid we do not have this lens with Sony mount. Sorry!

Thank you.

Regards,
Onestop Digital
Click to expand...

bunch of jokers!!!
 
I can't find this price £249.00 for the tammy.

+ I just noticed that the 85mm f2.8 will have rounded aperture blades, which kicks ass !!!!
 
For anyone interested Jessops are doing the NP FM500H battery for £20. Collect from store only. I'm (hopefully) going to collect 1 tomorrow :thumbs:
 
£1 off with JESSOPS5 in the coupon code at the checkout (works for collect at store as well)
 
rodman said:
I requested one stop digital (£337.30) if they can price match Jessops Tamron 10-24mm (£249.00)

bunch of jokers!!!
Click to expand...

I should get one from Jessops then... ;)
 
rodman said:
I requested one stop digital (£337.30) if they can price match Jessops Tamron 10-24mm (£249.00)

They replied



bunch of jokers!!!
Click to expand...

Why would you want a grey import company to price match a highstreet store selling UK goods? I could understand if you wanted them to beat the price but matching it seems a bit odd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top