<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Sony a700 to be discontinued?</title> <atom:link href="http://photorumors.com/2009/07/10/sony-a700-to-be-discontinued/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://photorumors.com/2009/07/10/sony-a700-to-be-discontinued/</link> <description>Photography news, before it happens</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:36:20 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: dyna</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2009/07/10/sony-a700-to-be-discontinued/comment-page-1/#comment-1749</link> <dc:creator>dyna</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:01:33 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=1035#comment-1749</guid> <description>That&#039;s hilarious!  One has to wonder what the psychological base is for that sort of thing.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s hilarious!  One has to wonder what the psychological base is for that sort of thing.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: dyna</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2009/07/10/sony-a700-to-be-discontinued/comment-page-1/#comment-1748</link> <dc:creator>dyna</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:00:39 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=1035#comment-1748</guid> <description>While it&#039;s not in production any more... the A700 won&#039;t be officially discontinued in the US of A until it is removed from the SURE pricing list... which everyone is waiting for. Big time.  There&#039;ve been a few dealers who&#039;ve had a bit of an A700 revival in sales as the salespeople realize that it really is a damn fine camera for $999, sharing as much tech with the D300 as it does... but suddenly it is an absolute negative to lack LiveView (remember when Olympus took nothing but flack about this feature? LMAO oh how public perception can change).  If Sony has a major brainwave and starts selling A700 bodies for $699, you&#039;ll see them pick up again... but I doubt that&#039;ll happen.Here&#039;s hoping the two new Alphas can make a statement... or prepare us for the third XD</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While it&#8217;s not in production any more&#8230; the A700 won&#8217;t be officially discontinued in the US of A until it is removed from the SURE pricing list&#8230; which everyone is waiting for. Big time.  There&#8217;ve been a few dealers who&#8217;ve had a bit of an A700 revival in sales as the salespeople realize that it really is a damn fine camera for $999, sharing as much tech with the D300 as it does&#8230; but suddenly it is an absolute negative to lack LiveView (remember when Olympus took nothing but flack about this feature? LMAO oh how public perception can change).  If Sony has a major brainwave and starts selling A700 bodies for $699, you&#8217;ll see them pick up again&#8230; but I doubt that&#8217;ll happen.</p><p>Here&#8217;s hoping the two new Alphas can make a statement&#8230; or prepare us for the third XD</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: PR admin</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2009/07/10/sony-a700-to-be-discontinued/comment-page-1/#comment-1684</link> <dc:creator>PR admin</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:42:40 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=1035#comment-1684</guid> <description>I have noticed that 10% vote negative no matter what, so I always ignore the first 10%.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have noticed that 10% vote negative no matter what, so I always ignore the first 10%.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: theChipmunk</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2009/07/10/sony-a700-to-be-discontinued/comment-page-1/#comment-1676</link> <dc:creator>theChipmunk</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:09:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=1035#comment-1676</guid> <description>Well, this would make sense when taken with the D300 replacement of some kind. Mind you, the D300s is a bit of a remix and not much else, with the same sensor (I think?)...so I don&#039;t know. *Confused*The a700 is long in the tooth anyway.On an off-topic note: Who the hell is the one ****ing idiot who keeps voting down the posts!? They&#039;re all valid rumours!!! You better hope you&#039;re accidentally clicking the wrong button, sunshine, or I&#039;ll be coming for you! ;-)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, this would make sense when taken with the D300 replacement of some kind. Mind you, the D300s is a bit of a remix and not much else, with the same sensor (I think?)&#8230;so I don&#8217;t know. *Confused*</p><p>The a700 is long in the tooth anyway.</p><p>On an off-topic note: Who the hell is the one ****ing idiot who keeps voting down the posts!? They&#8217;re all valid rumours!!! You better hope you&#8217;re accidentally clicking the wrong button, sunshine, or I&#8217;ll be coming for you! <img
src='http://photorumors.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Rebel</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2009/07/10/sony-a700-to-be-discontinued/comment-page-1/#comment-1674</link> <dc:creator>Rebel</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:22:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=1035#comment-1674</guid> <description>on the japanese Sony site it said 生産完了(which means &#039;&#039;out of production&#039;&#039;)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>on the japanese Sony site it said 生産完了(which means &#8221;out of production&#8221;)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using memcached
Page Caching using memcached
Object Caching 298/320 objects using memcached

Served from: photorumors.com @ 2012-02-08 23:47:58 -->
