Sony will not longer build DSLR?
- Thread starter tss84
- Start date
Yep, quite agree with your analogy... guess maybe DSLR have already reached the peak of innovation and we are moving to another phase of photography transition.
It is very hard to compete with Nikon & Canon using DSLR technology. Sony are already selling it at cut throat price but still cannot gain more market share.
However, the new SLT have distinct advantages over DSLR and Sony is leading in this new technology.
Therefore, they have a niche and a head start over the others. I believe Sony may become the leader in the future if the others cannot improve their DSLR further.
However, the new SLT have distinct advantages over DSLR and Sony is leading in this new technology.
Therefore, they have a niche and a head start over the others. I believe Sony may become the leader in the future if the others cannot improve their DSLR further.
Actually.. They are not selling at "cut throat" price. I'm sure they are earning a lot, definitely sufficient to cover their R&D cost. I would think that:
(1) Lack of mirror flipping means eliminating the need for mirror movement mechanisms, cutting the cost of this mechanism. plus, maybe, indirectly removing the cost factored in for the servicing of mirror mechanism within warranty.
(2) Lack of expensive pentaprism or penta-mirror? This is expensive, isn't it?
(3) Lack of secondary live-view sensor. (this one i'm not sure.., does DSLR with live-view has secondary image sensor?)
(4) Lack of metering sensor.
These are just some of the things I think that can make the production cost of SLT low.
What do you think?PS. Remember... From my experience, Sony products were never cheap...
since everyone's moving towards Video DSLRs, i guess sony decided to up the ante and create an SLR-like camera that uses pellicle mirror technology, but perfected it, and at the same time using their expertise in video and implemented it in the SLTs.
and.... that's where the market is these days right? according to Rashkae, 30 minutes of video with no overheating! wow.
and.... that's where the market is these days right? according to Rashkae, 30 minutes of video with no overheating! wow.
Actually.. They are not selling at "cut throat" price. I'm sure they are earning a lot, definitely sufficient to cover their R&D cost. I would think that:
(1) Lack of mirror flipping means eliminating the need for mirror movement mechanisms, cutting the cost of this mechanism. plus, maybe, indirectly removing the cost factored in for the servicing of mirror mechanism within warranty.
i think sony is expert in cutting cost.. lol all the plasticky lens they are making
(2) Lack of expensive pentaprism or penta-mirror? This is expensive, isn't it?
agree pentaprism is expensive
(3) Lack of secondary live-view sensor. (this one i'm not sure.., does DSLR with live-view has secondary image sensor?)
i think DSLR with live-view have a secondary image sensor, thats y its so good as compared to other makers
(4) Lack of metering sensor.
SLT doesn't have metering sensor??? then how does it determine the correct exposure? this is interesting
These are just some of the things I think that can make the production cost of SLT low.
PS. Remember... From my experience, Sony products were never cheap...
lastly i think Sony DSLR are more value for $ than C & N, rather to say that there are cheaper.
what is the point of switching if the only reason is an OVF?
if an slt can compete with a DSLR and produce same if not better quaility pics/videos at the same or lower price then why shift?
there are better reason than an ovf before thinking of shifting brands.. one of which is price
if an slt can compete with a DSLR and produce same if not better quaility pics/videos at the same or lower price then why shift?
there are better reason than an ovf before thinking of shifting brands.. one of which is price
Last edited:
I just wonder whats all the buzz of using OVF or EVF?
Isnt the large bright 3" LCD best for any composition? If its outdoor, EVF is just as great as the 3" LCD for composing.
Maybe Looking through OVF makes us looks more pro?
I rather the pictures turn out well while i can compose easily using the large LCD than to have all crap photos using the smallish OVF.
For that matter, i am not sticking my face all the time on the OVF anyway, makes me cork eye on a day long shooting.
I always see those so called "pro" has to constantly shoot with OVF, then every now and then look at the pics using the LCD. Isnt that wasting more time and missing the golden opportunity or moment?
I shoot using LCD and view the pics at the same screen while my eyes can still keep looking at my subject to see if i need to quickly shoot again for the timeless moment.
Isnt the large bright 3" LCD best for any composition? If its outdoor, EVF is just as great as the 3" LCD for composing.
Maybe Looking through OVF makes us looks more pro?
I rather the pictures turn out well while i can compose easily using the large LCD than to have all crap photos using the smallish OVF.
For that matter, i am not sticking my face all the time on the OVF anyway, makes me cork eye on a day long shooting.
I always see those so called "pro" has to constantly shoot with OVF, then every now and then look at the pics using the LCD. Isnt that wasting more time and missing the golden opportunity or moment?
I shoot using LCD and view the pics at the same screen while my eyes can still keep looking at my subject to see if i need to quickly shoot again for the timeless moment.
Er, no, the OVF is actually lag-free (or at least, the lag is negligible).
It's up to the user, don't you think? Who cares what people do, whether they chimp (i.e. refer to the pictures, which really has little to do with getting results, unless you think that somehow using a OVF will allow you to know how the captured image looks, which actuallyt it does not) or use OVF or use LCD or what, what matters is the results.
Some amount of people will prefer a OVF and switch if Sony doesn't make DSLRs anymore.
Some people won't mind, and might be attracted by what Sony puts into its SLTs. I don't see why so many (seemingly hardcore) defenders are dissing people for actually having a preference (especially when that preference is not unfounded). Which is really what happens when one has a mind.
Last edited:
Oh no, of course EVF has its advantages despite the lag... I could name some off the top of my head , e.g. ability to overlay information on the screen, customisable, etc.
Everything has its use, and there's no absolute right. I agree with you that it's not fair to say that EVF is definitely inferior to OVF.
The only advantage of OVF is lag-free, I find EVF a more useful tool as it provides a lot information overlay like live histogram and image review among many others.
I still will look like Pro without removing my view from the EVF to review images. I believe it is not that laggy enough to be scoff at as a flaw. Just because Canon & Nikon probably will not use EVF doesn't mean they've made the right decision to stay with OVF.
Actually the top panel LCD is not needed as more information can be overlay in the EVF. This top lcd feature missing in many of Sony alpha bodies was widely criticised then.
I feel Canon/Nikon are closely watching these Sony innovation with interest.
I still will look like Pro without removing my view from the EVF to review images. I believe it is not that laggy enough to be scoff at as a flaw. Just because Canon & Nikon probably will not use EVF doesn't mean they've made the right decision to stay with OVF.
Actually the top panel LCD is not needed as more information can be overlay in the EVF. This top lcd feature missing in many of Sony alpha bodies was widely criticised then.
I feel Canon/Nikon are closely watching these Sony innovation with interest.
Until they can solve EVF lag (tried panning and viewing on evf, can make me seasick)...I think DSLR still has a market appeal.
BTW using the LCD has lots of advantages too. U can compose more creative angles with LCD. With OVF, sometimes may get back aches trying to go low etc.
If not all kinds of viewing are great as long as the image turns out good.
BTW using the LCD has lots of advantages too. U can compose more creative angles with LCD. With OVF, sometimes may get back aches trying to go low etc.
If not all kinds of viewing are great as long as the image turns out good.
Last edited:
I just want an NEX type skinny body with a FF sensor so I can mount anyones glass on it.....
Then we could finally tell Leica to buzz off!
Cheers
Then we could finally tell Leica to buzz off!
Cheers
I just want an NEX type skinny body with a FF sensor so I can mount anyones glass on it.....
Then we could finally tell Leica to buzz off!
Cheers
I guess at this time, there are some things dat manufacturers are still not willing to do, e.g. putting an APS-C sensor in a compact camera and as wat u mentioned, putting an FF in a NEX body. Obviously they could if they wanted to. An HX9V is about the same size as NEX so if they can put an APS-C sensor in NEX, they can put it in a 9V or at least certainly a 100V. But they won't. Probably they are afraid it will cannibalise their own NEX and SLT sales. But I actually doubt it will.
They way i see it, they will stand to gain. An HX100V is now $799. If they have another range of superzoom with APS-C sensor they can easily sell for $1.2 to 1.5k. A HX9V type body with APS-C can probably sell around $900-$1k. But "enthusiast" NEX users will still want their NEXes with interchangeable lens ability cos they will still want to shoot their portraits/macros, etc. The 9V/100V can't give them f2.8 at 50mm, let alone f1.8. So a current 9V/100V user who does not want to get into interchangeable lens due to cost of lenses may be willing to spend a one-off few hundred bucks to get better IQ via an APS-C sensor. Those who want to shoot protraits, macro will continue to buy NEX. In all probability a well-heeled enthisiast will buy both the HX9V/100V with APS-C and the NEX. So actually no revenue lost there.
If they wanted to they could have made A77 a FF and up the A65 specs a little bit more to be closer to the A77 but remain as APS-C. And of course they can do a NEX 9 with FF sensor though the body will prob be a little bigger. For the former, they probably intended the SLT not to appeal to "purists" hence would be a waste to put an FF sensor in a SLT and for the latter they probably figure no self-respecting FF user will buy a NEX body. So its all about market segregation. But i feel they are actually missing out on opportunities for themselves.
I truly wish Sony would at least test the market and launch a HX11V with APS-C and a NEX 9 and SLT A88 with FF in the near future. They have nothing to lose and quite possibly additional revenue to gain!
I've been using A33, a SLT for 10 months already. I have no problem with the EVF nor the 1/3 loss of light. So dun worry, if the specs attract you, take the plunge =)
Similar threads
