Sony, nothing good since the A900?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    When the new 300's were released, I knew they were going to be
    cruddy. Visually, they look like s---, functionally they aren't too
    good either. Aimed SQUARELY at soccer moms and P&S migrants, they
    dont begin to show the kind of inventiveness as the admirable A700 and
    A900. Now, Dpreview (for better or worse, the most traveled review
    site on the web by a long shot) trashed the A380. Sony needs to
    realize like Pentax, that if you are going to compete on the APS-C
    level, you have to be at least as good or better than Canon and Nikon,
    otherwise, why would anyone buy your offering?
    Apparently, Sony treated this camera like a P&S, ruining detail at
    above 200 ISO. Was that needed, with an APS-C sensor??
     
    RichA, Aug 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <> wrote:

    > When the new 300's were released, I knew they were going to be
    > cruddy. Visually, they look like s---, functionally they aren't too
    > good either. Aimed SQUARELY at soccer moms and P&S migrants, they
    > dont begin to show the kind of inventiveness as the admirable A700 and
    > A900. Now, Dpreview (for better or worse, the most traveled review
    > site on the web by a long shot) trashed the A380. Sony needs to
    > realize like Pentax, that if you are going to compete on the APS-C
    > level, you have to be at least as good or better than Canon and Nikon,
    > otherwise, why would anyone buy your offering?
    > Apparently, Sony treated this camera like a P&S, ruining detail at
    > above 200 ISO. Was that needed, with an APS-C sensor??


    Sony have been rather more successful at selling their DSLRs than any
    of the other minority DSLR makers. They have been very successful at
    selling the A3X0 models despite their much criticised disgusting
    strategy of trying to sell cameras to soccer moms etc.. Every time
    they produce a new DSLR aimed at soccer moms the serious photographers
    squeal in horrified disgust and serious Sony photographers start
    talking about having to migrate if Sony don't stop this nonsense. I
    don't know what camera review magazines soccer moms read, but I think
    we can safely assume they would find plenty to criticise in the A700
    and A900. All those buttons and not a single one of them pops up a
    flash!

    What's wrong with making money and improving market share by
    identifying markets and making stuff they want? If you're a serious
    photographer don't fret, Sony have shown they can make good serious
    cameras. There will be more of those along soon. But they do have to
    keep the pot boiling, so I'm afraid you may have to face up to the
    unpleasant possibility that catering exclusively to your photographic
    tastes, or indeed mine, may not be the best way of making money and
    improving market share.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    eNo Guest

    I'm a little surprised by Sony's performance on the lower tier of
    their DSLR line. Clearly they know how that this is where the bulk of
    their sales are bound to come from, and without having to pay
    licensing for their own sensor, they should be able to bank the
    savings into developing good in-camera image processing of the sort
    that Nikon manages to embed in their lower-end DSLRs. Certainly,
    acceptable ISO performance up to around ISO640 or 800 should be
    achievable. Then of course there's the matter of high-quality lens
    selection, which seems to be an issue for anyone going up against
    Canon and Nikon.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    eNo
    http://esfotoclix.com/blog1
     
    eNo, Aug 25, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > > When the new 300's were released, I knew they were going to be
    > > cruddy. Visually, they look like s---, functionally they aren't too
    > > good either. Aimed SQUARELY at soccer moms and P&S migrants, they
    > > dont begin to show the kind of inventiveness as the admirable A700 and
    > > A900. Now, Dpreview (for better or worse, the most traveled review
    > > site on the web by a long shot) trashed the A380. Sony needs to
    > > realize like Pentax, that if you are going to compete on the APS-C
    > > level, you have to be at least as good or better than Canon and Nikon,
    > > otherwise, why would anyone buy your offering?
    > > Apparently, Sony treated this camera like a P&S, ruining detail at
    > > above 200 ISO. Was that needed, with an APS-C sensor??

    >
    > Sony have been rather more successful at selling their DSLRs than any
    > of the other minority DSLR makers. They have been very successful at
    > selling the A3X0 models despite their much criticised disgusting
    > strategy of trying to sell cameras to soccer moms etc.. Every time
    > they produce a new DSLR aimed at soccer moms the serious photographers
    > squeal in horrified disgust and serious Sony photographers start
    > talking about having to migrate if Sony don't stop this nonsense. I
    > don't know what camera review magazines soccer moms read, but I think
    > we can safely assume they would find plenty to criticise in the A700
    > and A900. All those buttons and not a single one of them pops up a
    > flash!
    >
    > What's wrong with making money and improving market share by
    > identifying markets and making stuff they want?


    Making money? When did they start doing that?
     
    RichA, Aug 25, 2009
    #4
  5. RichA

    Charles Guest

    It's not the camera. It's the bozo or the artist behind it.
     
    Charles, Aug 25, 2009
    #5
  6. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > When the new 300's were released, I knew they were going to be
    >> > cruddy. Visually, they look like s---, functionally they aren't too
    >> > good either. Aimed SQUARELY at soccer moms and P&S migrants, they
    >> > dont begin to show the kind of inventiveness as the admirable A700 and
    >> > A900. Now, Dpreview (for better or worse, the most traveled review
    >> > site on the web by a long shot) trashed the A380. Sony needs to
    >> > realize like Pentax, that if you are going to compete on the APS-C
    >> > level, you have to be at least as good or better than Canon and Nikon,
    >> > otherwise, why would anyone buy your offering?
    >> > Apparently, Sony treated this camera like a P&S, ruining detail at
    >> > above 200 ISO. Was that needed, with an APS-C sensor??

    >>
    >> Sony have been rather more successful at selling their DSLRs than any
    >> of the other minority DSLR makers. They have been very successful at
    >> selling the A3X0 models despite their much criticised disgusting
    >> strategy of trying to sell cameras to soccer moms etc.. Every time
    >> they produce a new DSLR aimed at soccer moms the serious photographers
    >> squeal in horrified disgust and serious Sony photographers start
    >> talking about having to migrate if Sony don't stop this nonsense. I
    >> don't know what camera review magazines soccer moms read, but I think
    >> we can safely assume they would find plenty to criticise in the A700
    >> and A900. All those buttons and not a single one of them pops up a
    >> flash!
    >>
    >> What's wrong with making money and improving market share by
    >> identifying markets and making stuff they want?


    > Making money? When did they start doing that?


    I don't understand your comment.

    They make money every time they sell a camera. As far as I can see on
    a quick google they were doing very well in terms of profits until
    2008, when according to their financial reports combination of the
    world financial crisis, a strong yen, and poor performance of their
    games and mobile phones reduced profits severely. The latest
    announcements I could find said they were making losses in the first
    quarter of 2009. Since Canon has announced slashes in profits in the
    90% range over the same period that doesn't suggest to me that Sony is
    in special trouble compared to its competitors in the camera market.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 26, 2009
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Charles wrote:
    > It's not the camera. It's the bozo or the artist behind it.


    Not according to professional sites that host images for sale. Take
    some old film camera or bad digital, shoot an image of impeccable
    standards as far as composition and subject go, and the image will be
    rejected, guaranteed.
     
    RichA, Aug 26, 2009
    #7
  8. On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:38:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >Charles wrote:
    >> It's not the camera. It's the bozo or the artist behind it.

    >
    >Not according to professional sites that host images for sale. Take
    >some old film camera or bad digital, shoot an image of impeccable
    >standards as far as composition and subject go, and the image will be
    >rejected, guaranteed.


    These so-called "professional sites" that host images for sale are ran by
    bean-counters and people who know absolutely nothing about photography
    other than how much money it can make for them. They found a way to exploit
    an online market and counted up their pixels. Of course they're going to
    choose the highest resolutions possible for sale. Haven't you been paying
    attention? It's the same way camera's are sold to the less informed
    masses--the consumer masses just as misinformed and blind-following as
    these "professional sites" of which you speak. People who host sites like
    that are mindlessly following suit because they saw it works. Just because
    people as stupid as you support the same "standards" that you support
    doesn't mean that they are in any way correct. Pixel quantity = money.
    That's all it means to them. They don't have one clue what constitutes
    quality photography. They could care less if it's an ultra-high resolution
    120 megapixel, impeccably exposed, and 20 EV dynamic range of some dog's
    boogered-up nose. Nothing but a massive carrier signal with absolutely no
    worthy content. Akin to a 1,000,000 megawatt television station
    broadcasting an off-the-air blank screen. An impeccably huge image with
    zero worthy content. Someone might want to buy an ultra-high resolution
    image of a dripping dog's nose so they'll host it. It fits their
    bean-counter's criteria for what might sell and that's all that matters to
    them.

    Don't believe me? Take a sharp macro picture of your dirty carpet fibers in
    a 50 megapixel image. Submit it for approval. You'll be approved.
    Guaranteed. Take a hastily exposed and slightly mis-focused 1600x1200 image
    of some world leader's assassination, the only image of its kind in the
    world. Submit that. Their bean-counting server software will reject it
    while you are trying to upload it for approval. Guaranteed.

    You're not too bright, are you.
     
    Clues for RichA The Troll, Aug 26, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    van dark Guest

    you are not photographer.
    you select cameras, only.
    van

    eNo napsal(a):
    > I'm a little surprised by Sony's performance on the lower tier of
    > their DSLR line. Clearly they know how that this is where the bulk of
    > their sales are bound to come from, and without having to pay
    > licensing for their own sensor, they should be able to bank the
    > savings into developing good in-camera image processing of the sort
    > that Nikon manages to embed in their lower-end DSLRs. Certainly,
    > acceptable ISO performance up to around ISO640 or 800 should be
    > achievable. Then of course there's the matter of high-quality lens
    > selection, which seems to be an issue for anyone going up against
    > Canon and Nikon.
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > eNo
    > http://esfotoclix.com/blog1
    >
     
    van dark, Aug 26, 2009
    #9
  10. RichA

    eNo Guest

    On Aug 26, 7:05 am, van dark <> wrote:
    > you are not photographer.
    > you select cameras, only.


    deep

    ~~~
    eNo
    http://esfotoclix.com/blog1
     
    eNo, Aug 26, 2009
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?SkFjbw==?=

    No wireless network available since SP2

    =?Utf-8?B?SkFjbw==?=, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    568
    =?Utf-8?B?UmF2aShDb25zdWx0KQ==?=
    Nov 30, 2004
  2. Sarah Stewart
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,105
    Sarah Stewart
    May 8, 2005
  3. Alan Browne

    Sony A700 - Good and not so good points

    Alan Browne, Sep 7, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    342
    ASAAR
    Sep 8, 2007
  4. Finally - A full size sensor in Sony A900

    , Sep 12, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    359
    nospam
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    278
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jul 3, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page