Can someone explain to me the Sony hype

Tony Beach said:

calking said:

Speaking of "small" -- I think the whole 4/3rds thing is about cameras for midgets anyway (nothing wrong with midgets, just saying...).

The design is frankly...stupid. Too bulky to fit in a pocket like a P/S, requires substantial investment in new lenses and accessories (if you already own another DSLR system it's redundant for the sake of "small"), and with the size comes awkward handling. A small DSLR makes better sense overall. I think the whole 4/3 thing is like the chihuahua dog craze -- "oh, it's a camera? It's so cuuute....!"

Click to expand...

DSLRs could be a lot smaller than they are, and a few f/4 pancake lenses could make the package really small.

Click to expand...

DSLRs are limited in size to their lens registration distance (distance from the lens flange to the sensor plane). There's no way of getting around that. You can remove the mirror, but you'd still have that fixed lens registration distance. As a result, DSLRs will always be much larger and thicker than these new mirrorless camera systems which are designed with much shorter lens registration distances.

Here is an m4/3 camera with lens mounted, fitting inside a Canon Rebel DSLR body, a DSLR that is already considered small :



As you can see, a mirrorless camera system designed to have a shorter lens registration distance is much smaller than a DSLR that is limited in size by a much larger/deeper lens registration distance. And keep in mind that Canon's EOS SLR system has one of the shortest lens registration distances in the industry! Canon's EOS lens registartion distance is 44mm. Pentax K is 45.46mm. Nikon F is 46.5mm. As you can see, even with a pancake lens on a Rebel body, you're still talking about a camera that is much larger than an m4/3 camera! So, no, the reality is that today's DSLR systems really can't be "a lot smaller than they are."

T3 said:

Tony Beach said:

DSLRs could be a lot smaller than they are, and a few f/4 pancake lenses could make the package really small.

Click to expand...

...no, the reality is that today's DSLR systems really can't be "a lot smaller than they are."

Click to expand...

I should have been clearer about what I mean about DSLRs not being small enough. Yes, a DSLR is larger than 4/3 or NEX, I never said it wouldn't be. What I want is a 135 format camera with MLU in a consumer sized body, with f/4 pancake lenses. The sensor would be almost 4x larger than a 4/3 sensor and over twice as large as a APS-C sensor, and that would allow more potential resolution, shallower DOF, better high ISO performance, and it would work with the lenses and flashes I use on my current DSLRs.

The company that makes that camera and three or four pancake primes goes a long ways towards swinging to their system (I'm leaning towards Nikon, have an A850, and Canon would be my last choice). I'm not persuaded by the mirrorless cameras at this time: too much money for too little convenience (it wouldn't fit comfortably in my cycling jerseys for instance), and the hit on image quality is too big. I already have an S95, and I don't use it very often not because its image quality is insufficient for what I want to use it for, it's just that the niche it fills represents a small fraction of my photographic needs which are met with my "dinosaur" A850.

Tony Beach said:

I'm not persuaded by the mirrorless cameras at this time: too much money for too little convenience (it wouldn't fit comfortably in my cycling jerseys for instance), and the hit on image quality is too big.

Click to expand...

This is the problem with narrow-minded people such as yourself: it's the notion that if it can't fit in your pocket, it's useless! This is very close-minded. Furthermore, a mirrorless camera can easily fit inside a cycling jersey pocket! Back when I used to do road cycling, I used to carry water bottles in my rear jersey pockets! A compact mirrorless camera could practically fit inside a cycling water bottle. And it can be made even more compact by removing the lens from the camera. So to say that a mirrorless camera "wouldn't fit comfortably in my cycling jerseys" is rather silly. I don't know what kind of cycling jerseys you use, but a good cycling jersey should have no problem carrying water bottles and items even smaller, like a mirrorless camera.





Besides, even if you didn't want to carry the camera in your jersey, it shouldn't be any problem finding an under-saddle bag that could easily accommodate a mirrorless camera:





Try any of this with a big ol' DSLR! As a size comparison, here's the APS-C NEX next to an APS-C Nikon D5000 (a relatively "compact" DSLR):



As you can see, even though the NEX is LARGE by mirrorless standards, it's still just a fraction of the size of a SMALL DSLR! A lot less weight, too!

As for the so-called "hit on image quality", I don't think it's anywhere close to being as big a hit on image quality as you seem to think it is! Unless you're shooting at the extremes of ISO, the image quality is actually quite close to a DSLR. And without any high-magnification pixel peeping, most people would be unlikely to see any image quality difference at normal ISO speeds. Even at very high ISO speeds, it's still plenty good for a web gallery or medium-sized print.

And as for "too little convenience", well, just try comparing cycling with a DSLR vs one of these compact mirrorless cameras! If all you have is a DSLR, you're more likely to leave it at home. But if you have a compact mirrorless system that can easily fit your cycling jersey pocket or in your saddle bag, you'll probably take it with you. Size, weight, and bulk are all significantly less with a compact mirrorless camera! That's a pretty big convenience to me! That's why I'm eagerly anticipating buying a mirrorless camera system, even though I already have a ton of DSLR gear (emphasis on ton , LOL)!

Tony Beach said:

What I want is a 135 format camera with MLU in a consumer sized body, with f/4 pancake lenses. The sensor would be almost 4x larger than a 4/3 sensor and over twice as large as a APS-C sensor, and that would allow more potential resolution, shallower DOF, better high ISO performance, and it would work with the lenses and flashes I use on my current DSLRs.

The company that makes that camera and three or four pancake primes goes a long ways towards swinging to their system (I'm leaning towards Nikon, have an A850, and Canon would be my last choice).

Click to expand...

Oh, and BTW, your 35mm format dream camera, along with those "three or four pancake primes" is a pipe dream. The camera companies are now going to invest heavily in the compact mirrorless market because that's where all the growth is. There would be a very small market for a "consumer sized" 35mm DSLR along with a bunch of pancake lenses. Too little return on investment for the camera manufacturers. The hot market is the mirrorless market. So that's where the camera companies are going to put their R&D money. If they're going to put money into designing a bunch of pancake lenses, they're going to do it for the mirrorless market. So keep dreaming!

T3 said:

Tony Beach said:

I'm not persuaded by the mirrorless cameras at this time: too much money for too little convenience (it wouldn't fit comfortably in my cycling jerseys for instance), and the hit on image quality is too big.

Click to expand...

This is the problem with narrow-minded people such as yourself: it's the notion that if it can't fit in your pocket, it's useless! This is vary close-minded.

Click to expand...

Okay, go away now, I have no use for name-calling. I'm not the one with a problem here, you are taking this discussion way too personally and behaving badly as a result of that.

T3 said:

I don't know what kind of cycling jerseys you use, but a good cycling jersey should have no problem carrying water bottles and items even smaller, like a mirrorless camera.

Click to expand...

I prefer not to have the weight or the bulk hanging off of me. I could do like some people do and wear a hydra-pack for instance, then there would be plenty of room, even room for a DSLR (but no tripod), but I stopped using those a long time ago for the same reason.

T3 said:

Besides, even if you didn't want to carry the camera in your jersey, it shouldn't be any problem finding an under-saddle bag that could easily accommodate a mirrorless camera:

Click to expand...

Mine is already filled with stuff -- for instance, it makes a great ice-box on hot days with the small insulated water bottle I put in it.

T3 said:

Try any of this with a big ol' DSLR!

Click to expand...

You missed my point entirely. The S95 is even smaller, and since I rarely pull it out and its image quality is satisfactory, why would I need to spend more and add more weight?

T3 said:

As for the so-called "hit on image quality", I don't think it's anywhere close to being as big a hit on image quality as you seem to think it is! Unless you're shooting at the extremes of ISO, the image quality is actually quite close to a DSLR. And without any high-magnification pixel peeping, most people would be unlikely to see any image quality difference at normal ISO speeds. Even at very high ISO speeds, it's still plenty good for a web gallery or medium-sized print.

Click to expand...

Good for you, but not for me. For one thing, when I am out shooting seriously, I take a tripod with me, which puts any weight savings using a smaller camera in perspective. 4/3 and DX formats are fine, but I have no use for them now that I'm shooting with an A850. I either want the image quality optimized, or I want the convenience factor optimized; I'm not interested in compromising both and ending up with something that is always leaving me unsatisfied.

T3 said:

And as for "too little convenience",

Click to expand...

Yes, theses intermediate formats are not convenient enough for me to spend the money on them. The thing is, that when I'm cycling I'm cycling, not thinking about taking photos. When I'm visiting with people at dinner somewhere, that's what I'm doing, again not thinking about photography. The S95 works for those occasions for me because it's truly small and unobtrusive, and its image quality is adequate for the purpose it serves.

Now as to wanting a smaller DSLR, well yes, I want one. Why? Because I don't need the bigger one and a smaller one along with some pancake lenses would make my kit easier to fit in my carry-on when I travel, and that would be both more convenient for me and fulfill my image quality standards. I would spend money on that camera because it would suit me. You call me "narrow minded" because I don't share your opinion? I'm not the one trying to bludgeon you with how great my choice is and how crummy your choice is; I'm just saying what I want, which you apparently can't accept.

T3 said:

Oh, and BTW, your 35mm format dream camera, along with those "three or four pancake primes" is a pipe dream. The camera companies are now going to invest heavily in the compact mirrorless market because that's where all the growth is. There would be a very small market for a "consumer sized" 35mm DSLR along with a bunch of pancake lenses. Too little return on investment for the camera manufacturers. The hot market is the mirrorless market. So that's where the camera companies are going to put their R&D money. If they're going to put money into designing a bunch of pancake lenses, they're going to do it for the mirrorless market.

Click to expand...

The camera is easy to do, very easy. The point wasn't that it hasn't been done, or even that it may never be done, but that it should be done. The topic has come up many times in Nikon's forums, and whenever it does there's always a lot of interest expressed for the smaller FX camera option. I bet Nikon would sell more of them than they sell D700 cameras; likewise, Sony would sell more of them than their A900.

T3 said:

So keep dreaming!

Click to expand...

A smaller company didn't have a hard time coming out with a nice assortment:

$510: http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_21mm_F3.2_AL_Limited/

$340: http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_40mm_F2.8_Limited/

$560: http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_70mm_F2.4_Limited/

Make them a stop slower, and they could stay about the same size for 135 format, and the focal lengths would be even more useful on the larger format. The designs are pretty simple, and the camera companies crank out lens designs that are less profitable (cost less and have shorter shelf lives) all the time.

Tony Beach said:

I either want the image quality optimized, or I want the convenience factor optimized; I'm not interested in compromising both and ending up with something that is always leaving me unsatisfied.

Click to expand...

A very unusual situation. Most people want something which is as good as possible within the confines of what they're doing. For example, when I am traveling there is no way I'd lug around a DSLR and a tripod, but there is also no way I'll settle for an S95 or similar; I want something smaller and less obtrusive than a DSLR but with as much quality and low light capability as possible - the moments I experience are unlikely to come again.

The same applies when I'm off working somewhere. In the evening I like taking a stroll and taking some pictures - the purpose of the strolls is creative photography to get my mind off of work - but there's no way I'm lugging a DSLR bag with me on work sites. And again, an S95 or similar will leave me unsatisfied since I can get something so much better without going up much in bulk.

Mirrorless certainly have their place, and fit right into the needs of a lot of people. Not everyone is as rigid in their approach.

Jesper

1. Sony A-mount cameras have ability to use AF Carl Zeiss lenses.

2. Sony storms market with tech innovations (NEX system, cross AF, translucent mirror for fast video AF, 24 megapixel sensors)
3. FF camera
--
Make photos that will be interesting to check after many years.
http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

theswede said:

Tony Beach said:

I either want the image quality optimized, or I want the convenience factor optimized; I'm not interested in compromising both and ending up with something that is always leaving me unsatisfied.

Click to expand...

Mirrorless certainly have their place, and fit right into the needs of a lot of people. Not everyone is as rigid in their approach.

Click to expand...

I never said otherwise, and only speak for myself. If I had an unlimited budget, maybe I would even have a 4/3 camera system, but right now I'm more interested in purchasing a wide angle lens for my A850 (leaning strongly towards a Sony 20/2.8 because it won't take up too much room in my camera bag and doesn't weigh too much). My point is that if I could have a 135 format DSLR that was half the size of my A850 and weighed significantly less, a camera I could use my current lenses on, and if I could throw in some pancake lenses for it, I would consider that a great choice and would have no need whatsoever for a mirrorless camera.

I agree. And most of all: once you add lenses to a DSLR and compare it with the nikon and especially m43 cams the difference is enormous. Even small DSLR with kitlenses completely dwarf a V1, GF3, G3 or EPL3...

DSLRs are indeed the dodo in 1550. Just a few years away from extinction.

Tony Beach said:

My point is that if I could have a 135 format DSLR that was half the size of my A850 and weighed significantly less, a camera I could use my current lenses on, and if I could throw in some pancake lenses for it, I would consider that a great choice and would have no need whatsoever for a mirrorless camera.

Click to expand...

And you'd be pretty much alone in that, which is why such a camera will never be built. I'd never pay the premium for such a monster, and most people would find it too expensive and/or too big compared to a mirrorless while offering little extra and a lot of drawbacks for general use.

Mirrorless is the future. DSLRs are betamax. Yes, they're better for many things, but they're still doomed. Which doesn't stop me from considering an A77.

Jesper

Jorginho said:

DSLRs are indeed the dodo in 1550. Just a few years away from extinction.

Click to expand...

A lot of people really don't get it. The Dodo was one bird, just as there are many birds there are many DSLRs; birds did not go extinct, even birds that don't fly. Just because Sony is going to kill off their DSLRs, that doesn't mean everyone is going to stop using DSLRs (just Sony users because they will have no option). 135 format became far more popular than medium and large film formats, but medium and large film formats still exist today, and if anything 4x5 format film is likely to be around longer than 135 format film.

theswede said:

Tony Beach said:

My point is that if I could have a 135 format DSLR that was half the size of my A850 and weighed significantly less, a camera I could use my current lenses on, and if I could throw in some pancake lenses for it, I would consider that a great choice and would have no need whatsoever for a mirrorless camera.

Click to expand...

And you'd be pretty much alone in that, which is why such a camera will never be built.

Click to expand...

Not by Sony, that's seems certain. Whether Nikon or Canon will see things differently is another matter. Many photographers would flock to a small 135 format DSLR, far more than the camera companies realize. As I said above in another reply, I would bet the demand for such a camera would be greater than it is for even the most popular current 135 format DSLRs.

theswede #100093 said:

I'd never pay the premium for such a monster, and most people would find it too expensive and/or too big compared to a mirrorless while offering little extra and a lot of drawbacks for general use.

Click to expand...

Most people don't shoot with DSLRs and most people aren't going to be buying a mirrorless camera either, most people take photos with a P&S or with their cellphones; fact is, most people are not photographers.

theswede #100093 said:

Mirrorless is the future.

Click to expand...

They are part of the future, they are not the only thing with a future.

theswede #100093 said:

DSLRs are betamax.

Click to expand...

Since you like throwing meaningless comparisons around, perhaps mirrorless are VHS.

theswede #100093 said:

Yes, they're better for many things, but they're still doomed.

Click to expand...

The fact that DSLRs are better than mirrorless for many things is precisely why they are not doomed.

theswede #100093 said:

Which doesn't stop me from considering an A77.

Click to expand...

I have no use for the A77, none whatsoever.

I don't want to join the fight, but, IMO, the thing about camera size is that it is not a continuous variable, it is categorical. That is, there are only three (maybe four) sizes: pocket (if you wear a coat, you might divide this category into shirt pocket and coat pocket, but I don't), handbag, and backpack. A camera that is not in a different size category is not smaller at all.

Eg, I can fit a D3100 with a 35/1.8 in my handbag, and a m4/3 is the same size, handbag size. A D7000 with 16-85, 35/1.8, 70-300 and a flash is backpack size, but so is a comparable m4/3 kit.

Tony Beach said:

I have no use for the A77, none whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Me neither, BTW. It seems that Sony will abandon the traditional dSLR and will replace its whole line with cameras with a fixed mirror (ironically, some people call them "mirrorless") and no optical VF. This is a red flag to me, and a good enough reason to stay away from Sony.

all others to there brand, it hasnt so far. Sony ignores our request for clean ISO above 800. They have no sports capable camera.

Yes I shoot a Sony and wont be buying the new one, I think many will regret it after a while.

JMO
--
Thanks,

Digitalshooter

what a good thread this turned out to be. i chose nikon over the rest because of how good it felt in my hands. like a favorite rifle or pistol or cue stick. i won't even get into the glass etc. my 1st. dslr was the nikon d-50 which was like a porsche compared to the ford like canon rebel of the time. never cared for the build of sony or any others. i mainly wanted to tell the op in my 1 st response that the friend of a friend was more a fanboy than photographer and that stats aren't everything.

Tony Beach said:

Tony Beach said:

And you'd be pretty much alone in that, which is why such a camera will never be built.

Click to expand...

Not by Sony, that's seems certain. Whether Nikon or Canon will see things differently is another matter.

Click to expand...

They won't.

Tony Beach said:

Many photographers would flock to a small 135 format DSLR, far more than the camera companies realize.

Click to expand...

Your market research is better than theirs? Impressive. You could make a lot of money from publishing that research.

Tony Beach said:

As I said above in another reply, I would bet the demand for such a camera would be greater than it is for even the most popular current 135 format DSLRs.

Click to expand...

It would be too expensive for that by far. As you note yourself, DSLRs are comparatively a niche product as is, and the competition and thus price sensitivity is fierce. Professionals do not carry a model, and to get amateurs to buy a model the perceived value has to be as high as or higher than the price. Your proposed model has value below sale price and will hurt whoever makes it very badly.

Tony Beach said:

Most people don't shoot with DSLRs and most people aren't going to be buying a mirrorless camera either, most people take photos with a P&S or with their cellphones; fact is, most people are not photographers.

Click to expand...

Correct, but I have bought multiple DSLRs, pocket cameras and am now in the market for mirrorless. I've looked at the 5DmkII, the A900 and am considering the A77 because it provides better value for my needs . Your proposed camera is a heavy paperweight to my mind, no matter how good it might seem to you.

Tony Beach said:

Tony Beach said:

Mirrorless is the future.

Click to expand...

They are part of the future, they are not the only thing with a future.

Click to expand...

Of course not, but when it comes to IL, they will reign supreme. DSLRs are better, faster, bigger and will become a small niche product.

Tony Beach said:

Tony Beach said:

DSLRs are betamax.

Click to expand...

Since you like throwing meaningless comparisons around, perhaps mirrorless are VHS.

Click to expand...

That is pretty much dead on. Very insightful. Problem is, your proposed camera is more like VX. Too complicated to be cheap, and with too little added benefit to push the advantages - and with too many obvious disadvantages, like difficulty getting focus properly, heat problems and the like.

Tony Beach said:

Tony Beach said:

Yes, they're better for many things, but they're still doomed.

Click to expand...

The fact that DSLRs are better than mirrorless for many things is precisely why they are not doomed.

Click to expand...

No. It's irrelevant.

Tony Beach said:

Tony Beach said:

Which doesn't stop me from considering an A77.

Click to expand...

I have no use for the A77, none whatsoever.

Click to expand...

And most people who are in the market for a DSLR would be overjoyed if they got a good deal on one. The market doesn't run on what you think is best. It runs on perceived value.

Jesper

Tony Beach said:

T3 said:

Oh, and BTW, your 35mm format dream camera, along with those "three or four pancake primes" is a pipe dream. The camera companies are now going to invest heavily in the compact mirrorless market because that's where all the growth is. There would be a very small market for a "consumer sized" 35mm DSLR along with a bunch of pancake lenses. Too little return on investment for the camera manufacturers. The hot market is the mirrorless market. So that's where the camera companies are going to put their R&D money. If they're going to put money into designing a bunch of pancake lenses, they're going to do it for the mirrorless market.

Click to expand...

The camera is easy to do, very easy. The point wasn't that it hasn't been done, or even that it may never be done, but that it should be done. The topic has come up many times in Nikon's forums, and whenever it does there's always a lot of interest expressed for the smaller FX camera option. I bet Nikon would sell more of them than they sell D700 cameras; likewise, Sony would sell more of them than their A900.

Click to expand...

It "should" be done? According to whom? I'm quite sure that the marketing researchers at Canon/Nikon/Sony have all done their research regarding consumer-level full frame, and it certainly appears that there isn't enough interest. For one thing, the major cost of a DSLR isn't the body itself, but rather the sensor and its supporting electronics. Putting a FF sensor into a consumer level body wouldn't reduce the cost of the camera all that much. So what you get is a still-expensive DSLR, but now in a consumer level body, probably with consumer-level specs to protect their more existing FF DSLR bodies. It's a no-win situation for everyone: it's still not cheap enough for consumers, it's only marginally more compact, and it cannibalizes buyers from their regular FF DSLR bodies.

Tony Beach said:

Tony Beach said:

So keep dreaming!

Click to expand...

A smaller company didn't have a hard time coming out with a nice assortment:

$510: http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_21mm_F3.2_AL_Limited/

$340: http://www.pentaximaging.com/...amera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_40mm_F2.8_Limited/

$560: http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_70mm_F2.4_Limited/

Make them a stop slower, and they could stay about the same size for 135 format, and the focal lengths would be even more useful on the larger format. The designs are pretty simple, and the camera companies crank out lens designs that are less profitable (cost less and have shorter shelf lives) all the time.

Click to expand...

First of all, those aren't full frame lenses. Secondly, buyers of such lenses make up a very a niche market. And I doubt that that small set of buyers would be too excited about such slow (f/4 or slower) lenses. You end up spending a lot of money for very slow lenses. Not a popular combination! (BTW, you've deceptively posted some very low-ball prices for these lenses. Expect to pay more for all these lenses than what you've posted.) Thirdly, the impetus for such lenses is compactness, but that motivation was certainly much stronger before the existence of compact mirrorless camera systems. In other words, a pancake lens was a means to offer a compact option for interchangeable lens camera system (aka DSLR) users. But now that we have these compact mirrorless camera systems providing a compact option in an interchangeable lens camera system, the motivation for designing pancake lenses for APS-C and FF DSLRs got even less! Manufacturers are now going to see it this way: people who don't care much for compactness will go with a conventional DSLR (APS-C or FF), but people who really care about compactness will go for a mirrorless system. Or to put it another way, the potential market for APS-C or FF DSLR pancakes just got even smaller. And as such, don't expect a bevy of new pancakes for APS-C and FF DSLR systems, but expect plenty of pancakes for mirrorless systems. Plus, as a buyer, why settle for a slow (f/4 or slower) pancake on a big DSLR when you can have fast pancakes (f/2 or faster) on a truly compact mirrorless camera?

So like I said, keep dreaming!

Sante Patate said:

I don't want to join the fight, but, IMO, the thing about camera size is that it is not a continuous variable, it is categorical. That is, there are only three (maybe four) sizes: pocket (if you wear a coat, you might divide this category into shirt pocket and coat pocket, but I don't), handbag, and backpack. A camera that is not in a different size category is not smaller at all.

Eg, I can fit a D3100 with a 35/1.8 in my handbag, and a m4/3 is the same size, handbag size. A D7000 with 16-85, 35/1.8, 70-300 and a flash is backpack size, but so is a comparable m4/3 kit.

Click to expand...

First of all, handbags vary in size. Secondly, even with the same handbag size, a mirrorless system takes up a lot less room in said handbag, and weighs less, too. It can be the difference between taking up all the room in the bag, versus taking up only a portion of the room in the bag...leaving room for other items. You may not see any advantage today , but just wait a couple years and you'll definitely see it, when mirrorless camera systems are in far greater use!

And even at this early stage of the game, the market is already seeing and understanding the advantage of smaller size that you clearly aren't seeing or understanding. The mirrorless market is growing rapidly . In Japan, mirrorless cameras have contributed to a "35% drop in the combined market share" for Canon and Nikon. And "mirrorless cameras now account for an impressive 40.5% of Japanese-market ILC [Interchangeable Lens Camera] sales." As for worldwide sales, mirrorless cameras are "accounting for just 16% of ILC sales worldwide", but "The projection is that this will grow to some 23% by the end of 2011." Yes, by the end of this year, mirrorless cameras are expected to account for almost one quarter of all interchangeable lens cameras! Imagine what that percentage will be by the end of 2012, when mirrorless systems will be even more mature, and more heavily marketed, with mirrorless systems like Canon's and Fuji's in full swing!

Read the article here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1315587245.html