Sony a55 vs Pentax k30
- Thread starter leroyishere
- Start date
leroyishere said:
Don't waste reading all these theories
Just decide on one and get it, and start shooting
What matters most is your output quality. Brand no matter at all
No one is going to ask you, after looking at your pics "what brand you r using?". "if it is xxxxx brand, your pix is lousy. If it is yyyyyy brand, your pix is good."
Good photographers are not brand loyal. They change system according to their needs. I know many good ones who have changed at least 3 brands since they started.
milez
New Member
banana0ne said:
Cool.
I don't like electronics company encroaching into optics/photographic business. They don't hve prior knowledge and expertise. That's why Sony bought Carl Zeiss, konica Minolta, & yashica contax to gain foothold, knowledge and brand heritage which they don't have. Ditto Panasonic which bought Leica. The only real camera makers left are Nikon, Pentax, Mamiya, Rolleiflex Olympus, Canon and fujifilm.
banana0ne
New Member
As long it works for you, brand, knowledge and brand heritage doesn't matter. We use our camera, we don't brag 'em...
rhino123
Senior Member
Huh? I don't think Sony had bought Carl Zeiss, Sony is only one of the Licensee using Carl Zeiss name on lenses for their camera like Nokia. And I don't think Panasonic bought Leica, Panasonic uses Leica lenses in her point and shoot camera and also leica lenses for her mirrorless, but that doesn't equal to Panasonic buying over Leica.
And you forget Ricoh which is also a true camera maker and Ricoh had buy over Pentax.
Anyway, I have no problem with electronic company trying to make cameras... especially for nowadays digital world. Note that many of the true camera makers are using sensors from electronic companys (namely Sony) - Nikon, Pentax and I suspect the new OM-D is using Sony make sensor too. Older Olympus PEN cameras are using sensors make by Panasonic (which is an electronic company too).
Of course, as important a sensor is to a camera, so was other components such as processors and stuff like that. But I believe that all these are electronic stuff that electronic company should have no or little problem in developing. The only real issue is the optic of the camera such the lenses, and that is why many of these electronic companies are partnering with well known optical companies such as Leica and Carl Zeiss (partnering... but not buying over), to build lenses for them.
metranquility
New Member
Well, that is your view, and I respect that. But seriously, we have all moved on to the digital age, where new innovations marrying electronics and optics have brought about consumer technology that allows more people to take better photos...
and many of these innovations have been brought about by the 'electronic companies that do not have prior knowledge and expertise'... First Consumer Digital Camera by Sony - the 1981 Mavica, LCD screens on digital cameras by Casio, Micro Four Thirds (by Panasonic and Olympus jointly, first camera is the Panasonic G1 (my first non-PnS :bsmilie: )), Mirrorless with APSC sensors (Samsung and Sony), etc etc.
Yes, the intention of buying all these companies is to make $ of course, but ultimately, who benefits ?
Anyway, from the consumer point of view, whichever camera helps to take the best pics works. And sometimes, new technology helps to bring a renaissance to old ones, like how people are using legacy lens on MFT and NEX bodies.. when not long b4, a lot of these old glass were used as paperweights...
milez
New Member
I maybe wrong, but I believe Sony is a major share holder of Carl Zeiss. Ditto Panasonic and Leica. I remember Leica almost went burst due to the digital revolution.
Kodak had gone under now. Their film making competitor fujifilm survived because they reinvent themselves and became digicam maker.
Agfa and Konica didnt survive.
Electronic companies supplying sensors to camera makers is like users buying film to use on their camera. The camera makers are still most import as Rey design the product base on teir expertise, which electronic companies simply do not have. With the exception of Canon as they are both electronic and photographic makers ( with their printers and photocopiers)... Something like Apple.
Perhaps one day cameras will be built to accept any sensor you choose to put in. Just like PCs now where you can select which CPU you want, and you can upgrade. And put in more RAM for higher buffering.
and maybe you can choose OS as well. That's where the software giant MSFT, GOGL and AAPL comes in.
Kodak had gone under now. Their film making competitor fujifilm survived because they reinvent themselves and became digicam maker.
Agfa and Konica didnt survive.
Electronic companies supplying sensors to camera makers is like users buying film to use on their camera. The camera makers are still most import as Rey design the product base on teir expertise, which electronic companies simply do not have. With the exception of Canon as they are both electronic and photographic makers ( with their printers and photocopiers)... Something like Apple.
Perhaps one day cameras will be built to accept any sensor you choose to put in. Just like PCs now where you can select which CPU you want, and you can upgrade. And put in more RAM for higher buffering.
and maybe you can choose OS as well. That's where the software giant MSFT, GOGL and AAPL comes in.
metranquility
New Member
You are wrong. Carl Zeiss is fully owned by Carl Zeiss Foundation. Sony is a mere licensee.
Leica is also not owned by Panasonic, which is just a mere licensee too.
Please back your arguments with facts, not perceptions.
Samsung, Sony and Panasonic are making their own lens now. Panasonic have managed to shrink kit lens into a pancake with their Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 OIS pancake. Sony and Samsung lens are no pushovers too. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by camera makers are still most important. If tomorrow, all the camera makers go bankrupt or are bought over by Google or Apple, new cameras will still be pushed out by the remaining.
Technology is transferable, even expertise in making glass. It's all about innovation, and who appeals to the consumers most with their offerings. I dare say that the traditional camera makers like Canon, Nikon, etc are upping their game (Pentax Q, Pentax K01, Canon G1X, Nikon J1, upcoming Canon mirrorless model), because they need to defend their market share against the innovations that 'traditionally electronic companies' like Sony and Samsung are bringing in, like SLTs and MILCs. The lines are blurred btw these companies now.
The beneficiaries ? We the consumers.
So learn to appreciate and respect 'traditional electronic companies', and not make disparaging remarks and say half-truths abt them.
Leica is also not owned by Panasonic, which is just a mere licensee too.
Please back your arguments with facts, not perceptions.
Samsung, Sony and Panasonic are making their own lens now. Panasonic have managed to shrink kit lens into a pancake with their Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 OIS pancake. Sony and Samsung lens are no pushovers too. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by camera makers are still most important. If tomorrow, all the camera makers go bankrupt or are bought over by Google or Apple, new cameras will still be pushed out by the remaining.
Technology is transferable, even expertise in making glass. It's all about innovation, and who appeals to the consumers most with their offerings. I dare say that the traditional camera makers like Canon, Nikon, etc are upping their game (Pentax Q, Pentax K01, Canon G1X, Nikon J1, upcoming Canon mirrorless model), because they need to defend their market share against the innovations that 'traditionally electronic companies' like Sony and Samsung are bringing in, like SLTs and MILCs. The lines are blurred btw these companies now.
The beneficiaries ? We the consumers.
So learn to appreciate and respect 'traditional electronic companies', and not make disparaging remarks and say half-truths abt them.
Epic fail. Please stop spreading such complete misinformation and rubbish.
FYI, Sony has a MASSIVE history in professional optics and video. They did NOT buy yashica and Contax and Carl Zeiss. Panasonic did NOT buy Leica. You really have no clue, huh? I sincerely hope you do not say your wild theories out loud when around other photographers. Also, did you know the first digital consumer camera was made by Sony?
Canon? Yeah, Photocopiers, stereos, etc.
Yes, you are wrong.
Kodak was the main sensor provider for a lot of medium format digital backs, and hold many innovation patents relating to digital sensor technology.
You are clueless. Sony is the designer of the digital sensors, they DO NOT get the design from Nikon, Pentax, etc, as they don't have the expertise Sony does. The most that Nikon and Pentax do is specify the microlens array and filters. Sony designs a sensor, adds it to the product portfolio, THEN offers it to the companies. The companies (Nikon, Pentax, etc) then pick from the available sensors in the Sony product portfolio and then test it and then request tweaks for their particular requirements. Sony hold massive innovation in digital sensor design.
Even the sensor in the Nikon D700/D3/D3s was designed by Aptina (not Nikon), fabbed by Renesas.
Apple? Oh please. They're the king of faking innovation, taking existing designs and making it look pretty and getting you to think they invented it.
Perhaps one day cameras will be built to accept any sensor you choose to put in. Just like PCs now where you can select which CPU you want, and you can upgrade. And put in more RAM for higher buffering.
You want to bring Microsoft, Google and Apple into the OS on a CAMERA???
Wow, seriously, please stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. Or at least pass around whatever it is you're smoking.
Last edited:
fmeeran
New Member
milez said:
Oh please..... Read up more
None of these companies are real camera makers lah. U think canon can survive on just cameras??
The forerunner of video imaging is Sony since the early days, the pioneer of the industry and still is.
Anyway back to my argument; there is no point talking about what brand to buy.
It's all the same at the end of day. Talent is must important.
Someone trying to be a singer, doesnt depend on what microphone he is using.
Can sing means can sing, even without a microphone and the entire sound system.
A person who is tone deaf, he still can't sing even if he has the best sound system in the world.
You think photography is just knowing bokeh and whatever crap?
The photographer needs to have the talent of colour mix, lighting and the gut feel of anticipating the 'moment' of the picture frame.
metranquility
New Member
milez said:
Talk about irrelevance, you are the one who started the OT first. We are only making relevant corrections to your irrelevance.
Well, you are entitled to like or dislike certain brands, but when you support your views with untruths, then you deserve to be corrected. Please do your due diligence in the future.
kei1309
Senior Member
if you did this on purpose, i do hope the mods give you an infraction for trying to stir up trouble to "prove a point".
i believe it's called trolling.
Similar threads
