Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Why did Sony's FF A900/850 fail in the marketplace? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t750419-why-did-sonys-ff-a900-850-fail-in-the-marketplace.html)

RichA 06-24-2011 01:08 AM

Why did Sony's FF A900/850 fail in the marketplace?
 
Why did the A900 and A850 fail in the marketplace? Was it all solely
due to high ISO noise? I still think that FF, 24 megapixels and very
good low ISO performance coupled with low prices should have produced
winners for them. Or was it pro avoidance of anything not Canon and
Nikon, as irrational as that might seem?

PeterN 06-24-2011 01:53 AM

Re: Why did Sony's FF A900/850 fail in the marketplace?
 
On 6/23/2011 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
> Why did the A900 and A850 fail in the marketplace? Was it all solely
> due to high ISO noise? I still think that FF, 24 megapixels and very
> good low ISO performance coupled with low prices should have produced
> winners for them. Or was it pro avoidance of anything not Canon and
> Nikon, as irrational as that might seem?



Y Our qualifications for making marketing decisions are.
Question previously asked, but never answered.)

--
Peter

PeterN 06-24-2011 02:22 AM

Re: Why did Sony's FF A900/850 fail in the marketplace?
 
On 6/23/2011 10:10 PM, Rich wrote:
> PeterN<peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in news:4e03ee2a$0$12487
> $8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com:
>
>> On 6/23/2011 9:08 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Why did the A900 and A850 fail in the marketplace? Was it all solely
>>> due to high ISO noise? I still think that FF, 24 megapixels and very
>>> good low ISO performance coupled with low prices should have produced
>>> winners for them. Or was it pro avoidance of anything not Canon and
>>> Nikon, as irrational as that might seem?

>>
>>
>> Y Our qualifications for making marketing decisions are.
>> Question previously asked, but never answered.)
>>

>
> Tangent noted.

Good No state your qualifications for offering your opinion.
Alternatively, you should state the facts upon which your opinion is based.

--
Peter

David Dyer-Bennet 06-28-2011 07:09 PM

Re: Why did Sony's FF A900/850 fail in the marketplace?
 
On Jun 23, 8:08*pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why did the A900 and A850 fail in the marketplace? *Was it all solely
> due to high ISO noise? *I still think that FF, 24 megapixels and very
> good low ISO performance coupled with low prices should have produced
> winners for them. *Or was it pro avoidance of anything not Canon and
> Nikon, as irrational as that might seem?


I think they didn't have the lenses people expect in a top-level
pro camera, and nobody else actually needs 24MP or anything
like it. (I'm not actually sure any pros really truly need that
much resolution either.) Remember, all they really had to
offer was being relatively cheap; that's less important
to a successful pro for several reasons.

Wolfgang Weisselberg 07-03-2011 04:15 PM

Re: Why did Sony's FF A900/850 fail in the marketplace?
 
David Dyer-Bennet <illegalname@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think they didn't have the lenses people expect in a top-level
> pro camera, and nobody else actually needs 24MP or anything
> like it. (I'm not actually sure any pros really truly need that
> much resolution either.)


If you produce large meter banners, where people can get a bit
closer, you need much more resolution. If you print 4x3 meters
(e.g. a sales booth backdrop) where people are getting close
and where it needs to look good, you need 420 MPix (at 150 dpi).
(Neither of which I do.)

A 40x60 cm (just shy of 16x24 inch) print at 300 dpi already
needs 33 MPix.

So I guess 24 MPix might be on the small side for some pro
applications and even some amateur uses.

(And no, I'm not saying that big prints with much less pixels
can't be stunning.)

-Wolfgang


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.