I am from the world of manufacturing management in a global market and the worst thing we could ever do as a top tier corporation was to not innovate, cut costs, and push new product development. There is an old atage in industry "that if you are not moving forward you are falling behind!"
Now, my industry wasn't camera's but the philosophies are the same for all manufacturing in todays global market. I don't have a thing to say about mirrorless and Canon as I know nothing about what other camera companies other than Sony are doing and frankly really don't care. I will say that if any company thinks it can stand on its reputation and not improve, cost reduce, and innovate it's directors will eventually have to explain some very direct tough questions from its stock holders in many very ugly board meetings explaining their lost stock value and revenue. There are few absolutes in this world but this is one of them in modern manufacturing. If this shoe fits any camera manufacturer then no matter who they are they are headed for disaster if they don't change.
1 Member(s) liked this post
The OVF is noiseless and highly accurate, though of course you still miss some at 50/1.1
As to ISO I do not care for the A7 over 800 either, though of course it's better up there than the M9. Not better at all than the M240 though, nor are any Sonys except the A7S models. And, the Q seems alot better than the other A7 models with a good MP count.
I would really like a Kolari A7s......with 16 or 18 mp
Today I feel the RF is not at all obsolete. You get a crystal view in all light, and no prism restricts the flange dimension. But it's expensive for a good one.
My dream machine would have an extra EVF window inboard of the OVF. Just for the UWAs and non-coupled lenses. It would be no larger than the M6.
Another modern feature which is not calling me often is the high MP. I fell for it with the A7r. Today I feel 18 is close to perfect, with a single exception. Cropping. But I very rarely do. In fact I work hard not to. If you don't crop anything over 24 MP is a disadvantage because you have tiny pixels with their issues, and are downsizing like mad with every image.
Now, I can see it with wildlife photography, and would not mind a extra high MP body just for that work. But as a day to day shooter, for me, no. 5K is perfect. Others have different priorities which I respect and enjoy
I think it was not obvious to Nikon or Canon that they needed to get serious with mirrorless systems: They are the DSLR market leaders, and it's not surprising that they tried "safe" mirrorless systems, with the hope that these users would ultimately graduate to SLRs. Canon even tried a tiny SLR: The Rebel SL1.
Just what is the state of the market these days? I'm guessing that it's like home hifi in the late 1980s: Becoming irrelevant to a lot of people. The most loyal audience? Well-to-do men of a certain age. Ones with the ability and desire to buy high-end, high-margin products. They tend to want cameras that look like their (1960-1970ish) idea of a serious camera should look like, hence a tendency towards SLR-like form factors in traditional colors.
Same thing appears to be happening in the automotive world hence the very retro American muscle cars.
The kids might be mostly a lost cause as far as camera and car makers concerned: Phones, phone-related items, action/adventure cameras and the occasional film camera (including Fujifilm's Instax) seem to suffice for that demographic. Along with car-sharing, mass transit and whatever hand-me-downs they can get.
Trying to stay on topic to the OPs original question:
Q: Why hasn't Canon forged ahead with mirror-less? A: They didn't have to, and probably still don't have to.
Q: Why is Sony forging ahead with mirror-less? A: Because they had to.
Sorry for the long reply, but it has been one hell of a trek
Sony acquired Minolta, which positioned itself as innovative for its day ("From the Mind of Minolta"). After a number of so-so crop frame consumer cameras in the Sony Alpha line, they launched the A-900 a 24 meg FF camera with near pro-level specs and an interesting choice of Zeiss designed optics. Not a full array of pro level focal lengths, but enough to lure a few serious amateurs and professionals away from Canikon. I was one of those photographers. However it wasn't enough to make a dent in the marketplace. So to survive, Sony had to take a different competitive path. They had to. Necessity is the mother of invention.
When Sony realized that to survive they had to change, they did to the detriment of their newer user base like me. No more OVF, it was an SLT or mirror-less with EVF, and they altered the innovative Minolta flash mount to standard ISO mount thus all but rendering my expensive A-900 flash system and pass-through TTL radio gear useless. The viewfinders were horrible, and smeared like crazy in low light when following moving subjects. Then comes the tiny FF Alpha EVF FF cameras with a different mount, bewildering menus, and an anemic lens line-up. The fortune in A mount lenses I already had could work using the expensive Rube Goldberg style LAEA-4 adapters that were, and still are, a ridiculously awkward solution. To keep the FE lenses at least somewhat smaller and able to work on the FF sensor, the FE lenses tended to be slow maximum apertures. I was astounded that people ignored all this. The 24-70 and 70-200 work-horse focal length for wedding/event/corporate photographers offered horrible W/A distortion, and a slow f/4 max aperture. Now that faster max aperture primes are starting to become available, most are huge, so the over-all size difference is a lot less obvious and the balance is crappy thus fatiguing to use all day.
My experiences with Canon and Nikon was that (even with Jurassic era OVFs) they worked at "the speed of thought". See it, capture it. Fast max aperture lenses abounded so I could choose what DOF I wanted, including almost none. Plus, Canikon always gets the latest 3rd party innovations with Sony the starving step-child like with Profoto's TTL mobile flash systems. I honestly can say that relevant innovation not been the case with any of the Sony cameras, especially the A7R. All of them lagged the over-all performance of the Canikon offerings. In that respect, switching to Sony actually effected my output, and not in a good way.
I've since unloaded my A99 and all of the A mount lenses. BTW, IF they had been Canon or Nikon, I could have quickly recovered more of my investment. "A" mount is a dog in the marketplace. Next camera dump will be the slow-witted A7R which is also a dog in the marketplace.
Q: What is in store for the future? A: Haven't a clue, and don't really care since I have to make photos now.
I'm not a Canon or Nikon fan boy, but in hindsight I can say I wish I had NOT swapped systems, or at least had the presence of mind to get out of Sony when they abandoned the A-900, which was a decent camera that could have been great.
Sony may overwhelm the marketplace eventually, but I doubt it. I think cell phones have/or will, and Go Pros, and some other mind bending consumer innovation. Consumers still buy DSLRs for their more serious family stuff a $750 Canon Rebel is not in danger of being usurped by a Sony A7 for twice+ that amount. Pros that move to Sony are an anomaly, Other than here on GetDpi, I do not know one other wedding/event/portrait/commercial photographer that uses Sony. None. Serious Amateurs/Semi-Pros may be the prime target if this forum is any indication, but I've not seen Sonys being brandished at family gatherings, camera clubs, by wedding guests, or shutter bugs at public events none.
So, this forum may not be representative of the marketplace. There are a lot of wonderful photographers here. They did great work before moving to Sony, and would continue doing so if they moved to some other brand.
Canon may not get much action on GetDpi, but maybe that's because Canon shooters are out making photos, earning a living, or are a natural everyday part of some family's record keeping rather than writing some long winded reply like this one of mine
5 Member(s) liked this post
Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com
Thank you Marc for this real reality check.
Also, the A7rII on second hand market will be a dog. I do not see, in any A7 guaranty, that it will be serviced during 10 years. Any Nikon/Canon above "consumer" products is granted to be serviced during ten years. Same goes for the lenses, maybe more years. This is not the case with Sony. They just smile when ppl drop 3,5 Grands into one of their products.
In the other hands, the next serious move from Sony should not be in technology but in servicing. ALL can change if they grow balls and build international 10 years service for serious cameras and lenses.
I might be wrong but I think we will never see that
This is why Canon and Nikon do not care. They know they was, still are and will be (for a cetain amount of time) the first choice, just because of the seriousness of their service, one crucial point when acquiring such expensive items. PPl who do not care spending 3.5 thousand of dollars or Euro are just few.
Sony might also make a study on second hand market of their ancient products. A mint A850 / A900 is a FAR more serious asset than any A7 to date. Why ??
About OVF, again, I don't know if some of you ever went into VR or AR (Virtual/Augmented Reality) event ? Have you ever seen what is Augmented Reality and what can be projected onto even a translucent plan ? With what I see since 2 or 3 years in this discipline, I do not think OVF will die yet.
Please, take some times to read the overall conclusion of this SONY camera, some of you might smile :
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Review: Digital Photography Review
I do agree that for the masses cellphones and go pro type cameras will hold the vast majority of the photographic consumer market. This is a reality as they are convenient, cost effective, sufficient for most user needs in a digital social media world. These will become better and cheaper and establish themselves as the new norm for photography.
We can all talk the virtues of this or that camera or design but look around at us or for that matter most any photo club or society in the USA: it is loaded with oldtimers and very few young people. The pro photography professions are dwindling, equipment costs are absurd ($3000 for a 70-200 f2.8 really?) and out of touch with what people can reasonably afford for a hobby in today's economy, and all forms of interchangeable lens camera's don't fit into the masses lifestyle's of fast easy and pocketable.
The dwindling pro market in the future will only keep the what we revere as a photographic tool being produced in very limited and extremely costly quantities. The argument of SLR vs mirrorless or OVF vs EVF is just something us old coots can occupy time discussing till we checkout. Photography with the masses today has moved in a new direction and through number of sales alone make our arguments moot and humorous when looking at the big picture for the future. Maybe Canon has seen the writing on the wall and realize going mirrorless will not change their future either way..... None of these manufacturers are idiots. They pay big money for market research and expected trends. Some try and get every drop out of a market others accept that new directions will keep them viable in the future. Look at Sony and the real under lying path they are establishing ... Sensor development and global sales. Cellphone, go pro, interchangeable lens cameras, or what ever captures light digitally in the future will have some sort of sensor doing this work. A possible future that will continue no matter what device is selling best. Maybe their camera market is nothing more than a showroom for future sensor sales to other companies and a product reliability and performance testing ground?
Last edited by Jim DE; 14th September 2015 at 04:50.
Reality check. My son just ordered a IPhone S plus. 12 MPX new camera in it.
I'm not sure I still buy the Sony as the step child anymore. A lot of Pros are making the switch and a lot of top guys are using them on a professional level. This new body jumped into a diffrent league and until you have one in your hands and own it, I'm not buying the old arguments. I still say this is the best in 35 file I have shot to date. End results are all that counts. No client ever gave a rats *** how we got there as long as it was good. These files are really good. It's my bottom line even if I have to tape a lens to a mount to get it to work I really don't care. I get paid to produce. How I get there means very little
My other bottom line I will most likely never buy a Canon or Nikon again as they are today. So there losing people too. I been spoon feed for 40 years Nikon/Canon. I'm moving on
Photography is not my primary occupation, but I do make a fair amount of money in image sales. Which camera you use is up to you, and I have used many.
It amuses me when attempts are made to dismiss one camera or another as "consumer" or "toys". Those criticisms are not valid because they are generalisations based on the individuals preferences. We all have preferences.
On the other hand, when a direction of travel looks pretty well established, like the replacement of OVF with EVF, then it is reasonable to ask why a major player like Canon is not on that train. What is their cunning plan? Do they have one?
It looks like a mistake from where I am sitting, but I expect it is not - it is reasonable to wait and see how things develop, so long as you don't wait too long, as Kodak did. Listen to market demand, and gauge your reaction.
In the meantime, my decision to go the E-mount route is not irreversible. For now, its a solution that works well - for me.
Edit: perhaps the qustion to ask should be "Why does an 800 lb gorilla sit in a room with no mirrors?"
Do you seriously think such company do not have a plan and they will not react, sitting in their office while SONY is killing them ??
At first Nikon as an edge over Sony big time : Television. I never seen any advert on French TV about sony camera products (and, to be fair, about any Sony products). They only use forums, blogs and internet buzz. I watch sometimes English TV and it seems there is no Sony camera advert here either. Nikon ?? Full of advertising. Sony cameras such as A7 are niche market, especially at this price point...
I do not know how Canon is selling that much. A friend of me is working in a sort of digital supermarket, at the Phone and camera section. he is selling more canon / pentax camera than any Nikon or Sony. Sony devices, such as A7 and RX100 are very few sales because... it is expensive. Most humans do not have big money. Most humans do not have enough money to buy into Apple products. Most human select a product with care, especially when it cost some thousands Euro or dollars : In photo, they will select a professional tool with warranty and very long servicing period, solid as a rock and with good reputation. They will not venture into Sony apart if they are badly guided or have the funds (or are lured by the fantastic A900...).
I'm 37, I'm not rich at all and even when I have the bucks, I do not see how an A7 camera will help me making better photography, so, earning more money. I paid my D700 in 2012 brand new at a good price, it could have been a canon 5DMKII... it was the one I was able to test first so Nikon. Since then I rented and tested numerous cameras from Leica S to D810 and ... I have no envy into those tools, at all. I see improvements, yes, but nothing who can push me to buy into it. I've got a full fuji panoply XT-1, who have a better EVF than the A7r at least and was not impressed at all, it even broke my fun.
I'm more attracted by MF or even LF, bellow, tripods ...
In the other hand, if a brand like SIGMA come tomorrow with a FF foveon, even limited to ISO 100, I will buy into it because here we have somehow a real visual revolution.
Also, in the Art section, if some ppl go to Paris Photo Fair, you'll see that collectors value more film prints than digital prints. So you see ? Film still make money, and big money, but not in commercial photography.
But who really knows?
It looks like a mistake from where I am sitting, but I expect it is not - it is reasonable to wait and see how things develop, so long as you don't wait too long
I too wish Canon would make a great mirrorless system. But let's give credit where credit is due.
It could be so easy for Canon:
Just use the EF Bajonett on a mirrorless with around 18mm flange or similar like a Sony. Get an AF extension tube that has exactly that to get to the 44mm of the EOS EF flange focal distance. If needed launch the newly patented TS adapter at the first day of the new camera. Just use the 50 Mpix 5Dsr chip at the beginning, just with no mirror, sell it expensive.
Make the body larger for Pros, with a big battery like a 1D xxxx, get downsampled 4k ->1080p video internally, with an external recorder like Shogun on 4:2:2. Give it a FAST W-LAN and an USB3 out so it can be used tethered.
Stabilisation can be done with the existing IS lenses, maybe later with the sensor. Give it an AMOLED Finder with 4k res. and enough brightness. Make it with 4xXLR mics and an interface to program it for industrial usage, Gimbals, serial shooting and make the body extremely rugged and capable of calibration for measurements.
Give it a pricetag of 5-6k $
I am sure this thing will sell like crazy.
Greetings from Germany
What intrigues me is if they can do effective pixel binning. That would be a 40mp resolution file with possibly amazing low noise and certainly better DR.
"Q: Why hasn't Canon or Nikon forged ahead with mirror-less? A: They didn't have to, and probably still don't have to."
I don't debate that for some applications, good EVF is valuable -- but to me it certainly isn't necessary. But then so is and neither is an optical VF -- they are different technologies each with their own benefits and shortcomings.
As for DR, IQ, pixel-count resolutions, lens selections et al, NONE of that is what makes a good image. The eye behind the image is the master of that realm. And if one has that eye they can make a great image with 100 year-old technology; and conversely if one doesn't have that eye, no amount of current technology is going to help them make a great image.
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."4 Member(s) liked this post
Having said that, there is no reason that gear talk cant go hand in hand with what you refer to as 'deeper discussions'. After all being a photographer implies that you have to be a gear head on at least some level since it is the gear that lets us create. But why wait for Guy, or Huyless or Chris or Jack to pole us out to these deeper waters. If the chip new chip ephemerata has got you down then please feel free to come up with some interesting discussions yourself. Or (best advice for all of us, myself included) just go shoot more.
Also repeated when these discussions come up is the 'ergonomics' of a particular brand. I keep hearing that Sonys ergonomics are no good. What does that mean exactly? Is there a standardized, universal layout for the ergonomics of a camera that is carved in stone and Sony is somehow just refusing to play ball with it? That's weird, because my a7 with battery grip attached is ergonomic heaven. Well, for me anyway...and aren't ergonomics really a very personal thing? Lets see, its got a grip to hold, a shutter button in the right spot and all the control buttons I need fall to hand quite nicely. Hmmmm...So this setup might not work for some people, doesn't mean they aren't 'good'.
Something else that is brought quite a lot is the size issue with mirrorless. You know, once you add a battery grip and a big lens then the size advantage over a DSLR is lost.
Mirrorless cameras were not designed JUST to make a smaller camera. There are many advantages to removing the mirror from a traditional DSLR, size being only ONE of them. Ease of production (less parts), cheaper to manufacture (less parts), direct sensor read EVF, smaller size.....these are all advantages. People believe that if a camera is mirrorless then is must be small or the purpose of it has been defeated. Again this is just silly. With my a7 (and most other mirrorless) I have the option to make my camera very small and portable. Or if it needs to beef up for the job at hand with battery grip and long lenses then it can do that to. But the camera by itself and and a small prime attached is less size and weight then most DSLR's by a good bit.
Case in point. I have a young friend of mine who I have influenced in using old film lenses on his Canon cameras. I went over to trade some lenses with him the other day and he let me fool around with his 5D. My a7, with battery grip, adapter and FDn prime lens is lighter, thinner and handles better (in my opinion) then his 5D by itself with a Canon 50 prime attached. There was a noticeable heft when I picked up his camera. I say this not to disparage the 5D or DSLR's in general but I enjoy the lack of bulk with the gear I shoot. I just believe that many people are a little silly in believing that a mirrorless camera must be smaller then a DSLR to be effective.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I'm surprised that nobody has contradicted the original premise. Canon has released a serious mirrorless camera: the C500. I think this (along with other products and research announcements) shows that Canon believes motion picture to be the long-term growth industry for high margin products, not still photography.
Looking at Canon's history of products, it strikes me that they have released technical innovations in the 5 series, polished them up for the 1 series, then watered down all of those features for the consumer market. Canon has steadily and successfully maintained a halo strategy. I think, though, that the market is shrinking at both ends for Canon -- cell phones and cheap cameras at the low end, eroding value of professional photography at the high end -- making its halo strategy untenable in the long term.
Sony, on the other hand, has always specialized in making electronics smaller and cheaper, with an occasional top-end line of products that seems to be more "because we could" than to enhance the sales of lesser products. Sony's cameras over the last several years have embodied this tradition of making popular products by combining fantastic engineering with relatively inexpensive components. I think that Sony's raw compression is analogous to the slightly high but still barely noticeable noise floor on mid-range integrated amplifiers: it matters a lot to a few people, who avoid it entirely, but is overlooked by quite a few people who buy, use, and enjoy the product at a price point that was previously unthinkable for a product of the same overall quality.
I also note that motion picture capture is a major emphasis for Sony, too. That's where the cash cow is, not because consumers are demanding it but because film studios have basically neglected sub-$1MM or even sub-$10MM productions, combined with the rise of internet video, has created a huge market for low- and mid-budget motion picture companies. Those are professionals who are pleased as punch to only have to spend five figures per camera rig, lenses included, which makes even Leica photographers look downright cheap. What I wonder is why we haven't seen a halo-strategy lineup of video cameras from $20,000 to $500 from Canon. I suppose because that market is so rich, and the competition so minimal, that there's no need at this point. And why would a company spend millions on R&D and competition in the saturated and shrinking still photography market when the video market is so ripe?
The good thing (in my opinion) about a video-centric market is that the lenses will once again shift toward rendering rather than LP/PH measurements, most of which will serve quite well for stills. The bad thing is that the cameras themselves will continue to move away from the simple ergonomics that I prefer. Still, I suspect I could be quite happy shooting with today's cameras for quite some time; I just hope the video cameras that replace them use the same batteries.
Just my $0.02. Cheers,
Perhaps it's just me, but it sure seems a lot of DSLR folk don't hesitate with snippy little rejoinders ("toy camera" "cheap components" etc.), the main "argument" being that Sony, being the huge electronic conglomerate, doesn't make cameras for "serious" photographers. IOW, Sony users don't really care about important features and are willing/ready to pay ridiculous prices for sub-standard gear. What's the purpose of this aside to inflame the discussion? Troll bait maybe?
This thread was about Canon and it's inability to adjust to market demands. It's not an attack on the camera, nor its user base. I have sincere respect for Canon and hope it continues to be a market leader. But, and it's just IMHO, they won't be a market leader if they stick with their current course.
It makes it a bit hard to read threads like this (and elsewhere). While it would be great if some here could engage in serious discussion about the subject without resorting to condescending, and ultimately insulting statements. But I guess this is still the world wide web.
I think it's best I just ignore this subject, and instead focus on threads where photography is discussed.
3 Member(s) liked this post
I am having a blast with my A7r/2 cameras.
Now if only those Batis lenses were more readily available ...
Last edited by k-hawinkler; 14th September 2015 at 15:37.
With best regards, K-H.3 Member(s) liked this post
1 Member(s) liked this post
f/otographer -- easy -- consider this a reminder we like to keep it friendly here. Users that have generated over 10,000 posts here 1) have personalities already understood by most regulars and 2) through their participation have earned some latitude beyond that of newer posters.
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
Consider this then my goodbye. I find this very unfortunate as I was just about to start a post asking everyone who their top 3 favorite photographers are and why. I was really looking forward to starting some more photo centric threads here as per Hulyss's suggestion. Thanks for pointing out that it would be a waste of my time.
For everyone who responded with posts to this thread, thank you, I found them very informative. And a big thank you to all the Sony shooters for the incredible images posted here. You have inspired me more times then I can count. It truly has been a pleasure.
I think you may have misunderstood Jacks comments. But here is the issue for a lot of Sony owners and I'll be honest sometimes I feel the same way. Not directed at anyone in particular but serious I know I'm getting extremely tired of being told I bought a toy or a consumer point and shoot piece of crap. Not saying you said that but this resentment for being told how much of a idiot we all are it gets disheartening . I'm not saying it's happening here per say but we seem to have a lot of resentment from Canon/Nikon owners over the web that go the extra mile to knock Sony back to the film days. If you get my drift. I actually got a couple PMs on this thread. Honestly a lot of us spent a damn good chunk of change for the A7rII and I personally had to pull a lot of rabbits out of the hat to get one. It's just a little upsetting for me sometimes with all my experience to be told I'm a idiot to buy Sony. I'm extremely thicked skin but not everyone else is. I'm part owner here and as a admin I'm very careful what I say not that everyone else should but honestly this Sony hatred does even get under my skin sometimes. We actually have done pretty good here on this thread, but I know Jack very well and both of us have a very keen sense of what could happen next. We try to avoid those wars before they happen. That's part of the GetDPI success
We get a lot of members coming from other forums with a diffrent set of rules or more likely no rules and we just like to stay on top that.
Haha, I love the internet, full of such well balanced views and reasonable responses!
The original post is a bemoaning the fact that a specific manufacturer is not making the camera you want to buy but another is, honestly, we could have the same discussion about almost any product from any manufacturer, you just have to get on with it and either buy the available product, as you have or don't bother.
For every mirrorless fanboy, there will be a DSLR fanboy proclaiming that if Canon remove resources from developing new lenses, new sensors and new bodies to get heavily in to mirrorless, they will complain and be off, can't please everyone! I for one have absolutely zero idea of what Canon, Nikon or anyone else are working on, I am pretty sure that these product developments are held pretty close, what's the point in speculating about what they are or aren't doing when we don't know, unless of course you have links with Canon R&D in which case, maybe you should keep quiet anyway?
What I find about Sony owners currently is the overt need to declare that they have the best and that anything before is on its way out, I don't know if that's a lack of confidence and the need to be assured by others but it just seems unnecessary for something like a camera. There are millions of people using everything from box brownies to the latest Phase XF and 380, there is no right answer. People can moan that some dismiss mirrorless as not being serious but there are many who are dismissing anything other than mirrorless, where is the balance people?? I don't care what any of you shoot, just buy what you like.
Have a nice day!
http://matrichardson.com/1 Member(s) liked this post
Welcome! As much as I'd like to point you to many posts I can't be bothered, as a newbie you may enjoy just reading through posts and deciding whether you agree with me or not, it's just my opinion as I always state.
Enjoy your stay here, it's great!
When I was young and starting as a commercial photographer I had Leica range finder. The studio had Nikon 35mm SLR, Hasselblad SLR, Rollie TLR, and view cameras (4x5, 5x7, 8x10). Each had a different "view finder". Each was used for its benefits and managed for its weaknesses. With a few exceptions the same film emulsions could be used in any of the cameras. Often, we would shoot the same subject with multiple cameras to give the customer different sized transparencies and/or negatives.
Now I have digital cameras. For years I used Canon, simply because I had Canon lenses and it was easier to buy the next body than it was to buy new lenses.
Over a period of about 18 months I transitioned from buying a Fuji XPro 1 for personal use. (Poor man's digital range finder) to a full kit of Fuji XT-1s and lenses. The motivation had nothing to do with view finders, it had to do with liking the smaller sized kit and realizing I was getting good images.
I got a Sony A7R to shoot architecture with my Canon TSE lenses. That led to getting a couple of lenses so I could carry one camera on projects rather than two. Over another 6 months I've now found that I like the Sony kit for general work because it simplifies my life. i.e. not needing two kits.
Does this all mean I think Sony is better than Canon or Fuji? No. It does fit my needs better than either. It has its limitations. But then again, I always had things I wished the Canon kit or Fuji kit could do better too.
In my view, the great benefit of digital is its ability to reduce the complexity of hardware, and make processing images so much easier and better in software than it was in a darkroom and retouchers studio.
As for 800 lb. gorillas, the history of business is littered with their graves. Northern Telecom, Lucent Technologies, Fore Systems, MCI/Worldcom, the Bell System, IBM PCs, Sun Microsystems, [Pick a steel company]. And the list could go on for pages.
My point is, we have to pick the tools that work for us. And, we have to respect that others may pick different tools. Vivian Meier used a TTL, Henri Cartier-Bresson used a Leica, the Navy photographer who shot the flag raising at Iwo Jima used a Speed Graphic. There are great photographs being made today with every kind of digital camera, including iPhones.
To paraphrase one of Bill Clinton's political advisors; "Its the PICTURE stupid!"
And now on to something productive.
1 Member(s) liked this post
The only generalization I would make here is that generalizations are generally wrong
My Pics1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I start personally to have a BIG problem with gear centric forums. A forum is a good tool to make a community or, if gear centric, Clans. I do not like Clans. As for "Sony" shooters, I think we do not blame the shooters: We blame the brand and warn the shooter. Sony is Sony and have no interest in photography. They have interest in selling things and once it will be less milky, it will be trashed. They proved it in the past two weeks... History is History, brands are brands. So of course, many Sony features are super and very useful. There is no reason that other brands can't use or emulate those features, especially Canon/Nikon and soon Pentax. Yes, Pentax is coming with FF... pretty soon. Do not forget the power of Ricoh imaging !
They have shown in the past that they do not follow up the right way, have a miserable sales structure at least here in Europe and I would rate them not any better than Sony WRT interest in photography.
Life is an ever changing journey
Mat and HB, your points about Sony and Sony shooters might have merit from your perspectives but this is a Sony forum used by some Sony owners. If I was to go to other forums with other manufacturers (which I never even open one of them ... Ever) I am sure I would find similar owner loyalty issues. What I don't and can't understand is why do users of other brands enter a brand specific forum and try and tell them how to live or how they should act or feel towards other manufacturer's tools and their users. To me there is the real issue and reason why one group may have issue with others.
I have no idea if other Sony users go over to Canikon forums and throw stones at them for using what the do but if they do I see that as misdirected energy just like I see a Canikon owner doing the same on a Sony specific forum. What do Canikon owners think that their presence and tool selection makes them right and they have to go to the other forums and spread this word to the unbelievers? Sorry great photography has little to do with what is in the hands but far more on what is happening in the 12" behind the viewfinder. That is the word!
1 Member(s) liked this post
My Pics2 Member(s) liked this post