Sony crushes the price/build-quality barrier
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Movado Certa Ladies Watch 0605616
Next: Here Comes the 3-D Camera: Revolutionary Prototype Films World in Three Dimensions
From: David J Taylor on 13 May 2010 02:11 > I don't agree with your points, but I do see the login in them. s/login/logic/ David
From: nospam on 13 May 2010 02:15 In article <hsg51e$jug$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > I don't agree with your points, but I do see the login in them. It will > be interesting to see what happens with time. Will these unbalanced, > flash-less, viewfinder-less, expensive(?), and proprietary cameras be more > successful than micro-4/3? Will they be any more successful than the > DSC-R1? they will until canon and nikon join the fun.
From: Bruce on 13 May 2010 07:12 On Thu, 13 May 2010 07:08:45 +0100, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:0btku5dnv5eg5esh5q7sm9uivailf8prpp(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:03:19 +0100, "David J Taylor" >> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>That's a pity, as it could reduce Sony's development costs as well as >>>lowering costs to customers, and provide them with a greater range of >>>lenses at launch. >> >> >> No, it would *increase* Sony's development costs. Going into an >> already well-established market where they would have to invest in new >> sensors *and* new lenses would be commercial madness. >> >> Sony already has a surplus of APS-C sensor production and the lenses >> can be simple adaptations of those that are already mass produced for >> APS-C DSLRs - why do you think the kit zoom lens is a very familiar >> 18-55mm? It would make no sense whatsoever to abandon those huge >> commercial advantages and go for an inferior, smaller format. >> >> >>>Their loss, me thinks. >> >> >> Disagree 100%. For Sony to adopt Micro Four Thirds would be suicide. > > >I don't agree with your points, but I do see the login in them. I don't agree with your points because there is no logic in them. ;-) Seriously, though, I can see the attraction of Micro Four Thirds, having bought into it myself. But because of Sony's vast capacity to produce much larger sensors, it just wouldn't make commercial sense for Sony to join that format, that's all. >It will >be interesting to see what happens with time. Will these unbalanced, >flash-less, viewfinder-less, expensive(?), and proprietary cameras be more >successful than micro-4/3? Not yet. They need to offer something rather better to justify their greater overall bulk. The body size may be small but those lenses are huge. Here, Micro Four Thirds has a real advantage. >Will they be any more successful than the DSC-R1? That wouldn't be difficult. The DSC-R1 was designed to replace the highly successful DSC-F828 yet achieved only a small fraction of the F828's sales. I really like my R1 but I recognise its abilities were not sufficiently attractive for it to sell in large numbers. The success of the NEX cameras is difficult to predict. Sony has had some spectacular commercial failures in recent years, the Alpha DSLR range being one, and the PSP being another. The days of Walkman have long gone. I have a feeling that the NEX is more likely to fail than succeed, and that is at least partly on account of its weird appearance and even weirder ergonomics. Perhaps it will be better to hold than to look at - it definitely needs to be! But there is another factor, which may be even more significant. Sony's target market for the NEX is owners of compact P&S cameras who want to trade up to something with better image quality. The large sensor will give them that, together with greater creative control over depth of field. But wait a minute ... owners of compact P&S cameras who want to trade up will not consider restricted depth of field to be a plus point. The small sensors of their previous P&S cameras will have given them virtually unlimited depth of field. Even shots where the camera focused on something other than the subject are likely to have given them sharp results. Move these people to a NEX camera and focus accuracy suddenly becomes more critical. They won't be accustomed to that. Yesterday I was in a camera store where a young woman was complaining loudly about the quality of photos she had taken at a friend's wedding. Some of the prints were horribly out of focus. The sales assistant pointed out that the out of focus images all had a hedge in the background that was perfectly sharp, but the people in the foreground were blurred. The customer was outraged. She was very angry that the camera had delivered such poor quality images - her composition had been good and the lighting was near perfect. She had bought the camera from the same store just prior to the wedding and demanded a refund! There is the problem. The camera was a Panasonic Lumix G1 in a particularly fetching red. I don't know if she got her refund - I left the store just as things were turning ugly. ;-) But this problem will get worse with the NEX range because correct focusing will be even more critical than with 4/3. People who have been used to never having to worry about focusing with their P&S cameras are going to complain bitterly about their expensive new camera which produces "blurry" images. The owners of the camera store where I bought my DSC-R1 (and then a second one a few months later) believe that its lack of sales success was down to the large (21.5 x 14.4mm, almost APS-C) sensor which gave limited depth of field especially when the Carl Zeiss lens was at or near its f/2.8 maximum aperture. Apparently, those who had traded up from the F828, which had a very tiny (8.8 x 6.6mm) sensor, complained bitterly about the "poor performance" of the R1's lens. Yet the R1's Carl Zeiss 24-120mm (equivalent) lens is spectacularly good. Any "poor performance" is down to users' failure to understand that it needs to be focused carefully and accurately. People who are used to the small sensors in P&S cameras that tolerate poor focusing technique simply don't know or understand this. And I think that will severely limit the appeal of the NEX.
From: J. Clarke on 13 May 2010 08:09 On 5/13/2010 2:15 AM, nospam wrote: > In article<hsg51e$jug$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> I don't agree with your points, but I do see the login in them. It will >> be interesting to see what happens with time. Will these unbalanced, >> flash-less, viewfinder-less, expensive(?), and proprietary cameras be more >> successful than micro-4/3? Will they be any more successful than the >> DSC-R1? > > they will until canon and nikon join the fun. Sony typifies the method behind the success of the Japanese in the consumer industry--try something and if it sells then get behind it, if it doesn't then try something else. If these things sell then Sony looks brilliant, if they don't then Sony drops them and moves on.
From: Bruce on 13 May 2010 08:35
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:09:40 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >Sony typifies the method behind the success of the Japanese in the >consumer industry--try something and if it sells then get behind it, if >it doesn't then try something else. If these things sell then Sony >looks brilliant, if they don't then Sony drops them and moves on. Alpha DSLRs don't sell. Soon to be dropped? |