David: SLTs have back focus "by design" ?

[UrsaMajor]

I've seen one person (American tourist) with an SLT, I've seen more people with the older Sony A200's/350's and more A700's around.

I don't think the strategy is working . . .

My personal experience has been very different from the above. For example, at the beginning of the month I spent time shooting at a local concours / car show. I encountered two people using an A77 and two people using a NEX-7. Those were the only people I saw using a Sony camera - except when I saw my own reflection.

In addition, when I went on Gary Friedman's Field Workshop a week ago, there were more A77 and NEX-7 cameras in use than OVF models. (BTW, in case you think that I am a biased observer, I'll mention that the only EVF camera that I have is my Minolta A2 that I bought 8 years ago. I normally shoot with my A700 or my KM 7D - or a film camera with an OVF.)

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[OneGuyKs]

Kinda miss that A200 really it's a shame they didn't soup it up over the years they could have had a really good budget DSLR with a bit of work.

Sony got A37, now. Same price as A200 but a much better camera.

No, it doesn't have an OVF!

Dusty

Exactly. That's one of the reason it's superior to A200

[bfitzgerald]

The debate could rage on if we let it (and get nowhere) reality is the A200 was an entirely different beast the super budget DSLR that hit a record low price point (in the UK at least) for £299 with a kit lens who could complain?
Nobody which is why (warts and all) it was fighting toe to toe with the budget Nikon at the time..and I've seen quite a few around to back that up..and yes it hit 1/2 spot on Amazon DSLR sales. and stayed there for a long time. This was also the time Sony proudly stated they had grabbed xyz % of the European market, only to throw a winning strategy away and dumb down their entry models to the point nobody was interested.
You can be King for a day..or a prince for a decade I know which I would take. If you take your eyes of your rival you could get KO'd

Sony have never spoken about xyz % market share since. And I'm not entirely sure what happened to the "we will be no.2" in the market. All silent on that front.
I've no problems with a bit of chest pounding and thumping a few drums to rouse the troops, but it's the worst thing a maker can ever do is publically say they will do xyz or have xyz position in the market. Samsung did the same thing with ILC's..never sound off; until you sit on the throne, then you can make as much noise as you want.

[bakubo]

I've no problems with a bit of chest pounding and thumping a few drums to rouse the troops, but it's the worst thing a maker can ever do is publically say they will do xyz or have xyz position in the market. Samsung did the same thing with ILC's..never sound off; until you sit on the throne, then you can make as much noise as you want.

It reminds me of Eckhard Pfeiffer (Compaq CEO in the '90s) who presided over the purchase of DEC and Tandem Computers and who in 1998 proudly boasted that he was going to make Compaq a $50b company by 2000. You do remember Compaq, right? How about Eckhard Pfeiffer? Anyone remember him?

[OneGuyKs]

The debate could rage on if we let it (and get nowhere) reality is the A200 was an entirely different beast the super budget DSLR that hit a record low price point (in the UK at least) for £299 with a kit lens who could complain?
:

If A200 went down that low in prices, then obviously Sony was no longer making any money on the camera. They were selling unsold stocks at a loss.

[OneGuyKs]

Sony have never spoken about xyz % market share since. And I'm not entirely sure what happened to the "we will be no.2" in the market. All silent on that front.
I've no problems with a bit of chest pounding and thumping a few drums to rouse the troops, but it's the worst thing a maker can ever do is publically say they will do xyz or have xyz position in the market. Samsung did the same thing with ILC's..never sound off; until you sit on the throne, then you can make as much noise as you want.

Thanks for confirming that OVF DSLR was a lost cause. People buy cameras on brand name and what lenses they already own ...


Sony should have started off with Nex system back in 2006. instead of bothering with dying Minolta.

[bfitzgerald]

I remember that very well. Compaq did very well for some time in the 90's then the bubble burst in a dramatic fashion, board room coup, eventually leading to the HP takeover.

Say big things to yourself, or in private..or even over a beer. But never blow the horn in public, it is almost a dead cert it will come back to haunt you.

On the A200 I bet they were making money because back then other makers were selling cheap too (the equivalent NIkon was close in price) Ok they might not have made much, margins are not big on entry models. But this was a long term "gone fishing" exercise, you pull them in..feed them on a diet of upgrades and new lenses. The potential profit from even 1 in 10 buyers who ends up buying higher priced bodies, flashes, lenses and other stuff well it's not to be sniffed at longer term.

Sony had a winning strategy, then completely abandoned it in pursuit of what I call the super newbies. I still see A230's and A290's around today..retailers trying to blow them out at cut down prices. It's a bit like withdrawing your troops when you are winning a battle, it's not the best move to make however you throw the dice

As for buying Minolta I would agree NEX would have made more sense from day one. So I agree it was a mistake in that regard
Regarding the DSLR is dead I'd email the top 2 makers because I'm not seeing any signs that the SLT strategy is impacting their business in any way.

[peterottaway]

Well 2006 was not 2012. Even if Sony had the technology and manufacturing ability then a Nex only based strategy would have been just a redefinition of the one trick pony idea.

As for the A200 being the right sort of idea, I am very dubious. On the Sony side they were obviously trying different approaches and ideas and were looking for market reaction. And as it is very unlikely that the spotted youths in book keeping dreaming of going on to greater glory of their own Ponzi scheme or the geeks and techies are going to leak the corporate archives - its all guesswork based on your own preferred interpretation.

[bfitzgerald]

It's not guesswork, simply based on the obvious signs that the entry Sony DSLR's back then were selling well and in person I have seen far more of them than I have SLT's.
Sony could and should have evolved the series, updated the A700 and pushed the A900 range forward. Nothing geek or techie based at all, just common sense.
You can't discount the Canon upper entry models heck I know an awful lot of folks who went 350d to a 400d, 450d, 500d..then maybe a 50d or higher

Sony instantly killed the upgrade potential by making the updates to the entry models actually notably worse than the previous ones. The fluffed about with a range of so called mid level A5xx bodies which in reality offered very little bar a pumped fps over the entry models, and better sensors. It was this complete lack of understand about how to develop a broad product range, that has hindered their growth. Then they almost get it right with an A580..but put a ho hum VF in it..then discontinue the model.

Those years set Sony back quite a bit, floundering around and not making an A750 another fatal error. Killing off the A850/900 another range that could have been effectively kept up to date with newer sensors, live view/video, and refined. Sony were never honestly going to effectively attack the top 2 makers, and it was a pipe dream nothing more to talk about second spot. Some folks knock Canikon for being a bit boring at times, but mostly you know where you stand..they won't suddenly pull the plug on a range that is working for their customers. Sony are too unpredictable at the best of times, the FF saga was quite a blow to some users, it shook confidence and showed Sony had learnt nothing from the A700, leaving a model to die in the market.

Real world again the guy I sold the A200 to had an A290 and wanted to "get the better model" because he knew it was overall a better camera (not my words his, better handling and features). That speaks volumes to me, having to hunt down a discontinued model to get what you want.

[OneGuyKs]

Given Sony is no longer making A200 is a proof it wasn't profitable. No one quits something if it's making a profit for them.

In any case, this "would have" "should have" is a stupid debate. Sony has A37 now as a replacement for A200, and it's a superior camera than a200 anyway.

If they can't make any profit on SLT either (like they didn't on A-mount OVF cameras), they should shut down A-mount and concentrate on something else, like Nex and the camcorders.

[peterottaway]

I would agree about the A37 as I bought my A33 simply as a backup to my A700 until it became clearer where Sony was headed. I didn't have the A33 for a week when I got rid of my A700. Heresy to some people but having the A850 and the A33, the A700 simply was not needed.

The 3 series is small enough to be a good walk around camera and well enough specified that I don't see much point in the A57. I'm sure that Sony makes more money on each A57 sold, but unless you want/lust/need an A77 I think the A37 will do most photographers very nicely.

If Barry is wanting a Nikon D7000 the prices around here have been dropping over the last few weeks to the point that it is about the same price as the D90 was in March/April. Not sure if the same thing is happening in Britain and Ireland. Yet another Nikon 24 MP APS camera (with Nikon stamped on the sensor so it can't be a Sony) due out just before Photokina ?

[Greg Beetham]

How has the focus accuracy been with the A33 Peterottaway maybe that model doesn’t have any focusing problems? There have been lots of discussions about back focus with various SLT’s on dpr, and not just with one lens in a collection some have it with every lens they own, not to mention system flash issues as well, I wonder if Sony is ‘listening’ to all those discussions.
I sometimes also wonder if getting into the DSLR market turned out to be too heavy duty for Sony’s cultural mindset, I agree the NEX camera is a better fit.
Greg
Ps. As regards Sony ‘buying’ Minolta, it turns out that that was not quite the case, the KM optical division apparently was not involved after all in the ‘Partial Transfer of Certain Assets’ as KM still has that under their control, http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/produc ... index.html if I understand the implications of or correctly interpret what Konica-Minolta is saying right there on their web site.

[peterottaway]

And Canon,Nikon etc don't have back focus problems ? And are Canon,Nikon etc cameras any better in general AF accuracy than Minolta or Sony ? I take the claims on DPR as I find them, they are a comfort to those who wish to believe them.

I have usually been using only 3 different lenses on the A33, the CZ 16-80,the Sony 16-50 (sometimes) and the Minolta 100-300. I can't remember any focus failures that I would attribute to a back focus failure rather than than the camera AF system or myself attempting something that just didn't come off. Mind you for many shots I have been using manual focus at f8 to f11,even with sports/street photography I try to use f7.1 whenever possible for general field shots. Much better to get the best you can at the time and then alter in PP if need be.

It's a bit like all those claims about the new Nikon 28 / 1.8 lens, on my D700 I have not had any problems with my copy. So do you put down the supposed problems to a poor individual lens , indifferent technique, the camera used AF not being up to scratch or mass me-to-ism ?

[Greg Beetham]

I’m not sure where the rash of AF problems are originating from, both Nikon and Sony seem to churning out cameras of late that don’t have the focus properly set up, maybe it’s a distribution ‘time lag’ from bodies put together in hastily arranged alternative assembly lines after the original assembly lines were damaged so badly in all the natural disasters, hard too say. But whatever the reason is, Nikon seem to be able to fix theirs if one goes through the inconvenience of sending the body (and lens?) back for adjustment, whereas with Sony some people claim the camera is returned unfixed with a note saying ‘operating within specification.’ It sort of leaves one guessing how big the graduations on Sony’s specification slide rule are now.
I haven’t ever noticed any habitual back focus errors on my three cameras used with any of my lenses either, and I don’t know if that’s normal or abnormal, all I do know is they work as good, or better even, than I expected.
Greg

[peterottaway]

It will be interesting to see if newer Nikon D800/800E owners continue to report problems with the left autofocus or whether Nikon increase their QI efforts and it goes away. Especially as sometime in the future I will be looking at the reported D600 if it proves to be a decent camera,although my principal interest will remains with any new FF Sony.

I have a different take on events to some people, for example with the Canon EOS 7D and all these claims isn't it wonderful that Canon is going to release V2 of the software for this camera. My take is that does not improve the sensor or any of the physical placement of the controls that I find not up to scratch - the camera to me is insufficiently developed as a working mechanical item. As to V2 of the software I will wait and see how it pans out,but my initial thoughts are that like the physical camera that the initial software was late development and not up to what I would consider decent release grade software for the price. Perhaps this release is what is intended for the 7 Mark 2 ? But of course the computer software industry is notorious for doing just the same and then charging you a 60% upgrade fee for versions 2 and 3 whilst they try and get it right. At least Canon isn't charging but after almost 3 years you can say it is late, it only took Sony a year to get to A700 V4.

I do object when people do cherry pick what they consider to be the best points of all the other camera brands and expect Sony to do the same and at only a fraction of the price. It is like saying the A57 or A65 aren't up to it because they aren't the D4.