Agree! Now if only Sony would remember to make new lenses for their APS-C cameras...
I wish that too. But right now, the battle has shifted to the 35FF cameras. With the looming 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics 3 years away, they will have to focus their energies to filling in those missing long range lenses (400mm f2.8 or f4.0, and maybe a 500m f4.0).
That's where Sony is choosing to fight, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way. There's money to be made in APS-C, still. Nikon, Canon and Fuji are all selling plenty of APS-C kits (and micro 4/3 is close enough) that there's a market out there for Sony to compete in if they broadened their APS-C offerings.
What is possible, however is an a6700 later. Hopefully, it should correct the weaknesses of Sony. For example, when are they going to put a real articulating screen?
I doubt Sony sees that as a weakness. And not all customers/reviewers agree on it. Sony likes their tilting LCDs. Personally, I like the articulating screens that can be stored in reversed position, like Panasonic uses. A bigger concern of mine on the APS-C bodies is the lack of front & back control dials (one for thumb, one for index finger). But that's not a big deal, either.
Or implement a touch screen that is not just goof for focusing? Those are not difficult things to implement.
I have yet to use a still camera with a touch screen (other than the A6500 that I just bought) so have nothing in the way of expectations - I could happily live without it. But I've seen enough comments to get the idea that this is something that would be very welcome by a lot of people.
Before I bought the A6500, I spent a couple weeks looking at the competition ... I actually intended to pick up an X100
or possibly a small X ILC body and a small prime to have something more "fun" to use than my A6000 (most of my concerns with it are addressed by the A6500). One of the things that still nags a little is the lack of a quality compact lens. The 20/2.8 is just mediocre from all reports and is only f/2.8. I own the 16/2.8 and it's also mediocre (actually brilliant in the center and soft on the edges, making it fine for some uses) but it's too wide for one-lens-only use. But every other alternative, from Fuji ILCs to Olympus to Panasonic to broadening my Nikon DSLR kit has significant weaknesses. Even the highly touted lens lineups from Fuji & m43 have their holes.
I think Sony is pretty smart to aggressively pursue FF. I which they'd pursue APS-C half as aggressively, but c'est la vie. The lens lineup, counting 3rd party and FF lenses, looks a good bit more attractive than it did a couple years ago. The biggest holes in the lineup IMO are a truly desirable midrange zoom (16-70/4 specs are fine; if only it didn't suffer from so much sample variation and performed like Nikon's new 16-80/2.8-4 - like people expect from a $1000 zoom) and few more appropriate wide primes. One or two higher quality pancakes (Samsung, Canon and Panasonic have all shown that fast, high quality pancakes are viable) and a reasonably priced 35mm equivalent (preferably more compact than the 24/1.8 ... something like Fuji's 23/2) would go a long way - I'm sure a quality 16mm would, too, though I'm happy using a zoom at that range. So there's my recipe for improving the lens lineup:
18/2 & 28/2 pancakes w/quality of Fuji & Samsung pancakes
16mm prime emphasis on quality over compactness
23/2 w/nice balance of compactness, price & IQ - should be half the price of Zeiss 24/1.8
16-70/4 II or similar (should start at 16 and go to at least 70, fixed f/4 or f/2.8-4 or f/3.5-4.5)
That won't satisfy those who want f/2.8 zooms ... I can see the case for a 16-50/2.8 and 50-135/2.8 ... those might help sell more A6500s at the expense of Nikon & Canon DSLRs.
Anyway, it's all a pipe dream, because Sony is pushing FF instead
- Dennis
--
Gallery at
http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
