Well you can still buy a Nikon D40 w/lens for around $400 and a D60
for $540. The price for the Sony a230 is $550, so I don't agree with
you about pricing.
And what's so great about the D40 or D60 ?
The quality of the JPEG images, especially higher ISO's (D40 in particular) are much better than any of the entry level Sony cameras I have seen so far. Very few entry level users want to deal with RAW, so JPEG quality is of utmost importance for entry level cameras.
The D60 is almost a year and a half old, so you might as well compare
it to the A200/300.
About as old as the a700, which is still the best value in it's class to date. It's about the camera not the introduction date.
What "whiz-bang" features are you referring too? An AEL button?
Better JPEGs? Better focusing? Quieter mirror/shutter noise? Better
ergonomics? Better environmental sealing? What?
I don't think consumers are looking at any of those things.
Pure conjecture on your part. Just because someone wants a smaller camera, does not mean they want features left out.
(And if looking at ergonomics, Nikon is hardly exemplary in this regard).
IMO, the ergonomics of the Nikons is a step up from the ergonomics of the new Sony DSLRs (a380, a330, a230). Sony could have put a real grip on these cameras and still made them light and small, but they went with form over function with the ergonomics on their new DSLRs.
You're railed against Sony for not including video.
Your wrong, I have never done that. You must be getting me mixed up with someone else. IMO, video is a bad idea in a DSLR and I have no use for video of any kind with any camera type and have stated so in my posts. That said, it may be necessary from a marketing standpoint, but as long as it does not detract from the still functions, I could always just ignore it.
Meanwhile, they
do include SSS and fast AF LV which I think mean more to consumers
than an AEL button. Sony also includes a focus motor ... I guess
they could make the camera a bit cheaper by ditching that and really
go toe to toe with Nikon.
Let's face it, screw drive lenses will soon be a thing of the past, just like mechanical adding machines. All Canon's lenses are all in-lens motor types and Nikon is quickly moving in this direction as is Sigma (many all new HSMs!), Pentax too, and don't forget the last six new lenses released by Sony are all in-lens motors. I am not advocating for in-lens motors, (that's another discussion), but rather pointing out that screw drive is disappearing from DSLRs at a very rapid rate and will be gone in a few years. If you still buying screw drive lenses you may want to consider this!
I can never quite figure out if you're still looking at these cameras
as "upgrades", as A100 replacements or as Sony intends them: DSLRs
for soccer moms & p&s'ers.
Neither. I am just comparing them to the competition.
You can argue that the salesperson is not at fault because Sony isn't
offering more for the money. I'm making the same argument that
there's no strong reason to choose Nikon or Canon over Sony because
they don't offer more for the money. They're all consumer cameras
offering similar value, and it's up to each consumer to pick the
feature(s) that are important. A salesperson who blindly says one
brand is better than another without considering the needs of the
photographer is truly offering bad advice.
The salesperson is a product of the marketing environment, not the master of it.
Like it or not, Canon and Nikon are the default choices for the majority of first time DSLR buyers and that is due a variety of reasons not the least of which is marketing momentum. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see a TV commercial for a Nikon or Canon DSLR , but nothing from Sony. That is not the salesman's fault, it is Sony's.
The aspiring photographer IMO is best not choosing the A2xx/A3xx
series because of the lack of photographer-friendly features. The
consumer looking for a more responsive point & shoot that "takes
better pictures" than their digicam may very well be better off
choosing one of the entry level Sonys.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but can you state why they would be better off with a Sony DSLR?
Adding the features you suggest isn't adding "value for the dollar",
it's expanding the market into the enthusiast arena.
True, and I think this is what needs to be done to penetrate the DSLR market. Offer more for less.
And Sony obviously decided it's not interested in doing that.
True.
Instead, Sony has seems to think it can increase consumer market share by tailoring the
camera to the consumer (effectively shrinking the potential market).
I'm sure that annoys the heck out of the A100 crowd, but it is what
it is. Time will tell if it's a good strategy.
We agree on something at least. "Time will tell if it's a good strategy." It is also a risky one IMO.
-Phil
