the illusion of meritocracy throws a monkey wrench in that notion

The post office is hiring.....

I don't see phones being able to take motorsport photos.
At least not until phone manufacturers give a lot more control to the Pro mode on their cameras. And even then, you'll need ND filters and the zoom quality will suffer big time thanks to those crappy lenses.

However if you're just taking nature photos, I wouldn't bother with a €500 DSLR if I had a modern phone.

I've always been Canon since the film days. I have a Canon 80D with a Tamron 18-400mm lens. Canon always have outpriced me on lenses. I decided to go mirrorless and bought an M50m2 with a couple Canon kit lenses, but bought a Tamron 18-200mm. I got sick of the lack of support for the M series, can't afford the R series so I bought a Fuji X-T3 and have the Tamron 18-300mm lens on that. Canon was supposed to have a cropped (affordable) R camera, but I think I am done with them. I have a Samsung Note20U, AND have you tried to take a photo at 50x zoom? It is hard to find the subject and the photo is really grainy. There are things a phone just cannot do. I am not rich, I think I will stay with Fuji, I hope they continue with their camera line-up. Supposed to be launching their X-H2 this year I heard. I like my T3, but it will be interesting to see the response for the H2. GREAT VIDEO!! I guess Fuji was probably in economy seating and didn't survive the crash. :( hehehe

I took it as a joke about how overpriced Leica are.

Leica is also a diversified company and a good portion of their revenue comes from areas mother than consumer cameras.

We do know that the Z9 feels far more substantial than the A1.

We also know that the Z9 has been shown to easily survive some tough environments that the A1 hasn't been tested in, at least not publicly.

The best thing that Sony has going for it is that no one wants to spend the money to do an exhaustive test on the relatively durability of cameras.

How something feels is indeed important to many. If something feels substantial that matters.

Yes, it's not a scientific test or quotable spec, but it matters in the real world.

In most things in my life, the products that seemed and felt more substantial have generally proven to be so, whether it be photo gear, furniture, vehicles, homes, etc.

There's a reason why people feel this way and it's due to experience.

@nilsjohan: surely you can't be counting on Amazon as some sort of definitive sales chart? Esp for expensive cameras like these? That's laughable.

I'm sorry that you answered the question, because your answer only results in less credibility.

@nilsjohan: sorry that you draw unwarranted conclusions from your limited “facts.”

@nilsjohan: you provided one data point and an erroneous conclusion from that one data point. Anyone can do that. Look up the subject of statistical inference.

For instance, in week one of the NFL season the New Orleans Saints beat handily the Green Bay Packers. Could we draw the conclusion that the Saints were overall the better team than the Packers? Or that they would have the better season? In fact some were ready to write off the Packers, when in fact we see many weeks later that they have the best record in the NFL now.

We see this in sports a lot, where one game or one performance is over generalized by some sports commentators and then they are proven wrong.

@niksjohan: you have not given any useful data either to support your conclusion. We are equal.

You have just given one piece of data and drawn an incorrect conclusion that would not stand up in any class of statistics or logic.

@nilsjohan: if you want to argue that Amazon sales of high end cameras at any given point of time is indicative of the entire market then have at it.

It's a laughable hypothesis but if it makes you happy...

BTW, here's data for you: the many publicly documented instances of the Z9 being used in very tough environments and surviving. Those are data points we don't have for the A1.

Historically, Sony has not only failed water tests done by independent reporters investigating, but they have also had many failures in the field. I recall one where the guy just left the camera out for a time lapse and the dew forming on the camera caused it to fail. On the other hand, both Canon, Olympus and Nikon have a reputation for making cameras that are sealed well and have survived mud and rain. To me that extra protection is worth switching back to Nikon for because, while I'm careful, my cameras aren't always in ideal environments.

Yeah.. how about cameras surviving a plane crush into the pentag_n ? or a plane explosion over scotla_d..

This video does not mock a real story. Hope that clears things up for you.

Science makes ‘planes fly.
Religion makes ‘planes fly into buildings.

People fly planes into buildings. Compared to secular wars, religion has killed far less people. Secularism, nationalism and pride kill more people than religion has even done. I am not defending religion just saying the facts. The religion of nationalism is far more potent and dangerous.

Religion has held back human progress for millenia, but has weakened and become less destructive with the rise of secularism.

Religion has held back human progress for millenia, but has weakened and become less destructive with the rise of secularism.

I suppose someone has to defend the Nazi, Stalinist, Mao and Pol Pot regimes.

Now let’s get back to the religion of photography. What sensor format or camera brand do you evangelise? (Open question).

@Welsh, (believe me, I am not defending religion).

“Religion makes ‘planes fly into buildings” and how many times has that happened?

“science makes planes fly” and drop high explosives, incendiaries, cluster munitions and laser guided ordnance. Usually on innocent people as well.

The threat of nuclear weapons, oh, science made them.

The stifling effects of religion (particularly Christianity) on science are of course well-documented. Bertrand Russell’s writings describe the enormous intellectual progress made by the great Greek and Roman thinkers before religion choked progress for the next 1500+ years.

Probably a good job religion has stifled science otherwise it (science) could have impacted the planet even more negatively than it already has. It is all the mod-cons (included flight, industrialisation etc) that science has developed and given you that is driving climate change.

To save the planet some scientists have suggested we need to adopt an agrarian life style. The same life style that we would be living if religion had succeeded I. Suppressing religion. So, I suppose, there is some merit there.

One of the greatest European minds was a very religious man, Isaac Newton. So your argument doesn’t hold the metaphorical water. Besides, the churches dominated the lower strata of society, not known for their scientific discoveries.

So your argument is that one of the great benefits of religion is that it holds back science? And also that religion does not actually hold back science because one scientist was a Christian?

I think I’ll have to reserve my agreement on that line of thinking, buddy.

No. That's not what I meant (typing and thinking in hurry never good).

I don't think religion has held back science, and if it did, it is only slight. Two reasons.

1. Religion dominated the lower and generally uneducated classes. Scientific progress never came from this class of people - ever! Still doesn't. Not due to religion but due to the fact that most of them never had the opportunity of any education.

2. European scientific advance came from the privileged educated class. Religion doesn't seem to have impeded them. In some cases their own personal theology drove them on to further discovery.

Newton was just one example of a religious scientist (now I have to brain-ache and re-call from my school and college days), others are Boyle, Gauss, Kepler, Dalton, Planck and Descartes to name whom I can remember. I assume you are 'free' of religion? Have you (or I) come anywhere near these people in either achievement or intellect?

Science has undoubtedly contributed directly and indirectly to the detriment of the Planet's ecology.

Scientific advance that gives us micro-computers, TVs, vehicles, power, weapon systems, cameras etc., and the industry and carbon footprint required to produce them is changing the ecosystem and climate. Our lives contribute to this.

IF religion has impeded science then it hasn't impeded it enough. Left unfettered, I am sure, science, especially science driven by profit, would have left the world in a worse state than it is currently. It is ironic that science now wants to save the world from a situation that science indirectly contributes.

You say religion flew aeroplanes into buildings, and that, undoubtedly, was an appalling act. Would you agree that the USAF dropping Agent Orange on Vietnam or the USAF and RAF that dropped over a million tonnes of ordnance on Germany was equally appalling? So why target religion when the USAF and RAF killed many times more people?

I didn’t say religion flew planes into buildings.

More than 90% of modern scientists are atheists.

It sounds like we agree that religion would have us all living in mud huts, herding goats and dying at a median age of 12. It’s just that we disagree whether or not that’s a good thing.

Personally, I still enjoy being alive in my 50s.

You didn't Very Sorry, that was someone else.

Mud huts vs brick houses? perhaps somewhere in between. The low life expectancy of, say, medieval Europe, was not due to religion, but by complex socio-economic factors, low standards of hygiene and ignorance (which science improved dramatically).

I used to think like you until, as part of my other hobby, I did an in-depth study of modern war ( mainly from the French Revolutionary Wars and then back-dating to the 100 years War) over the last 500 years or so and realised that (where available from academic sources) the casualty figures from secular conflict far exceeds that from religious conflict many times over. In this, religion has an unfair rep, it is still appalling, but unfair.

To concluded my argument honourable Sir, most people view humans as a result of evolution. Ergo, everything that is in the realm of human activity is also the product (directly or indirectly) of evolution and that includes religion. Religion is a product of evolution and to argue or rail against religion means that one is arguing also against evolution.

A good number atheists have an incorrect view and irrational prejudice and extreme bias against religion, especially in the realm of warfare. Whereas the facts speak a different story.

Live long and Prosper 🖖🏽

The L mount is not quite so exclusive.

Sony should encourage some Chinese company to make a cheap E mount camera for beginners.