Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
+1, it is not only you who is confused by the Sony naming.@ Douglas
Thanks
I see the "E". But saw the ZA first and got all confused
so it's a ZA for the E mount....
I find this slightly confusing, but I guess that's just me!
am
And that sums up my fears perfectly in one sentence. I was just chatting with Jono about that this morning. There is a great opportunity for Sony to either gain market share or lose what little of the professional market they have. I realize that pros are not a profitable market segment because we are a fickle, demanding, whiny lot, but if you think the sea of white lenses on the sidelines had nothing to do with Canon's overall market share you are kidding yourself.I bought into the A900 because it held promise as a serious system going forward ... it appeared to be a great start ... I am now worried that it was the end.
-Marc
+1And that sums up my fears perfectly in one sentence. I was just chatting with Jono about that this morning. There is a great opportunity for Sony to either gain market share or lose what little of the professional market they have. I realize that pros are not a profitable market segment because we are a fickle, demanding, whiny lot, but if you think the sea of white lenses on the sidelines had nothing to do with Canon's overall market share you are kidding yourself.
My A900 meets my needs better than any other camera on the market, but it's hard to invest in a system without a clear roadmap. One great body and a couple great lenses does not a system make. Sony appears to have taken aim the highly profitable (guessing) prosumer market. What they don't understand is they really don't have to roll out tons of killer pro level gear to capture that market, just let people know what to expect. Practically no one has a huge cache of legacy Sony glass as they might with Canon, Nikon, Mamiya, Hassy, Rollei tying them to the system. Market share has to be earned one lens, body and photographer at a time, rather then just maintained like Canikon. All Canon has to do to maintain its user base is roll out new products that keep pace with other manufacturers and don't suck. When they roll out a faulty camera, then -- and only then -- they lose customers.
Uaaaaahhhh ... $ 999 for this lens is no bargain ... I think IQ is for $ 399Wait....
why is there a ZA lens on the NEX-7,
Sorry but this is not a good discussion!No wonder why Sony seem to be confused. They must be reading the forums
:ROTFL:
So?Sorry but this is not a good discussion!
For me, it's a combination of factors. I certainly have no problem with spending money on lenses, but, if all of these rumors are correct, I think my concern about the 24mm's size, combined with the price, may keep me away. Heck, even if the lens was $999, but half the size and slower, I might consider buying it a little more. We'll see.Interesting thread. But if Sony were reading through the comments they might be confused. Some folks think there are not enough high end (pro) lenses and cameras. Other folks think the equipment (lenses) are too expensive. I guess they'll just have to steer for the middle and hope to hit the sweet spot where they satisfy the highest number of people (or make the largest amount of money, which can be a different thing).
Regards
John
I don't doubt that all the comments have merit with respect to the point of view they are coming from. My question is how does Sony figure out which approach helps them most. So I know lots of folks who don't want the expensive glass and would rather that Sony update a lot of the F4 minolta lenses. But I also know that many folks want (and need) some very high end items. Some want FF others APS-C. So who wins? Or rather which way does Sony go? I guess time will tell. But it's interesting to try and guess which direction they'll go first.For me, it's a combination of factors. I certainly have no problem with spending money on lenses, but, if all of these rumors are correct, I think my concern about the 24mm's size, combined with the price, may keep me away. Heck, even if the lens was $999, but half the size and slower, I might consider buying it a little more. We'll see.
Of course, if Sony had at least one, normal-ish, small lens to offer, I wouldn't be concerned about the size of lenses so much. At this rate, I'll probably just stick to ZM glass for the NEX-7.
I honestly think that 30 macro is the weirdest decision of all. It isn't that small or fast. I'd much rather have a Samsung NX 30/2 (even taking into account it would be 7mm for NEX, because of registration differences.)I guess we all have different needs and expectations. I for instance have no problem with the price and size of the 24, but I also think that Sony should provide several options for those who have different requirements. The 30 seems to fit the bill for small and lower priced, and I'm sure more lenses will come later so no worries.
Whilst I agree that the extra real estate of the sensor means that 35mm will never catch up with MF . . . they are both improving at an impressive rate, but may come a point where a 35mm sensor can produce a decent 100mp file, and at that point it's hard to see who is going to pay a multiple price differential to get even better quality . . . .and when that number of people start to decline, then the price differential will become even bigger.The 35mm IQ equal to a medium format has been the "Holy Grail" for decades and decades ... never happened, and IMO, it never will. My old 16 meg CFV produced better files than my 24 meg Sony ... but they are different animals to actually use. Which is my point in all this ... refine the 35mm cameras to do what they do best ... and make it better, faster AF, lower light, more versatile machines than they even are now.
-Marc
Hi Jono,Whilst I agree that the extra real estate of the sensor means that 35mm will never catch up with MF . . . they are both improving at an impressive rate, but may come a point where a 35mm sensor can produce a decent 100mp file, and at that point it's hard to see who is going to pay a multiple price differential to get even better quality . . . .and when that number of people start to decline, then the price differential will become even bigger.
I quite agree about Sony's general strategy in this sort of business, the Vaio laptops being a good case in point - a new and completely different computer every 3 months. Not Helpful.
But it seems to me that the whole SLT strategy is very well thought out and considered - the new 'leaks' with respect to the video capability and high ISO of the A77 sound very impressive . . . full control in video mode, no need for rolling shutter 60fps 1080p, 12 fps still, 102,580 ISO . . . 24mp . . 16-50 weather sealed lens at not much more than half the price of a Nikon 17-55. if it all works properly (and that is one thing good about Sony stuff - it does tend to work), and if they've got the AF right, then it seems to me that it's going to do the business for a lot of people (why do you need a D700 / 5DmkII if the A77 is faster and better at low light).
I understand Bill's concerns, but it seems to me that Sony are very serious about this stuff.
all the best