File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/08/04/sony-announcement-august-14th/

SONY UK has notified us of a press conference to announce an ‘exciting digital camera’ on August 14th.


"my guess is that the Edinburgh event is the big hands-on opportunity for the flagship full frame DSLR almost one year to the day after the launch of the 700. A very busy year, too, during which Sony has launched three other DSLR bodies and several important lenses.

but whatever goes, the September date is an essential launch I am sure, and not just another Cybershot across the bows of the enemy!"

oh hai /p/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
lol

welcome to 2 months ago
>> Anonymous
>>232631


nikon != sony
>> Anonymous
Sony does make the sensors for Nikons though right? Maybe I'm just crazy.
>> Anonymous
Yes, sony makes nikon's sensors.

What makes this big is it's sony's 24mp FF camera.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>232641

oh hai
>> Anonymous
>>232647


cause obviously a hasselblad is a obviously an alternative to a FF DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>232628
Wow. The right one's iris is closed so tight that must be able to reach like f1 or smaller. How high will this one's ISO go?
>> Anonymous
>>232654
f1 ain't small fool.
>> Anonymous
>>232656
Troll'd
>> Anonymous
Doesn't matter. Only camera announcements this year that matter more than business-wise and "lol my brand's system is better than your brand's system and I'm going to go on about marketing and design decisions I had no say in to enjoy the delicious high of validation by proxy" are the Panasonic LX3 (which is debatable, I'm a fan of Panasonic's small sensor line and so I might be engaging in something similar or identical to what I'm decrying above) and the announcement of Micro Four Thirds.

Everything else is nothing new at all, and sensor sizes mean jack shit in the real world when they're smaller than medium format digital and the size of Four-Thirds or larger.

>>232652
For some applications and users they do compete.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>232669
You really mean that you see no practical difference between a full-frame DSLR and a 4/3 DSLR?

I really can't see an E-3 comparing to a D3.
>> Anonymous
It's going to be an exciting August. Rumors are swirling about the new Sony 24MP, Canon's new 5D MkII, and Canon's G10. Definitely coming out are the Pansonic LX3 and Nikon's P6000.
>> Anonymous
>>232669

i should have rephrased.
cause obviously a hasselblad is a realistic alternative to a FF DSLR for a 4chanfag.
>> Anonymous
>>232671
Nope, not except in the ergonomics of the viewfinder. All other things being equal, a little bit less noise, a little bit less depth of field, and a little bit more dynamic range is all a slightly larger sensor gets you. None of them will really mean much to the final image for most purposes.

Except for the size of the sensor, there really isn't much difference between the D3 and the E-3. Both are run of the mill pro bodies, with all the good stuff that implies. Just different formats.
>> Anonymous
>>232680


...and all your lenses become un-1.5x'd.


fuck yeah a mount.
>> Anonymous
>>232680
HAHAHOHWOW.jpg

>a little bit less noise
>a little bit less depth of field
>a little bit more dynamic range
>a little bit

>None of them will really mean much to the final image for most purposes.

0/10
Go back to your exalted point and shoots.
>> Anonymous
>>232680
>All other things being equal
2 times the weight, 2 times continious shooting speed, 3 times battery life and a host of other small features like dual CF cards on the D3 =/= "being equal". If you're gonna compare E-3 to a full-frame camera, pick D700.

>a little bit less noise
1.5 stops or more. If you're mostly using ISO 100-400, it doesn't matter, but at ISO 800+ it may be a matter of life and death.

>a little bit less depth of field
2 stops less, which is quite a lot. This, however, can be both an advantage and a disadvantage.

>>232687
>...and all your lenses become un-1.5x'd.
You can't mount 4/3 lenses on Nikon.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Meanwhile in Canon-fag land they massively don't care and wish that Canon would make their lenses cost less.
>> Anonymous
>>232696
I picked Canon because of the lens prices being generally better than Nikon's.
>> Anonymous
>>232694
>2 times the weight, 2 times continious shooting speed, 3 times battery life and a host of other small features like dual CF cards on the D3 =/= "being equal". If you're gonna compare E-3 to a full-frame camera, pick D700.

I was referring to the sensor, not the body when I wrote that bit. "All other things being equal" = the quality of the design and the level of its technology, and how many pixels you cram onto it.

>1.5 stops or more. If you're mostly using ISO 100-400, it doesn't matter, but at ISO 800+ it may be a matter of life and death.

Noise doesn't really matter. There has never been a genuinely great photo ruined by noise or grain, and there's certainly never been a photograph good because it's free of noise.

And they're all cleaner than Delta 3200 or whatever.

>>232687
>...and all your lenses become un-1.5x'd.

Which doesn't really matter much unless you're trying to go really, really wide.

>>232691
>Go back to your exalted point and shoots.

Where did I say anything about point and shoots? I'm talking sensors from (inclusive) 18x13.5mm to 36x24mm. There's two point and shoots in that range- one old Sony bridge camera with an APS-C size sensor and the Sigma DP-1.
>> Anonymous
>>232709
>There has never been a genuinely great photo ruined by noise or grain

You're confusing cause and effect. If a photo was really ruined by noise/grain, it wouldn't be called "genuinely great".
And I'm sure that every famous photographer had a lot of otherwise great photos (and opportunities to take great photos) ruined by the fact that the film was too grainy or too slow; we just don't know about these photos.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>232721
I doubt any Four-Thirds camera will turn out results as messy as this. Even a point and shoot won't.

(Trotsky lecturing by Capa, which happened to be his first assignment as a professional PJ)
>> Anonymous
Also, let me rephrase that:

There has never been a photo that would have been great but wasn't because it was too grainy/noisy.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
so who wants to bet on sony putting pre-raw NR on it?
>> Anonymous
>>232739

I'd put a fiver on that.
>> Anonymous
>>232739
They do that and I doubt many professionals will even look at it. They'd be daft to make a camera just for rich fanboys.
>> Anonymous
>>232687
But with the 4/3 all your lenses get 2xed. Which can be both advantageous and disadvantageous also.
>> Anonymous
Micro 4/3 all the way!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOO