Sony's new prosumer: Canon going to cringe?

What if this thing comes in at $1500-$2000 for the body?

Lens magnification - (Crop factor) 1.25 x
Sensor type and size - CCD sensor (28.6 X 19.8 mm)
Resolution - 14.4 mega pixels
Maximum resolution - 4648 x 3098
Processor - image processing system and two standard of Bionz pixels
LCD screen - 2.5 inch (230,000 pixels TFT display)
Viewfinder - 95% view coverage

Magnification - 0.9 times magnification with diopter adjustment and
eye-function

 

If you want to find out how much Canon are cringing, then you'll need to
ask a poster on an obscure forum who claims that his brother in law
works for Canon's DSLR division, but provides evidence of nothing.

Otherwise if you can wait until next week and a Nikon D300 with a 1:1.1
crop 12.8 mp 5fps dslr is released, then you could ask Tony Polson...

 

The day Sony makes a decent digital camera monkeys will fly out my butt.

 

What I want is a replacement for my D200 that does not focus old lenses. I
have none. I don't like all the extra weight in the body with a focus motor
I will never use*.

* Well, maybe never. My mom does have a bunch of old Nikon lens. But I'd
rather pass them up and have a lighter camera.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

 

The pain must have been terrible: both the S85 (solidly built P&S) and F717
(superb design, fast sharp lens) were excellent small-sensor cameras.

A lot of people liked the Minolta SLR design, which Sony inherited. With the
reissued Zeiss lenses, Sony's very likely to have a winner on their hands.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

A year and a half after acquiring Minolta's photo operation, all that Sony
managed to do was to put their logo on the low-end 5D, with slightly
improved anti-shake and a few more pixels (at the cost of more noise).
Perhaps this tickled Pentax or Olympus, but certainly did not make anybody
cringe. Whatever new DSLR Minolta had in the works prior to the acquisition
vanished into thin air. The rest is somewhere between vague promises and
rumors.
Oh yes, they also jacked up the prices on some Minolta lenses by about 35%
before rebadging them, and dropped the really nice ones, selling Zeiss at
exorbitant prices instead.
And this, sadly, is coming from one who still owns a couple Minolta bodies
and quite a few lenses and thinks that the film Max7 was the best non-pro
camera ever made.

 

Why would anybody care? A decent camera isn't decided by megapixels
or processor. If they make a decent camera then people will pay
attention, but I don't see that Canon has much to worry about.

 

I hope they'll make something that Canon has to worry about.

I'd like to see a 5DII next January that makes me be happy I've been
squirreling away my spare change (17.5MP and an extra stop of dynamic range
at ISO 100 (even at a slight cost in high-ISO performance) would be nice).
But with no competition, Canon won't be in any rush.

Go, Sony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Please)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

So do I, actually, since that will provide some needed incentive for Canon.

17.5MP is too much. Way too much.

 

No, it's about right. It's 12x18 at 280 ppi. Just right for landscape work
when the other blokes showing prints are shooting medium format.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

Sounds like the D40x might suit?

David

 

I can't see this happening while so many of Nikon's *current* lenses still
require a motor in the camera. I can see why they ditched the motor in the
D40/D40x as this is aimed mainly at people who will stick with the kit lens,
but the D200 is only one step below their pro bodies so will appeal to
people who likely have a collection of lenses including lenses which don't
have built in motors.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

 

I did not state that I wanted a reduction in camera quality.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

Covered in cr*p no doubt. Hope the painkiller are working, because it's
an unusual chronic condition to have been in for the last two decades

David

 

"What if"?

What if we put wings on a bullfrog. Then he won't bump his ass so hard
when he lands.

 

Isn't it image quality which matters, though? <G>

David

 

Back in my film days, I always thought that Minolta made some of the
crappiest cameras out there.

 

The A100 was as good as the Canon Rebel XTi, maybe better. But then
the XTi was a toy....

 

Curious, but how is Canon going to squeeze out more DR if the pixel
count climbs? Look what happened to Olympus's DR when they went to 10
megapixels.

 

Their XD11 was light-years better than anything else out then for
consumeers, when program cameras started to appear. That's when Canon
began the insinuation of plastic into their SLRs.