EVIL Cameras. Will you go to the dark side?

[BIGdaddy]

answered my own question. it WILL work...now I understand the "alpha" designation.

cool. thanks for pointing out Sony's development!

 

[ThomD]

holy crap your actually gonna compare the MF backs from something like a haus with those of a CCD from a P&S. thats crazy. No the D90 is not a pocket camera but it sure as heck will take a lot better image than the GF1. plain and simple the GF1 just does not have the dynamic range of even a small dslr. also those people hoping to capture great images at dawn or dusk are in for a rude surprise with the bad ISO

Oh man. Getting worked up on a topic like this and throwing around generalizations is just an invitation to getting flamed. If you don't like it, dont buy it.

FWIW, dp review reports that at ISO 400, the GF1 has 8.5 EV useable dr (Same as Canon's 500D) and the D90 has 8.6 EV.

Of course when you get to 800+, bigger sensors always win. But the camera you do not carry, because it is too big, does not take very good images.

 

[Lost Canadian]

holy crap your actually gonna compare the MF backs from something like a haus with those of a CCD from a P&S. thats crazy. No the D90 is not a pocket camera but it sure as heck will take a lot better image than the GF1. plain and simple the GF1 just does not have the dynamic range of even a small dslr. also those people hoping to capture great images at dawn or dusk are in for a rude surprise with the bad ISO

I'm confused. You're comparing an APS-C sized CCD to a tiny little 1/1.7 P&S. What's the difference? Are we talking technology or sensor size? The Sony is using an APS-C sized sensor, which is a heck of a lot bigger than a point and shoot sensor, and it's bigger than 4/3rds. It's the same size of sensor as the one you have in your D90. In fact, the little Sony model will probably outpace your D90 considering it's newer tech.

If that Sony can shoot clean files up to ISO 1000-1600 I bet it'll be an awesome little camera, and if they add a swivel screen,..HELLO!

 

[Lost Canadian]

if we can use the same lense set for both camera's all the better.

Yeah, no more needing to carry around a bulky camera when just walking about. I could see travel photogs forgoing the bulky back-up body for one of these. You could pack up one set of lenses, a main body, be it A900, A850, A700, whatever, and that little guy. It's a perfect travel package, as you give up very little in terms of IQ when going from the bigger body to the little guy, that's cool!

 

[SOAZ]

This turned out to be a pretty "lively" discussion. :victory:

I love cameras, they capture the good times! The better the image and the smaller the camera, the better for me. :ylsmoke:

 

[john101477]

Yeah I read the Dp review after I had posted. Being APS-C makes a world of difference. I talked to a buddy of mine that got to test one and he compared images @ iso 200, 400, 800, and 1600 to that of DSLR. His only complaint was the noise @ 800 and above and the images from the GF1 where not quite as crisp as the DSLR. From what I am reading GF1 is great for those wanting better than a P&S but not wanting the bulk or needing some features of the DSLR.
After studying the build it really makes me wonder about the low pass filter used to protect the sensor since it is exposed to light in standby. Kind of cool for some people I guess, is it for me and my photography, probably not. I am used to hauling mine around everywhere I go and have packs and straps to hold it close at hand with out problem.
Trevor the GF-1 at least is not clean to 1000 or 1600. and unless you use it is Raw DpReview even says the jpg's are not very good.

I wanted to add that the only camera I am really talking about is the GF1 as I am unfamiliar with many of sony's products. I shoot Nikon and happily so, for me to have a 4/3's size camera that is not Nikon would mean extra equipment that needs hauled around.

 

[john101477]

Of course when you get to 800+, bigger sensors always win. But the camera you do not carry, because it is too big, does not take very good images.

For most this is probably true
I always have mine, it is my job and means to support my family.

 

[BIGdaddy]

This turned out to be a pretty "lively" discussion. :victory:

I love cameras, they capture the good times! The better the image and the smaller the camera, the better for me. :ylsmoke:

there it is.

 

[Lost Canadian]

More pics of Sony's "evil" camera.

 

[john101477]

everyone seems to think this is a pocket camera and I suppose if your using a 20mm lens it could be, but a lens that wide is really not going to do much for 90% of the people out there. just to capture what your eyes are seeing you will need a bigger lens and so takes this well out of the realm of a pocket camera. The top image of the blue sony is more than likely what most will NEED to run around with. The m43 really is a good idea and someday may really pay off, but right now it is still in it's infancy an has a LONG way to go to match SLR image quality

 

[Safado]

Where's the flash? Nothing said for an external flash mount or controller...I'm still not convinced for a number of reasons. Primarily function control. Another one of the reasons DSLR bodies are so "big" is that they place many of the functions on dedicated switches, dials, and buttons. While you can build some of that functionality in menus, it becomes almost worthless. You'll miss the shot. I love having everything at my fingertips, and you just can't duplicate that in a smaller body.

The article...and others...make some pretty bold statements about what market this is aimed at.

"Unless you have a specific use that these cameras can’t meet, or you need the very highest level of performance only a Canon 1D or Nikon D3 can bring, you have no reason to buy a DSLR."

I think this might work for the millions that have purchased and entry level DSLR, or even a semi pro body in the hopes that they would now "take amazing pictures" Most are not interested in putting in the time to really learn the functionality and science behind photography. A lot were just looking for "blurry background effects." They bought a big point and shoot, leave it in Auto all the time, still don't get the amazing pics they thought they would 100% of the time...and complain about the body size. And I think that's your market. Sony and others have certainly lost a lot of market share with the DSLR craze...and they'll try and convince them THIS is what you need to get "amazing pictures."

Also, I can see if all I shot with was my 50 1.4...that this would now be more pocket friendly, but that's just one of the lenses in the bag...used for certain situations. The size difference of one of these mounted to a 70-200 or 14-24 is laughable for what you'd be giving up. The argument is even negligible for most entry level zoom lenses. You're not going to fit an 18-200 with one of these in your pocket. And for $900? To me, it still makes more sense to just carry a cheap PaS if I'm not interested in photographing anything to be kept long term.

There are a number of reasons that point and shoot have never hit the mark for those seriously interested in photography, and frankly I don't know of any semi-pro or pro that is complaining about body size.

My $.02

 

[Lost Canadian]

Hmmmm...

I think I know why pro's and am's alike are buying these things like hotcakes.:ylsmoke:

 

[Safado]

Not sure I follow you?

 

[Michael Slade]

No.

 

[john101477]

Where's the flash? Nothing said for an external flash mount or controller...I'm still not convinced for a number of reasons. Primarily function control. Another one of the reasons DSLR bodies are so "big" is that they place many of the functions on dedicated switches, dials, and buttons. While you can build some of that functionality in menus, it becomes almost worthless. You'll miss the shot. I love having everything at my fingertips, and you just can't duplicate that in a smaller body.

The article...and others...make some pretty bold statements about what market this is aimed at.

"Unless you have a specific use that these cameras can’t meet, or you need the very highest level of performance only a Canon 1D or Nikon D3 can bring, you have no reason to buy a DSLR."

I think this might work for the millions that have purchased and entry level DSLR, or even a semi pro body in the hopes that they would now "take amazing pictures" Most are not interested in putting in the time to really learn the functionality and science behind photography. A lot were just looking for "blurry background effects." They bought a big point and shoot, leave it in Auto all the time, still don't get the amazing pics they thought they would 100% of the time...and complain about the body size. And I think that's your market. Sony and others have certainly lost a lot of market share with the DSLR craze...and they'll try and convince them THIS is what you need to get "amazing pictures."

Also, I can see if all I shot with was my 50 1.4...that this would now be more pocket friendly, but that's just one of the lenses in the bag...used for certain situations. The size difference of one of these mounted to a 70-200 or 14-24 is laughable for what you'd be giving up. The argument is even negligible for most entry level zoom lenses. You're not going to fit an 18-200 with one of these in your pocket. And for $900? To me, it still makes more sense to just carry a cheap PaS if I'm not interested in photographing anything to be kept long term.

There are a number of reasons that point and shoot have never hit the mark for those seriously interested in photography, and frankly I don't know of any semi-pro or pro that is complaining about body size.

My $.02

X2

Hmmmm...
I think I know why pro's and am's alike are buying these things like hotcakes.

I know about 80 pro photogs and none of them are looking at this or any other m43. plain and simple, it will not take the same quality image, nor does it have many of the features of a pro level camera.