-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Can someone explain to me the Sony hype
- Thread starter rinzler88
- Start date
I'm not. But it doesn't take a genius to see what portion of the market FF cameras take up, and what portion of the market $2000 cameras take up. You're talking about a very small portion of the market that can support both conditions. Just putting a FF sensor into a small body isn't going to magically make it a popular camera. And it certainly appears that C/N/S realize this. Not to mention that it'll probably take some sales away from their other FF bodies.
There's nothing "out of the box" about trying to sell a FF DSLR in a tough economy, regardless of whether it's in a small body or a large body. You're still bound by economic realities.
Really? Ever try to use a sensor independent of a camera box? LOL. I'd love to see you try. And please post your results! LOL.
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
But like I said, it's clear to see what they have and haven't done. And it's clear to see how much of the market FF and $2000 cameras take up. And I'm pretty sure C/N/S see that, too. And it's clear where a lot of their interest is going to now: mirrorless systems.
Oh, so you're saying you have a digital camera sensor that is fully functional independent of a camera box? Sorry, but marketable image sensors aren't going to sell very well in the consumer market without a camera box.
Time to face reality.
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
You would be absolutely wrong about that. I doubt anyone there actually thinks that they can get an FX version of the D7000 for the same price as the DX version. Unlike you, participants in that forum generally do not have unrealistic expectations.
You pointedly dodge the fact that this has already been demonstrated by the greater popularity of the D90 and D7000 enjoys over the D300/D300s. Also, many who do not think they want it now will come to see its advantages and buy it when they weren't planning to -- that happens all the time.
61 respondents actually is more than any other thread on the first page. There is a thread with 130 replies, but it had about 58 respondents. I actually asked people not to clutter the thread and try to just answer yes or no, otherwise it could have easily gone to 150 replies and then some respondents wouldn't have been able to reply.
Then you agree with me, since I could easily have written this verbatim.
I said 3 or 4, and they would be targeted to meet specific needs: 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm would suit my needs perfectly.
Tony, I appreciate your stubborn adherence to this dream, but the reality is that FF digital sensors are still a very niche sensor format, and an expensive sensor format. And as such, it's highly unlikely that any of the camera companies are going to want to invest in such a low-volume camera body that has the potential to take away sales from their other FF bodies, too. Furthermore, there's probably even less of a market for slow FF pancake lenses, too. And some silly poll, absent of prices, on some photo forum, is not a true reflection of how such products would do in the real marketplace, where people have to put their money where their mouths are. Furthermore, people who are truly interested in compactness in an interchangeable camera system will gravitate towards APS-C cameras and, now, mirrorless camera systems, further limiting the need for a compact FF camera and pancake lenses. But feel free to keep holding your breath until you turn blue in the face.
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Not for you.
No, we are past that. Now I'm asking - how much you can bet on yourself?
--
http://www.libraw.org/
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
D3s sensor in single units is sold for camera repairs to non-Nikon entities for about 1500 USD. Divide by approx. 2.5x to get the factory price.
--
http://www.libraw.org/
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
You missed my initial point entirely. I'm fine with the cameras I have, and I will not be buying into 4/3. If a camera company came out with a smaller 135 format DSLR, I would be interested; if a camera company came out with f/4 pancake lenses, I would absolutely be persuaded to buy into that system.
That's there mistake then. There's no point in going around in circles any more with you about this. You think they are brilliant and that they don't make mistakes; I see plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Doubt you would say the same if it had gone your way.
Talk about "grasping at straws," how ironic.
You are bloviating on "some photo forum."
Wow, you have dodged the obvious question (at least) three times now. Why does Nikon make a D7000 that takes away sales from their more expensive and presumably more profitable D300s? Now consider that if just one company makes a 135 format version of that camera, then all the others will rush to do so as well because they wouldn't want to lose customers to the other brand; and that's why Nikon and Canon both make smaller and less expensive versions of their pro APS-C format cameras even though the same reasons you gave for not doing that with 135 format also apply to those cameras.
It does not address the issue I have, and I'm not alone in having that issue. 135 format is too large, and it doesn't have to be; make it smaller (and I outlined how a kit half as large could be made) and many of us would take that over what the smaller formats have to offer even if the smaller formats are smaller. Again, you don't get my point, and that's why you are arguing about other things.
theswede #100093
Senior Member
The lenses you propose are big, expensive and offer lower performance in most respects than existing lenses. If you want quality, you don't want an F4 pancake, and if you want portability, you don't want an FX system. Neither fish nor fowl.
The camera you propose is most certainly gimped - it lacks every aspect of other FX systems which make them sell except the FX sensor. The reviews will belittle fps, shot to shot time, autofocus system, metering, indeed every thing which has been done to make the camera fit a smaller form and price factor- It will be compared to its fellow FX cameras, and compete in the same segment. There is no way it will take enough share of the already miniscule FX market to carry it.
You're right, I'm not. But you are, and you did say that from the start.
And no, some people self selecting to answer a badly worded poll in an enthusiast forum is still not evidence it will sell enough to carry its own cost. If thousands of people said they would you'd have a point, but the self selection of answering means the percentage in your poll is completely meaningless - those who wouldn't buy one will simply not answer the poll. The percentage you need is percentage who answered they will buy it compared to those who have read the poll.
Making you actually think through your stance is a waste of time. I see. Well, keep dreaming the dream then, don't let us mean people who disagree stop you from feeling warm and cozy.
Jesper
Ed Rizk
Senior Member
...what percentage of the market does it take to make a camera worth producing?
There are so many kinds of cameras. Even P&S cameras are so fragmented in type, price, and features that there really seems to be no mass market.
As with other products, the high end is a small percentage of the market. Still we could do a whole thread on how many categories of high end cameras there are, and there are a significant number of companies competing in each category.
How many Leica M9's do they have to sell to come out? I have never seen a Sigma SLR, but they have their own forum. A very small percentage of the market is a lot of people.
My only question about the particular product is why have an OVF if you can get an EVF to work as effectively? You can't yet, so I have an OVF, but if I could lose the bulk without losing the function, whatever the technology, I would not hesitate. If the EVF does not catch up soon, I would think about a smaller SLR, but it would have to be smaller enough to make a difference
--
Ed Rizk
There are so many kinds of cameras. Even P&S cameras are so fragmented in type, price, and features that there really seems to be no mass market.
As with other products, the high end is a small percentage of the market. Still we could do a whole thread on how many categories of high end cameras there are, and there are a significant number of companies competing in each category.
How many Leica M9's do they have to sell to come out? I have never seen a Sigma SLR, but they have their own forum. A very small percentage of the market is a lot of people.
My only question about the particular product is why have an OVF if you can get an EVF to work as effectively? You can't yet, so I have an OVF, but if I could lose the bulk without losing the function, whatever the technology, I would not hesitate. If the EVF does not catch up soon, I would think about a smaller SLR, but it would have to be smaller enough to make a difference
--
Ed Rizk
theswede #100093
Senior Member
LOL. FYI lots of pros are using Betamax and will continue doing so in the foreseeable future,
Does that mean that Betamax is not doomed?
(Did I use LOL right there? Still trying to learn how to be casually dismissing, although I can't quite get the irony of doing it while being wrong right.)
And this makes it a mainstream market product how?
Jesper
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Wrong forum.
Mainstream market are those who do not know how to hold a camera?
--
http://www.libraw.org/
theswede #100093
Senior Member
Don't be daft.
Don't be daft. Mainstream market is those who buy lots of cameras.
Down the street here in Beijing I can go buy a cassette walkman, cheaper and better than the models available in the West a decade ago. Does that mean music cassettes are not doomed?
Jesper
Iliah Borg
Forum Pro
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
You are repeating arguments put forward earlier, as if I had not already replied to them, as if just saying it again and again will somehow make it more valid. This is the very definition of going around in circles, and is a waste of time.
You want to argue that somehow what I propose is not feasible, or that it will never come to pass. It is feasible, and it may or may not come to pass, but my point from the very beginning is that it is what I would be interested in and the mirrorless systems do not at this time interest me -- give it a rest, stop going around in circles, and accept that I don't see things the same as you guys do.
No larger than an f/2 4/3 lens.
No more expensive than an f/2 4/3 lens.
What does that say about the 4/3 format?
I want quality, best possible quality, in the smallest package that accommodates that quality. f/4 lenses can be good quality, they can actually be less prone to flare than faster lenses, and used on an 135 format sensor they will deliver better color fidelity and dynamic range than any lens you put a 4/3 sensor.
My A850 gets 3 fps, and there are a fair number of A850 users. The camera I propose could easily do that and more.
I suspect you would be surprised what is possible.
Another surprise there for you.
LOL.
You have more, nonsense?
As I said to your fellow mirrorless advocate, compare the D7000 and D90 to the D300/D300s. A smaller, less expensive camera, even one with less capabilities, is going to sell more than a larger, more expensive one. This isn't even debatable, it's been proved and resoundingly so.
We should try applying that to the next election, then "none of the above" would be the winner. You guys lost that part of the argument, accept it and move on instead of making pathetic excuses.
You want to argue that somehow what I propose is not feasible, or that it will never come to pass. It is feasible, and it may or may not come to pass, but my point from the very beginning is that it is what I would be interested in and the mirrorless systems do not at this time interest me -- give it a rest, stop going around in circles, and accept that I don't see things the same as you guys do.
Sante Patate
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,908
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 3,575
No, you cannot "see what the sensor sees", not in Sony cameras, not in any camera. You can only see what the image processing engine makes of what the sensor sees, and that is not the same thing.
Appealing to the "authority" of Time Magazine (r) is, to be blunt, even more ridiculous than appeals to authority normally are. It is even more ridiculous than appealing to Japanese sales figures, since sales figures are at least lots of people's opinion, not just one person's.
And - not to labor the point but I have been asking this question for days without getting an answer - what is photographically innovative about the A55 and its brothers - apart from the ability to convince people that it is a fantastic idea to permanently divert half a stop of light away from the sensor and that frame rates exceeding EVF refresh rates are useful? An impressive achievement, to be sure, but not a photographic achievement. You really do need to get beyond the advertising copy and define what the Sony SLTs allow you to do photographically that other cameras do not, and, if you can think of anything, show how it is actually worth doing.
I, personally, have not advanced the lens range argument as a reason to stick to Canon or Nikon, nor would I, since my favorite camera, and the only camera anyone, IMO, really needs, is an all-manual film SLR with a 50mm f/1.8. However, your response to the lens range argument is wrong, since an adequate lens range is not one that has a lot of lenses, but one that has good examples of the photographically critical lenses, plus the lenses that are needed for special purposes, should those purposes become yours. The Sony range is OK on the first criterion, with a couple of exceptions (eg, the 50mm f/1.4), but a good lens range also needs something longer than 300mm, a 200mm macro, a 24mm tilt-shift etc.
Appealing to the "authority" of Time Magazine (r) is, to be blunt, even more ridiculous than appeals to authority normally are. It is even more ridiculous than appealing to Japanese sales figures, since sales figures are at least lots of people's opinion, not just one person's.
And - not to labor the point but I have been asking this question for days without getting an answer - what is photographically innovative about the A55 and its brothers - apart from the ability to convince people that it is a fantastic idea to permanently divert half a stop of light away from the sensor and that frame rates exceeding EVF refresh rates are useful? An impressive achievement, to be sure, but not a photographic achievement. You really do need to get beyond the advertising copy and define what the Sony SLTs allow you to do photographically that other cameras do not, and, if you can think of anything, show how it is actually worth doing.
I, personally, have not advanced the lens range argument as a reason to stick to Canon or Nikon, nor would I, since my favorite camera, and the only camera anyone, IMO, really needs, is an all-manual film SLR with a 50mm f/1.8. However, your response to the lens range argument is wrong, since an adequate lens range is not one that has a lot of lenses, but one that has good examples of the photographically critical lenses, plus the lenses that are needed for special purposes, should those purposes become yours. The Sony range is OK on the first criterion, with a couple of exceptions (eg, the 50mm f/1.4), but a good lens range also needs something longer than 300mm, a 200mm macro, a 24mm tilt-shift etc.
mountain_goat
Well-known member
@Sante:
mdl50 wrote:
I have read in reviews that the a77 also has a DOF-knob, but why is this ... ? As the a77 has an EVF, I would think the actual exposure is already present in the viewfinder automatically ... ?
Yes, but the preview image is done with a fully open aperture. To see the image with the selected aperture (if it's not wide open), you need to press the DOF-preview button to see the actual depth-of-field. On an SLT this function has two main advantages over that of a (D)SLR:
In an OVF you don't see the real DOF because of the matte screen. But with an SLT - as it's the main sensor catching the preview image - what you see is what you get.
With an OVF, the finder will dim as you use the button to stop down. On an SLT, this is compensated for in the processing, so the only difference you'll see is in the DOF - not in the brightness of the image.
To answer your question, I have no idea of what the image will look like(even simulated) looking through the OVF of my D3100(which I find worse than the EVFs - better OVFs are another story). I might look through the LCD but the focus is slower than ancient P&S cameras + its a pain to compose through LCD.SLT gives you simulated view and the lightning fast focus of DSLRs together with any information you choose to overlay on the EVF. So simulated view in DSLR does not even compare. I, for one find this manifold better than losing half a stop of light which I can compensate through better hand holding the camera, downsizing the image a fraction or being slightly thorough with PP. Although modes like HHT give about a stop or two advantage for static shooting and rely on the SLT design. In addition are continuous autofocus in video,DRO, HDR and high fps - they are all the direct benefits of SLT and something a DSLR cannot do. The recent EVF has no refresh lag.
This might lead to another debate about SLTs vs SLRs but I am too bored of it and cannot participate. This reply was just to say that you might deny any benefits but it is innovation nonetheless. For persons whose life revolves around ISOs > 1600, I might concede are better off with DSLRs.A casual shooter though is likely to spend 90% time shooting ISOs
mdl50 wrote:
I have read in reviews that the a77 also has a DOF-knob, but why is this ... ? As the a77 has an EVF, I would think the actual exposure is already present in the viewfinder automatically ... ?
Yes, but the preview image is done with a fully open aperture. To see the image with the selected aperture (if it's not wide open), you need to press the DOF-preview button to see the actual depth-of-field. On an SLT this function has two main advantages over that of a (D)SLR:
In an OVF you don't see the real DOF because of the matte screen. But with an SLT - as it's the main sensor catching the preview image - what you see is what you get.
With an OVF, the finder will dim as you use the button to stop down. On an SLT, this is compensated for in the processing, so the only difference you'll see is in the DOF - not in the brightness of the image.
To answer your question, I have no idea of what the image will look like(even simulated) looking through the OVF of my D3100(which I find worse than the EVFs - better OVFs are another story). I might look through the LCD but the focus is slower than ancient P&S cameras + its a pain to compose through LCD.SLT gives you simulated view and the lightning fast focus of DSLRs together with any information you choose to overlay on the EVF. So simulated view in DSLR does not even compare. I, for one find this manifold better than losing half a stop of light which I can compensate through better hand holding the camera, downsizing the image a fraction or being slightly thorough with PP. Although modes like HHT give about a stop or two advantage for static shooting and rely on the SLT design. In addition are continuous autofocus in video,DRO, HDR and high fps - they are all the direct benefits of SLT and something a DSLR cannot do. The recent EVF has no refresh lag.
This might lead to another debate about SLTs vs SLRs but I am too bored of it and cannot participate. This reply was just to say that you might deny any benefits but it is innovation nonetheless. For persons whose life revolves around ISOs > 1600, I might concede are better off with DSLRs.A casual shooter though is likely to spend 90% time shooting ISOs
theswede #100093
Senior Member
A reply does not automatically refute a point made.
Which is equal or better quality.
Smaller production series means much higher per unit price, so IF a larger image circle can be produced at equal quality and marginal cost the price will still be higher.
That they're equally good to your proposed lenses at lower cost.
I believe Hasselblad has the digital back for you then, since all that matters for you is quality. I have to wonder why you're talking the tiny, comparatively awful FX sensor systems if you want the best possible quality?
Actually, I know why you do. You haven't actually thought your stance through. Your whole argument is based around FX being "best possible quality", which is at best utter ignorance and at worst a deliberate lie, and your line in the sand is drawn there just cuz you felt like it.
You laugh at that cheaper parts will perform worse, and call that nonsense, when your whole proposed camera is based around "like other FX but smaller and (magically) cheaper"?
Yeah, ok, I admit this is a waste of time.
Is your grasp of statistics really that weak? Considering the horribly bad wording of the poll I should have guessed it,.
No; we won it. You don't have 2000+ people voting yes, so you don't have a product.
Then you're not listening. Of course there will be small FX mirrorless systems - when the technology is cheap enough, which may be in a decade or so. But with present day technology the idea is laughable. You'll end up with an inferior camera at the same price, and that's just not going to work.
You don't see much, I'll give you that.
Jesper
theswede #100093
Senior Member
Thanks for the excellent illustrations showing I'm right.
Don't be daft. You can't be as stupid as you pretend you are.
Jesper
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum