http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/ ... 12862.html And it's not Nikon. Now the question remains is how lmuch longer is Sony going to play nice with Nikon. It's about time!
Now with a pic of the camera Here's a side shot of it: http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/ ... large.html
Sony's FF camera will have in-body IS Somehow Sony figured out how to move the sensor enough. This is interesting because there are lots of fanboys in the Canon/Nikon camp that have claimed "it can't be done." Sony thinks it can - Imaging Resource has a pic of the sensor in the steady shot mechanism here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/ ... large.html
most interesting. i wonder what canon will do to combat this onslaught that they have been taking with these new models.
Do you know how the professional world is taking the Sony DSLR products so far? My assumption would have been that the pros would have all had stocks of Nikon or Canon lenses built up, and would be hesitant to switch over to an entirely new brand which is more known for making the sensors on consumer digicams than for professional gear (yeah, I know Nikon has used them in their DSLRs). But that's just a guess, I'm really not in touch with the pro world at all, I just get occasional glimpses into it through magazine articles and such.
Sony finally made "waves" this year. I think the kicker is apparently they have a 500/2.8 in the pipeline, but I think that's wishful thinking on some people's thoughts. They do have a fast long telephoto under construction, their press room has tons of images of their products including the prototypes they have shown somewhere. But they really aren't a new brand - they're just finally updating the Minolta line. And they're not making a bazillion copies of almost the exact same lens a la Canon did with their entry level models. i.e.: 35-70, 35-80, 28-70, 28-80, 28-105, 35-105, 35-135, 28-135 etc. Sigma and Tamron have a lot of lenses for the alpha mount, and plus all the old Minolta lenses. The rumbling mostly is that their lenses cost more than C/N. But Canon has a problem in that their 200/2 IS costs 1k more than Nikon. Normally it's the other way around.
