Jorgen, Your second paragraph basically reiterates that it (Sony A7 series) IS disruptive technology.
Disruptive technology is a technology that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network.
- Most of the technology used in the A7 series have been known and used for several years, also in DSLR cameras. Take IBIS. Olympus, Pentax and Minolta all used it in their DSLR cameras. In spite of this, Minolta packed up and sold out, Olympus stopped making DSLR cameras and Pentax is still a very minor player. Canon and Nikon do not offer IBIS, but are still the dominant players in the DSLR market as well as in the general pro camera market.
- Real disruptive technology, like digital photography, turned the camera market upside down in less than ten years after it was available to the general public and sent some of the most prominent suppliers of photographic equipment off the cliff.
- While the change to digital photography introduced massive advantages, from an economical, practical and quality aspect, the A7 really only introduces smaller size, somewhat lower weight and the ability to shoot video while looking through the viewfinder. But there are also distinct disadvantages, like shorter battery life (inherent) and strange ergonomics or limited lens selection.
- The only really new aspects of mirrorless cameras is that one can change lenses on a camera with an electronic viewfinder and again: the size. Still, an A7R II is larger and heavier than a 40 years old OM-1 (and the battery life of the OM-1, I counted in years, not in frames
). Cameras with electronic viewfinders have been available more or less since the birth of digital cameras, and some of them were very advanced, although equipped with much smaller sensor than the A7 offers.
- Neither the A7 nor any other mirrorless cameras offer any quality or economic advantages for shooting stills compared to DSLR cameras, except maybe the cost of a slightly larger camera bag for the latter. For those shooting with long telephoto lenses, the 2-300g difference in body weight is easily outweighed by the superior grip and general ergonomics of a DSLR. The exception to this is represented by cameras like the E-M1 and the GH4, particularly the latter, which offers great ergonomics, small but long telephoto lenses due to the smaller sensor and a reasonable battery life, but then the sensor
is smaller, which introduces other disadvantages like lower pixel count and less than ideal high ISO performance.
There is no ideal do-it-all camera, and there never was. It's all a question of priorities.
And criticism doesn't equal hate :lecture:
