Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
But they don't have the zoom ranges of the new Sony Zeiss lenses - at least not with the required resolution, and they don't have their high resolving lenses stabilized.
This makes the Sony A900 a superior system, and an unbelievable bargain.
Yes, the 2-hour Beta came later, but Sony brought the prototype to the first meeting with them, just did not show it from the start of this higher level meeting. Matsushita was mad at Sony because Matsushita was quite big at the end of war and Sony was just a garage-type operation, and they could not compete with Sony on quality. Beta was based on U-Matic, so it needed less heads for the same performance. U stands for how the tape was wrapped around the head. VHS was an inferior M system, had less contact with the head, so it needed more heads, but it did have longer tapes, and Matsushita teamed up with RCA and basically gave the system to everyone. Sony only had Zenith, Toshiba, Sanyo, and Pioneer on their side, but their superior system had shorter running time. RCA was pretty mad at Sony for losing to them the broadcast market. Akio Morita that time bought Columbia Pictures, to help them with future format wars. Matsushita followed with purchase of Universal, but they sold it soon. They also competed in theater sound. Matsushita system failed, while you can see Sony SSD sound logo on most films. It pinpoited sound direction better. When it comes to shortwave radios, the Sony ones sell for several-times more than the Matsushita ones too - among collectors.
What was interesting is that when Philips created the Compact Cassette, they went to Sony, trying to license it to them. Sony refused to pay them any royalties, but at the end exchanged the CC patents for their Level-Matic patent, which was superior auto-level system for recording.
Yes, Sony is one of my favorite companies, from the time I bought some Panasonic doggie-doo, which was OK on the surface, but was always missing some of the Sony magic. Just like one Live View is not like another live view.
I am talking about the new Zeiss W/A zooms, all stabilized,
Something else, people wonder why Adobe does not work well with Sony cameras - well, they have an excellent video editing software Premiere, but are now losing sales big time to better Sony Vegas software. Sony is their big competitor, maybe that is why they don't support it too well.
As much as it would be cool for all of this to be true that was posted in this post... it just cant be. I love Sony but I highly doubt that they are just Murdering anyone. The A900 is absolutely killer but it isnt absolutely the God of the DSLR world. I am a hardcore Alpha-ite... but I will say this... the day that Sony Alpha system is as low noise as the Nikon D3... I have the second best system in the market. However second best system doesnt mean second best results.
Sony took over the ailing K-M division and they revamped it totally, but it takes time. Just as they dominate the professional and broadcast video field, and digital cinema camera market, they will one day dominate the DSLR market, which will take on until now unheard-of unique video elements. They now have the Minolta optical expertise; they have Tamron producing large share of its output specifically for Sony, and they have the Zeiss lens label; they have the most advanced image sensor division, and they are "the" experts at miniaturization.
This is their 1/4 million $ video camera, with which now all studio digital films are produced: