File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hawt.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Abort trap (core dumped)
>> Anonymous
Sweet, an orange DSLR
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>261573
Not a DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>261573Sweet, an orange EVIL
Fix'd.
>> Anonymous
>>261576Sweet, a flaming DPREVIEW faggot.
fix'd
>> Anonymous
Any idea on how these compare to the FZ series?
Do they still use the shotty tiny sensor or nay?
>> Anonymous
I don't get it, why do people call that camera evil?
>> Resident Dolphins Fan !YgQRHAJqRA
>>261585


Brand faggots. They don't like that a company not named Canon or Nikon has made a viable alternative to entry-level DSLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>261589

lol

enjoy your dead end system
>> Anonymous
>>261584
Standard four-thirds size sensor (2x crop versus the 6x crop of the FZ series), but the G1 keeps the basic (excellent) ergonomics of the FZ series.

>>261585
Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lenses.

Like most word-acronyms, it's stupid. Just call it an EVF like we call SLRs SLRs and rangefinders rangefinders.
>> Resident Dolphins Fan !YgQRHAJqRA
>>261590


Enjoy your low IQ.
>> Anonymous
>>261592

rofl, this is better than a APS-C sensor now?

worst tripfag ever
>> Anonymous
>>261591
Because that doesn't distinguish this type of camera from any other camera or camcorder with an EVF.
>> Resident Dolphins Fan !YgQRHAJqRA
>>261599


You dumb faggot. Where did anyone say anything ever about other sensors? Are you just typing for the fuck of it?

As far as performance, Four Thirds sensors are comparable to APS sensors, yes. And with Micro Four Thirds you can have that type of performance in a smaller package that cam genuinely fit in a pocket. How is this bad in any way whatsoever?
>> Anonymous
>>261605

lol, your newfag is showing

IQ is image quality here, go back to wherever you came from

and enjoy your dead end system
>> Resident Dolphins Fan !YgQRHAJqRA
>>261611


No, I was talking about your low intelligence quotient. Sorry for the confusion.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>261611
Heh. I totally didn't catch until just now that he meant Intelligence Quotient when he said 'IQ' instead of image quality. I was confused.

Still, you're being a tool.
>> Anonymous
>>261603
I've always heard both the Canonet and the Leica M called "rangefinders."
>> Anonymous
>>261613
>>261614

nope

anyone not seeing four thirds is a dead end is an idiot, but you go enjoy your shitty system and have a few laughs

lol @ people buying four thirds

enjoy your $1000 paperweights when everyone will be rocking full frame next year
>> Anonymous
>>261619
This is not four thirds per se, it's micro four thirds and it's not supposed to be an alternative to full frame sensors, stupid faggot, it's supposed to be a smaller (and almost pocketable, just look at the new model that sigma announced!) cameras that are very easy to carry around, and have a very good image quality compared with your regular digital camera.

tl;dr this is the missing link between the high end p&s and the entry level dslr, it's not meant to replace anything.
>> Anonymous
>>261620

g1 isn't pocketable

sigma dp2 isn't four thirds

>> link between the high end p&s and the entry level dslr

we have those

e-420
e-520
xs
d60
a200
k-m

look at that fucking thing, it's as big as a e-420

then you're going to be like BUT I PUT PANFCAKE LOL

you can put a pancake on a e-420 or an ist ds

sorry for your failure of a system
>> Anonymous
>>261619
Just check out this classy motherfucker, look at me in the eyes and tell me you still dislike the idea of micro four thirds.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-drops-jaws-with-retro-micro-four-thirds-concept/
>> Anonymous
>>261619
You've admitted this "rofl" thing is just a persona. Please stop.

Also, when I caught it in another thread, you asked me to guess your other personas on here- are you that "Art, my cubs" thing, too?
>> Anonymous
>>261624

that's not even a real camera

the sigma dp1 prototype looked cool as fuck and look what happened

>>261625

wat
>> Anonymous
>>261627
It's a concept, people liked it so i guess it is very likely that a camera like that will see the light of the day rather soon.

It does not only serve as a concept, but if there is any reality in the size of the thing, it shows the small size that is possible to achieve with the micro four thirds system.
>> Anonymous
It sure looks pretty.
>> Anonymous
>>261624
yeah, that's the way I judge cameras - by the way they look. I can't tell you how many times I've shown someone my portfolio and the said "Your camera must really look nice."
>> Anonymous
>>261627
>the sigma dp1 prototype looked cool as fuck and look what happened
DP1 still looks cool, we just now know that it sucks on the inside. But micro4/3 guys have already shown us the G1 with awesome electronics, there are no reasons to suspect that Olympus' version will be worse.
>> Anonymous
>>261619
>everyone will be rocking full frame next year

No, not everyone. There's still no way around the cost of FF sensors. Of course, the economy of scale works, but it won't do miracles, so anyone who believes we'll get full frame cameras for the price of a Rebel in one or two years is a huge idiot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Guys? Stop feeding the troll, please. He isn't actually arguing against 4/3 or u4/3, he's just arguing against *you*.
>> Anonymous
>>261874so anyone who believes we'll get full frame cameras for the price of a Rebel in one or two years is a huge idiot.

every full frame slr has been cheaper than the next one

1ds i, ii, iii
5d i, ii
d3, d700

you're just an idiot who thinks they'll never come down in price
>> Anonymous
>>261921
>every full frame slr has been cheaper than the next one
Do you really understand what you just said?

>1ds i, ii, iii
MSRP $8000, $8000, $8000.

>5d i, ii
MSRP $3300, $2700.
-20% in 3 years

>d3, d700
Lol wut?

Sage because I'm tired of this shit
>> Anonymous
fucking idiot

>> MSRP $8000, $8000, $8000.

12,000, 10,000 and 8,000

>> MSRP $3300, $2700.

okay??? it's cheaper now than it used to be

>> Lol wut?

it's 2,000 less for practically the same thing

you're probably a butthurt pentax/olympus faggot who has a hard time accepting he's on the wrong bandwagon
>> Anonymous
>>261938
>12,000, 10,000 and 8,000
DPreview says otherwise

>okay??? it's cheaper now than it used to be
Assignment: Calculate how long it'll take for the price to drop to $1700 (the price of the most expensive non-full-frame DSLR I know) if it goes down at a rate of 20% per year.

>it's 2,000 less for practically the same thing
Oh yeah, and 5D II is the same as 1Ds III for $5000 less.
>> Anonymous
>>261888
This is correct. However, I'm feeling like making an ass of myself. So.

Tell me, oh great and mighty sage, why should I "rock full frame", when I like having more depth of field and like the fields of view I can get with available primes better for crop?
>> Anonymous
>>261585
Electronic
Viewfinder
Interchangeable
Lenses

E.V.I.L.
>> Anonymous
>>261943
Nikon D700 cost as much now as Dynax 7D when it was relased.
FF is getting cheaper and cheaper, canon lost its monopoly and prices will drop.
>> Anonymous
>>261943

jesus christ you're a fucking idiot if you can't see this coming

it's not going to be $500 any time soon but $2,000? fuck yeah

the 5D II with all the fucking brand new gadgets Canon stuffed in it is freaking $2,700

Nikon, Sony or Canon will fucking try to break ground again by making a digital full frame for less than $2,000

it's going to happen

jesus christ at butthurt pentax/olympus faggot
>> Anonymous
>>261957
>Nikon, Sony or Canon will fucking try to break ground again by making a digital full frame for less than $2,000

You realize that the sensor alone in those cameras is worth around $1500, right?

Sure, they could make a camera with a full frame sensor for less than $2000, but with a $200 profit per unit that's only leaving 300 bucks for everything else. The processors, body, screen, controls, optics. It's going to be a really fucking cheap-ass camera.

Or they could take an old sensor design with fewer megapickles and none of the new features like live view and probably save some money (read: not gonna happen), but you're still going to have to deal with the massive size and low yields you get from that.
>> Anonymous
>>261969
Yes, because full-frame sensors will always cost $1500. The price of technology never decreases as the technology advances.

Also, megapickles.
>> Anonymous
>>261969

first of all, quote reliable source or bullshit on $1,500 sensors

second, what>>261972said

shit moves fast, we'll get there
>> Anonymous
ITT we make groundless assumptions to fit in
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>261969
>You realize that the sensor alone in those cameras is worth around $1500, right?
Common mistake. You assume that technology remains more or less constant. A related mistake is assuming that technology increases at a constant rate.

There is no physical law that says that it'll always cost that much to make a full frame sensor. The main thing that keeps the cost so high is lower chip yields on larger pieces of silicon--I.e., they just need to figure out how to make wafers of silicon with fewer fuckups. Chip yields have been slowly going up over the years, and will continue to do so. And, like most things technological, this increase will probably happen at a double-exponential rate.

Back when Canon was the only real full-frame game in town, they could leave the prices high. The only competition to the 5D was the 1Ds and vice versa. Now, they've got the D3 and D700 to contend with at the high end and midrange, and soon they'll also have the Sony A900.

Canon's great at competing on price. Look at the original Digital Rebel. Before that, there'd never been a DSLR under a thousand bucks. Now there are several around the $500 price point. Part of the reason for that is that it got cheaper over time to make APS-sized sensors. Same thing's gonna happen with full frame.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>261955
7D was a huge flop (despite being pretty good)..

Also, who thinks that Sony cant just sell a camera at a HUGE LOSS (see ps3) just to piss off everyone else?
>> Anonymous
so i guess "lol @ people buying crop lenses" guy was right!

who knew a meme could ring true
>> Anonymous
>>261990

everyone knows consoles sell at a loss and make up huge profits in games and accessories

and from the pentax meme, people who buy these small dslrs don't go out and buy lenses where the money is

they can't artificially lower their prices
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>261991
Sonyfags and Nikonfags can keep on using their crop lenses. The only people who are really out anything are Canonfags.

And really, it's still gonna be a while before we see full-frame at the low end (I'm not going to hazard a real guess, but I'd assume we're still talking in terms of years rather than months). If you can get good use out of your EF-S lens in that time period, then it's worth it. I think I've gotten $200 worth of good shots from my 18-55 IS.

Also, even if full frame does get to the Rebel price point, it's always going to be cheaper to make crop sensors. Maybe Canon will start selling the full frame Rebel XZi for $799 and the Rebel XZ with a crop sensor for $299.
>> Anonymous
>>261972
I'm not>>261969so I don't know where the $1500 figure came from, but there's a thing that needs to be made more clear:

The silicon itself is one of the rare things in the semiconductor industry that don't get significantly cheaper over time.
For processors (and other ICs too), this is not a big problem since more and more precise manufacturing processes allow to cram more and more transistors onto the same chunk of silicon; but for sensors, increasing the size always means increasing the price exponentially.

Of course, now that at least 3 companies are making them, full-frame sensors WILL get cheaper due to larger volume of manufacture and competition, but that's not enough for the price to drop several times and allow making $1000 full-frame DSLRs, at least not in the nearest foreseeable future.
>> Anonymous
>>261991
Yeah it makes me sad. Aside from my 50mm 1.8 and my 100mm 2.8 I have no lenses that will work with a full-frame.

Oh well, just means selling a couple lenses when I buy a 5d mkII in the spring.
>> Anonymous
>>261989
>>261989
>>261989
>>261989
>>261989
Quoted for the fucking truth.
>> Anonymous
>>262003
Yeah I've gotten a ton of use out of my crop lenses. Heck, I've made about $1200 from pictures taken with my 17-55 f/2.8, and that lens only set me back $400.
>> Anonymous
>>262006

*sigh*

i thought we'd been over the whole FF/no FF thing.

FF is a scam. APS-C can produce images that are just as good. Also, Pentax doesn't produce any 'LOL FULL FRAME' lenses aside from their Limited series, and those can almost be counted on one hand.

Please, get real. Pentax's market isn't full frame, and it doesn't need to be for them to be successful. Granted, they are sure hurting for a success sooner than later. Hoya is sure not going to give them infinite leeway.

Maybe in a few years, depending on how things go, pentax might make a full frame body, but it'd be more for 'LOL LOOK WE DID IT' reasons rather than the fact that anyone really needs it.
>> Anonymous
>>261989
>Chip yields have been slowly going up over the years, and will continue to do so. And, like most things technological, this increase will probably happen at a double-exponential rate.

Chip yields DO NOT increase at double-exponential rate. They increase at a snail's pace, and the increase actually slows down as we get closer to 100%.
Plus there's the cost of the physical silicon itself to consider. 900 mm2 is a big chunk of it; a standard 200mm plate will produce less than 30 of them.
>> Anonymous
>>262011
$1200? How the fuck did you make that?
>> Anonymous
>>262019

I make about $200/month from my stock photography so i would say yes.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>262004
>The silicon itself is one of the rare things in the semiconductor industry that don't get significantly cheaper over time.
Silicon is one of the most abundant elements in the universe. It costs less than a buck a pound. That's less than quality deli meat.

Granted, the $.77/pound stuff still needs to be purified further to get it to the point where it can be made into semiconductors, but again, that's just a question of engineering. The point is, the raw cost of silicon is not the bulk of the cost of a silicon chip.

>>262016
So far, perhaps. But there's a lot of brains working on this problem and a lot of money riding on it. I have faith that we'll figure out a way.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:27 17:53:04Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length80.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-699662336Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
>>262019
Golf courses my boy, gold courses. The bastards will pay an arm and a leg for decent prints of their course.
>> Anonymous
>>261990
I`m just comparing prices. 5D was fucking costly for long due to Canon monopoly, now look you can get used one for 1500-2000$.
>>261989
Urm A900 is out but you are right with Canon. They had fucking monopoly and raped pockets of pros . We have competition and prices will drop. Look at 40D and A700 getting so cheap.

And for all crop fags, look in the viewfinder of D3/A900 and then go back to your light in tunnel syndrome viewfinder.

>>262004
Two companies, Canon and Sony. Nikon designed their sensor but it`s made in Sony silicon foundries. Still cuts cost for Nikon since they don`t have to build factories and Sony keeps its foundries operational all the time. They make sensors for Nikon, Pentax and few other P&S companies. Canon and Sony are biggest players in silicon wafer production market.
>> Anonymous
>>262033

Panasonic too.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>262033And for all crop fags, look in the viewfinder of D3/A900 and then go back to your light in tunnel syndrome viewfinder.

we're doing just fine, thank you
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262033
>Urm A900 is out
Announced, but still not quite available in stores like the 1Ds, 5D (original), D3, and D700.
>> Anonymous
>>262038
It`s on shelves in Poland. So what are you smoking or USA is being slowpoke this time.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262044
Are you sure it's actually on the shelves? I.e., is this personal experience, and are you absolutely sure you didn't just see an A700 that an unscrupulous dealer stuck a tiny '9' sticker on?

Sony's own site says it won't drop until the end of October, so if you can really get 'em in Poland, I guess we're being slow.
>> Anonymous
>>262030
>Silicon is one of the most abundant elements in the universe. It costs less than a buck a pound.
I was talking about chemically pure chip silicon, of course. It takes quite a bit of investment to make so far.

>But there's a lot of brains working on this problem and a lot of money riding on it.
It has been this way for the last 50 years. Maybe there will be a breakthrough and FF sensors will cost $10. Or maybe there will be a completely different kind of breakthrough that will allow compacts to shoot clean images at ISO >9000 and push FF back into the pro segment.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>262048
Yes it is. Even few guys in Poland got it. Then again in EU Poland and NL are biggest Sony DSLR markets so they pushed first shipments there.

Wish it would like on this photo.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelH 25Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2677Image Height2010Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution400 dpiVertical Resolution400 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:09:20 19:42:49ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height1024
>> Anonymous
>>262059
>Poland
>biggest Sony DSLR market

Ha ha ha, oh wow.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>261994
Why cant sony sell their A900 at a huge loss and make it back on accessories/lens.

The A900 isnt aimed at people who buy it and only use the kit lens, neither is the 5D. Sony are known for making headway into a market by price-slaughtering everyone (see how they did it with the A100).

Prices are reasonable now anyway, with sony controlling nikons prices they can force nikon to keep the cost of their D700 et all high and its then just up to canon to decide if they want to throw their own money away or not.

Photo of sup /p/ with A900 or with A900 EXIF or GTFO.
>> Anonymous
>>262044
>>262059
Don't forget Poland!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262072
Because A700 users who upgrade with a full stock of lenses to the A900 will fuck them over. If someone's buying a video game console, it's very unlikely that they won't buy a bunch of video games to go with it. It's a lot riskier to bank on someone buying a bunch of lenses.

Also: at the risk of starting a trolling flamewar, it amuses me that the 5DII costs $300 less than the A900 and gives you two stops better noise performance and video at almost the same resolution.
>> Anonymous
>>262081
The A900 does offer a 100% finder and (if I'm not mistaken) better build quality. It also looks a lot better, not that that really matters.

However, also offers noise reduction on the raw files, which ought to be a dealbreaker for even Sonyfags on principle.
>> Anonymous
>>262081
>two stops better noise performance

Now THIS is canonfaggotry. We haven't even seen RAW samples from the cameras yet.
>> Anonymous
>>262087
>However, also offers noise reduction on the raw files, which ought to be a dealbreaker
There is an "Off" setting for the noise filter. Nobody yet confirmed that it works, though.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>262081
But how did they get their lenses in the first place?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262088
Actually, I retract my statement entirely. I just looked at some A900 high-ISO shots and they look better than I remembered.

>>262091
Minolta?
>> Anonymous
>>262030
the fact is, the bigger the silicone wafer, the more of them don't pass quality check and get discarded; works the sme way for lcd displays, for every one the sell they must pay for the ones discarded too
>>262081
sony has twin processors e and antishake facilities, it has to count for something.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262105
>the bigger the silicone wafer, the more of them don't pass quality check
Right. My point is that getting more of them to pass quality check is an engineering problem. A very difficult one, granted, but that's not the same as insurmountable.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>262093
Sure some, and some of the people who bought a PS3 had PS2 games...

A900 has 5fps raw as well, duno what the 5DII does. And all of the lenses work with it.
>> Anonymous
>>262088Now THIS is canonfaggotry. We haven't even seen RAW samples from the cameras yet.

check out DPR or just Google them

plenty of pre productino samples from loaners Canon gave out
>> Anonymous
>>262072The A900 isnt aimed at people who buy it and only use the kit lens, neither is the 5D. Sony are known for making headway into a market by price-slaughtering everyone (see how they did it with the A100).

jeebus

we all know you like to suck Sony dick but calm down with all this "godly marketing" and Sony has huge bank bullshit

these aren't toys, they don't sell in huge numbers, specially a second grade company like Sony

there's only so much they can cut in the price. and look at the prices now on the a200, a300, a350, a700 and a900

they are all on par with the rest of the market, there is no "price-slaughtering"

keep on living in that Sony fairytale world
>> Anonymous
>>262124
>price-slaughtering everyone (see how they did it with the A100)

I don't remember the A100 price-slaughtering everyone. Especially Olympus
>> Anonymous
Die hard Nikon loyalist.

The biggest appeal about the DSLR-A900 was 24 motherfucking megapixels and built-in stabilization that said could not be done.

Sony did it, announced it way ahead of time. We knew about it months before it was official.

But then Canon came along and threw a big fucking stick in Sony's wheels.

Come on, the return of the 5D? The very first, affordable digital full frame that most of us could actually afford one day?

Canon just sat back, albeit for 3 years, and watched what everyone would do as a "next step" before ever announcing or putting the 5D II in motions.

The DSLR-A900 is great, no questions about it. But the 5D II will eat into its sales no matter what. It will be another "could've been" underachiever just like the DSLR-A700.

That's all fine and dandy because that just means Nikon will try to one up Canon once more and make it a lot better. :F
>> Anonymous
>>262142


the 5dII and a900 are only $200 apart (iirc.)


Canonfags will go with the 5d and sonolta fags will go with the a900.
>> Anonymous
>>262150

$2,699 vs. $3,000. $300, Canon tag and 1080p video go a long way in a lot of people's minds.

It's obvious that if Nikon hadn't put 720p video in their D90, the 5D II would never have 1080p video.

And if Sony and Nikon never priced their full frame options at $3,000, the 5D II would be more than $2,700.

Stick in the wheel.
>> Anonymous
This turned into the gayest thread ever.
>> Anonymous
people recognize the sony name far more than the canon name.
>> Anonymous
>>262164

not when you're buying 3000$ dollar cameras, no
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262164
People recognize the McDonald's name more than either of 'em. Doesn't mean they'll go order a Big Mac with a side of SLR.
>> Anonymous
Sony selling the A900 at a loss just won't happen. The PS3 was made at a loss because it was going into a market where people already had expectations of price and had to compete against the Wii and 360.

The A900 is premium hardware and is going to have a premium price. Although unlikely on a high-end dSLR, there is always the chance of someone buying it and never having more than one or two lenses. And with 3rd party companies making lenses, it is hard for Sony to know if they'll get their own money back.

At least in the case of the PS3, every game you buy will be licensed by Sony, meaning they get at least a few bucks back.
>> Butterfly
lol just kidding guys

why so serious?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>specially a second grade company like Sony
oh so butthurt, its delicious.

>>262175
I wonder if thats true actually, if you want to cheat for sony you could add all their brands together.

A100 went in (in my market at least) priced as a D40 spec'd as a D80 but lets not get back into that. Now they're on their 2nd gen, they dont need to force themselves so much.

This thread is made up of trolls and pissy canonfags upset that nikon and sony have stolen their cheap full frame thunder.

but to quote myself (evidentally)
y so srs?
>> Anonymous
>>262212
?_?
>> Anonymous
>>262227oh so butthurt, its delicious.

with nikon and canon controlling over 80% of the market, it is second grade

sorry if you can't accept that simple fact

no one said second grade products, it is a second grade company in this market

now who's being butthurt?
>> Anonymous
>>262227A100 went in (in my market at least) priced as a D40 spec'd as a D80 but lets not get back into that.

No, let's get back into that because I like calling out bullshit.

Do you like telling yourself these lies to sleep better at night or do you prefer to sound stupid all the time?

The DSLR-A100 was introduced with a MSRP of $1,000 kit and $900 body.

The D40 was introduced with a MSRP of $500 kit. The D80 was introduced at $1,299 kit.

The prices get lower over time. The DSLR-A100 dropped to the $799 range and the D80 dropped to the $1,000 mark.

The DSLR-A100 was never meant to be competing with the D80 directly in the first place. It's there to offer more features than other entry level bodies from Nikon and Canon.

The DSLR-A100 doesn't have the larger, brighter pentaprism, the dual control wheels, the better-than-entry-level body construction, dual LCD screens.

The DSLR-A100 competes favorably when compared to the Nikon D40, D40x, D60 or Canon Rebel XT and XTi. You don't go and compare it to a higher priced camera.

>> This thread is made up of trolls and pissy canonfags upset that nikon and sony have stolen their cheap full frame thunder.

Hmm? Who has the most affordable digital full frame option now?

Nikon's D700 at $3,000.
Sony's DSLR-A900 at $3,000.
Canon's 5D II at $2,700.

Yeah, I'm sure Canon officials are crying over how Sony stole their thunder.

I will wait for your reply now. Please don't make it another horrible attempt at a farce.
>> Anonymous
Now, I'm not a sonyfag but how is Sony a 'second grade company'?

They're approximately four million times the size of Canon and Nikon put together. If they wanted to they could invest eleventy billion dollars in research and development for their DSLR line. Not sure they'll do that just yet but you know...
>> Anonymous
>>262262

they bought out a company and selling it as their own

just because the sony corporation has money doesn't mean they're going to start syphoning it to the alpha division just for shits and giggles, companies don't work that way

they are more than happy to supply every other company with sensors and make money off that than invest a large amount of money to develop new shit with no guarantee of return, they're nowhere near a position to do things like that
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>261572
Useless camera sure is useless, don't worry guys, they'll keep coming with more new useless stuff you can spend your money on.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262262
>Now, I'm not a sonyfag but how is Sony a 'second grade company'?
In the context of cameras. Canon and Nikon are on top, Sony (and others) are making up the second tier.
>> Anonymous
If this board has taught me anything it's that Canon and Nikon fangirls sure do get ANGRY when another company innovates...that is until Canon and Nikon adopt the technology. Then it's a great selling point.

Remember sensor cleaning and live view?
>> Anonymous
>>262287

lol why would nikon sony canon adopt four thirds ever?
>> Anonymous
>>262288


Not four thirds you dolt.

WHEN Canon and Nikon enter the micro race you'll think this whole concept is rad. WHEN, not if.
>> Anonymous
>>262268
Soulr, you take great pictures but you're a huge prick. Just because it's not a Leica M loaded with Tri-X or whatever doesn't mean it's a bad piece of equipment.
>> Anonymous
>>262290

why would they ever do that

both nikon and canon have point-and-shoots that people buy up no matter what

they also have full fledge dslrs that people buy

they don't need a new segment between both to eat into the sales of the previous 2 segments, why confuse the consumer with yet another category of camera
>> Anonymous
>>262302
Well I guess you're right. I mean you seem to have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the market. I don't know how I can argue with that!

:|
>> Anonymous
>>262302


hey i'm

a stupid anon who like to

type like this because I

can't form thoughts properly

lol
>> Anonymous
>>262307
>>262305

lol at stupid faggot
>> Anonymous
>>261955
that what I said two days ago and I was called an idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>262317

probably that same pentax fag going around WHO NEEDS FULL FRAME who said it
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>262256
price / bang ratio the A100 compared favourably with the D80.

I wouldnt say the same with the A200 and the D90 (what compares with the D90 now anyway...)

Canon no longer have exclusive rights to say LOLCHEAPFULLFRAME, that is what thunder they have had stolen. Geez, project much?

(yes i know, i havent used that much recently)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>262290
>WHEN Canon and Nikon enter the micro race you'll think this whole concept is rad. WHEN, not if.
Most of the Canon/Nikon people here seem to be rooting for u4/3 and planning to buy one as soon as they release a good, small camera with the mount (i.e., not the G1, but something more like that Olympus concept design). If Canon does something like Micro EF, you can bet your ass I'd buy it.
>> Anonymous
>>262325price / bang ratio the A100 compared favourably with the D80.

Just like how the D40 compares favorably to the DSLR-A100 for "price / bang" ratio? And I'm sure you know at this point Nikon sells more D40s than Sony sold of the DSLR-A100.

Hell, the D80 is Nikon's all time best selling dSLR.

>>262325Canon no longer have exclusive rights to say LOLCHEAPFULLFRAME, that is what thunder they have had stolen. Geez, project much?

Um, what? More like Canon no longer has the exclusivity of being the only manufacturer with a digital full frame for 5 years.

They can still say they have the most affordable digital full frame option.

Geez, you're an idiot much?
>> Anonymous
Gee this thread sure wandered off the original topic. Lets hear more about the micro four thirds and less about frame faggotry.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>262332
>Just like how the D40 compares favorably to the DSLR-A100 for "price / bang" ratio?
But it doesnt

>And I'm sure you know at this point Nikon sells more D40s than Sony sold of the DSLR-A100.
And? The older model has sold more than a new entry, no surprises there, ditto D80.

>Um, what? More like Canon no longer has the exclusivity of being the only manufacturer with a digital full frame for 5 years.
Didnt say anything about that

>They can still say they have the most affordable digital full frame option.
didnt say they couldnt, i said exclusive rights to it.

Continue much?
>> Anonymous
>>262336But it doesnt

A D40 with $500 left over for lenses and accessories vs. a $1,000 DSLR-A100 with a kit lens.

Hmm..

>> And? The older model has sold more than a new entry, no surprises there, ditto D80.

Nikon still sells more units per year?

>> Didnt say anything about that

See >> Canon no longer have exclusive rights to say LOLCHEAPFULLFRAME

>> didnt say they couldnt, i said exclusive rights to it.

See above again.
>> Anonymous
>>262341
when will the discussion of these fuckin' toys stop???
Arguing about consumer stuff like D40/50/80??
>> Anonymous
>>262341
I paid $400 for my A100 and the kit lens...

2 MONTHS AFTER IT CAME OUT
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>262341
I actually thought you'd written 40D, which didnt make much sense. Considering most of us think the D40 is worthless, i stand by what I said.

THE REST OF YOUR POST MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

>>262343
finefinefine, i think u4/3 is interesting, but i dont need or want a tiny camera. If sony turned up and made a microExmor (coolest sensor name in the market guys) series, i wouldnt give a crap.

5DII and A900 (and D700) are all great, for everyone. Doesnt matter who you shoot with, the game just went up a notch. That and the new trolling material is fantastic :3