Photoclubalpha

Not surprised by this:
https://photographylife.com/a-few-thoug ... era-market

I rarely go online to read the established review sites partly due to erm not really anything happeing. DPR just pad out the news section with other items and phone reviews (Phil got out at the right time). IR not been there for some time either and Lula has gone subscription only you can no longer read all the artiles without that. Have to say most people I know are not buying much at all cameras or lenses wise.

Grim times...yet prices continue to increase

They didn't have me in mind... I just received my a7rii with FE 50/1.8
And still planning for the Batis 25

Just been down my local camera store with the intention of getting a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Alpha mount, sold out, and can't keep up with demand, although they said Tamron were slow to supply. The window is jammed full of used cameras of all formats as people come in to up grade, but its true sales especially DSLR's are going down, but interestingly interchangeable lens sales from all brands are quite stable well at least from my local store

Saturated market.
slow economy.
not real differentiation between models...

the world economy still has not recovered from 2009. But I suspect one larger factor might be the fact that starting in 2012, 1.6 billion baby boomers began to retire and they are holding on to their money.

Me, I will buy an A99II if there is one, and maybe a couple of primes, but they will be Sigma art lenses. I have a Sony 24-70Z, a Minolta 24-85 and 28-85 and I can't see a serious difference in picture quality with any of them that makes the Sony worth 10 times the cost. I also have an A850 and A99 and in daylight still shots, I can't see a difference. In low light and action, like at an air show, the A99 is better, but not by light years.

Edward, I use the Minolta 24-85 which is a FF lens on my Sony A37, it gives superb sharpness because of the crop factor, same with my KM 17-35 f/2.8 D, both bought second hand for under a £100 each, I'm about to get a Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 as my standard kit lens.
It was the Minolta legacy that decided it for me with Sony A mount

Edward wrote: I have a Sony 24-70Z, a Minolta 24-85 and 28-85 and I can't see a serious difference in picture quality with any of them that makes the Sony worth 10 times the cost.

Well... probably the Sony-Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 is not "10 times better" than the Minolta 24-85 f3.5-4.5 (I do not have a way to measure it, and I think that it is unfair to do so unless you find a pristine new-old-stock copy of the Minolta lens) but the 24-70 really is a better lens.

I don't think there was anything unfair about my Minolta 24-85 comments. The sony 24-70 is a great lens, but also over-rated. I do happen to have a "pristine new-old-stock copy" of the Minolta and In low light the sony is better, but in most situations it is not a better lens then the Minolta. I also have a Sigma 12-24 and when I set the Sony and Sigma at 24mm for outside shots in daylight -- I can't tell from a picture which lens was used.

Well people buy the 24-70mm because it's probably F2.8 if you want a general purpose lens that does well in lower light. Do you need it? Certainly possible to use a 24- something slower lens and throw a shorter focal length prime in there for low light work. It isn't a lens I would buy because I have 24-28mm covered with many lenses. If budget is an issue a 28-75mm F2.8 is far cheaper though not as wide (have wider lenses to cover that)

This year I "swapped" a Neewer E mount flash for a Sony HVL20M just to have a small flash in the bag when I don't want to take the larger flashes. If I am super honest bar a couple of exotic lenses I have the range well covered, there isn't really any obvious reaon to buy lenses purely for the sake of it.

The last purchase I made was the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 and it is a lens which has now paid for itself and more by commercial jobs ie interior shots etc - I can't justify spending unless it's going to give me some return. As far as bodies go the current madness in the UK means it's probably going to get more expensive to buy products. Not that I can think of anything I really need. Maybe I'll buy a s/h FF body at some point. My current set up is more than adequate for my needs.

Still having fun with my relatively new A7 mk II. Bought the FE 24-70/4 as a walk around for it. Would like the FE 16-35/4 at some point. Then there are drones, monitors, printers, etc. etc. However school shoes and nappies have to take priority here at the moment .

Edward wrote:I don't think there was anything unfair about my Minolta 24-85 comments.

not at all. And I do agree with you the 24-85 is a great underrated lens. But...

Edward wrote:The sony 24-70 is a great lens, but also over-rated.

Well, no. IMHO the 24-70 f2.8 is not overrated. I didn't find anything special on this lens, until I use it on the A7R, where actually the 24-85 start showing it's limitations.

Edward wrote: I do happen to have a "pristine new-old-stock copy" of the Minolta and In low light the sony is better, but in most situations it is not a better lens then the Minolta. I also have a Sigma 12-24 and when I set the Sony and Sigma at 24mm for outside shots in daylight -- I can't tell from a picture which lens was used.

Yep. As I told you on my previous post, I don't think the Sony-Zeiss is 10 times better than the Minolta.

I purchased Sony's RX100M3 and A6000 last year for Alamy to replace RX100 (no viewfinder and prefer 24mm max. width) NEX-6 (menu and dark viewfinder). Franky, I am so delighted with these two cameras that I cannot imagine a need to trade up or replace any time soon. I am so amazed at the quality at 100% that I rarely reduce image size. 20/24Mp great for cropping. I think we have now reached a level of quality that only professionals needing the latest for their promotion need to upgrade. The same for software. I had a T&S lens with my Mamiya M/F years ago and was sorry to see it go when I went to DSLR only. With P/S Cloud there is no need to invest in such a lens. Adobe continue to send updates to LR/PS/Bridge Cloud, but we have reached the stage now that for me it is more features I don't need. I download in case some fixes or security features are included.

I would tend to agree the level of quality from images is probably at a point where there are no obvious reasons for most to upgrade. I didn't make the move to FF partly because I think I am satisfied with what I can get, though I might take a look at a cheaper body later on.

It's not a bad thing bar some awesome sensor revolution (again we are probably at good enough already, no doubt some organic sensors or other bits might turn up). The emphasis has shifted from the gear and tech to the results and that is not a bad thing at all. This does mean the review sites/magazines will have to shift away from reviews and more towards content. Magazines were mainly in that area from a long time ago; the online sites are probably on borrowed time as there are not enough new products to generate review content. Evidently DPR hasn't turned a profit for a long time.

I think most of the top most popular brands have now reached a plateau of image quality and performance, perhaps as Barry says start looking at the end product the PICTURE rather than constant deliverance on equipment, although I think a critical eye needs to be kept on lens performance which is now lagging behind.
My main criterion now is not so much the brand, but the whole available system which varies greatly from one brand to another.

I'm beginning to lose brand 'loyalty'