File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
"No high end DLSR announced today, but a little more detail: It's going to be a full frame 24.6MP CMOS model with Super Steady Shot stabilization, and it's coming this year."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013109sonypma.asp


Is this awesome? y/n
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelH 25Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4434Image Height3130Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution400 dpiVertical Resolution400 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:12:27 12:46:06ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2677Image Height1890
>> Anonymous
>>119940

Start saving your pennies, I'm guessing this camera will cost upwards of $5k when it's eventually released.
>> Anonymous
I wonder if that'll make Nikon and Canon finally consider in-body IS too.
>> Anonymous
but it's sony....
>> Anonymous
o lawd, full frame WITH sensor stabilization? bricks were shat.
>> Anonymous
>>119945
don't know about Nikon, but Canon has released quite a bit of documentation on why they think lens IS is better. propaganda or not, seems like a pretty good sign of their plans for the forseeable future.
>> Anonymous
>>119962
Until recently Nikon was "releasing documentation" about how cropped sensors are superior, and then all of it suddenly disappeared.
>> Anonymous
>>119964
lenses are a little different in this case. why develop an internal IS camera body when you're getting a premium on all the IS lenses you produce?
>> Anonymous
>>119965
The main reason would be if you start losing market share to companies that are offering it. Canon might not be in any danger of that right now, but it's hard to say where things will be five or ten years down the road.
>> Anonymous
>>119978
>you'd have to replace every one of your lenses

That's what every camera manufacturer wants.

Of course, abuse of your own customers will eventually backfire, but when you control nearly half of DSLR market, you can afford doing some dirty tricks.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>119970
you and me both for that 50. f/1.4 all metal body, VR. mmmmmmmmm....... I'd be willing to shell out ~$475
>> Anonymous
>>119984
>all metal body
Sadly, nowadays, an all metal body = ZOMG it's like Zeiss = enjoy your MF lens for $1000.
>> Anonymous
>>119983

Well they obviously won't be controlling that much of the market for long then.
>> Anonymous
image stabilizing sounds like a fantastic idea.

if only it was available for every camera for a lot cheaper and would actually work.

.....OH WAIT.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>120038
Who the hell cares about olympus (who licenced it or is it their own?)

>>120041
BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING FULL SIZED SENSOR, THATS WHY.

Generally used for things like landscape and studio where you can be making monster prints of the results.

Its got an even higher pixel density than most crop cameras.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>120047
Higher physical Pixel density = More noise
Give me a clean ISO 12,800 any day over Ridiculous Megapixels.

Like when you save up enough money for said cam, Do you think you will ever need 24 Megapixels. Or will 99% of the time 12 be sufficient?
>> Anonymous
>>120041
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to turn it down to 12 or 6 in the menus.

Also, if I'm interpreting that Canon summary correctly, I'd say that's nonsense because the body knows what focal length the lens is at through the pin data. It can then adjust its movement pattern based on that data to be more accurate.
>> Anonymous
>>120048
Super-high resolution + pixel density, downscaled to 12 or so megapixels and sent through a NR algorithm that knows it has spare pixels to work with and can pick the nearest neighbor majority or average value = amazing high-ISO performance, likely better than a smaller sensor with less density
>> Anonymous
>>120049
i think the thing is since it moves the image so much, the sensor wouldnt be able to move enough to stabilize it whereas you could move a piece of glass in the lens and move the image more than the sensor would be able to
>> Anonymous
>>120084

You already resorted to ranting like an idiot. You've lost any chance of taking the high moral ground.
>> Anonymous
>>120088
>You complete retard.

or did time just hit a rough spot and that was posted after my next comment?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Fucking hell, a thread about sony with me in it that didnt result in me and jeremo trolling each other.

Within the sonyminolta family this is going to be the best for landscape by a long way, even with the 9+awesome film its going to be hard to beat.

Do _I_ want it more than the A700, not really. I shoot more sport than landscape but its a major addition to the range.

Do i expect 1D/D3 performance, not really but I do think its going to make canikon worried, which is good for _EVERYONE_
>> Anonymous
>>120089

You already claimed I was being ignorant, despite the fact you are a clueless idiot. When you actually know what you are talking about, then you can play with the big boys. You clearly know nothing about photography.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Large format expensive?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/4x5.htm

> I paid $300 for my first 4 x 5 camera including lens

If you can't afford three hundred bucks then you are in the wrong game. If you can afford a pro body then it isn't going to break you.
>> Anonymous
>>120094
Another completely unrelated personal insult? Oh, I guess you're right. I slipped up and revealed I knew nothing about photography when I didn't concede that everyone shooting landscape pictures needs to take them on a 4x5 film camera.

I was not saying you were ignorant, but it seems that you decided to take it personally and interpret it that way.

I was saying that your comment was ignorant, that is, it was uninformed and not at all correct. I never said you were ignorant, a complete retard, a ranting idiot, a clueless idiot, or a person who never interacts with society.

Just to make you feel good, you win. I agree completely with you now, your comment posted in>>120065is absolutely right. Nobody should take any landscape pictures unless they're using a 4x5 camera. Anyone who does is a complete waste as a photographer and anything they produce must be total garbage. I've seen the light, thanks to my new friend. Nobody should even think about using this Sony for taking pictures of trees, mountains, rivers, lakes or anything one might find outside.
>> Anonymous
>>120100

Glad to hear you admit your ignorance at last. Now please go kill yourself. The world does not need you and would be better with you as fertilizer.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Take a fucking chill pill, guys.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
NEW RULE

ONLY GOOD TROLLING ON /p/
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>120126
define "good trolling"
>> Anonymous
>>120126
doesn't that kind of preclude your posting?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>120132
I'm a good troll...

>>120131
No one can be told how to troll, you have to be trolled yourself.
>> Anonymous
/p/ =/= /b/

you can all become an hero, so cut the bullshit.