Talk:Sony α

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Photography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sony "Alpha" is s D-SLR series from Sony, it maybe making more models in the future and should the product details be moved to a new article like the ones of mobile phones of SonyErisson?

• That can be done once new models have arrived or someone starts adding details. For now, it's better to keep the products in the main article.--G. C. Hood 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Yann has moved the infobox up to the top of the page. I must admit that I initially thought this was the correct place for it, but if we are treating the "Alpha" as a series, then it seems we should keep the infobox on the specific model -- i.e. the A100 -- within that specific section. What do you think? Asiir 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox on the a100 is far longer than the actual subsection on the camera itself. It could be moved back, but when the new body gets released and a100 gets split off into it's own article, it becomes a mute point anyway. It is a little more aesthetically pleasing where is is now, but you are assuming those reading the article know how to... read. I have no problem with either option. ChristopherBorcsok 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(originally on User talk:Dekimasu) Hi, I saw the you want to put the advert template if MSRP are mentionned. I don't think information on a class of price should put an article in this category, it helps to compare with appropriate products. Besides, in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox §3, Advertising, it is not banned to mention prices. Furthermore, I originaly wrote this article trying to avoid commercial bias, which is difficult to do with almost only vendor material. What parts were too much advertising in your eyes? --Marc Lacoste 16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

those prices don't say anything IMO, in Europe they are competely different e.g., Asia again, must be another kettle of fish. Lycaon 21:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm french, and I think dollar prices are informative. But feel free to put introduction prices in other curencies too from local press releases if you want. --Marc Lacoste 09:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lycaon, could you please respond to the previous proposition before entering an edit war? Thanks --Marc Lacoste 10:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery of lenses seems to break the page terribly. Either we need to reconsider whether the images of the lenses are necessary, or we need a separate article for those lenses and somehow combine with the old Konica-Minolta articles. —Jared Hunt August 31, 2006, 07:30 (UTC)

No, it's not the gallery, it's the Template:Infobox Digicam which is too long. Leave this artice for the complete system, and start a separate one for the DSLR model if you feel it needs one. Remember that presentation problems should stay behind the content. --Marc Lacoste 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, we need some expansion though. Some comparisons with the old Konica series, etc. The goal should be to bring the α article in Nikon and Canon articles quality. —Jared Hunt September 2, 2006, 11:29 (UTC)

Fair Use on Wikipedia is not for images that are easily repeatable. A quick flickr search would find some suitable free content, for example. ed g2s • talk 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, keep it easy, you seems on a crusade against promo images, but it's not the place to talk about their merits. There is a dedicated Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for this usage, it's for those kind of usage. I reverted. --Marc Lacoste 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, ignore my last edit summary. This is not a crusade, I am merely enforcing our policy which is quite clear on the matter. Images which are repeatable (which these clearly are) are not allowed. The copyright tag is not a carte blanche to use all and any promo photos. It must still fulfil all the other fair use criteria. ed g2s • talk 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The policy is to replace the image - you can even upload a new version, and change the license - but until the availability of a free one on WP, there is no obligation. --Marc Lacoste 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong. You are inferring policy from templates such as {{fairusereplace}} and {{promophoto}}. Please read recent discussions on WP:FU, including comments by Jimbo. ed g2s • talk 14:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or from the opening paragraph of WP:FU: "Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of content only under very restricted circumstances where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use but is also, in essence, not repeatable.". And as for how they are dealt with: "Images which do not comply with this policy within 48 hours of the editor who uploaded the image being notified will be deleted. This is because fair use can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images. The editor who uploaded the image should explain and provide evidence of how fair use applies to the image (though anyone can provide an explanation) and make every attempt to comply with Wikipedia's fair use policies". ed g2s • talk 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And aside from the policy issues, using Fair Use when we could find a free pic discourages people from replacing them. A passing user without a knowledge of our copyright policy would not upload their own photo of the camera if they saw a professional catalogue shot was allowed. An article without images or with low quality images encourages people to provide their own content, and furthers our goal of providing free content. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates aren't policies. They are intended to inform the viewer of an image. Recent _discussions_ are not policies. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, please. If you want to discuss certain images, they have each their talk page, but the Sony α isn't a playground. --Marc Lacoste 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Removing fair-use images is perfectly within policy if there are easy-to-get substitutes within reach. If you spent your time actually fetching those easy-to-get images rather then whimpering about why our policies are so mean, then you'd be achieving something. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying to people "You could do that. You should do that" is nonsense on a wiki. Note that images uploaded comply with their copyright tag template. If this template dissatisfy you, you are welcomed to discuss it on appropriate places, but obviously not on the Sony α Talk page. --Marc Lacoste 22:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of what ed or I want. Everyone involved wants this to be a well-illustrated article. However, WP:FUC (which is policy) makes it very clear; so that we can have a free encyclopedia, we should not - cannot - use fair-use images for subjects for which we can supply free images. We need to hit flickr or find someone who owns one of these cameras, rather than using promotional photos that harm the "free" in "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the image is theoretically replacable, no replacement is available now, this image is fair use. I am not going to rever you are argue a bunch, but using a promo shot to describe an item until a free substitute can be found is excatly what fair use is.

The crux of your arguement is that it is replaceable. Well, where is it then? HighInBC 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note you haven't even read the captions: the majority of the promo images are of products not available yet, and so the fair use claim is perfectly valid. I replaced them, you are welcome to replace the ones you found a free replacement on wikipedia. Thanks for discussing further in other places. --Marc Lacoste 06:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The A100 image has been replaced with a free licensed image I have taaken, enjoy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone link or explain what PMA stands for? Thanks --Asiir 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Photo Marketing Association International ChristopherBorcsok 05:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the Sony had a vibrating CCD as the Canon 400D does, can someone verify this, or is this false information?

- yes the both the sony a100 and the sony a700 has an anti-dust feature that shakes the CMOS as it does not have a "CCD". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goingpsych (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The system is likely to expand. The page is already cluttered and there really isn't that much detail on each product at the moment.

People wanting to know about the system need to read a stub, but those who want to read about a particular product currently need to wade through an unfriendly amount of information.

For the lens, compare to Nikon F mount, it may group into a article contain KM brand and Sony brand alpha mount lens. Or just leave it in alpha system page as OM system. Matthew_hk tc 05:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As the Sony a700 is not a small upgrade from the a100 shown by the upgrade of the sensor to the 12.24 from the 10.2 on the a100, the auto focus system that is activated by the grip on the a700, the 3 inch LCD, the 5fps instead of the a100's 3fps, the addition of the dedicated MS-PRO DUO slot, the 11-point auto focus system instead of the a100's 9-point, the ability to capture photos in 6400ISO which is a big step from the 1600ISO capture on the a100, and more; it is a major overhaul, thus answering the question about weather the article should be separated. So in case the point was not clear, it should be two separate articles for the a100 and the a700 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goingpsych (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony α 200 will to sell in summer 2008, it should be a new article. 203.185.57.117 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Sony α-series models share a common nomenclature on WP: Sony α 100, Sony α 700 etc. This is not in line with what the manufacturer uses, ie Sony α100, Sony α700 etc, without spacing between α and number. Apart from removing the space, I would suggest to use a letters available on non-Greek keyboards (α->A) in the model name. This is done on some review sites and at sony.com. I'm suggesting that the camera models in the alpha series should be titled, in line with what is used on sony.com/dslr: "Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 (α700)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villervalla (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, we should distinguish between the official model names and the logo. All Sony products have model names following a common scheme, e.g. DSLR-A100, HVL-F58AM, MVC-FD91, FDA-AM1AM, etc. This is the name of the product and therefore this is what should be used in Wikipedia as primary key. α700, a700 or A700 is not correct as a model name, although these handles are frequently used in practice. It cannot harm to mention the logos such as α700 as a secondary key, but we should switch to the official names for the primary key.

-- 84.63.52.9 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the articles covering the DSLRs of other manufacturers the tables listing the different models have comments labeling whether the camera is aimed at amatuer/beginner, pro-sumer, proffesional users. I think it would be useful to add this information because of the recent influx of models. I will try to do it myself if I can ever figure it out Discojim (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The related Category:Sony α has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

--Apalsola ^{t • c} 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose the removal of the external link to Dyxum as a link to a forum and a fansite, external links which should normally be avoided, and the reinstatement of the link to the specifications which contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... [the] amount of detail". Michael Anon 06:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the goals, but not with the suggested solution. What should stay are links to neutral and accurate sources of information. Unfortunately, links to Sony's own sites don't offer these qualities, not only because they are not critical of their own products, but more so because they are maintained badly and are full of factual errors, which don't get corrected, even if pointed to. This includes the remaining two links left by you.

Some (few) of the review articles might show the forementioned qualities (although they typically just scratch on the surface), but the list grew much too large and product-specific articles should better be added to the product-specific articles, anyway. Features of particular camera models are mostly irrelevant in this generic article about the whole Alpha system.

Regarding forum links, we don't normally link to them, because of their typically low quality. Most forums are mere chats, that is, without lasting substance, without criticism, superficial and with an incredible amount of fanboyism. This applies to the majority of forums for the Alpha system as well, and we should avoid linking to them, as we don't do our readers a service this way. Regarding the Alpha system, I am aware of some two dozen forums world-wide, but there are only two, which stand out of the masses for their quality, and only one of them is for English readers: Dyxum. They are totally independent, they are sometimes very critical of Sony's products (for good reasons) and they go into the very details, seeking proof and verification, and don't believe into marketing speak. That's why I think we should not remove the link to Dyxum. It is of great value for people seriously interested in the Alpha system, either because they are users already or because they want to check facts before buying. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand and agree with a justification for removing links to Sony's website. Although official links should be added regardless of the neutrality and accuracy of the information, the ones present in the article did not "primarily [cover] the area for which the subject of the article is notable" and I therefore agree that they should not be included (they refer only to specific camera models).

The only remaining point of discussion is therefore the link to Dyxum. I have looked through the site in more detail and there appears to be a significant amount of information relevant to the article. However, I propose that the home page rather than the forum would be a more suitable entry point given that the section that is most immediately obvious when following the current link is the unencyclopedic "Dyxum Photographs" section; the homepage, in contrast, contains links to databases of relevant information and reviews of camera lenses. Michael Anon 07:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I've done that now. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy with sites that the article lists in the external links; however, I've changed the link description for Dyxum.com to reflect the fact that the link now points to the main page of the website and to remove what I would consider a peacock term ("quality"). Michael Anon 17:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is the same mount as the Minolta A-mount and Sony alpha cameras can use the Minolta lenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.108.91 (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's wrong. While the mount is identical and the lenses will thus fit on the Minolta cameras, all Sony Alpha lenses are really designed for APS-C size sensors. In other words, their image circle is not big enough to expose the entire frame on an analogue 35mm Minolta camera. The result will look like this: [1] What will work, however, is using a lens adapter designed for any lens to be connected to the Sony Alpha mount, and then use that adapter to attach ony old lens to a Minolta, provided the lens is really designed for 35mm or the full-frame format to begin with. --80.187.101.102 (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of full-frame Sony Alpha lenses. Everybody except Canon lets you use their APS-C lenses on a FF and film bodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.159.105 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]