[Pentaxor]

Exactly and amen to that!

I think (but don't quote me) that Sony can offer this camera at such an amazing price because of their market position, their components buying power, how rich they [still] are.... actually, never mind... I am not really such how they can offer this camera at such a low price, compared to the equivalent models.

Nope, Sony just learned the hard lesson and a blinding realization that it's not because you have acquired the technology or a former camera and lens manufacturer and rebadge it as your own, that you could simply compete equally or more expensive with the price of that of the top dogs which already carved a niche in the dlsr market. Sony dSLRs are not a hot commodity nor selling like pancakes in the market pricewise. nor have they established a niche stable enough to withstand a strong competition. if they want to get real attention, they really should sell low now and sell high later. which in fact logical. the 2k FF dSLR body is creating some attention not only in Pentaxland, but the others as well. I believe Pentax followed the same marketing principle. just look at how much Pentax Glasses cost these days as compared to a few years and a few months ago. they become insanely expensive in a way.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 08-28-2009 at 09:03 PM.

[pexi85]

Sony is very interesting brand and those a900 and a850 are VERY nice and sexy cameras.
BUT, those lenses are soooo expencive!! You have to buy Zeiss lenses for them, becouse otherwise it´s waste of full frame and those pixels if you shoot with some 300 € zoom lense..
And Zeiss is good but expencive. I would have to pay 3200€ to get both camera and Zeiss...


Thank god i have pentax and pentax ltd-lenses!

[pingflood]

if Canon and Nikon also manufactured sensors they'd be offering megapixel's for cheap as well.

Uh, Canon does make their own sensors. They source the CCD ones (like in the new G11) but CMOS (at least for DSLR, not sure about P&S) is in-house. They even published an interesting whitepaper on CMOS FF sensor manufacturing a while back. And MP for cheap -- the 5D II is almost a year old now and offers 21MP for what, $2700? While Sony squeezing under $2,000 is impressive it's not as if every other high MP camera cost $8k earlier.

there is a feeling of resentment for companies like Sony, and even to a good degree Canon because they just arent the same as a traditional camera and optics company like Nikon and Pentax. but nobody can argue the benefits (concerning digital cameras) of being more than that.

Canon actually started out as a camera and optics company, releasing the original "Kwanon" camera in 1933.

Asahi waited until 1952 to release a camera...

[Old Man BJ]

Well I think the Sony A900/850 are very pleasing on the eye. Not that that matters a heap. However, some here have said that you need Zeiss glass to make full use of these cameras. This is simply not the case. Also while on the subject of expensive glass, check out the price of the better Pentax long primes. The price is a joke compared even to the equivalent Nikkors. Competition improves the breed, and I think Sony are to be applauded for what they have produced. I have also read in a fair few threads on this forum that Pentax's representation in many countries sucks. Surly the marriage between an electronics giant and a well established camera company would be a good thing. Do I smell a bit of jealousy going on here?

Well I think the Sony A900/850 are very pleasing on the eye. Not that that matters a heap. However, some here have said that you need Zeiss glass to make full use of these cameras. This is simply not the case. Also while on the subject of expensive glass, check out the price of the better Pentax long primes. The price is a joke compared even to the equivalent Nikkors. Competition improves the breed, and I think Sony are to be applauded for what they have produced. I have also read in a fair few threads on this forum that Pentax's representation in many countries sucks. Surly the marriage between an electronics giant and a well established camera company would be a good thing. Do I smell a bit of jealousy going on here?

Six posts and you're jumping into the fray. Pretty good going, we're going to like you if you stick around.

[Pentaxor]

Well I think the Sony A900/850 are very pleasing on the eye. Not that that matters a heap. However, some here have said that you need Zeiss glass to make full use of these cameras. This is simply not the case. Also while on the subject of expensive glass, check out the price of the better Pentax long primes. The price is a joke compared even to the equivalent Nikkors. Competition improves the breed, and I think Sony are to be applauded for what they have produced. I have also read in a fair few threads on this forum that Pentax's representation in many countries sucks. Surly the marriage between an electronics giant and a well established camera company would be a good thing. Do I smell a bit of jealousy going on here?

it is a joke considering that it costs double or triple of what's it's worth now than it was a few months ago. if you had come much earlier and bought out some of those premium lenses, you would had been in heaven and glad that you made some purchases before Pentax/Hoya lost their minds. but since you did not, I guess you have to suffer with some of us who are just beginning to build their lens lineup. but don't be sad, I'm sure you'll find some good deals in the marketplace, if you dont mind buying used equipments.

[kmanlaker]

With all due respect, I fail to understand your 'joke'. This sounds kind of fanboyee on your part and there is little worse than fanboyism.

This Sony camera actually seems to offer a hell of a lot for the price. And it includes a number of pro-like features (which is more than any current Pentax camera offers).

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be implying that anyone who abandons Pentax for this camera is foolish. If that is what you are implying than I must say that you are silly and naive (of course, with all due respect ).

As to whether or not I will entertain the idea of purchasing this camera, I shall await the unbiased reviews.



initial reviews

My joke went bad --- sorry
yes I can be naive / stupid ( ask my wife LOL )
No --go ahead and abandon Pentax for Sony it does not matter to me
I will not be considering Sony DSLR's because of past experience with their consumer/computer products ( my opinion of course )

Kman

[séamuis]

Uh, Canon does make their own sensors. They source the CCD ones (like in the new G11) but CMOS (at least for DSLR, not sure about P&S) is in-house. They even published an interesting whitepaper on CMOS FF sensor manufacturing a while back. And MP for cheap -- the 5D II is almost a year old now and offers 21MP for what, $2700? While Sony squeezing under $2,000 is impressive it's not as if every other high MP camera cost $8k earlier.



Canon actually started out as a camera and optics company, releasing the original "Kwanon" camera in 1933.

Asahi waited until 1952 to release a camera...

no canon started out as a camera company. making copies of German rangefinders. both Asahi Optical and Nikon started out as optics companies. (Asahi Optical, primarily eyeglass lenses. for which it still manufactures) nikon made its name by manufacturing M39 lenses. Asahi Optical made its name by making lenses for the likes of Konica as well as Minolta among others. I know all about canons history. I also know Nikon's and Asahi Optical's. they didn't "wait" until 52 to release. pre-war they were still primarily an optics company. (both Asahi Opt. and Nikon made optics for the war effort) they weren't even allowed by the American controlled Japanese government to reform until 48. that's a whole 4 years to reform and develop a ground breaking SLR and change the industry... yea they "waited" alright.:ugh:

as for canon and sensors. I didn't actually know that. but I suppose its no surprise. its a wonder Nikon can even remotely keep up with the likes of Canon and Sony.

[RBellavance]

it's possible that it could kick the D700 out of oblivion.

Not in low-light / high-ISO. The D700 (and D3) are still the best camera ever made in these conditions.

[pingflood]

no canon started out as a camera company. making copies of German rangefinders. both Asahi Optical and Nikon started out as optics companies. (Asahi Optical, primarily eyeglass lenses. for which it still manufactures) nikon made its name by manufacturing M39 lenses. Asahi Optical made its name by making lenses for the likes of Konica as well as Minolta among others. I know all about canons history. I also know Nikon's and Asahi Optical's. they didn't "wait" until 52 to release. pre-war they were still primarily an optics company. (both Asahi Opt. and Nikon made optics for the war effort) they weren't even allowed by the American controlled Japanese government to reform until 48. that's a whole 4 years to reform and develop a ground breaking SLR and change the industry... yea they "waited" alright.:ugh:

as for canon and sensors. I didn't actually know that. but I suppose its no surprise. its a wonder Nikon can even remotely keep up with the likes of Canon and Sony.

Let's see, Canon released their first camera in '33 and their first in house developed lens in '37(?) -- to me that says "camera and optics" but maybe I am just confused on the terms.

[kittykat46]

A camera and and an optical company are not necessarily the same thing.
There are camera companies which do not manufacture their own lenses. Many camera makers started off like that.

There are very reputable stand-alone optical companies which do not make cameras, and remain so to this day.

[séamuis]

Let's see, Canon released their first camera in '33 and their first in house developed lens in '37(?) -- to me that says "camera and optics" but maybe I am just confused on the terms.

im talking optics in a general term. as in that is a big part of their companies revenue and expertise, releasing lenses for your cameras doesn't necessarily make you an optics company. Like Zeiss for example. they are first and foremost an optics company which deals with all sorts of industries outside of photography. and this (although I don't know for sure) is likely how they got started. this is also where Nikon and Pentax got started. and they used that knowledge to manufacture lenses. its not really an accomplishment to release a Leica copy, rangefinder in 33, (I thought it was 34?) considering what Leica had just accomplished. what Asahi Optical did in 1952 changed the industry. they went from manufacturing industrial and consumer optical glass (both inside and outside of photography) to putting out a camera that made both Canon and Nikon change course completely. canon didn't start a dedicated optics company until 1937. ( at that point it was kind of essential) so like I said they started out as a camera company. making copies of German rangefinders. Im not saying they aren't an optics company now. Im simply saying that's not how they started. (which is why I say Pentax and Nikon are more alike than most people know or care to admit) and as for 'waited"... Nikon didn't put out an SLR until 59. Canon didnt put out an SLR until 59 as well. 2 years after the 'Asahi Pentax' and 7 years after the Asahiflex. why did they wait? Nikon is understandable, considering how incredible the F was then and still is now. (I love mine) what took canon so long on the 'Flex'?

[kittykat46]

A few weeks ago, I met a retired Corporate CFO , whom I know has a Canon 1D Mark 3, and L glass you would drool at.....but he was shooting with a P&S.
I jokingly asked him what he was doing with the child's toy, he just shook his head. It seems the 1D Mark 3 spends most of its time in the dry cabinet these days. He was a very serious hobbyist in his younger days, still is, but the big body is too much camera for him these days....

So FF doesn't always make the best sense, all things considered....

[pingflood]

A few weeks ago, I met a retired Corporate CFO , whom I know has a Canon 1D Mark 3, and L glass you would drool at.....but he was shooting with a P&S.
I jokingly asked him what he was doing with the child's toy, he just shook his head. It seems the 1D Mark 3 spends most of its time in the dry cabinet these days. He was a very serious hobbyist in his younger days, still is, but the big body is too much camera for him these days....

So FF doesn't always make the best sense, all things considered....

The 1D 3 actually isn't FF, but 1.3x crop. And yeah, you do pay a size penalty carrying around a full frame camera, even the more "compact" ones like the 5D or D700.

Last trip overseas I just carried my Leica M and was happy with that. Just have to pick the tool that suits your needs.

[séamuis]

The 1D 3 actually isn't FF, but 1.3x crop. And yeah, you do pay a size penalty carrying around a full frame camera, even the more "compact" ones like the 5D or D700.

Last trip overseas I just carried my Leica M and was happy with that. Just have to pick the tool that suits your needs.

but is that really just due to being FF? or is it more because of Canon and to a good extent Nikons choice in body design? I understand that you have to cram a lot more into a camera body for a digital SLR than you did with film (and this is a challenge for Pentax with SR) but I cant imagine that you couldnt take say a K20D sized body with K mount and put a FF sensor in it. I fail to see how that could increase the body size so much. even better, take a K7 put a FF sensor and a FF viewfinder behind a proper silver-coated pentaprism. that could be done im sure, with minimal size and weight gain overall. what you pay a penalty for is buying a large canon or nikon. if its needed ( I assume many people 'need' the built in vertical grip) but if not, why would a FF camera have to be so big and heavy? even the 5D is bulbous and bloated. im not trying to knock either company, particularly since Pentax (who is really good at doing small and light) doesn't have anything to prove otherwise, but I really think you just pay a penalty for their body design not for the 24x36mm sensor.

last year at our local photo-walk, I met a really nice young lady carrying a 1Ds Mk II and it was obvious after about 45 minutes she was really struggling to carry and efficiently use the camera. I was carrying three bodies including a digital and was getting far more shots and opportunities at street portraits (granted, I am a pretty experienced street photographer) but even with three bodies and dealing with film, I was having an easier time than she was. it was very apparent that she was paying the price for that large body. andof course she had an L zoom lens. ( don't remember which one) and a flash. it was disappointing to watch her. =(