DSLRUsers.com

Sony have announced today the new Sony DSLR... or at least, not so much announced, but provided a picture of it:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/ar ... _7867.html

But good Bob it's ugly... I mean hell... if I saw someone carrying around a camera with Sony written on it like that, I'd laugh at them.

Apart from the fact that it looks like a high end PHD, one needs to be very careful to not step in the massive piles of marketing that litters that site.

For instance ...

Sony is renowned for its unceasing exploration of new avenues, while Konica Minolta has a long history of developing groundbreaking technologies

None of which seems to be evident here ...

Combined with the over 16 million compatible lenses that have been sold to date

What a meaningless pile of crap! Like, yeah,I'm going to be able to use a lens that Joe Bloggs in Germany bought three years ago. What's the relevance of that statement again?

How about ...

Entering the SLR camera market entails a long-term commitment to customers

That'll be a first for Sony.

I wonder how long before we see a PSP with a lens protruding from it for the Sony A-series PSP, that plays PSP games and movies and takes pictures using the vast array of 16 million KM lenses.

But wait, there's more!

You'll be able to buy the Sony Betamax add-on pack which will let you transfer your images to Sony's other-other format, Betamax!

And it gets better!

To show how committed we are, buy any Betamax add-on pack and it'll come with a Blu-ray drive with Memory Stick (all six-hundred varieties) support.

This shows Sony's commitment!

What drivel, a direct quote:

The Sony Group is primarily focused on the Electronics (such as AV/IT products & components), Game (such as PlayStation), Entertainment (such as motion pictures and music), and Financial Services (such as insurance and banking) sectors. Not only do we represent a wide range of businesses, but we remain globally unique. Our aim is to fully leverage this uniqueness in aggressively carrying out our convergence strategy so that we can continue to emotionally touch and excite our customers



Anyway nice they named their first camera after Craig (Alpha)

The only thing it has going for it is the name, and damn it is really ugly the control dials are horrid.

Leigh,
I'll have one to play, courtesy from Sony.

This new Sony has taken the prise of the ugliest DSLR camera since the SLR/c. Well done Sony!

edit;
For those of you that have not seen the now 2nd most ugly DSLR - SLR/c;

Man why do they bother, I think I'd rather a nice PHD camera over the Kodak or the Sony offerings yuck! Thanks for sharing Andrew, I didn't realise the Kodak was that bad.

Alpha_7 wrote:Man why do they bother, I think I'd rather a nice PHD camera over the Kodak or the Sony offerings yuck! Thanks for sharing Andrew, I didn't realise the Kodak was that bad.

Craig, Craig, Craig!! You don't understand! The SLR/c says Kodak and Professional. And it has a Canon mount on it so you can pimp it up with a big white L lens. Instant, and unquestionable pro status!

Now... to the Sony. It was in a thread just 2 days ago where I said something like "buy the Minolta 7D now before Sony stuff it"... Looks like Sony my promise a reality

daniel_r wrote:Craig, Craig, Craig!! You don't understand! The SLR/c says Kodak and Professional. And it has a Canon mount on it so you can pimp it up with a big white L lens. Instant, and unquestionable pro status!

 LOL, sorry my mistake.

The marketing guys must have been on drugs. Here's the full quote about the 16 million lenses

Combined with the over 16 million compatible lenses that have been sold to date, we are bringing our entire camera culture toward an ever-expanding future for our customers. Our goal is to become the shin'uchi, or headline performer, of digital SLR cameras. In the traditional Japanese art of rakugo storytelling, the shin'uchi is the performer recognized by everyone as the undisputed master of his craft. Personally, I feel this applies to Sony in three ways.

Watch out Canon & Nikon

the traditional Japanese art of rakugo storytelling

So, Sony are good at telling stories I think so, but I think their genre of fantasy and marketing BS will get old quick!

birddog114 wrote:Leigh,
I'll have one to play, courtesy from Sony.

Can't wait, Birdy.

Will my Mini Disc player work as a storage device with it?

And will my K750i interface via Bluetooth with it?

daniel_r wrote:

Alpha_7 wrote:Man why do they bother, I think I'd rather a nice PHD camera over the Kodak or the Sony offerings yuck! Thanks for sharing Andrew, I didn't realise the Kodak was that bad.

Craig, Craig, Craig!! You don't understand! The SLR/c says Kodak and Professional. And it has a Canon mount on it so you can pimp it up with a big white L lens. Instant, and unquestionable pro status!

Daniel,

There were actually two models of the Kojak 14 ... the N version came first, and it took Nikon lenses, being based on, IIRC, an F100 body. That's the Nikon F100 body, not the Ford one, although by all accounts it was somewhat difficult to tell.

The 14C followed about 18 months later, taking Canon lenses. Both are 14MP FF cameras, and neither were really great cameras, except of course for the price, which was great.

As in large.

gstark wrote:The 14C followed about 18 months later, taking Canon lenses. Both are 14MP FF cameras, and neither were really great cameras, except of course for the price, which was great.

On ebay for $US2000 at the moment though... quite an affordable alternative to the other full frame cameras, and you could get a Nikon mount one if you are so afflicted.

Seen on ebay US

So that is where sony has gotten the tilt sensing technology for their PS3.

Dam it is an ugly camera.

Nnnnsic wrote:

birddog114 wrote:Leigh,
I'll have one to play, courtesy from Sony.

Will my Mini Disc player work as a storage device with it?

Great I've been looking for a use for my old mini disc player!

moz wrote:

gstark wrote:The 14C followed about 18 months later, taking Canon lenses. Both are 14MP FF cameras, and neither were really great cameras, except of course for the price, which was great.

On ebay for $US2000 at the moment though... quite an affordable alternative to the other full frame cameras, and you could get a Nikon mount one if you are so afflicted.

Seen on ebay US

Also, the usable ISO range is 160-400. Above that the picture quality is very very poor.

It's not THAT ugly.

I'd go for "Combines tacky and derivative in a delightfully intruiging package"

Designed to look futuristic and hi-tech, unfortunately overshot the mark by a significant margin. It's such a fine line, between clever and stupid.

padey wrote:Also, the usable ISO range is 160-400. Above that the picture quality is very very poor.

Within that range too.

That Kodack was a great example of megapixels not making quality. I knew a photography professor that had one. He never knew what it was going to give him. Sometimes the photos were terrific, sometimes they were laden with artefacts and grain and noise.

My hand hurts just looking at that thing

You'd think they could at least make it APPEAR ergonomic, smooth, round, comfortable or something. But no, it loks like a brick, although that Kodak posted above is even worse.

I'm off to cuddle my oh-so-smooth D70 now

nito wrote:So that is where sony has gotten the tilt sensing technology for their PS3.

Funny, here I was thinking they stole it off of Nintendo.

Hey guys you left your band wagon behind.

I am no cynic and I have never visited that website before but if you look at the images on you may see it looks remarkably close to

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/konica_minolta/dynax/5D_EN1.html

You may consider the apparent ever so ugly actually looks suspiciously like the ever so ugly KM 5D. In fact I am hard pressed to see the differences - n extremely minor alteration to the lens release button is the only thing that makes me think this is not just another digital manipulation of an existing camera.

Craig,

hdj80 wrote:You may consider the apparent ever so ugly actually looks suspiciously like the ever so ugly KM 5D.

And this comes as a surprise to you because ??? .....

I've never visited either site before, but the complete and utter crap that the former of these sites is littered with is just the biggest load of garbage I've heard.... since the last election campaign.

16 million lenses available for the camera? Give me a break, please.

We didn't come down with the rain last week, but this sort of mindless drivel is just so typical of Sony's marketing hype.

Now, for a couple of points: Minolta used to make great cameras. Truly great cameras. The sad fact is that with the coming of the digital age they fell by the wayside.

To be eventually swallowed up by Sony is a very sad fate, and one that I would only wish upon a politician. Birds of a feather, and all that.

As I noted above, Minolta used to make great cameras. Konica .... no, not really. Getting back to your point, where in this thread did anybody praise the appearance of the KM5D?

If you believe it looks good, that's fine: I'm certainly not going to argue that point.

But f you're permitted to like the look of anything you choose, including the KM5D, surely others are permitted to not like the appearance of anything they choose, including the Sony Alpha.

Woo Gary

You are jumping up and down for nothing. This thread seemed to start with a rather large jump on what looks suspiciously like a made up story.
All I am doing is trying to point out that the apparent criticism of Sony's "design" may not in fact be Sony's design but someone taking the mickey out of everyone or even Sony simply rehashing the 5D body.
So really my point is ...is this in fact the Sony Alpha or bullshit?

Elle McPherson is pretty and Kim Beasley is ugly. Cameras are cameras

And for the record I don't know whether I would call the KM 5D ugly.....it ain't my style of camera but in the end I probably don't choose something like a camera on "looks". BTW I take the 16 million lens line as that they have made 16million not that many variants (since 1902 or whatever I bet).

Personally I am prepared to see what they do, and for a Nikon user like yourself why the heck get so riled when ultimately it will not affect you?
KM system owners will be ultimately affected by what Sony does not bystanders.

hdj80 wrote:BTW I take the 16 million lens line as that they have made 16million not that many variants (since 1902 or whatever I bet).

Yep. Exactly. But that is not what they implied. Within the context of that article, the implication seems to be that there are 16 million lenses available for their customers to use.

As if.

Personally I am prepared to see what they do

Good luck. If you expect more than a party with froth, bubble, and flotsam, you're likely to be somewhat disappointed. If you're expecting substance, might I respectfully suggest that you watch ACA tomorrow evening?

and for a Nikon user like yourself why the heck get so riled when ultimately it will not affect you?

Who's riled? I think that this is a good laugh, and if you'rd read my earlier post, you'll note that I comment on the absence of quality in a number of areas of Sony products. By your own admission, you have very little ownership of Sony products, and while I admire your courage in hoping that they will produce a winner with this camera, I would simply suggest that, with my exerience of Sony products and knowing how marketing companies (like Sony) are managed, you would do well to not expect a whole lot from this, and beyond this, to expect even less.

KM system owners will be ultimately affected by what Sony does not bystanders.

Sadly, yes.

Look too at Olympus SLR users, and to a lesser extent, Pentax SLR users: where do they go for a decent DSLR system?

You have to be a spurned Sony owner to understand. You pay a premium for a name brand when you should have just bought it generic at the flea market.

dooda wrote:You have to be a spurned Sony owner to understand. You pay a premium for a name brand when you should have just bought it generic at the flea market.

Dave, close.

Except that you probably would have rejected it at the flea market.

Firstly, I am writing this in my wifes name after she read your comments on the new Sony A100 to me. After weeks of exhaustive research and reading hundreds of reviews, this site and its inhabitants are the only critics of this camera. And boy, are you lot ever critical. I ordered her new A100 today because it is a great camera that is very well featured and quite user friendly. One could only consider that you lot are extremely narrow minded in regards to change. No wonder the great inventors of this world died thinking their ideas were useless only to have some "genius"re-invent them some years later when the thought police finally caught up with the future and agreed that they were, after all, great ideas to begin with. I wait with baited breath and a hidden smile for the day when, indeed, you lot catch up with the future and agree that the sony A100 is a great camera or the future overtakes you all and you are left wondering "why"?

mellissa wrote:Firstly, I am writing this in my wifes name after she read your comments on the new Sony A100 to me.

So ... who is your wife? Why doesn't she speak for herself?

For that matter, who, really, are you?

We do not view lightly the fact that you claim to be speaking as somebody else. Why do you chose a cloak of anonimity? Why are you afraid to speak for yourself, under your own name?

Please take a few moments to consider, very seriously, the questions I have asked you. It's likely that you may have already breached your ISP's rules about network abuse, and we do not take network abuse lightly here. And as the site admin and owner here, I expect you to provide me with prompt and honest answers to these questions.

Otherwise, I may need to advise your ISP of your continued network abuse. Thank you for your future cooperation.

mellissa wrote:Firstly, I am writing this in my wifes name after she read your comments on the new Sony A100 to me. After weeks of exhaustive research and reading hundreds of reviews, this site and its inhabitants are the only critics of this camera. And boy, are you lot ever critical.

Well yeah, we like our equipment.
If you spent x-hundred dollars on something, wouldn't you be?

I ordered her new A100 today because it is a great camera that is very well featured and quite user friendly. One could only consider that you lot are extremely narrow minded in regards to change.

Not really.

Having used almost every type of camera there is, I'd say a good lot of us love the fact that change is occuring.

In fact, I was a very big supporter of the Konica Minolta technology before Sony came along and bought the bastards out.

No wonder the great inventors of this world died thinking their ideas were useless only to have some "genius"re-invent them some years later when the thought police finally caught up with the future and agreed that they were, after all, great ideas to begin with.

And your relevance is what?

That Sony are great inventors of this world and we should all be respecting them from the get-go?

If you seriously believe something along those lines, you're delluding yourself, good sir.

I wait with baited breath and a hidden smile for the day when, indeed, you lot catch up with the future and agree that the sony A100 is a great camera or the future overtakes you all and you are left wondering "why"?

You might be waiting a fair while.

The Sony is little more than an uglified Konica Minolta with a new sensor and, that said, it now has one less reason for me to buy it: it bears a Sony badge on it.

You might not be aware of this but Sony don't make cameras... they make electronics, and half of the time, not even that.

Hell, the recent review of this camera and the only one to pop up as of recently suggests that while this might be a decent camera, it doesn't exactly hold a candle to anything Nikon and Canon put out and the glass quality is certainly a hell of a lot more problematic than those two companies.

It may well put up a fight against the Pentax and Olympus models, but this camera is really made for people who sit themselves in the arena and go "Well I know the name Sony! They made my Playstation! I'll buy that!" which is fair enough.

Every product has to have a market.

But seeing as a good lot of us here are photographers, we also like to buy cameras from companies that actually make cameras... that make lenses... that have a level of support that stretches past a line that pretty much translates to "we really couldn't give a stuff about you; spend more money" as that's what Sony's service usually falls back on.

Why not look back at the PSP dead pixel debacles for a reference point: if your PSP has no less than 12 dead pixels, you can pretty much get stuffed. That's great, because if I have 11 and my screen looks like it's been shot with a microscopic rifle, I'm gonna be really happy. Go Sony! Or how about laptop batteries costing half the price of the laptop if you need a replacement, or even the ridiculous amounts of removable media technologies that the big S feels the need to create because it knows better than we do!

Seriously, if you want to claim that the Sony is a great camera, I have no problem with you doing so.

But if you want to come on here and get pissy at us for claiming that it won't be then remove yourself now.

I'm completely for anyone to come here and post pictures of how good their Sony is, to compare good points and bad points just like we'd do with any camera, but if you're going to come here and be an abusive advertisement then just remove yourself here and now.

Definite credibility issues (you researched what, the internet? Now we are all experts then!), perhaps even gender issues (sir, you've been caught impersonating your wife again....) and definitely control issues this is good trolling. It's almost as good as the DPreview thread I read today where somebody said 'tits' and they all wrote back saying 'you said tits' *giggle*

Justin!

You said "tits" !

Saw that one coming.

Don't make me delete anyone else's.

Nnnnsic wrote:Saw that one coming.

Don't make me delete anyone else's.

...what? Tits?

gstark wrote:Justin!

You said "tits" !

Twice!

ps. Leigh, you can't delete me, I didn't say it.

pps. I'm going to watch this thread to see how many more fish bite.

ozczecho wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:Saw that one coming.

Don't make me delete anyone else's.

...what? Tits?

Gotta keep abreast of all this new technology. Gimme a mammary stick!

gstark wrote:

mellissa wrote:Firstly, I am writing this in my wifes name after she read your comments on the new Sony A100 to me.

So ... who is your wife? Why doesn't she speak for herself?

For that matter, who, really, are you?

We do not view lightly the fact that you claim to be speaking as somebody else. Why do you chose a cloak of anonimity? Why are you afraid to speak for yourself, under your own name?

Please take a few moments to consider, very seriously, the questions I have asked you. It's likely that you may have already breached your ISP's rules about network abuse, and we do not take network abuse lightly here. And as the site admin and owner here, I expect you to provide me with prompt and honest answers to these questions.

Otherwise, I may need to advise your ISP of your continued network abuse. Thank you for your future cooperation.

Network Abuse????? now I know I am dealing with morons or at least one of them. My wife joined at the referal of a site OWNER that I am a member of. He seems to be intelligent but his referrals leave a lot to be desired. When i read your rather cutting and obviously uneducated views of the A100 I was blown away. As for investment in camera gear and liking it, how the bloody hell can you comment on something you have never held, touched or shot? Once again, mornic behaviour from uneducated wanna be's. Now, WHO AM I? a consumer and a rather successful one at that who cares little for your camera brand fetish and obvious one eyed views. And as far as researching the internet folr advice, ya got me on that one. Thats how we found you guy's and this thread speaks for itself. In closing, I really hope you do report me to my ISP provider so there will be one more in what I am sure is a very large and growing list that think you are a dickhead. As for reprise with my wife and I am sure you tough guys would like to pick on a woman, you will not get the oportunity as she will not be visiting here any more. Your credibility as so called camera experts goes no further that you buying (no doubt on credit) a very large zoom lense to try and find your obvious lack of manhood. So grab ya lanses boys and stick em up your arses.

gstark wrote:

ozczecho wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:Saw that one coming.

Don't make me delete anyone else's.

...what? Tits?

Gotta keep abreast of all this new technology. Gimme a mammary stick!

Definitely agree - rather than be knockers of new technology we should milk it for all it's worth

mellissa wrote:Network Abuse????? now I know I am dealing with morons or at least one of them. My wife joined at the referal of a site OWNER that I am a member of. He seems to be intelligent but his referrals leave a lot to be desired. When i read your rather cutting and obviously uneducated views of the A100 I was blown away. As for investment in camera gear and liking it, how the bloody hell can you comment on something you have never held, touched or shot? Once again, mornic behaviour from uneducated wanna be's. Now, WHO AM I? a consumer and a rather successful one at that who cares little for your camera brand fetish and obvious one eyed views. And as far as researching the internet folr advice, ya got me on that one. Thats how we found you guy's and this thread speaks for itself. In closing, I really hope you do report me to my ISP provider so there will be one more in what I am sure is a very large and growing list that think you are a dickhead. As for reprise with my wife and I am sure you tough guys would like to pick on a woman, you will not get the oportunity as she will not be visiting here any more. Your credibility as so called camera experts goes no further that you buying (no doubt on credit) a very large zoom lense to try and find your obvious lack of manhood. So grab ya lanses boys and stick em up your arses.

Look mate, you might have taken offence to what gstark has written (one member), but you really need a bex and a good lie down.

If you want to make positive comments about a camera, please reserve your comments to just that - tell us why you think it great.

Cut out the senseless abuse. It isn't wanted here thanks.

mellissa wrote:Network Abuse????? now I know I am dealing with morons or at least one of them.

you are a dickhead

stick em up your arses.

That didn't take long at all, did it.

First of all, flaming of any user on this forum is explicitly prohibited. Any user.

You need to, very quickly consider your position with your above statement; yopu are clearly in breach of our rules, and I will ban you, and report you to your ISP should you fail to address this issue urgently.

And yes, network abuse. What do you believe gives you the right to log onto this private site, and take the place of another user?

No other person does it; why should you?

As to your statement of "one eyed views" ... we have people here who use multiple brands of cameras. In this household we reglarly use cameras from four different manufacturers, ranging in value from a few hundred dollars to the multi-thousands. Which of those four would you suggest is the "one" that we're "one-eyed" about ?

Please now address the flaming issue without delay, or just quietly leave the premises.

The choice is yours.

The guy standing just behind Melissa wrote:WHO AM I? a consumer and a rather successful one

Sorry, had to highlight that one. So much I could say, but hey, why state the obvious?

mellissa wrote:not much at all

I'd have loved it if you'd had actually responded to what I'd asked of you before you went and flamed the admin of this site.

Hearing an opinion on the camera as opposed to a rant on how good of a consumer you are would've been nice too, but sadly, you didn't do something like that.

First of all, we've proven time and time again that we have no camera brand fetish, except for brands of cameras that are in fact cameras and not electrical appliances.

Second, you dug up an old thread that discussed this camera before it had even come out.

Why didn't you post your opinions on the thread that linked to the review earlier?

Greg B wrote:

WHO AM I? a consumer and a rather successful one

Sorry, had to highlight that one. So much I could say, but hey, why state the obvious?

Greg, I noticed that one, but the reality is that the statement seems to be an oxymoron.

mellissa wrote:
.....................Your credibility as so called camera experts goes no further that you buying (no doubt on credit) a very large zoom lense to try and find your obvious lack of manhood............

Oh, come on mellissa's spokesperson, don't beat around the bush ( these puns are killing me ) - you mean "obviously small penises"

Oh, and by the way, it's "lens"..... FWIW, I don't have any very large lenses, zoom or fixed focal length - make of that what you will!!

Cheers

Looks like ill be keeping my mouth shut from now on..

I'm the site owner mentioned.. running a fishing forum, alot of people see my pictures and message me for info and such... i point everyone here to join up and get in on the action ... Mellissa or "Newby" as he is known on my site asked me about the Sony, seeing as I know bugger all about it, i mentioned they join up here and check out the site, maybe post a question about the camera or something... but i wasnt expecting this...

So folks, im sorry, Gary, im sorry that you have been attacked, the few other people ive pointed here have blended into the fabric of this site.. but unfortunately, this one didnt... ill be keeping my mouth shut now

Tim

It's not your fault, Tim, and you don't have to be quiet.

Whoever this is has posted in such an immature fashion and probably hasn't exactly read the thread they posted to.

Furthermore, had they wanted to tell us how good their said camera was, surely telling us about it rather than abusing us would've been the best way to go about doing it.

Tim, one leaf doesn't make an autumn








Don't worry about guys who try to impersonate women, in Sydney we get plenty of people like that

Glen wrote:Tim, one leaf doesn't make an autumn

In my day one leaf could make an autumn, but you had to smoke it