GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Ditto: I couldn't have said it better myself although I'll be a late adopter vs early adopter in all likelihood and it'll be with an A7RII whatever that might be.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
A9: coming soon to you ...
- Thread starter Knorp
- Start date
jonoslack
Active member
D***n you Quentin - I've been borrowing one and loving it . . . it certainly has magic. But it's an expensive beast and I can't quite bring myself to press the button!
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Jorgen
Well, I for one enjoy your posts - you have a sense of humour and you aren't afraid to be wrong
I guess that the truth of your remark above will be borne out when (or if) Sony manage to produce a camera which is good enough not to need a revision in a few months, but I think it's understandable that, if you push the boundaries, then you're going to get things wrong.
Canikon are being SOOO conservative at the moment they don't need to revise things - Not necessarily a criticism, I think that both the D810 and the D750 are clearly mature, sorted excellent cameras (mind you, the D810 was pretty fast on the heels of the D800 and the D610 even faster on the heels of the D600).
Hmm - Interesting
The Nikon D610 was announced exactly 13 months after the D600
The Sony A7ii was announced exactly 13 months after the A7
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Guy is a bad example. He has been a happy early adopter of more or less every camera known to man, and that includes the M8
No, people are not making their own buying decisions. The whole point with aggressive marketing and planned product development is to convince people to buy products they don't need.
You can obviously spend your money any way you want, but rationalizing it by saying that because I don't need to spend them on film, I'll waste them on cameras instead, only shows that you are as much of a consumerist as Sony could ever dream of getting you to become. That's the way the world is going anyway, or so it seems, so if that lights your fire...
Agfa, Ilford and Kodak have no right to be pissed over anything other than their own lack of adaptability. In an ideal world, they should have seen what was coming some 30 years ago. But there is no ideal world, and riding on a current success is much easier than preparing for harder times. Fujifilm diversified in time, but they still help keeping film alive. That's very kind of them. I doubt they make much profit from it.
Oh, and I don't go to rumour sites. The rumour appeared in this forum, on this thread, or at least that is where I saw it. Like most here, I'm curious about what the A9 will be. If it will be. The last A-9 was rather nice:
No, people are not making their own buying decisions. The whole point with aggressive marketing and planned product development is to convince people to buy products they don't need.
You can obviously spend your money any way you want, but rationalizing it by saying that because I don't need to spend them on film, I'll waste them on cameras instead, only shows that you are as much of a consumerist as Sony could ever dream of getting you to become. That's the way the world is going anyway, or so it seems, so if that lights your fire...
Agfa, Ilford and Kodak have no right to be pissed over anything other than their own lack of adaptability. In an ideal world, they should have seen what was coming some 30 years ago. But there is no ideal world, and riding on a current success is much easier than preparing for harder times. Fujifilm diversified in time, but they still help keeping film alive. That's very kind of them. I doubt they make much profit from it.
Oh, and I don't go to rumour sites. The rumour appeared in this forum, on this thread, or at least that is where I saw it. Like most here, I'm curious about what the A9 will be. If it will be. The last A-9 was rather nice:
mjm6
Member
Jorgen,
You ant not correct. You may not recall, but when the digital cameras came out, they were VERY expensive. The first pro versions were in the $800 to $10000 range (I'm thinking Canon here, I don't recall what it was for Nikon). That would have been in 2001 or so.
At the time, people were looking at the cost and thinking "well, at least we won't be spending $5,000 a year on film and processing... plus this gets us to the press faster".
So this is a very real consideration for heavy shooters. Maybe not for you, but it was a real factor.
The cameras have come down a lot in price, but don't believe for a second that the manufacturers will give that territory completely up now that they have claimed it from the film producers.
---Michael
You ant not correct. You may not recall, but when the digital cameras came out, they were VERY expensive. The first pro versions were in the $800 to $10000 range (I'm thinking Canon here, I don't recall what it was for Nikon). That would have been in 2001 or so.
At the time, people were looking at the cost and thinking "well, at least we won't be spending $5,000 a year on film and processing... plus this gets us to the press faster".
So this is a very real consideration for heavy shooters. Maybe not for you, but it was a real factor.
The cameras have come down a lot in price, but don't believe for a second that the manufacturers will give that territory completely up now that they have claimed it from the film producers.
---Michael
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Nikon is as bad as anybody, Jono, maybe a step or two behind Sony, but still. The D600 fiasco is a typical example of what happens when you rush the launch of a new product. The D750 is of course what the camera should have been all along. But conservative they are not. The "1" system is a rather radical mirrorless system, and probably a model for the FX mirrorless that I predict will be launched this or next year.Hi Jorgen
Well, I for one enjoy your posts - you have a sense of humour and you aren't afraid to be wrong
I guess that the truth of your remark above will be borne out when (or if) Sony manage to produce a camera which is good enough not to need a revision in a few months, but I think it's understandable that, if you push the boundaries, then you're going to get things wrong.
Canikon are being SOOO conservative at the moment they don't need to revise things - Not necessarily a criticism, I think that both the D810 and the D750 are clearly mature, sorted excellent cameras (mind you, the D810 was pretty fast on the heels of the D800 and the D610 even faster on the heels of the D600).
Hmm - Interesting
The Nikon D610 was announced exactly 13 months after the D600
The Sony A7ii was announced exactly 13 months after the A7
The new 300mm isn't very traditional either, and clearly a lens that would be perfect for a full frame mirrorless system. But Sony didn't develop it. Nikon did. And they launched a surprisingly compact 20mm f/1.8 of very high quality for a moderate price. That would be a nice lens on a mirrorless camera too. So why is Nikon doing this and not Sony? It would be interesting to know the answer to that question.
Unfortunately, our whole financial system is based on growth. If products become too good, they won't become obsolete fast enough and there will be no growth, since people don't need to buy new products. The big scare in Europe at the moment, apart from the massacre in France, is the fact that there was deflation in the Euro zone in December, due to the falling prices of oil. Deflation means no need for more money, and without more money, the interest that keeps the banking system alive can't be paid, and the economy as we know it will eventually collapse.
So obviously, we should all contribute to growth and buy more cameras, but I'm not a conformist, so sometimes I swim against the current. Until I "need" a new camera
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Here's another thing I don't understand which is halfway off topic, but not 100%
Canon and Nikon in particular offer an insane selection of lenses for their DSLR systems. Some of the mirrorless systems, particularly m4/3 and Fuji, are increasing their offering at a healthy pace, and Sony claims to be preparing new, interesting lenses as well. Then, there are the third party suppliers, mainly Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Zeiss. In a rapidly developing market, which the mirrorless market gives the impression of being, the third party suppliers would concentrate on the new technology, on the future. Just look at all the accessories available more or less overnight every time an iPhone, a MacBook or some Samsung phone is released.
But no, the largest third party lens suppliers produce almost exclusively for the traditional DSLR market and with a strong focus on Nikon and Canon. There are exceptions, but not many. One way to explain this would be that there's a much larger customer base among DSLR owners, but I keep hearing that we are a dying breed. And the growth among mirrorless users must be enough to maintain an offering for those as well, or maybe not?
It's a question that has been occupying me since I started using m4/3 and was looking for cheaper alternatives to Zuiko and PanaLeica, and the situation has hardly changed at all during those 5 years, except for some more or less exotic, manual focus alternatives.
Canon and Nikon in particular offer an insane selection of lenses for their DSLR systems. Some of the mirrorless systems, particularly m4/3 and Fuji, are increasing their offering at a healthy pace, and Sony claims to be preparing new, interesting lenses as well. Then, there are the third party suppliers, mainly Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Zeiss. In a rapidly developing market, which the mirrorless market gives the impression of being, the third party suppliers would concentrate on the new technology, on the future. Just look at all the accessories available more or less overnight every time an iPhone, a MacBook or some Samsung phone is released.
But no, the largest third party lens suppliers produce almost exclusively for the traditional DSLR market and with a strong focus on Nikon and Canon. There are exceptions, but not many. One way to explain this would be that there's a much larger customer base among DSLR owners, but I keep hearing that we are a dying breed. And the growth among mirrorless users must be enough to maintain an offering for those as well, or maybe not?
It's a question that has been occupying me since I started using m4/3 and was looking for cheaper alternatives to Zuiko and PanaLeica, and the situation has hardly changed at all during those 5 years, except for some more or less exotic, manual focus alternatives.
4season
Well-known member
I'd be a little silly for me to plan my photographic life around a product (A9) that doesn't officially exist, wouldn't it? We shall see what we shall see.
Over the years, I've noticed that the enjoyment I get out of a new piece of equipment often has little relationship to it's cost:
I loved the flawed Leica M8; the M9 was a little better, but mostly felt like I could have spent the money in more interesting ways.
Similarly, the Sony NEX-7 was exactly the camera I wanted at the time, while the A7 mostly feels like more of the same. I do like the 35FE28 lots, but would've liked it just as much on my NEX7. The jump to FF did make it easier for me to achieve shallower DOF for a given field of view, but I'm really more of an f/5.6 shooter than an f/0.95 kind of guy. Ultra-shallow DOF in my hands is mostly a toy, and maybe better served with a Lensbaby than another Noctilux.
Lately I've been drawn to more "alternative" photography: Toy cameras, panoramas and the like. Not because grain and vignetting will make my photos more soulful, but simply for the joy of farting-around without letting quality get in my way.
We shall see what we shall see.Over the years, I've noticed that the enjoyment I get out of a new piece of equipment often has little relationship to it's cost:
I loved the flawed Leica M8; the M9 was a little better, but mostly felt like I could have spent the money in more interesting ways.
Similarly, the Sony NEX-7 was exactly the camera I wanted at the time, while the A7 mostly feels like more of the same. I do like the 35FE28 lots, but would've liked it just as much on my NEX7. The jump to FF did make it easier for me to achieve shallower DOF for a given field of view, but I'm really more of an f/5.6 shooter than an f/0.95 kind of guy. Ultra-shallow DOF in my hands is mostly a toy, and maybe better served with a Lensbaby than another Noctilux.
Lately I've been drawn to more "alternative" photography: Toy cameras, panoramas and the like. Not because grain and vignetting will make my photos more soulful, but simply for the joy of farting-around without letting quality get in my way.
Show Performance
Member
I'm not offended by photographers using these tools. Photographers are entitled to use whatever cameras they choose. I'm offended by Sony's marketing hype and I question their intentions and ability to service all the camera models and standards that they have launched the last ten years.
The camera business has been a relatively conservative one until recently, even after the introduction of digital cameras. The only reason to change that was to increase the profit of the corporations making most of the cameras. Frequent upgrades of cameras have lead to no improvement in images published whatsoever. There have been technical improvements that have made taking photos under certain circumstances easier, but nobody except the shareholders of companies like Sony, Nikon and Panasonic have much to earn from getting those upgrades on an annual basis.
The result is that many photographers spend more money on cameras than ever before. One can always claim that this is each photographer's own choice, but with a constant commercial pressure and constant technical improvements, it's always tempting to upgrade. When you look at forums like this, forums that started with a fair balance between cameras and photos, it's very clear that the focus is increasingly tilted towards gear, and less towards creative solutions and actual photography.
I find it ironic that some of the best photos on getdpi at the moment are posted on the Ricoh GR thread, a thread for a camera that is not new, has only been released in one version and cannot really be upgraded in any practical way.
The A7 is a fine camera, although flawed in several ways, and many good photos are taken with it. The A9, if it comes to existence, will probably be even finer, but the commercial circus around it is just that: A Circus.
And just to illustrate how short-lived these things have become:
The last time Sony launched something that was even better than sliced bread, the RX1, it was easy to get the impression that photography would never be the same again. The last 6 months, fewer than one photo per week have been posted on the RX1 thread on this forum. The RX1 was introduced in September 2012, less than two and a half years ago. That's how long the Sony revolutions last. That's what I call consumerism.
But when somebody offers me an A7 for less than $500, I'll consider it
Oh Jorgen, you certainly win an award for something.
"I'm offended by Sony's marketing hype and I question their intentions and ability to service all the camera models and standards that they have launched the last ten years."
Really? You are offended by a company's marketing hype? How do you even make it through the day? I can think of several other camera manufacturers that hype their technology quite well.
And last time I checked, Sony services their cameras just fine and recently launched a pro service program. I have a much harder time getting my "conservative" Contax film cameras serviced.
And I completely disagree with you on the improvements in quality. Specifically, we are seeing real improvement in digital sensor technology, resulting in more film like results with excellent DR, color and resolution.
I do think you are on to something though - and it is the crux of what bothers you. The camera industry has been traditionally conservative in their product updates. It was perfectly acceptable to wait three years for a flagship update of a DSLR so users spent all their money on lenses while they waited.
Mirrorless has changed that for no other reason than it being a nascent platform with quite a bit of catch-up to do if it is going to be competitive with a DSLR. Sony and the smaller manufacturers do not have the luxury of waiting three years cycles to update this new platform if they want to have a chance to survive against the Canikon juggernaut. They must - and they are - evolving the tech very quickly.
How many Olympus E-P and Panasonic G camera variants have there been? Fuji also cranked out a ton of bodies over a very short span in the last couple of years. All of these mirrorless players are doing it in an effort to gain on DSLRS. If you don't understand this then you shouldn't be using mirrorless unless it is right for you.
Sorry, I don't get your criticism of the RX1 as an example of anything. It was always marketed as a high-end niche camera and remains unique for its sensor/size combo. I just shot mine yesterday and marveled at how damn good that 35/2 renders.
In closing, I'm offended by your offensiveness
Not because of your apparent disdain for Sony but because you won't give credit to the quick evolution of mirrorless.
I read this forum because it seems to be populated with -actual- photographers who practice their art and share with us. There are many opinions expressed, but I've found most/all quite reasonable. I think some people need to understand the term "troll". It does NOT mean someone with a different point of view.
If you want examples of trolls, look to dpreview forums. There are several "post count whores" there whose sole purpose is to stir things up. I still glance at some of the threads there in the oft chance I might actually learn something new.
If you want examples of trolls, look to dpreview forums. There are several "post count whores" there whose sole purpose is to stir things up. I still glance at some of the threads there in the oft chance I might actually learn something new.
Show Performance
Member
A troll is just someone looking to pick a fight.
Jorgen's comments are his view but are intentionally inflammatory. It is his right to express them but it doesn't change the fact that he is stirring the pot.
I don't go over to a m4/3 or Nikon thread to tell them how awful their manufacturer is. What is the point? Guess I don't have enough spare time.
Jorgen's comments are his view but are intentionally inflammatory. It is his right to express them but it doesn't change the fact that he is stirring the pot.
I don't go over to a m4/3 or Nikon thread to tell them how awful their manufacturer is. What is the point? Guess I don't have enough spare time.
This reminds me of another company in a different field - Bose. They are far from perfect, but they do make several products which I have found to be -excellent-, and I am very discerning when it comes to audio. e.g. Their noise canceling headphones and earplugs are worth more than their weight in gold for long plane/train trips.
But many HATE Bose, and everything they do. The number one (and often only) reason? They advertise a lot.
How dare they? :roll eyes:
BTW, I've found Jorgen to be very reasonable with his criticisms of Sony. Give it time, he'll come around.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
m43 is seen by some of the third party lens suppliers as a format which is too small to produce decent pictures, which is the reason why Zeiss (and I guess also Sigma) opted not to step into this area so far. The picture becomes already pretty much different as soon as you consider APSC as an alternative ...
You also need to keep in mind that in order to design and produce a good m43 lens it needs some special effort WRT optical (and mechanical) design as lenses need to be able to resolve higher due to the smaller sensor size while given a pretty high MP count.
WRT DSLRs being a dying breed - maybe but this may take some long time (more than 5 years for sure) - but I am a believer that it will finally come. For lot of photographers mirrorless and EVFs are already today the preferred way to go and if I remember right you happened to be a big proponent of this trend as well for many years
WRT innovation from Canikon - it definitely feels much less than what is coming from the whole mirrorless camp - camera wise as well as lens wise. And yes, this camp has to be progressive and innovative in order to gain market share and IMHO they all do this pretty well. Mind you that Nikon had lot of issues with the D600 and even the D800/E and now also with the D750 - so whatever FF camera they came up with (except D4/s) they seem to have hit some severe issues, so to say that their conservatism helps prevent failures is just not right. And finally while that new 4/300 Nikkor seems just such a big new invention - well keep in mind that Canon offered a 4/400 diffraction lens already at least some 10 years earlier. So while this lens is a good milestone for Nikon, overall it is not so overwhelmingly new.
Having fewer third party offerings for mirrorless seems quite natural at this stage...
There are many reasons why this is, among them are engineering resources at these companies. The market is not yet at the 'break even point', so to speak, between DSLR and mirrorless. Companies will put their resources into designs that they deem will be the most profitable.
In general, the third party companies (with the possible exception of Zeiss) have to simply design lenses that are priced less than the major manufacturers' equivalents. There are many such lenses from Canikon that cost big bucks...there are far fewer name-brand lenses available for mirrorless, generally selling for less than their DSLR counterparts, so there will be a smaller price gap between the name brand and the third party. And the installed base is smaller...
Ergo: more money to be made in DSLR market.
When will this change? That's probably up to Canikon...
Speaking of Zeiss for mirrorless, the Touit line is an interesting side story. Zeiss offered the same lenses in two mounts: NEX and Fuji...spreading the engineering across multiple platforms. Good idea, right?
But they intitially released them at prices that were much higher than the similar camera manufacturer offerings (speaking of Fuji here) so they didn't sell.
The 32mm was launched at $900 and the 12mm at $1250.
Only when they offered a huge discount on a bundle (12mm and 32mm) last summer did they start selling; they sold so many the bundle deal was ended many weeks early as they ran out of inventory. They still offer the 32/1.8 for a higher retail ($720) than the equivalent Fuji 35/1.4, which is a superb optic, and the 12mm ($999) is $100 more than the Fuji 14mm which is also superb.
There are many reasons why this is, among them are engineering resources at these companies. The market is not yet at the 'break even point', so to speak, between DSLR and mirrorless. Companies will put their resources into designs that they deem will be the most profitable.
In general, the third party companies (with the possible exception of Zeiss) have to simply design lenses that are priced less than the major manufacturers' equivalents. There are many such lenses from Canikon that cost big bucks...there are far fewer name-brand lenses available for mirrorless, generally selling for less than their DSLR counterparts, so there will be a smaller price gap between the name brand and the third party. And the installed base is smaller...
Ergo: more money to be made in DSLR market.
When will this change? That's probably up to Canikon...
Speaking of Zeiss for mirrorless, the Touit line is an interesting side story. Zeiss offered the same lenses in two mounts: NEX and Fuji...spreading the engineering across multiple platforms. Good idea, right?
But they intitially released them at prices that were much higher than the similar camera manufacturer offerings (speaking of Fuji here) so they didn't sell.
The 32mm was launched at $900 and the 12mm at $1250.
Only when they offered a huge discount on a bundle (12mm and 32mm) last summer did they start selling; they sold so many the bundle deal was ended many weeks early as they ran out of inventory. They still offer the 32/1.8 for a higher retail ($720) than the equivalent Fuji 35/1.4, which is a superb optic, and the 12mm ($999) is $100 more than the Fuji 14mm which is also superb.
Show Performance
Member
Such a creative retort.
Sony has 4 bodies with 9 FE lenses within one year (including the 2 Loxia) with a minimum of 4 more coming this year. Plus there are all the standard E-mount lenses - another 20 or so, including the Touits and Sigmas.
Fuji had less than that after one year and was on a similar pace in year 2. Fuji now has 18 lenses including Touit and 6 bodies. I would expect that they will soon have more bodies to add to that total.
I do think that Fuji has the best traditional FOV lineup out there but Sony is on their way. Having the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 28mm, 35mm (multiple), 50mm, 55mm, 90mm Macro, 70-200mm, plus some wide converters within a relatively short span is a solid effort. Not to mention all the fine rangefinder and SLR lenses that you can use at their native FOV.
I'm looking forward to when the dead horse beating will cease.:deadhorse:
stephengilbert
Active member
"I'm looking forward to when the dead horse beating will cease."
Then you have to stop posting. There's no way there won't be a reply.
Then you have to stop posting. There's no way there won't be a reply.
A Warning: Spirited conversation and sharing of dissenting opinions is acceptable, rudeness is not. And one of you is stepping on the line bordering rude... So please step back and remember we are all friends here with a common goal, even if we don't, can't or won't jump for joy over the camera or company you happen to love...
4season
Well-known member
I bought a Bose Soundlink II and Soundlink Mini, and in my room measured about a +5db bass boost in the 120 Hz region--not my idea of "accurate". I no longer own either.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I don't get what's confusing about the comment personally. Having plenty of choices is always a good thing. One person's too fast is an opportunity for photographer like Jonoslack to buy a camera that fits his needs. I wasn't specifically singling any one person out but there are those who seemingly feel obsessed to continually add comments about Sony cameras and what they aren't doing for them personally. If it doesn't work for you then great. Don't buy it. I don't get the point in lurking on boards of "uninteresting products."
It's all the same to me. I don't buy every camera that is released myself and I'm not suggesting others should.
rayyan
Well-known member
It is important to be very clear when one is trying to put forward a point of view.
Usually meanings get lost in ' translation ' or are misinterpreted.
Visuals often, but not necessarily always, can express a definition better than a sentence.
What is a ' troll '? And specifically in the context of a Sony forum?
1. ' Troll '. My first visual is from Norse mythology. Jorgen, you there?
Supernatural beings. These ones have seemingly fallen on hard times as they smoke and are selling socks and boxer shorts..
2. ' Troll '. In the context of a Sony forum, one has other toys but brings them to a Sony fest...
p.s. 3. ' Troll '...just being a pr**k on an internet forum; for example by saying that this is the most retarded thread on the internet.
( I am borrowing the explanation from the ' Urban Dictionary '). And obviously does not apply to anyone here.
Usually meanings get lost in ' translation ' or are misinterpreted.
Visuals often, but not necessarily always, can express a definition better than a sentence.
What is a ' troll '? And specifically in the context of a Sony forum?
1. ' Troll '. My first visual is from Norse mythology. Jorgen, you there?
Supernatural beings. These ones have seemingly fallen on hard times as they smoke and are selling socks and boxer shorts..
2. ' Troll '. In the context of a Sony forum, one has other toys but brings them to a Sony fest...
p.s. 3. ' Troll '...just being a pr**k on an internet forum; for example by saying that this is the most retarded thread on the internet.
( I am borrowing the explanation from the ' Urban Dictionary '). And obviously does not apply to anyone here.