There you go again with the "probably outsold" claim. That's as valid as someone asserting that the A7iii is outselling the D850. Only NPD or unit breakdowns from the largest retailers can be reliable data sources to then judge cumulative share or units sold.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon Untouchables (by Sony)
- Thread starter MrHollywood
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d5 nikon d500 nikon d850
The guy must have been living in the cave for at least 5 or 6 year I guess. LOL. I shoot with both Nikon and Sony by the way.
Last edited:
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
Shadowfixer
Senior Member
Shadowfixer
Senior Member
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
Merit } the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
Until recently I would agree that Sony is a camera maker of merit.
Upon the release (and my subsequent) hands-on experience, I know longer feel that way and here's why.
Sony has basically ignored almost everything that is grouped against them as a consensus by photographers. Bad handling, poor menus, insufficient weather sealing, weak viewfinder....essentials for most serious shooters.
Rather than address these FOUNDATIONAL elements, they gave EYE AUTO FOCUS, which is an amateur feature at best. Seriously? Eye AF and no weather sealing?
What else do you have to know before realizing that Sony's camera evolution is NOT based on any type of careful engineering with a priority centered around the shooting experience??? No, Sony's developmental methodology is focused on marketing.
So...in my view, MERIT is something Sony has lost. I'm not interested in being politically correct about it. We can all pi$$ rainbows and talk about how ALL cameras are really good, and I've said that myself.
But when we get down to the nuts and bolts of something as basic as Nikon vs, Sony, it's going to be very obvious to experienced shooters who makes the better still camera. Yes, some experienced shooters will deal with certain weaknesses because the Sony serves a specific need. But thats not common. Sony is catering to sales, hype, and marketing in the same way that some movie studios crank out shallow movies that have little to no artistic merit.
In that line of thinking Sony is putting out the equivalent of bad sequels while Nikon makes Citizen Kane.
Rob
Until recently I would agree that Sony is a camera maker of merit.
Upon the release (and my subsequent) hands-on experience, I know longer feel that way and here's why.
Sony has basically ignored almost everything that is grouped against them as a consensus by photographers. Bad handling, poor menus, insufficient weather sealing, weak viewfinder....essentials for most serious shooters.
Rather than address these FOUNDATIONAL elements, they gave EYE AUTO FOCUS, which is an amateur feature at best. Seriously? Eye AF and no weather sealing?
What else do you have to know before realizing that Sony's camera evolution is NOT based on any type of careful engineering with a priority centered around the shooting experience??? No, Sony's developmental methodology is focused on marketing.
So...in my view, MERIT is something Sony has lost. I'm not interested in being politically correct about it. We can all pi$$ rainbows and talk about how ALL cameras are really good, and I've said that myself.
But when we get down to the nuts and bolts of something as basic as Nikon vs, Sony, it's going to be very obvious to experienced shooters who makes the better still camera. Yes, some experienced shooters will deal with certain weaknesses because the Sony serves a specific need. But thats not common. Sony is catering to sales, hype, and marketing in the same way that some movie studios crank out shallow movies that have little to no artistic merit.
In that line of thinking Sony is putting out the equivalent of bad sequels while Nikon makes Citizen Kane.
Rob
Shadowfixer
Senior Member
There is a reason many are moving to Sony and it's not because of hype. Believe what you want, but the facts are out there to see, If it wasn't an issue, Nikon wouldn't have bothered with trying to compete with them by developing a mirrorless camera.
Thank you! A valid argument!
Nikon has been spotty in it's reaction to users requests over the years:
How many years between the D300s and the D500?
Their initial handling of the D600 oil issue
The lack of DX lenses, reducing the potential benefit of smaller lenses
The D750 shutter issues (they updated mine and it's been great!)
The D800 with mis aligned lens mounts and a fragile internal structure.
Their recent discontinuance of their CX and KeyMission lines
Not everyone hits it out of the park every time. We're in a temporary bright spot with Nikon, and I'm very happy with my current bodies and lenses but nobody's position is so secure that it can't be overtaken by someone else.
Nikon has been spotty in it's reaction to users requests over the years:
How many years between the D300s and the D500?
Their initial handling of the D600 oil issue
The lack of DX lenses, reducing the potential benefit of smaller lenses
The D750 shutter issues (they updated mine and it's been great!)
The D800 with mis aligned lens mounts and a fragile internal structure.
Their recent discontinuance of their CX and KeyMission lines
Not everyone hits it out of the park every time. We're in a temporary bright spot with Nikon, and I'm very happy with my current bodies and lenses but nobody's position is so secure that it can't be overtaken by someone else.
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
I think you're avoiding the point.
It's not about Nikon responding to Sony mirrorless. It's about responding to the customers and needs of a photographer above and beyond all else. When Nikon does this, they do it better than anyone and we get the D850, D5 and D500.
Sony gives no indication that they understand this, which is why I believe the Nikon 1st or 2nd generation mirrorless cameras will easily be better cameras.
Maybe Sony can market their way out it, or maybe they'll respond and follow the Nikon methodology. We'll see.
Rob
By definition, marketing (well, good marketing anyway) should be responsive to what the customers want. I'm not going to argue the ergonomics of the Sony cameras (I've only seen them, never spent any real time handling them) but the bottom line is how successful the camera manufacturer is in selling cameras. The MILC fight hasn't begun yet for Nikon (or at least for a couple of weeks anyway) and outside of insider information, conjecture and rumors, we don't know exactly what Nikon's new camera is/has/can do.
I'm well steeped in the F mount and my only interest, outside of curiosity, in the new Nikon MILC is how they allow me to continue to use my investment on future bodies.
I'm well steeped in the F mount and my only interest, outside of curiosity, in the new Nikon MILC is how they allow me to continue to use my investment on future bodies.
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
True...but too often do we gauge the success of a product based on sales. Black Panther made 1.4 billion and is rated as high as Casablanca and HIGHER than Raging Bull. Based on ratings and earnings, a naive viewer might think the comic book movie is best. But we know that's not the case.
So I'm not looking at market share, even if Sony and Nikon must. I'm looking at the better cameras, which are made by Nikon and the reasons are very real and quantifiable.
They sell more 85mm 1.8G lenses than the 1.4 versions, but we know which is better.
Sony has yet to nail a camera AT ALL. Nikon has a huge list of hits, and is currently making the best. Canon outsells Nikon, but they do not have the better product either.
Rob
--
"We need a bigger boat."
Last edited:
Manufacturing history is full of better products from failed companies. You (and me) as users need to be aware of both the characteristics of the product, as in does it meet our needs, along with the expected life of our investment in that company (cameras & lenses). I'm very happy with my Nikons, but Nikon has the shallowest pockets and is the least diversified of the big three (Canon, Nikon, Sony). From an image quality perspective, all three are basically fungible.
What's the disclaimer when you are invited to make an investment? "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results"
--
- Dave
What's the disclaimer when you are invited to make an investment? "Past performance is not a guarantee of future results"
--
- Dave
Last edited:
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
I think if you accept he's basically doing an impression of Wallace Shawn(keep expecting him to shout "Quark!" or "inconceivable1") and take is as entertainment he becomes rather more palatable.
I have to admit in this video he is talking a lot of sense. The talk about hype and potential undue influence is I think absolutely true and part of why Sony is so beloved by much of the photography/tech media. Much of them exist to hype tech gizmos and gadgets and Sony's business model is releasing tech gizmos and gadgets. Yes clearly some people buy there products for serious use but I think they have a far higher percentage of buyers who basically pick up their products so they can also buy into the hype culture, hence why they are so vocal on the net.
The idea their not really a camera company does I think have some truth to it a swell. I mean clearly they do have expertise, especially in optics but in terms of real design? I suspect the old Mintola guard have little to do with the mirrorless cameras that are designed like consumer electronics.
The issue is though if a lot of your most vocal supporters aren't really very serious users so those issues very rarely end up being highlighted.
Last edited:
briantilley
Veteran Member
MrHollywood
Veteran Member
Sony did will in the chocolate market. They're highly diverse. In fact, the ergonomics of the A7rIII were modeled after the Kit Kat.
Rob
--
"We need a bigger boat."
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum