Sony should implement video NOT SO LATE

robertng

Active member
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Location
US
So Canon improved its video capabilities via a firmware update. As far as I read from their forums, most users are delighted! Another improvement yet to make is contrast-detect auto-focus, but probably only feasible in the later models. So i think Sony could have implemented video earlier before everything is perfect.

I think if Sony is a painter, a poet, or a writer, it has ALL THE REASONS to perfect its masterpiece before bringing it to the light. But since it's a commercial company, i think it's unwise to withhold something lucrative and relative easy. After all, it has all the subsequent firmware or even models to update or upgrade!
 
I agree , Sony will lose sales to other makers if they don't introduce Video to DSLRs soon. I can understand that many here do not value video or want it in a separate camcorder but it is definite sales & marketing plus.

You could argue that Canon & Nikon don't really understand DSLRs but you won't be very convincing........

Keith-C
 
Or Sony has done enough market research and found the demand just isn't there.

Sony makes video camera, lots of them, all types. I expect them just to make an A mount video camera, that is SLR sized or smaller. Not even mess with hacking it into a DSLR.
 
Excellent work from Canon!
Auto focus I don't care about (not my need with video), but
manual exposure is very welcome! I hope Sony will follow!
 
I believe I read somewhere that Sony already got a A mount video camera.
Google... e.g found this
http://www.wtsbroadcast.com/shop/product.asp?idproduct=18236

Read under features:
  • "Alpha Lens Compatibility
With a special adaptor from Sony, it is also possible to use the alpha lens series designed for Sony Digital SLR still cameras. By using alpha lenses in various configurations, creative effects can be achieved. This approach is ideal for filmmakers on a budget or those who already own alpha lenses."

But this is not what many people here want, it is to big and heavy.
Not shure if Sony got others also, but sooner or later they will make a DSLR
with video. I hope...
 
Or Sony has done enough market research and found the demand just
isn't there.

Sony makes video camera, lots of them, all types. I expect them just
to make an A mount video camera, that is SLR sized or smaller. Not
even mess with hacking it into a DSLR.
--

So let's take a bet, whether the conclusion of sony's market research will lead to any alpha video-capable DSLR in the future :P
 
SAL-F1?
I believe I read somewhere that Sony already got a A mount video camera.
Google... e.g found this
http://www.wtsbroadcast.com/shop/product.asp?idproduct=18236

Read under features:
  • "Alpha Lens Compatibility
With a special adaptor from Sony, it is also possible to use the
alpha lens series designed for Sony Digital SLR still cameras. By
using alpha lenses in various configurations, creative effects can be
achieved. This approach is ideal for filmmakers on a budget or those
who already own alpha lenses."

But this is not what many people here want, it is to big and heavy.
Not shure if Sony got others also, but sooner or later they will make
a DSLR
with video. I hope...
 
Am I the only one who gets the impression of a broken record?

Regards,
Mike
--
I'd prefer my DSLR without video, thank you.
 
I agree, not that I want video (never used it in my F707 or P200) but becource Canon and Nikon have it. marketing wise there has to be a Sony camera with video. I do hope Sony will make the camera in a way that video will work in a good way, not in a way the other brands did, with no or very slow AF, etc.

And maybe, video and DSLR's don't mix that well as some people think. Maybe the ergonomiic for a movie camera is so difrent from a still camera that combining is not the wise thing to do. The technic's are difrent too, resulting in less quality movies...

So marketing wise Sony has to bringout a video mode in (some of) there DSLR's., but as far as I think it will remain an gimmic not used that much...
 
VIDEO..?
IDEO..?
DEO..?
EO..?
O..?
..?

Happy shooting

Bart
Am I the only one who gets the impression of a broken record?

Regards,
Mike
--
I'd prefer my DSLR without video, thank you.
 
I have to agree w/you... Sony Hi Def videos like my hdr sr12 have 10 megapixel still capability. It may make more sense to buy a viideo camera w/sill capability than a still camera w/video. The photos that come out of handycam rival that of those coming our of my A100. And the with the zoom capability of the handycam for those seeking both may be a better value.
JMHO

Jim in VT
 
Sure, Sony could have done it earlier.

How much would it have cost Sony ?

What impact would it have had on market share ?

What basis do you have for suggesting Sony should have implemented video besides a few Canon users on a forum being delighted with a firmware update ?

(I'm not saying Sony shouldn't have video; I just doubt that anyone here has as market research as Sony themselves).
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Sure, Sony could have done it earlier.

How much would it have cost Sony ?

What impact would it have had on market share ?
Those questions are impossible to answer for us of course. But I'm pretty sure that what it would have given Sony is a lot of "buzz" (after all the inclusion of video is more newsworthy to the general public than a 100% viewfinder). Add to that a potential influx of new users interested primarily in video (I guess there are quite some indy filmmakers who bought the Canon 5D MkII that wouldn't have otherwise spend their money on a FF DSLR) and I'm not sure it helped sales excluding that feature.

The 5D MkII obviously sells much much better than the A900 but the problem is that we have no way of knowing how much of that effect can be attributed to video, since it would have sold much much better even if it had exactly the same specs as the A900.

What I do not get with the A900 strategy is that they concentrated on still photo fundamentals so much, while I think that people who are into still photography that much that they want to spend $2000 for a camera most likely already own Canon or Nikon systems and are unlikely to switch to Sony.
What basis do you have for suggesting Sony should have implemented
video besides a few Canon users on a forum being delighted with a
firmware update ?

(I'm not saying Sony shouldn't have video; I just doubt that anyone
here has as market research as Sony themselves).
But then again, the same could be said about Canon and Nikon ;-)
 
Sure, Sony could have done it earlier.

How much would it have cost Sony ?

What impact would it have had on market share ?

What basis do you have for suggesting Sony should have implemented
video besides a few Canon users on a forum being delighted with a
firmware update ?

(I'm not saying Sony shouldn't have video; I just doubt that anyone
here has as market research as Sony themselves).
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
--

Again, I totally concur with you THAT few here are as accurate as Sony's "market research" :P

So as i've said, let's make a bet whether Sony's "market research" will lead to DSLRs with video in the future :P
 
What I do not get with the A900 strategy is that they concentrated on
still photo fundamentals so much, while I think that people who are
into still photography that much that they want to spend $2000 for a
camera most likely already own Canon or Nikon systems and are
unlikely to switch to Sony.
True. But you either fight or you don't :) Video would have been one way to try to lure new users. I think that offering class-leading resolution (at low ISO anyway) at a rock bottom price (along with the lure of CZ lenses) is another. We see anecdotal evidence of people buying an A900 & lenses, even Nikon/Canon shooters picking up a camera & couple lenses as a "second system". What we don't know is whether sales of the camera are meeting Sony's goals. Which is all that's really important to judging their strategy.
(I'm not saying Sony shouldn't have video; I just doubt that anyone
here has as market research as Sony themselves).
But then again, the same could be said about Canon and Nikon ;-)
Good point ;) Though they have different market dynamics. They're fighting each other in the enthusiast/pro markets. In a sense, they have more to lose. I look at it this way: Canon & Nikon have to put out cameras that appeal to a larger percentage of potential buyers than Sony, Pentax & Oly. Obviously, if you're looking at higher end products, you're mostly looking at existing system owners upgrading, but still, if even a small percentage of the market wants some feature, when you have nearly 50% of the market, you have to offer that feature. When you have 10% and are looking to grow to 15% (with this latest product cycle) you have a little more freedom to decide what features to implement, how much you want to invest, how you want to target the market.

The new A230/330/380 are a case in point. They're highly targetted. I really hope Sony does something to satisfy the A100 crowd. Canon makes the Rebel (I can never remember what the latest & greatest number is !) that is sort of a do-it-all entry level model that satisfies the budget enthusiast as well as the consumer, though it's not as consumer friendly as the Sonys (with "fast AF" LV, newbie-friendly menus and, barring the A380, lower price).

Assuming Sony does an A700 replacement, they'll have a nice enthusiast camera, they have the A900, and they'd be targetting the entry level, but I think they'd really be missing out without something like the A100 (or the Rebel or the Nikon D5000) ... a "better" camera that's more affordable than the A700. But as I said before, they're the ones with the market research and the plan :)
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
I say this as someone who has lost a good paying job. Saw a new position almost as good vanish over night with budget cuts and just had a second new position dink me down after making an offer. So I know things can be bad.

But
Even as bad as things are.. 90% of people are employed.

The odd thing about some of the polls that measure and then also drive consumer confidence is people often will say "We are fine / My job is fine" then also say on another questions "most others are in more trouble"

I have to wonder if Video in the DSLR is like that.

Lots of people seem to say.. "I don't care about video but I am sure lots of others do care about video and it will hurt Sony"

Maybe 90% of people don't care about video but are sure that 90% of others do.

Just a thought..

---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com
 
So Canon improved its video capabilities via a firmware update. As
far as I read from their forums, most users are delighted! Another
improvement yet to make is contrast-detect auto-focus, but probably
only feasible in the later models. So i think Sony could have
implemented video earlier before everything is perfect.

I think if Sony is a painter, a poet, or a writer, it has ALL THE
REASONS to perfect its masterpiece before bringing it to the light.
But since it's a commercial company, i think it's unwise to withhold
something lucrative and relative easy. After all, it has all the
subsequent firmware or even models to update or upgrade!
 
True. But you either fight or you don't :) Video would have been
one way to try to lure new users. I think that offering
class-leading resolution (at low ISO anyway) at a rock bottom price
(along with the lure of CZ lenses) is another.
And how about resolution + video ;-) As to the resolution, I think that Canon played their cards very well with the 5D MkII. Once the MP count is above 20 it may not matter much anymore what the second digit is.
Good point ;) Though they have different market dynamics. They're
fighting each other in the enthusiast/pro markets. In a sense, they
have more to lose. I look at it this way: Canon & Nikon have to put
out cameras that appeal to a larger percentage of potential buyers
than Sony, Pentax & Oly.
But doesn't a lot of that appeal come automatically simply on account of the mount (since DSLRs from different makers are after all far from perfect substitutes seeing that they form part of a larger camera system)? And would Canon have lost users by not incorporating video? After all there is currently no alternative on the market (FF w/video) to which Canon users could switch to.
Assuming Sony does an A700 replacement, they'll have a nice
enthusiast camera, they have the A900, and they'd be targetting the
entry level, but I think they'd really be missing out without
something like the A100 (or the Rebel or the Nikon D5000) ... a
"better" camera that's more affordable than the A700. But as I said
before, they're the ones with the market research and the plan :)
But it seems they will have that segment covered with the A500/550 (assuming the 5xx line does not stand for A3xx + video or something like that).

They seem to be set on introducing their lower-end models in two subsequent waves, with the less ambitious product preceding the more sophisticated ones (they introduced the A200 en passant in beginning of January 2008 just to surprise everyone with the introduction of the A300/350 a little later).
 
and all that good stuff. There have been enough good videos posted from the 5dII that even though I don't care about the video feature, I know other people are out there using it to pretty spectacular effect. I don't even care how many people think its useful or would use it, but for the people who are actively using it, its obviously a bonus.
 
Everyone forgetting the merits of the newly released HX-1? It's between the P&S and DSLR crowd. Can't undercut it's sales just yet. A truly amazing cam! Not for me, but others may be buying it. It can compete very well. I'm just sayin..... :-)
--
Glenn

I'm kinda partial to video, but I'm hangin!
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top