>> |
Anonymous
>>147538 >A100 was garbage so they got a lot of bashing for that, Though their new A700 is much better, almost comparable to a D300. >their new A700 is much better, almost comparable to a D300 >A700 almost comparable to a D300
Funny, most of the A700 pics I've seen look like utter shit, while the D300 pics are quite nice. Or at least don't look as shitty as A700's.
Maybe it's the optics, not how many megapixuls your camera has. Anyone with two neurons and some slight (digital) photographic knowledge should know by now that more pixels won't get you better shoots - yet ads claim otherwise. Sony just follows the general consumer trend, and tries to fool idiots throwing more megapixels in their cameras.
But I'd rather have the WIDE catalog of lenses Nikon & Canon have (and many of them yet to be beaten in terms of quality) than a camera with an hypothetically superior electronics.
Not to mention you can use old film cameras if you go the "Canikon" way. Has Sony something like Nikon's F6? Or it's Canon equivalent?
|