Why key features were omitted on the A5xx.

[JanKritzinger]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

It used to be that the more you paid for a digital camera, the better image quality (sensor performance) you expected. As technology and manufacturing capabilities advance, better image quality is attainable with cheaper cameras.

If Sony wanted to, they could have made the A5xx cameras everything that any enthusiast could ever want - for only a few dollars more.

They left out the enthusiast level features on purpose, to ensure that enthusiasts spend more money on the more expensive A7xx when it is released, in stead of opting for a cheaper camera that offers the same IQ and performance.

I really really hope I'm right - because that would mean that there is hope that the A7xx will be a real photographer's machine.

 

[John_Y]

I am waiting for a 7xx..What are the chances Sony would offer a product product that consists of an A700 (body, build,quick navi, erginomics etc.) and an A550 (sensor, image quality, new features like face detection & HDR etc.) along with micro lens adjustment and video to (to be competitive) morphed together. At $1199 (body) would be a killer! As a A700 owner would buy tomorrow. What do you think?
--
John Y



'You never know what you CAN see'

 

[fjbyrne]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

It used to be that the more you paid for a digital camera, the better image quality (sensor performance) you expected. As technology and manufacturing capabilities advance, better image quality is attainable with cheaper cameras.

If Sony wanted to, they could have made the A5xx cameras everything that any enthusiast could ever want - for only a few dollars more.

They left out the enthusiast level features on purpose, to ensure that enthusiasts spend more money on the more expensive A7xx when it is released, in stead of opting for a cheaper camera that offers the same IQ and performance.

I really really hope I'm right - because that would mean that there is hope that the A7xx will be a real photographer's machine.

True that is a way of looking at it and they way Sony likely does. I would separate the cameras on real cost - rear control dial, better build, better OVF (pentaprism), larger buffers, AF/MF button, etc - not by not including what I consider basic functionality. Even if the A5XX had all the missing features I would still be interested in the A7XX because of the presumably better build, controls, buffer, etc.

--
Rick

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

Why do some people buy a D300, when they can buy a D90?

There are enough differences between a mid point body, and a higher end APS one to sell both effectively.

Putting MLU, a DOF preview etc into an A5xx, won't stop folks buying a new A7xx (when it turns up)

You might have had a point with the Km5d v 7d, very close spec..most differences were more body controls 7d and mag alloy body etc, better VF, but not now.

Lots of ways to make models different. MLU Is not a high end feature, nor is a DOF preview, and AEL spot toggle def ain't!

Your point is not valid because many folks will have no intentions of spending £1000-£1200 on a high end APS body, just to get a few basic features that should be there anyway! You simply lose the customer to another maker, which is not good.

If you doubt this..then all you have to do is look at other makers, Nikon and even Canon. More expensive models do have more, but that does not mean mid point ones are crippled to the degree Sony thinks they should be.

 

[Dave Oddie]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

People seem to buy D90's and D300's in Nikon-land. £620 compared to just over £1000 in price here in the UK. Do they still sell D300's despite the existence of a fully featured D90? Yes.

So the answer is obviously yes people would buy an A7xx for the same reasons people choose a D300 over a D90.

It used to be that the more you paid for a digital camera, the better image quality (sensor performance) you expected. As technology and manufacturing capabilities advance, better image quality is attainable with cheaper cameras.

If Sony wanted to, they could have made the A5xx cameras everything that any enthusiast could ever want - for only a few dollars more.

Not so. Some want better build quality and things like 100% viewfinders. No one expects the world in a mid priced camera but that does not mean a less robustly built camera that have things like MLU will kill sales of more expensive cameras as the Nikon example shows.

They left out the enthusiast level features on purpose, to ensure that enthusiasts spend more money on the more expensive A7xx when it is released, in stead of opting for a cheaper camera that offers the same IQ and performance.

And what about enthusiasts who can't afford the likely price of the A7xx? They could go to Nikon and buy a D90 I suppose. Do you think Sony wants them to do that?

I really really hope I'm right - because that would mean that there is hope that the A7xx will be a real photographer's machine.

You may well be right Sony has dumbed down the mid range in order to persuade people to buy a more expensive A7xx camera but the problem with this idea is other manufactures offer a cheaper more fully featured alternatives. It is a mistake by Sony if this is their plan.

When I came to Sony with the A100 it had all the features I wanted. I made my decision with an open mind comparing one model against another as I had no Minolta glass so could have bought a Nikon D80 for example just as easily.

Where I to go through the same thought processes once again I would not buy any of the mid price Sony's and if the A7xx were actually available I could not justify getting one (assuming it cost £1000) when competitors offer cameras like the Nikon D90. But just because I can't afford a £1000 camera does not mean a fully featured D550 would kill sales of an A7xx.

Dave

 

[Buzz Lightsecond]

Because Sony is clever and I am stupid - got the a550 and like it, but I will also be one of the first in line to get the new 7-class body .

Me: Buying essensially the same product twice ... a kind of winner/looser ;-)

Sony: Selling essensially the same product twice ... clearly a winner!

 

[ScYcS]

Many people forget or don't even know that the D90 doesn't have MLU either.

 

[RJSanchez]

I've read that the D90 has a type of MLU that is similar to that in some of the Sony and earlier KM models. The D90 has a 1 second timer Nikon calls "Exposure Delay" that separates the mirror action from the shutter while KM and Sony use a 2 second timer. While neither are true MLU that can be controlled, they work well enough in some situations.

Many people forget or don't even know that the D90 doesn't have MLU either.

 

[Phixel]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

It used to be that the more you paid for a digital camera, the better image quality (sensor performance) you expected. As technology and manufacturing capabilities advance, better image quality is attainable with cheaper cameras.

If Sony wanted to, they could have made the A5xx cameras everything that any enthusiast could ever want - for only a few dollars more.

They left out the enthusiast level features on purpose, to ensure that enthusiasts spend more money on the more expensive A7xx when it is released, in stead of opting for a cheaper camera that offers the same IQ and performance.

I really really hope I'm right - because that would mean that there is hope that the A7xx will be a real photographer's machine.

MLU would cost Sony nothing , but they leave it off even their $1000 Alpha cameras.

Now consider the fact that the Nikon D40 does have mirror lock-up and it is the least expensive DSLR Nikon has ever made.

Also consider that Nikon has more than 50% of DSLR sales in the US, while Sony Alpha DSLRs are in the single digits here..

No, Sony leaves off features because the believe their typical customers are too ignorant to appreciate their usefulness and how to use these features properly.

At least in the US, their single digit percentage of DSLR sales seems to indicate their belief is just wrong.

-Phil

 

[ScYcS]

Yeah it's a nice way to make it sound like a non issue on the D90 and a major issue on the A5xx.

 

[ScYcS]

BTW the lack of MLU was not reported as a"Con" of the Nikon D90 in the DPReview....just FYI.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

BTW the lack of MLU was not reported as a"Con" of the Nikon D90 in the DPReview....just FYI.

It has MLU, it's just 1 sec and a menu dive..

2 seconds is better, but 0 seconds gets last place..

Quit making stuff up will ya!

 

[Mark VB]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

It used to be that the more you paid for a digital camera, the better image quality (sensor performance) you expected. As technology and manufacturing capabilities advance, better image quality is attainable with cheaper cameras.

If Sony wanted to, they could have made the A5xx cameras everything that any enthusiast could ever want - for only a few dollars more.

They left out the enthusiast level features on purpose, to ensure that enthusiasts spend more money on the more expensive A7xx when it is released, in stead of opting for a cheaper camera that offers the same IQ and performance.

I really really hope I'm right - because that would mean that there is hope that the A7xx will be a real photographer's machine.

True that is a way of looking at it and they way Sony likely does. I would separate the cameras on real cost - rear control dial, better build, better OVF (pentaprism), larger buffers, AF/MF button, etc - not by not including what I consider basic functionality. Even if the A5XX had all the missing features I would still be interested in the A7XX because of the presumably better build, controls, buffer, etc.

This is very much similar to the way Mark Weir of Sony described the A550 to me - a camera that has certain higher-end features, such as 5-7 fps, HDR, new and improved sensor and imaging chain, all in a lower cost body.

One question that nobody here knows the answer to is the extent to which the use of a lower end body may have necessitated the non-inclusion of certain features, or had nothing to do with it. DOF is a largely a mechanical operation on Alpha cameras (as opposed to Canon for which it is an electronic function because of the mount design). Perhaps the lower cost body precluded including the feature in order to hit a certain price point. Dual control dials obviously are a higher-end body feature and more expensive to implement.

On the other hand, some missing features would seem to clearly be camera software or firmware matters, such a program shift and mirror lock-up or pre-fire. Those items, particularly program shift, would seem more easy to include and not have much, if any, added cost. (However, I would note that in reality, the only Sony body with a mirror lock-up feature where the photographer can first raise the mirror, then release the shutter at his or her desired time, is the A900/850. The A750 has mirror pre-fire, with a 2-second delay between the mirror up and the shutter releasing, which is good enough for many purposes, though not all.)

It all comes back to really having no clue why Sony made the feature decisions it did. Having a mirror/shutter mechanism that is capable of working at up to 5 or 7 fps requires a stronger and likely more expensive design than does a 2.5-3 fps mirror/shutter assembly. How much did the new sensor and processing engine cost to develop, and how much of that must be recouped in the sale of this camera? There are plenty of other questions one could ask. How much to develop the improved (slightly) viewfinder, or implement the manual focus live-view? And more.

In the end, folks can speculate all they want, but we don't and can't know the answer to why any camera is designed the way it is unless someone from Sony explains the actual decisions, and this is highly unlikely to ever occur. My own guess is that, for the most part, Sony eliminated features that it believes appeal to a smaller minority of photographers, and particularly not those to whom the product is targeted.

However, this still would not explain the omission of program shift in my mind, because it has been in just about every camera that came before, and because the work-around requires a more extensive understanding of photography (i.e., shooting in A mode or S mode) than the seeming target consumer may have. It could be that it's omission was as much an oversight that nobody caught until it was too late as an intentional product design decision, and that like the dead meter in the Maxxum 7D when flash is used, it's a hard-wired operating characteristic that can't be "fixed" by a firmware upgrade. Remember, that's just a guess.

--
Mark Van Bergh

 

[ScYcS]

Sorry Barry but it does not have true MLU. At least in the true sense of the word as all the cameras before it had it. You call this 1 second mirror lock but it really isn't true MLU, not even Nikonians claim that it is.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Sorry Barry but it does not have true MLU. At least in the true sense of the word as all the cameras before it had it. You call this 1 second mirror lock but it really isn't true MLU, not even Nikonians claim that it is.

I shall repeat the point again..

1 second exposure delay is better than 0 seconds..

It's hard to argue with that. FYI I never suggested Nikon were perfect, in fact I think they could improve in many areas, but if you are suggesting the D90 (which is soon to be replaced next year) is not up to par, then it's one of Nikon's best sellers..

What exactly is so dumb about making a camera that is popular and well featured..
That appeals to photographers..

Back to my point, it's perfectly possible to sell a well featured mid range body, and a high end APS one, without extensive crippling being involved.

In short, nothing at all..

Sony should buy one and take it to a board meeting, and try to work out how to make a better one for A mount, their current take on mid point bodies is something I find nearly funny..

 

[ScYcS]

I'm not suggesting the d90 is bad. Heck not at all, i owe one and it's THE best camera i ever owned. But you were directly comparing the lack of features (like MLU) in your post above and used the D90 as an example....just saying, it's not the best example for mentioning MLU.

Btw, stop being so defensive, i am all FOR having all those feature on each camera, including MLU, DOF preview etc. et al. So believe it or not, we're on the same page here when you wish those things inside of every Sony body. Me too....

 

[Mark VB]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

It used to be that the more you paid for a digital camera, the better image quality (sensor performance) you expected. As technology and manufacturing capabilities advance, better image quality is attainable with cheaper cameras.

If Sony wanted to, they could have made the A5xx cameras everything that any enthusiast could ever want - for only a few dollars more.

They left out the enthusiast level features on purpose, to ensure that enthusiasts spend more money on the more expensive A7xx when it is released, in stead of opting for a cheaper camera that offers the same IQ and performance.

I really really hope I'm right - because that would mean that there is hope that the A7xx will be a real photographer's machine.

MLU would cost Sony nothing , but they leave it off even their $1000 Alpha cameras.

Now consider the fact that the Nikon D40 does have mirror lock-up and it is the least expensive DSLR Nikon has ever made.

Also consider that Nikon has more than 50% of DSLR sales in the US, while Sony Alpha DSLRs are in the single digits here..

No, Sony leaves off features because the believe their typical customers are too ignorant to appreciate their usefulness and how to use these features properly.

At least in the US, their single digit percentage of DSLR sales seems to indicate their belief is just wrong.

This assume you know why Sony only has a single digit market share in the U.S., and that it's because of those missing features. But of course you don't know that - you may think that's it, but it's really just your guess or speculation.

My own view is that Sony's single digit market share is due far more to lousy product marketing, poor dealer relationships, and questionable value in the lower end cameras. Very uncomfortable cameras to hold and use in the A230/330/380 series. Lack of live view in higher end bodies, and lack of video in any bodies also have contributed. Missing features such as MLU and DOF in entry level cameras? Not nearly as much.

That's my assessment, but I don't know that. I can only speculate. My guess is Sony is right now trying to figure out why its sales are not great in the U.S. and Japan, but they're not going to tell any of us. If someone wants to try to get a sense of what's going on, they could try talking to their local retailer to get a sense of why folks are buying Canon and Nikon in such higher numbers. Oh, the retailer doesn't have Sony, or doesn't "push" it as they do Canon or Nikon? Perhaps that's also a reason.

--
Mark Van Bergh

 

[fjbyrne]

This is very much similar to the way Mark Weir of Sony described the A550 to me - a camera that has certain higher-end features, such as 5-7 fps, HDR, new and improved sensor and imaging chain, all in a lower cost body.

And in many ways it is just that.

One question that nobody here knows the answer to is the extent to which the use of a lower end body may have necessitated the non-inclusion of certain features, or had nothing to do with it. DOF is a largely a mechanical operation on Alpha cameras (as opposed to Canon for which it is an electronic function because of the mount design). Perhaps the lower cost body precluded including the feature in order to hit a certain price point. Dual control dials obviously are a higher-end body feature and more expensive to implement.

That was I was trying to say. Things that cost real money - wheels, buttons, buffers, etc are the differentiating factors in my mind.

On the other hand, some missing features would seem to clearly be camera software or firmware matters, such a program shift and mirror lock-up or pre-fire. Those items, particularly program shift, would seem more easy to include and not have much, if any, added cost. (However, I would note that in reality, the only Sony body with a mirror lock-up feature where the photographer can first raise the mirror, then release the shutter at his or her desired time, is the A900/850. The A750 has mirror pre-fire, with a 2-second delay between the mirror up and the shutter releasing, which is good enough for many purposes, though not all.)

The firmware features are the frustrating ones. These likely cost very little to implement since they have done it many times in previous cameras.

It all comes back to really having no clue why Sony made the feature decisions it did. Having a mirror/shutter mechanism that is capable of working at up to 5 or 7 fps requires a stronger and likely more expensive design than does a 2.5-3 fps mirror/shutter assembly. How much did the new sensor and processing engine cost to develop, and how much of that must be recouped in the sale of this camera? There are plenty of other questions one could ask. How much to develop the improved (slightly) viewfinder, or implement the manual focus live-view? And more.

Very true. Again I can see things that result in recurring costs - buttons, etc - being removed to save on per unit costs. Non-recurring costs like firmware development are a different animal IMO.

In the end, folks can speculate all they want, but we don't and can't know the answer to why any camera is designed the way it is unless someone from Sony explains the actual decisions, and this is highly unlikely to ever occur. My own guess is that, for the most part, Sony eliminated features that it believes appeal to a smaller minority of photographers, and particularly not those to whom the product is targeted.

True we probably will never know. But it would be nice to know because it would give an idea of Sony's direction. Do the intend a similar feature purge on the A7xx? Are these features only going to be offered on the A7xx and above?

Granted the people targeted by these cameras will likely not miss these features. It is mostly people like myself who have had and used these features to whom they are conspicuous by their absence. But it rubs me the wrong way that they are virtually free and still they were omitted.

However, this still would not explain the omission of program shift in my mind, because it has been in just about every camera that came before, and because the work-around requires a more extensive understanding of photography (i.e., shooting in A mode or S mode) than the seeming target consumer may have. It could be that it's omission was as much an oversight that nobody caught until it was too late as an intentional product design decision, and that like the dead meter in the Maxxum 7D when flash is used, it's a hard-wired operating characteristic that can't be "fixed" by a firmware upgrade. Remember, that's just a guess.

It is really baffling because the previous cameras had these features. Doesn't the design teams use the Alpha equipment?

--
Rick

 

[zackiedawg]

However, this still would not explain the omission of program shift in my mind, because it has been in just about every camera that came before, and because the work-around requires a more extensive understanding of photography (i.e., shooting in A mode or S mode) than the seeming target consumer may have. It could be that it's omission was as much an oversight that nobody caught until it was too late as an intentional product design decision, and that like the dead meter in the Maxxum 7D when flash is used, it's a hard-wired operating characteristic that can't be "fixed" by a firmware upgrade. Remember, that's just a guess.

I have got to agree with you there - that is by far the most mystifying of the omissions with the A500/550. The DOF and MLU I can understand, since these are developments of the entry level lines which have not had those features since the A200 and on...while both would be welcome on the cameras, it doesn't surprise me in the least that they aren't there. The ISO in the viewfinder isn't an issue for me, as it was never permanent in the viewfinder on the A200/300/350 etc anyway, only upon pressing the button...so moving it to the LCD doesn't affect my shooting on the fly.

But program shift has been on pretty much every Sony camera I've ever known, save compacts. Way back with my DSC-F717, I had program shift. Every DSLR up to these from Sony had it. It seems to be nothing more than software...so I'm almost thinking your scenario has to be right, that it was overlooked until too late, then just brushed under the table hoping noone would notice.

I really can function just fine without it...but have absolutely no idea why it isn't there anymore.

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

 

[Phixel]

If the A5xx had all the features an enthusiast could want, including MLU, dual dials, dof preview etc...

Why would anyone buy the A7xx when it is released?

It used to be that the more you paid for a digital camera, the better image quality (sensor performance) you expected. As technology and manufacturing capabilities advance, better image quality is attainable with cheaper cameras.

If Sony wanted to, they could have made the A5xx cameras everything that any enthusiast could ever want - for only a few dollars more.

They left out the enthusiast level features on purpose, to ensure that enthusiasts spend more money on the more expensive A7xx when it is released, in stead of opting for a cheaper camera that offers the same IQ and performance.

I really really hope I'm right - because that would mean that there is hope that the A7xx will be a real photographer's machine.

MLU would cost Sony nothing , but they leave it off even their $1000 Alpha cameras.

Now consider the fact that the Nikon D40 does have mirror lock-up and it is the least expensive DSLR Nikon has ever made.

Also consider that Nikon has more than 50% of DSLR sales in the US, while Sony Alpha DSLRs are in the single digits here..

No, Sony leaves off features because the believe their typical customers are too ignorant to appreciate their usefulness and how to use these features properly.

At least in the US, their single digit percentage of DSLR sales seems to indicate their belief is just wrong.

This assume you know why Sony only has a single digit market share in the U.S., and that it's because of those missing features. But of course you don't know that - you may think that's it, but it's really just your guess or speculation.

My own view is that Sony's single digit market share is due far more to lousy product marketing, poor dealer relationships, and questionable value in the lower end cameras. Very uncomfortable cameras to hold and use in the A230/330/380 series. Lack of live view in higher end bodies, and lack of video in any bodies also have contributed. Missing features such as MLU and DOF in entry level cameras? Not nearly as much.

That's my assessment, but I don't know that. I can only speculate. My guess is Sony is right now trying to figure out why its sales are not great in the U.S. and Japan, but they're not going to tell any of us. If someone wants to try to get a sense of what's going on, they could try talking to their local retailer to get a sense of why folks are buying Canon and Nikon in such higher numbers. Oh, the retailer doesn't have Sony, or doesn't "push" it as they do Canon or Nikon? Perhaps that's also a reason.

--
Mark Van Bergh

I agree with your well thought out reasons Sony DSLRs sell poorly here in the US. I did not mean to imply that the two reasons I mentioned were the only cause or even an important one for Sony's poor sales.

-Phil