No Sony SLRs any more, ever.

Started Sep 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,447
Like?
Re: No Sony SLRs - they might want to reconsider...
In reply to Piginho, Sep 14, 2012

Piginho wrote:

So because Sony have stated so in interviews, that makes it true?

You can think they lied and use the tinfoil hats while coming up with other theories (it's by far the most plausible one to me as well).

I'm not familiar with the tinfoil hats expression, maybe because I'm in the UK, or maybe I've lead a sheltered life. Anyway, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a manufacturer would either lie, or exaggerate, surely.

Google is your friend. I didn't claim manufacturers never lie. I don't see any motive to come up with this one though, especially since it makes sense. In fact, I see more reason not to mention things like this if it is true than to mention it. For example people expecting much cheaper cameras (already a fact).

More likely they're are trying to drive the market in this direction as they clearly have a lead and their competitors aren't really in the game yet, hoping to steal some market share.

They're not really in a position to drive the market with market shares nowhere near the big 2 apart, let alone combined. Theyt are however in a position to differentiate by combining some of its core strengths.

Maybe I should have said pull, or draw the market then. BTW, do we have any definitive info on market share of the main manufacturers? I would agree about differentiation also, but with the caveat that SLT/EVF is not necessarily a core strength. If CaNikon have such a large market share with OVF, we could just as easily conclude that this aspect of differentiation is a weakness.

No that would be pure assumption or even a fallacy, leaving out the host of other drivers that affect market share (brand recognition, marketing, support, availability etc etc.). Just because the current crop doesn't have it doesn't mean it must be a weakness. Fact is, there have been and still are many technical reasons why they don't offer it as well. And without any knowledge of which part of the potential market prefers an OVF over a good EVF, it's pure guessing.

24MP on an APS-C sensor is nothing special, just look at the 1 inch sensor with a density that's the equivalent of about 65MP on APS-C, not to mention compact sensors with double that density still. That's mostly machine work, from what I've seen classic DSLR's in these classes still have a lot of hand work to them and that's also what I referred to with labour intensive.

The point that I was making is that Sony know how to make things with very, very tight tolerances, thus reducing the level of hand built skill required.

This again doesn't add up. You're assuming that hand built is directly linked to tight tolerances. Which it often isn't.

All you have done by mentioning even higher sensor densities, is to enhance my point. If components are manufactured to tight enough tolerances, you merely assemble the components with little need for adjustment.

See above. Some things still have to be done by hand for many other reasons than tolerances. And often those are expensive processes.

BTW, when were you last in a Sony DSLR/DSLT factory?

There was/is a great Sony website showing many of the production facilities at work, from mid class bodies to the highest end lenses (300mm).
Could have been a hoax set up to drive/pull the market of course.

How much glass is there in a prism, compared to an entry level kit zoom lens? Again, prisms don't have to be that expensive. Also a prism is a lot simpler than a 16 element cheap kit zoom!

Apples and oranges.

It's easier to manufacture a nail than a screw, but both can be made of the same material and use the same amount. You could also say apples and oranges about this, but it doesn't take a genius to know that it's a lot cheaper to make nails than screws.

Without anything to back up the claim that it's much easier, or more relevantly, cheaper , your claims cannot be taken seriously.

Most of you on here thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread! Well give me a nice thick slice of freshly baked bread, with decent butter any day.

Most see the benefits for them. And you're free to follow your own preferences, wherever they lead you.

if you'd read all of my posts in this thread, particularly my first one, you'd know that I see the benefits of EVF. It's just that for me they don't outweigh the drawbacks.

If you read most of the posts here, you won't see most people calling it the best thing since sliced bread. You'll mostly see preference.

What's more, even if in Sonyworld, EVF is becoming predominant, mostly due to bloody-mindedness by Sony IMHO, in the world at large OVF is still king and the assertion of most EVF fans that have posted here, that CaNikon will also have to follow this route and that all cameras will end up EVF, has no basis in fact. Of course, time will tell, but I don't believe that this is in any way analogous to the film/digital situation. It was inevitable that film would at some point be overtaken by digital. The same cannot be said for EVF over OVF.

To me it is very analogous. It took digital many years to come close to the resolution, dynamic range and quality in general of film. That didn't stop manufacturers from pushing it and without them pushing it, the majority would still be shooting film. Fact is, the current and next generation of people is used to digital representations much more than OVF's. Thus acceptance, perception and preferences change too. Faster than many would like to believe.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow