[ffking]

did your camera get splashed? I thought I was the only one that killed 2 pentax cameras in the water

I was referring back to A9 at the time - though I did lose an ME Super to water - long before weather sealing of course - the 77 is harsh though

[pearsaab]

I was referring back to A9 at the time - though I did lose an ME Super to water - long before weather sealing of course - the 77 is harsh though

yeh I got it cleaned by eric, the pentax expert, but 6 months later it stopped talking to the camera so had to buy another...amazing lens so no choice..i got a manual fa77 if anyone wants one

[reh321]

did your camera get splashed? I thought I was the only one that killed 2 pentax cameras in the water . Fortunately square trade covered. Lost a 77mm lens though

To be fair I spend almost all my free time in the water

My daughters like to remind me that I have managed to ruin three cameras via water

1979 - my then-fiance and I went for a walk around the local reservoir - when we got near to the end of our walk we discovered what most everyone else already knew - that the bridge was out. This was near sunset - and the reverse trip would be dangerous after dark - so we "forded" {waded across} the river. My Canon rangefinder camera dipped and inch or two in the river, so I ended up purchasing a Pentax SLR before our wedding.

1981 - the Pentax SLR I had purchased in 1979 got damp at Niagara Falls and was never the same, so in 1983 I purchased another one.

2006 - I left my first digital camera - a Nikon P&S my mother had purchased for me to encourage me to think digital - in my pants pocket; my pants got wet when my parents' basement flooded, and the extended warranty didn't cover this.

So, my three cameras were three different makes, but I doesn't cover the 'sting' of these losses.

[ffking]

the extended warranty didn't cover this.

Cowboys!

[GeneV]

I think you're getting mixed up, Gene … the A7 III still only has 24Mp, no more than a K-3.

The A7R III has more, but now we're talking $3000.

I am not mistaken. My beef was that I did not get anything for those pixels I would have given up with the A7 or A7II. The difference is that with the A73, you do get an increase in low light capability for sacrificing the pixels. I it almost like a 24mp A7S. The dynamic range is also impressive.

[wjjstu]

Sony isn't, understandably, the darling of other-brand-specific forums such as these... and I'm not a big fan of the company generally, but (and I've alluded to this before)...

A clever part of its strategy, IMHO, is to continue supplying older products as part of its "current" product range, but at reduced prices.

A lot of people buying into Sony - especially in the full frame market, but also in APS-C, bridge and compacts - are doing so, I believe, with products that have long since been superseded, because they can do so relatively inexpensively. The products - whilst technically not leading edge - are still just as good as they were on the day they were released. And once the bargain-basement MILC adopters build up a range of half-decent glass - the availability of which is finally good, especially when you take into account the third party manufacturers - some of those folks will go on to buy the more recent and presumably more-profitable cameras and lenses.

It's a clever business model, and it seems to be working for now...

Pentax seemed to do the feature trickle down for a while when they refreshed their lines. It's good for amortization. Harder to tell what they're up to nowadays as their release cycles have stretched longer and longer.

[clackers]

I am not mistaken. My beef was that I did not get anything for those pixels I would have given up with the A7 or A7II.

It's still only 24Mps, Gene, that's D610 or 6D style.

It's got so much less resolution than the K-1, and it doesn't have better light performance even though its pixels are *so much* bigger. At least, that's how DxOMark see it.

Not for me, mate.

---

Last edited by clackers; 08-16-2018 at 04:55 PM.

[RobA_Oz]

Having read the article, and noted the discrepancy between their text and the graph (the text says “dollars and units” sold, while the graph displays % growth) I’m left wondering exactly what Sony is claiming.

Whatever, it has nothing to do with the qualities of the individual cameras, and everything to do with marketing. Are they playing the Samsung game of citing units shipped and their retail sales value, rather than actual retail sales and dollars spent?

Unfortunately, the article is the F-Stoppers’ author’s translation of whatever he’s been told. I’m not in the market for one of their cameras, but, like others here, I’m wondering if they’re building a narrative based on conflating a (comparatively) small number of professional and wealthy amateur sales of the current, expensive bodies with a (presumably) greater number of older, cheaper models. Someone more interested in the core truth (or something like it) of all this and more time than me can chase it down, though.

[surfar]

Not for me, mate.

But its OK for a trip!...as long as the $$$unnys shining.

---------- Post added 08-17-18 at 11:57 AM ----------

Whatever, it has nothing to do with the qualities of the individual cameras,

All cameras that are in current production are good to great,the WAR is on!

Nikon started the Propoganda campaign in the lead up to Aug 23,this is the $$$ony retaliation...Now in keeping with good journalism,Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

Ps, say hello to RoBBie.

[rawr]

the lead up to Aug 23

Which also coincides with an upcoming DJI new product announcement. Much more interesting than the Nikon announcement, IMHO.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[surfar]

DJI new product announcement

Yes could be exciting BUT its only officialising what was leaked from that English magazine advert last month or the month b4.

I did see some nice whale shots a couple of days ago,a guy parked near me launched his Mavic Pro and hovered around shooting stills.Shots impossible without a helicopter up until recently.

[Rondec]

I am not mistaken. My beef was that I did not get anything for those pixels I would have given up with the A7 or A7II. The difference is that with the A73, you do get an increase in low light capability for sacrificing the pixels. I it almost like a 24mp A7S. The dynamic range is also impressive.

I looked at DXO Mark and the A7III has basically the same score as the D610 (96 vs 94). It has a tiny bit more dynamic range at base iso (0.2 EV) and a tiny bit better sports iso (2900 vs 3700). The big difference is the read out speed of the A7 III which allows it to shoot a lot more frames per second and gives 4K video. I think it is clear that Sony has been focused more on developing fast read out sensors over improving dynamic range.

[clackers]

A bit of a crisis involving Sony's YouTube salesman Jason Lanier, it would seem:

http://taipeigeek.blogspot.com/2018/05/jason-lanier-removed-as-sony-artisan.html?m=1

[reh321]

A bit of a crisis involving Sony's YouTube salesman Jason Lanier, it would seem:

The downfall of Jason Lanier - Removed as Sony Artisan of Imagery | TAIPEI GEEK

Did you read the comments following the article?? They are vicious!! - make our worst seem civilized in comparison.

[mohb]

:

A bit of a crisis involving Sony's YouTube salesman Jason Lanier, it would seem:

The downfall of Jason Lanier - Removed as Sony Artisan of Imagery | TAIPEI GEEK

Some anger nastiness vitriol etc etc on display in the comments