The Economist article on mirrorless cameras

Started Jun 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
peripheralfocus Veteran Member • Posts: 4,296
historical examples go both ways -- there's no clear answer

Dandrewk wrote:

If Sony continues its technological edge over its rivals, it will continue to be the market leader in this segment.

You make a good point that market leaders can be overcome by new technologies if they are slow to adapt. But you're cherry-picking your examples; it's not inevitable.

Here's another historical example: In the transition from film to digital cameras, the company that was many years ahead of all other photography companies was Kodak. They began making and selling DSLR cameras in 1991/1992 and they were selling the first really viable models by 1994, 5 years before Nikon and Canon had viable competitors. But when Canon and Nikon decided to get serious about the business, they swept Kodak aside easily. And Kodak, mind you, was the 800-pound gorilla of photography, with a huge lead in digital technology and in the basic science of imaging.

So it can go both ways -- sometimes the new technology disrupts the old market leaders; sometimes the old market leaders adapt.

And the $600 a6000 -outperforms- Nikon's flagship DSLR in autofocus.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Nikon's flagship DSLR is a much better autofocusing camera than the A6000 (I have been testing them side-by-side for more than a month.) I have no desire to own the D4S, and in fact, I own an NEX-7. I much prefer small mirrorless cameras, and I hope they thrive. And the A6000 is indeed a very good autofocusing camera. But the D4S is a great autofocus performer -- clearly better.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow