<?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 α700 removed also from US website</title> <atom:link href="http://photorumors.com/2010/01/11/sony-%ce%b1700-removed-also-from-us-website/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://photorumors.com/2010/01/11/sony-%ce%b1700-removed-also-from-us-website/</link> <description>Photography news, before it happens</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:52:55 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: dyna</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2010/01/11/sony-%ce%b1700-removed-also-from-us-website/comment-page-1/#comment-5432</link> <dc:creator>dyna</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:02:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=2913#comment-5432</guid> <description>Snort. It&#039;s because a number of Sony employees are ex-Canon having quit Canon and taken their gear with them.  They&#039;ll have plenty to tell you about how Sony&#039;s optics are, on the whole, superior and, further, they&#039;ll tell you why Canon&#039;s own DSLR development team don&#039;t own any lenses outside of the 135 f/2, the 17-40 f/4 L and the 70-200 f/4 L IS... outside of a couple other primes (with caveats galore, they&#039;ll tell you).  But not one of them owns any 2.8 glass (they&#039;ll borrow from the pool if they have to) as they have little faith in the 2.8 series&#039; abilities wide open.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Snort. It&#8217;s because a number of Sony employees are ex-Canon having quit Canon and taken their gear with them.  They&#8217;ll have plenty to tell you about how Sony&#8217;s optics are, on the whole, superior and, further, they&#8217;ll tell you why Canon&#8217;s own DSLR development team don&#8217;t own any lenses outside of the 135 f/2, the 17-40 f/4 L and the 70-200 f/4 L IS&#8230; outside of a couple other primes (with caveats galore, they&#8217;ll tell you).  But not one of them owns any 2.8 glass (they&#8217;ll borrow from the pool if they have to) as they have little faith in the 2.8 series&#8217; abilities wide open.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: JLPG</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2010/01/11/sony-%ce%b1700-removed-also-from-us-website/comment-page-1/#comment-5413</link> <dc:creator>JLPG</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:13:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=2913#comment-5413</guid> <description>Sony employees use canon cameras and lenses. tells you how good sony cameras are.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sony employees use canon cameras and lenses. tells you how good sony cameras are.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Vincent</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2010/01/11/sony-%ce%b1700-removed-also-from-us-website/comment-page-1/#comment-5402</link> <dc:creator>Vincent</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:54:33 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=2913#comment-5402</guid> <description>If I am not mistaken, the A700 and D300 share the same sensor. Of course, their implementation is different.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I am not mistaken, the A700 and D300 share the same sensor. Of course, their implementation is different.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: WoutK89</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2010/01/11/sony-%ce%b1700-removed-also-from-us-website/comment-page-1/#comment-5396</link> <dc:creator>WoutK89</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:59:13 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=2913#comment-5396</guid> <description>Yes, small body flagship DX sized camera.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, small body flagship DX sized camera.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: NikoDoby</title><link>http://photorumors.com/2010/01/11/sony-%ce%b1700-removed-also-from-us-website/comment-page-1/#comment-5394</link> <dc:creator>NikoDoby</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:16:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://photorumors.com/?p=2913#comment-5394</guid> <description>This camera is the &quot;equivalent&quot; to the Nikon D300/S right? I forget.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This camera is the &#8220;equivalent&#8221; to the Nikon D300/S right? I forget.</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 299/307 objects using memcached

Served from: photorumors.com @ 2012-02-09 08:07:02 -->
