Sony NEX-7 fuggin awesome camera

[MuahMan]

This thing rivals my 5D MKII for IQ. Amazing for a pocketable camera. Paired with good glass this thing will be unstoppable. Canikon has been put on notice.

[MuahMan]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:39:49 PM UTC-4, MuahMan wrote:
> This thing rivals my 5D MKII for IQ. Amazing for a pocketable camera. Paired with good glass this thing will be unstoppable. Canikon has been put on notice.

wrong group.

[Jon]

On 05/07/2012 12:39 am, MuahMan wrote:
> This thing rivals my 5D MKII for IQ. Amazing for a pocketable camera. Paired with good glass this thing will be unstoppable. Canikon has been put on notice.
>

Sony Cameras feel cheap 'n' nasty.

Bit like Dell!!

LOL!

[-hh]

The reports on the NEX-7 have been an interesting mixed bag. On the
one hand, they're suggesting that the sensor may very well be the best
APS-C yet that's made it to a retail product.

However, that doesn't mean that it is competitive with a FF sensor,
and the indications of how Sony has set its JPEG processing that it
may not really be competitive with stuff like the 1-2 year old tech of
the Cannon 7D or 60D (both of which are APS-C sized sensors). A not-
insigificant part of the reason why is because the light-splitting
optics cause typically a 1/2 to 1/3 stop loss, which means that the
eventual resulting image is going to have a higher noise level due to
a higher "internal" (vs indicated) ISO level. For example, for a shot
to use ISO 1600, the internal-to-the-sensor effective ISO has to be
ISO ~2000 because of the transmission loss, so the image quality drops
relative to what the same exact hardware would otherwise deliver if it
wasn't in a 'mirrorless' optical path.

Moving on to the next element, Sony simply doesn't really have the
glass ecosystem for it yet. Sure, you can use an alpha lens which
helps to reduce this limitation, but even with the addition of the
alpha lens series, it still isn't as comprehensive as Nikon/Cannon.
In any case, claims being made based upon nonexistant hardware is
classical vaporware.

Finally, the "put on notice" bit does have some modest amount of
credence to it, as it appears that the next big (at least marketing-
wise) thing is for mirrorless designs, which this Sony is. Of course,
'mirrorless' is both a misnomer as well as not a new technology for
cameras: there were pellicle mirror designs back in 35mm as early as
1965, and as recently as 1995 for the Canon EOS 1N RS. For more info
here, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellicle_mirror

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1N


In any case, Brian's been known to falsify his EXIF data, so don't
assume that he actually even owns & uses the camera(s) that he
claims. If memory serves, his current "big iron" is a Kodak Easyshare
model :-)


-hh

[MuahMan]

I do think Magnesium alloy is cheap.

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 4:39:49 PM UTC-7, MuahMan wrote:
> This thing rivals my 5D MKII for IQ. Amazing for a pocketable camera. Paired with good glass this thing will be unstoppable. Canikon has been put on notice.

Why I won't get one:

1. No rear facing camera - necessary for augmented reality apps. These will be HUGE in the next few years.
2. No SD card reader.
3. No HDMI port.

[Nashton]

On 07-05-12 11:41 AM, -hh wrote:
> Jon<j...@no-email.org> wrote:
=

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellicle_mirror
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1N
>
>
> In any case, Brian's been known to falsify his EXIF data, so don't

> assume that he actually even owns& uses the camera(s) that he

> claims. If memory serves, his current "big iron" is a Kodak Easyshare
> model :-)
>
>
> -hh

Have you been able to master the focus function on your cameras yet?

[MuahMan]

Now I'm forging EXIF data, lol. Tinfoil hat time.

[-hh]

I'm more inclined to believe that you've had a Sony DSC-W150, a Canon
PowerShot SD700 IS, maybe a 20D...but just like Nash, not a
5D...particularly when all the tracks weren't covered in the EXIF.
Perhaps you can ask Nash for how to take blurry pics of humping dogs
and of Brandon & Zachary's birthday cake :-)


-hh

[-hh]

Oh, that's right: YOUR crappy pictures weren't taken seven (7) years
ago.

No wonder you're still so mad.


-hh

[Chance Furlong]

> Now I'm forging EXIF data. Tinfoil hat time.

MuahMan trolling Nashton.

[MuahMan]

Good call, as usual. LOL

From 3 years ago....

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/384/boxesxp5.jpg/

[-hh]

Doesn't matter: that's just a pic of some boxes, which doesn't affect
the EXIF data on uploaded pics from the camera used.

Of course, there's also the question as to why one would buy a
'discontinued' 40D (released 2007; superseded by the 50D in 2008) and
a 5Dmk2 (2009) at the same time...

Since the latest CSMA gimmick has been to post a video, well, even you
can figure out what's next if you really want to 'prove' anything...


-hh

[MuahMan]

I don't care that much. Certainly not enough to climb into the attic. I gotta move like 8 motorcycles to do that.

[-hh]

You keep saying 'no' ... but you keep trying anyway. Predictable.


-hh

[Nashton]

> and of Brandon& Zachary's birthday cake :-)
>
>
> -hh

My dogs were not humping, nobody is forging EXIF data little brown man
(I mean that in the nicest way and I declare that I don't really care
that your parents hail from Pakistan) and I don't own a 5D, I, II or II.

I own a 1Ds Mark II with many L lenses and Leica-R lenses and I would
appreciate if you left my kids out of it.

[Nashton]

LOL

>
> No wonder you're still so mad.
>
>
> -hh
>

LOL

[Sandman]

In article <jt6j4g$o6a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.ca>
wrote:

> > I'm more inclined to believe that you've had a Sony DSC-W150, a Canon
> > PowerShot SD700 IS, maybe a 20D...but just like Nash, not a
> > 5D...particularly when all the tracks weren't covered in the EXIF.
> > Perhaps you can ask Nash for how to take blurry pics of humping dogs
> > and of Brandon& Zachary's birthday cake :-)
>

> My dogs were not humping, nobody is forging EXIF data little brown man
> (I mean that in the nicest way and I declare that I don't really care
> that your parents hail from Pakistan) and I don't own a 5D, I, II or II.
>
> I own a 1Ds Mark II with many L lenses and Leica-R lenses and I would
> appreciate if you left my kids out of it.

Ah, one for the archive:

http://csma.sandman.net/Quotes/Nashton


--
Sandman[.net]

[Michael]

"Sandman" wrote in message
news:mr-8667C4.14...@News.Individual.NET...

Your archives are both extensive and detailed!

Perhaps if you spent as much time on your failing business, it might
be doing better.

Maybe you will be as fortunate as your master, A. Baker, and inherit
moneys. It made a drastic life change for him; from setting up the
occasional iPad in the middle of the night and posting on csma for 23
hours a day, to devoting all 24 hours a day posting.


http://www.google.com/imgres?q=his+master%27s+voice&num=10&hl=en&biw=1261&bih=556&tbm=isch&tbnid=Zd3ySCaCL4WfkM:&imgrefurl=http://www.cupfighter.net/index.php/2009/07/using-google-voice-in-amsterdam/&docid=o6yVofYdCUbIVM&imgurl=http://www.cupfighter.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/his-voice.jpg&w=495&h=369&ei=SNr2T_veK4ic9gSI3sTZBg&zoom=1

Tweet, tweeet, tweet - sic him boy, go get em, go get em. DO YOU
WANT ME TO TAKE YOU TO THE POUND?, GET EM. Fuggin mutt.

[Nashton]

On 12-07-06 9:31 AM, Michael wrote:
>
>
> "Sandman" wrote in message
> news:mr-8667C4.14...@News.Individual.NET...
>
> In article <jt6j4g$o6a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> > I'm more inclined to believe that you've had a Sony DSC-W150, a > Canon
>> > PowerShot SD700 IS, maybe a 20D...but just like Nash, not a
>> > 5D...particularly when all the tracks weren't covered in the EXIF.
>> > Perhaps you can ask Nash for how to take blurry pics of humping > dogs
>> > and of Brandon& Zachary's birthday cake :-)
>>
>> My dogs were not humping, nobody is forging EXIF data little brown man
>> (I mean that in the nicest way and I declare that I don't really care
>> that your parents hail from Pakistan) and I don't own a 5D, I, II or II.
>>
>> I own a 1Ds Mark II with many L lenses and Leica-R lenses and I would
>> appreciate if you left my kids out of it.
>
>> Ah, one for the archive:
>
>> http://csma.sandman.net/Quotes/Nashton
>
> Your archives are both extensive and detailed!

And most of them out of context, as in quote mining ;)

>
> Perhaps if you spent as much time on your failing business, it might be
> doing better.

What business? Creating Web pages?

[-hh]

On Jul 6, 8:02 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <jt6j4g$o6...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <n...@na.ca>

> wrote:
>
> > > I'm more inclined to believe that you've had a Sony DSC-W150, a Canon
> > > PowerShot SD700 IS, maybe a 20D...but just like Nash, not a
> > > 5D...particularly when all the tracks weren't covered in the EXIF.
> > > Perhaps you can ask Nash for how to take blurry pics of humping dogs
> > > and of Brandon&  Zachary's birthday cake :-)
>
> > My dogs were not humping, nobody is forging EXIF data little brown man
> > (I mean that in the nicest way and I declare that I don't really care
> > that your parents hail from Pakistan) and I don't own a 5D, I, II or II.

Nash would be far better served if he were to ignore the claims of
other trolls.


> > I own a 1Ds Mark II with many L lenses and Leica-R lenses ...

Of course, just **which** 1Ds Mark II would that be? It can't be the
one made by Canon, since theirs uses a full frame CMOS, whereas
Nashton's EXIF data indicated that the alleged "1DsMk2" actually was
using something with roughly a 1/2.5" sensor. Oopsie!


> > ... and I would appreciate if you left my kids out of it.

Sorry, but each time that you try your lame rant about an inferior 7
year old photo, I'm going to remind you of your crap too.

If the only way to suggest that you to stop is to specifially call out
the innocents of Brandon & Zachary each time that you try to dredge up
the past ... well, perhaps you should consider then not dredging up
the past - - particularly since you're doing it in a highly dishonest
manner.

When the day comes (and it will) that Brandon or Zachary start to
learn to Google and discover (which they will) just how much of a
flaming asshole their dear old "Dad" was, just remember that it was
your own damn fault for acting that way.

> Ah, one for the archive:
>
>    http://csma.sandman.net/Quotes/Nashton

Indeed. FWIW, I'm fairly sure that I did take screen shots that shows
the details of Nashton's falsified EXIF data, in the event that he
takes it down to try to hide his dishonesty.



-hh

[Michael]

"Nashton" wrote in message news:jt6mel$5uf$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Maybe once upon a time. But now, not too much. He is, after all, the
#2 all time poster here.

[Michael]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:ba4f937c-2b7c-48a4...@x39g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 6, 8:02 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <jt6j4g$o6...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <n...@na.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > > I'm more inclined to believe that you've had a Sony DSC-W150, a
> > > Canon
> > > PowerShot SD700 IS, maybe a 20D...but just like Nash, not a
> > > 5D...particularly when all the tracks weren't covered in the
> > > EXIF.
> > > Perhaps you can ask Nash for how to take blurry pics of humping
> > > dogs
> > > and of Brandon& Zachary's birthday cake :-)
>
> > My dogs were not humping, nobody is forging EXIF data little brown
> > man
> > (I mean that in the nicest way and I declare that I don't really
> > care
> > that your parents hail from Pakistan) and I don't own a 5D, I, II
> > or II.

>Nash would be far better served if he were to ignore the claims of
>other trolls.

snip

> > ... and I would appreciate if you left my kids out of it.

>If the only way to suggest that you to stop is to specifially call
>out
>the innocents of Brandon & Zachary each time that you try to dredge
>up
>the past ... well, perhaps you should consider then not dredging up
>the past - - particularly since you're doing it in a highly dishonest
>manner.

And this proves you are 100% pure Scumbag. You are a mean spirited,
little nothing, hiding behind a keyboard. May your life be
interesting.

[Sandman]

In article <uBBJr.6$Kb...@newsfe20.iad>,

"Michael" <Archange...@aol.com> wrote:

> >If the only way to suggest that you to stop is to specifially call
> >out
> >the innocents of Brandon & Zachary each time that you try to dredge
> >up
> >the past ... well, perhaps you should consider then not dredging up
> >the past - - particularly since you're doing it in a highly dishonest
> >manner.
>
> And this proves you are 100% pure Scumbag. You are a mean spirited,
> little nothing, hiding behind a keyboard. May your life be
> interesting.

-hh: 1
Michael: 0


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <mUAJr.29320$3z3....@newsfe01.iad>,

"Michael" <Archange...@aol.com> wrote:

> >Ah, one for the archive:
>
> > http://csma.sandman.net/Quotes/Nashton
>
> Your archives are both extensive and detailed!

Not to mention funny!






--
Sandman[.net]

[Nashton]

On 12-07-06 9:50 AM, -hh wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:02 am, Sandman<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article<jt6j4g$o6...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton<n...@na.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm more inclined to believe that you've had a Sony DSC-W150, a Canon
>>>> PowerShot SD700 IS, maybe a 20D...but just like Nash, not a
>>>> 5D...particularly when all the tracks weren't covered in the EXIF.
>>>> Perhaps you can ask Nash for how to take blurry pics of humping dogs
>>>> and of Brandon& Zachary's birthday cake :-)
>>
>>> My dogs were not humping, nobody is forging EXIF data little brown man
>>> (I mean that in the nicest way and I declare that I don't really care
>>> that your parents hail from Pakistan) and I don't own a 5D, I, II or II.
>
> Nash would be far better served if he were to ignore the claims of
> other trolls.
>
>
>>> I own a 1Ds Mark II with many L lenses and Leica-R lenses ...
>
> Of course, just **which** 1Ds Mark II would that be? It can't be the
> one made by Canon, since theirs uses a full frame CMOS, whereas
> Nashton's EXIF data indicated that the alleged "1DsMk2" actually was
> using something with roughly a 1/2.5" sensor. Oopsie!

Yes you utter moron. Do you think this is the only camera I own?

>
>
>>> ... and I would appreciate if you left my kids out of it.
>
> Sorry, but each time that you try your lame rant about an inferior 7
> year old photo, I'm going to remind you of your crap too.

I keep family members, especially *underage*, *innocent* *children* out
of my discussions, you utter disgrace of a human being.

>
> If the only way to suggest that you to stop is to specifially call out

> the innocents of Brandon& Zachary each time that you try to dredge up

> the past ... well, perhaps you should consider then not dredging up
> the past - - particularly since you're doing it in a highly dishonest
> manner.

You are one piece of work. I point out your crappy pictures and you
respond by mentioning my underage children. Are you a child molester and
do you harbor some sort of perversion the authorities would love to know
about?

>
> When the day comes (and it will) that Brandon or Zachary start to
> learn to Google and discover (which they will) just how much of a
> flaming asshole their dear old "Dad" was, just remember that it was
> your own damn fault for acting that way.

Keep my children out of it.

>
>
>> Ah, one for the archive:
>>
>> http://csma.sandman.net/Quotes/Nashton
>
> Indeed. FWIW, I'm fairly sure that I did take screen shots that shows
> the details of Nashton's falsified EXIF data, in the event that he
> takes it down to try to hide his dishonesty.

I don't lie, unlike you and Baker.
To quote Baker, would you like to wager that I own more photographic
gear than you can shake a stick at? In particular, would you like to
wager that I own a lowly 1Ds MII, which I acquired used for a lot less
than what it cost when it first came out?
Hardly a reason to brag.

And, contrary to you, I know how to use my gear. Now go ahead and
mention my children in retaliation, lowlife scum-bucket, perv.
>
>
>
> -hh
>

[-hh]

On Jul 6, 4:30 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 12-07-06 9:50 AM, -hh wrote:

> > On Jul 6, 8:02 am, Sandman<m...@sandman.net>  wrote:
> >> In article<jt6j4g$o6...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton<n...@na.ca>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> I'm more inclined to believe that you've had a Sony DSC-W150, a Canon
> >>>> PowerShot SD700 IS, maybe a 20D...but just like Nash, not a
> >>>> 5D...particularly when all the tracks weren't covered in the EXIF.
> >>>> Perhaps you can ask Nash for how to take blurry pics of humping dogs
> >>>> and of Brandon&    Zachary's birthday cake :-)
>
> >>> My dogs were not humping, nobody is forging EXIF data little brown man
> >>> (I mean that in the nicest way and I declare that I don't really care
> >>> that your parents hail from Pakistan) and I don't own a 5D, I, II or II.
>
> > Nash would be far better served if he were to ignore the claims of
> > other trolls.
>
> >>> I own a 1Ds Mark II with many L lenses and Leica-R lenses ...
>
> > Of course, just **which** 1Ds Mark II would that be?   It can't be the
> > one made by Canon, since theirs uses a full frame CMOS, whereas
> > Nashton's EXIF data indicated that the alleged "1DsMk2" actually was
> > using something with roughly a 1/2.5" sensor.   Oopsie!
>
> Yes you utter moron. Do you think this is the only camera I own?

Of course not - - there's a Powershot SX100 listed also ... but the
EXIF data on the image in question does say "Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II"
and then goes on to say that the CCD is only 4.61mm wide ... which is
a far cry from the 36mm x 24 mm sensor inside a REAL Canon 1DsMk2.

> >>> ... and I would appreciate if you left my kids out of it.
>
> > Sorry, but each time that you try your lame rant about an inferior 7
> > year old photo, I'm going to remind you of your crap too.
>
> I keep family members, especially *underage*, *innocent* *children* out
> of my discussions, you utter disgrace of a human being.

You clearly lied in your EXIF, so nothing else you claim can be
considered to be credible.

> > If the only way to suggest that you to stop is to specifially call out
> > the innocents of Brandon&  Zachary each time that you try to dredge up
> > the past ... well, perhaps you should consider then not dredging up
> > the past - - particularly since you're doing it in a highly dishonest
> > manner.
>

> You are one piece of work. I point out your crappy pictures ...

SINGULAR picture.

From seven (7) years ago.



> ...and you

> respond by mentioning my underage children. Are you a child molester and
> do you harbor some sort of perversion the authorities would love to know
> about?

You clearly lied in your EXIF, so nothing else you claim can be
considered to be credible.

> > When the day comes (and it will) that Brandon or Zachary start to
> > learn to Google and discover (which they will) just how much of a
> > flaming asshole their dear old "Dad" was, just remember that it was
> > your own damn fault for acting that way.
>
> Keep my children out of it.

Gladly.

Of course, if it hadn't been for their irresponsible "Adult" parent
posting their personal info on the Internet, they would still be
anonymous. Are you going to try to blame me for *YOUR* personal life
decisions here too?

> >> Ah, one for the archive:
>
> >>    http://csma.sandman.net/Quotes/Nashton
>
> > Indeed.  FWIW, I'm fairly sure that I did take screen shots that shows
> > the details of Nashton's falsified EXIF data, in the event that he
> > takes it down to try to hide his dishonesty.
>
> I don't lie, unlike you and Baker.

You clearly lied in your EXIF, so nothing else you claim can be
considered to be credible.

> To quote Baker, would you like to wager that I own more photographic
> gear than you can shake a stick at?

Nope. Unlike you, I have no personal insecurity issues which compel
me to have something to prove. Besides, you probably wouldn't be
willing to commit to the terms of any internet bet that I'd be willing
to participate in, since at the very least, I find you sufficiently
untrustworthy such that I'd require that the cash involved be held in
escrow by a third party lawyer.

> In particular, would you like to
> wager that I own a lowly 1Ds MII, which I acquired used for a lot less
> than what it cost when it first came out?
> Hardly a reason to brag.

You clearly lied in your EXIF, so nothing else you claim can be
considered to be credible.

> And, contrary to you, I know how to use my gear. Now go ahead and
> mention my children in retaliation, lowlife scum-bucket, perv.

You clearly lied in your EXIF, so nothing else you claim can be
considered to be credible.

And just remember that some day your kids will discover Google and
just how much of a flaming asshole you've been. And what they'll find
are YOUR posts. I'm not forcing you to write anything.


Now go fuck off with sprinkles on top. You're one hell of a
hypocrite in how you're a petty, sore loser.


-hh

[Michael]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:2797058f-5e0a-4229...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Quite a rant bordering on hysteria, in trying to defend your low life
actions.

[Sandman]

In article <jt7htb$ap7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.ca>
wrote:

> would you like to wager that I own more photographic
> gear than you can shake a stick at?

Another one!


--
Sandman[.net]

[Michael]

"Sandman" wrote in message
news:mr-51BEAA.10...@News.Individual.NET...

Why is it, any offer of a money wager, sends all the losers hiding in
the tall grass? And of course, you have no money to bet with anyway.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jul 6, 2:30 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:


> > If the only way to suggest that you to stop is to specifially call out
> > the innocents of Brandon&  Zachary each time that you try to dredge up
> > the past ... well, perhaps you should consider then not dredging up
> > the past - - particularly since you're doing it in a highly dishonest
> > manner.
>
> You are one piece of work. I point out your crappy pictures and you
> respond by mentioning my underage children. Are you a child molester and
> do you harbor some sort of perversion the authorities would love to know
> about?

Dishonest insinuations of child molestation; your children will be so
proud.

> > When the day comes (and it will) that Brandon or Zachary start to
> > learn to Google and discover (which they will) just how much of a
> > flaming asshole their dear old "Dad" was, just remember that it was
> > your own damn fault for acting that way.
>
> Keep my children out of it.

It's obvious you'll try to keep them out of seeing your posts on
usenet... but you may not be successful. Like another well known,
idiotic troll you obviously labor under the false belief that people
are as stupid as you need them to be. You might consider that your
children also got some of your wife's genes.

> >> Ah, one for the archive:
>
> >>    http://csma.sandman.net/Quotes/Nashton
>
> > Indeed.  FWIW, I'm fairly sure that I did take screen shots that shows
> > the details of Nashton's falsified EXIF data, in the event that he
> > takes it down to try to hide his dishonesty.
>
> I don't lie,

Yes you do.

> unlike you and Baker.
> To quote Baker, would you like to wager that I own more photographic
> gear than you can shake a stick at?

And?

> In particular, would you like to
> wager that I own a lowly 1Ds MII, which I acquired used for a lot less
> than what it cost when it first came out?
> Hardly a reason to brag.
>
> And, contrary to you, I know how to use my gear.

Of course you do... you're a professional grade photographer, a
phenomenal guitarist, laser guru, etc. <eyeroll>.

You're a blowhard, nothing more. Fact: When someone comes along with
any kind of expertise in the things you *claim* to know all about
about you head for the weeds.

> Now go ahead and
> mention my children in retaliation, lowlife scum-bucket, perv.

Again with the Snit-ish response. Hint: This is no way to have your
children see you taking the high moral ground (by falsely insinuating
that he's a child molester). In any event, I suspect your children
already know what kind of person you are.

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

When is your next movie coming out? Finding A Friend For the End Of The Univere was qool.

[Sandman]

In article <4cYJr.41875$FV6....@newsfe05.iad>,

"Michael" <Archange...@aol.com> wrote:

> > would you like to wager that I own more photographic
> > gear than you can shake a stick at?
>
> >Another one!
>
> Why is it, any offer of a money wager, sends all the losers hiding in
> the tall grass?

Yeah, you should really get your ass out of that grass!


--
Sandman[.net]