File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Sony A200. Yay or nay?
>> Anonymous
>>256631
its mostly a minolta with a sony logo.
>> Anonymous
>>256631
The non-standard shoe was like free candy for Sony, who likes proprietary stuff more than any other company on the market. Look at the efforts they are making to keep Memory Stick support in their DSLRs, even though no one cares.
>> Anonymous
>>256639

let's hate something because it's sony! THEN WE CAN BE COOL TOO!!!!

M I RITE?
>> Anonymous
Hmm. This is a good priced camera saddled by some Sony shit. I can pick one up for £238 delivered including the kit lens. However I have an old Canon lens I would like to use. I just found out I can get a 'like new' used Canon 450D for £270.50 delivered with kit lens. Even used I am still tempted to go with the Canon.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256644
I hated the nonstandard shoe when I owned a Minolta, too.
>> Anonymous
>>256673
any minolta AF mount, from 1985.

the AF is important. if it's not AF, i'm not sure if either it doesnt mount or it doesn't work right.
>> Anonymous
>>256673
There is problem with very very old Sigmas and SSM lenses on film bodies.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Ite thanks,
Its not really important to me; as im not going to buy a sony, even though they look incredibly sexy, just a nice thing to know. :)
>> Anonymous
>>256672
pathetic fanboy
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>256684
lurk more before posting newfag
>> Anonymous
>>256689
buttertrap does not fool me with his lies
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>256695
But im not even trying to fool anyone with lies, im blatently stating that im being an epic fanboy troll THING.

You only hate me because i'm right.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256672
>The sony only flash mount would suck if they didnt have the whole set of flashes avalible AND have built in wireless CANON.
The issue is that you're locked out of all of the cheap third-party flashes that can be quite good. Nice attempt to deflect the issue with the built-in-wireless jab, though.

>Also, im now going to be claiming (without any research) that Sony now has the largest lineup of FULLY compatible lenses and bodies
You may recall we have had this argument before.

You may further recall that I *did* do the research, and that I discovered that even if you disregard EF-S, there were more EF lenses (which are fully compatible backwards and forwards) than there have ever been Sony/Minolta alpha-mount lenses. That's both in terms of actual physical lenses out there and in terms of distinct models of lens. And that's even if you disregard things like the difference between the Canon 24mm f/1.4L and 24mm f/1.4L II. And if you count compatible third-party lenses, that disparity's even higher.

Since that last argument, I have seen more announcements for new Canon/Nikon and Canon/Nikon-compatible lenses than I have Sony lenses, so I'm pretty sure it still holds true. Sony's been concentrating more on adding LOLMEGAPIXULS than on designing lenses.

>>256676
>if it's not AF, i'm not sure if either it doesnt mount or it doesn't work right.
Doesn't mount at all. The Minolta manual focus mount is completely different from the Alpha mount. There are adapters available, but the flange-focal distance of the two mounts is such that it can't be done without adding extra lens elements (i.e., changing the focal length of your lens or losing infinity focus), just like with the Canon FD to EF transition.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>256721
>You may recall we have had this argument before.
Yes, i thougt i was being obvious enough to not be taken seriously. The point i was (obnoxiously) trying to make is the number of lense that work on all bodies (ie no crop-only lens) but i'm not making that one seriously either.

>The issue is that you're locked out of all of the cheap third-party flashes that can be quite good. Nice attempt to deflect the issue with the built-in-wireless jab, though.

Sigma do make flashes for the mount (with built in wireless i might add). Also the flashes are PC-socket driven too, and the A700/900 have the correct plug, so NO U.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256777
>Sigma do make flashes for the mount (with built in wireless i might add). Also the flashes are PC-socket driven too, and the A700/900 have the correct plug, so NO U.
Does Vivitar? Does Canon? Does Nikon?

And the A100, A200, and A300 don't have a PC socket, so they're SOL.

None of what you're saying is "this isn't a disadvantage". You're just saying that it's not a *huge* disadvantage. Which is true, but it's still a disadvantage. Minolta could've made a standard-hot-shoe compatible dedicated shoe like Canon and Nikon and so forth did, but they decided that if they were going to fuck their Manual Focus customers in the lens department, they might as well fuck 'em with flashes too. Sony could've rectified this when they took over, but they didn't. Both of those were dick moves. Blah blah built-in wireless; Nikon has it too, and Canon can has wireless flash with a $20 widget.

But again, not a huge disadvantage. Which is true of all of the disadvantages of modern camera systems, which is my fucking point--they all have issues, none of them are really all that big all told. Just fucking accept when there's a valid complaint against your camera system and don't get all fanboyish.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>256783
Oh ac i'm not getting fanboyish i'm just saying that out of all the flaws, its not a very large one. Sure it sucks a bit, but its hardly a dealbreaker for someone switching systems. I'd say the lack of inbuilt wireless flash is much worse.

And yes, it'd be nice if the A100 had included it but it isnt a pro-level model.
>> Anonymous
>>256796


Sonolta fag here


i love the built in wireless flash.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256890
And I love my two Vivitar 285HV external hot-shoe flashes. Life is balance.
>> Anonymous
>>256777The point i was (obnoxiously) trying to make is the number of lense that work on all bodies (ie no crop-only lens) but i'm not making that one seriously either.

>> i love making bullshit claims and get called out on and proved the fuck wrong
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>257252
I think id clearly stated i was bullshiting that time, although if you think i'm being serious, go to /g/
>> Anonymous
>>257284i'm an idiot and i like to prove it
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)