I Don't Care What Features Sony Leaves Out of Cameras - And Why Should You?

I enjoyed this thread. You know basically where I stand on all these issues. I think it reasonably safe to say now that Sony are becoming a more typical consumer company and catering to that market- and enthusiasts aren't the priority.

We may never know the why's, we will probably debate the details for years to come, but I've resigned to this. I think what was so difficult for me to understand is the "why" part, to which I still don't have an answer.

Seems a great opportunity to close in on Canon and Nikon has been passed up, but there are worse things to be concerned about in the world.

Sony are what they are, a consumer electronics company that sells DSLR's, and they aren't the company many enthusiasts hoped they would become. There's always a chance for change in the future.

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Old Clicker said:

Being happy enough to want to tell others about something you actually OWN is not the same as trashing what someone else owns. Especially after you trashed your 100th. - TF

Click to expand...

Yes that is right. Nothing wrong with people posting here about how much they like their cameras. That is one of the reasons for this site - discussing how you like your gear.

Now if the guy posted every day about how much he like his gear then that would be too much.

With the amount of people that post here about how bad all the new Sony cameras are it is nice to see people who actually own the A550 saying how while they may not be perfect that they really like some of the features.

--
tom power

just full of rants.
--
Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.

new found love .
--
Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.

ovlov said:

Orlov wrote:

What if the new A700 is little more than an A500 with a few features added back and video?

Click to expand...

Well then many people will not be happy and it will appear Sony is not going to try to maintain a high end APS-C. I don't think that will happen but it is a possibility.

No use talking about what if's constantly - we all aleady know what could happen - we just need to wait and see what does happen.

--
tom power

till you actually see the new A7??.

You well could be right but they might surprise you and that will not help your site's reputaion at all. Sometimes better to hold back a little and not jump the gun.
--
tom power

Even if the camera is good, there still is a clear swing towards the consumer, that can't be denied. So what I said will be true, either way.

Nikon have consumer models too, so it's again, not the end of the world.

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

OldClicker said:

Actually, I would put it as Sony will not, in the foreseeable future, make anything that will make them happy. If Sony actually built an A700 replacement that just made the current features better, I think they would be elated.

Click to expand...

There are certainly some people who would like that. However I disagree that if Sony added features that did not adversely affect the still picture taking ability of the A700 the vast majority of users would be elated. For example I currently shoot RAW exclusively. All the DRO stuff in the A700 is essentially useless to me but I have no issue with it since it doesn't affect my RAW files (I have it turned off).

OldClicker said:

OldClicker said:

I think that if Sony makes a camera with broad appeal - traditional and cutting edge features (the A5XX was most cutting edge features IMO) - they will get a camera with broad acceptance.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I see two completely different philosophies of what photography is in the A700 and A550.

• That still camera design has evolved to the point where only improving the current features is necessary (or even acceptable).
• That photography is just crossing over the brink into an exciting new digital age.

I cannot see reconciling both in one camera design without unacceptable compromises and very high prices.

Click to expand...

I don't buy the mutual exclusivity between traditional features and new features that some here do. Canon and Nikon added live view and video to their DSLRs and didn't remove existing features and didn't send the price skyrocketing. I think Sony could do the same thing.

OldClicker said:

I don't think that you can put together what you have listed for anywhere near $1500 with technology that I know of. How are you going to get Fast AF Video without the Fast AF sensor? You're trying to put together a system that keeps the old mechanical plus optimizes the new digital and that doesn't work. They compromise each other. Also, I don't think Sony can compete directly with Canikon by undercutting them. Canikon are very good companies. Sony has to make something different to gain market share and it's very hard to remain traditional and make something different. Now if Sony can pull out some breakthrough technology, like inexpensive main sensor fast focus, who knows. Except that most breakthrough technologies come from small, highly flexible companies (that Sony would have to buy) and we probably would have heard about it already.

Click to expand...

The price certainly depends on Sony's solutions - specifically their implementation, performance and uniqueness. If they make it too much like a video camera then why not just release a video camera? IMO it should be a DSLR first with added features.

The Canon 7D is selling for $1,699.95 at B&H at the time of this posting. This is a camera with a ton of added features over the 50D - AF, metering, video, etc. The Nikon D300S is selling for $1,529.95 at B&H at the time of this posting. It is also a camera with cutting edge AF, metering and has video capabilities. The A7XX had better be something extra special if they are going to charge more than Canon or Nikon IMO. Hopefully it will be.

--
Rick

cgarrard said:

I enjoyed this thread. You know basically where I stand on all these issues. I think it reasonably safe to say now that Sony are becoming a more typical consumer company and catering to that market- and enthusiasts aren't the priority.

We may never know the why's, we will probably debate the details for years to come, but I've resigned to this. I think what was so difficult for me to understand is the "why" part, to which I still don't have an answer.

Seems a great opportunity to close in on Canon and Nikon has been passed up, but there are worse things to be concerned about in the world.

Sony are what they are, a consumer electronics company that sells DSLR's, and they aren't the company many enthusiasts hoped they would become. There's always a chance for change in the future.

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Click to expand...

Well, now I understand where you are coming from. I never even considered that anyone would ever have thought Sony to be anything else - now or previously. - TF

It shows my "age" here on this forum. Having been there since the inception of Alpha, many originally had the conception that the Alpha brand wouldn't be the "typical" Sony philosophy... and some were never convinced otherwise.

I was in the first group, for a long time.

It lasted for a long time, because Sony were making very traditional styled DSLRS like the A100/700/900/850... to many's shock and surprise. And heck, they may surprise us all and introduce more "minolta" styled DSLRS in the future like them, but more advanced- who knows.

The future is uncertain in my opinion though, now.

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

So the difference between us is that you used to think that Sony cared and I never did. Funny - now I'm called the 'fanboy' and you the 'irrational critic'. - TF

cgarrard said:

It shows my "age" here on this forum. Having been there since the inception of Alpha, many originally had the conception that the Alpha brand wouldn't be the "typical" Sony philosophy... and some were never convinced otherwise.

I was in the first group, for a long time.

It lasted for a long time, because Sony were making very traditional styled DSLRS like the A100/700/900/850... to many's shock and surprise. And heck, they may surprise us all and introduce more "minolta" styled DSLRS in the future like them, but more advanced- who knows.

The future is uncertain in my opinion though, now.

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Click to expand...

Either that or I was dillusional, that could very well be the case!

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

gil said:

just full of rants.
--
Cheers,
gil - San Jose, CA
Cheap Lens, JPG and 100% Handholding Provocateur
Like happiness, photography is often better created than pursued.

Click to expand...

What an 'on point' response!!!

cgarrard said:

Either that or I was dillusional, that could very well be the case!

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Click to expand...

I don't think you were delusional.

When Sony introduced the A100 and A700 they got a lot of positive vibe here and on other forums.

I looked at the Nikon 300, too expensive, and the Canon 40, not as good as the A700, and bought the A700. Even at $1500.

I, like you, thought the trend would continue.

Sony, in their arrogance, must have thought the A700 would have hordes of Canon and Nikon users switching. Didn't happen, how disappointing.

Then they come out with just what the world has been clamoring for, FF under 3 grand in a "Flagship" model. Again, very few switched from Nikon and Canon.

OK, even Sony recognizes a failed strategy. If we can't make money getting serious hobbyists to switch, we'll go after the p&s crowd who already knows us and loves us. Kinda, sorta. The fact is, the p&s crowd are not dedicated hobbyists, for the most part. They would just as soon buy a Canon or Nikon (that's what the pros shoot) as exhibit any brand loyalty to Sony. Sure a few do, I think all of them have posted to this thread. But without a closet full of lenses, its to easy to jump the Sony ship from p&s and even bridge cams to the evil empire.

If Sony had introduced cameras that were just a little better than Nikon and Canon for a little lower price, they would have been so much better off. But in their arrogance, they thought the Sony name would command a little more money for a little less performance. Hah!

So, please, don't tell me about the genius's that are running Sony's dslr program and how they are so much smarter than anyone here.

I've been in marketing meetings all my life with these "geniuses" and many of the divisions they headed aren't there any more.

jimb100 said:

If Sony had introduced cameras that were just a little better than Nikon and Canon for a little lower price, they would have been so much better off. But in their arrogance, they thought the Sony name would command a little more money for a little less performance. Hah!

Click to expand...

First, producing a better camera than either Nikon or Canon isn't just like turning on a switch. And then you want it cheaper. (I don't blame you for wanting this, but I don't think it's realistic).

Second, they're fairly well priced. A D3000 and Alpha 330 retail for about the same price, and you could argue that the Live View, mult-angle LCD, built-in image stabalization, dual card slots and wireless w/ built-in flash are pretty nice features that the Nikon lacks. Move up to the D90 vs. A500, and the Nikon adds Live View and wireless w/ built-in flash, but not all the Sony features. On B&H, the D90 body is $200 higher.

I agree with you that with as many cameras as they have, Sony could have given us a better product mix. A good A7xx is missing.