Sony BJP overview

[David Kilpatrick]

I was asked to provide an overview of the competitiveness of the Sony system against Nikon and Canon for the British Journal:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPa ... age=840375" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I trust that anyone who thinks I'm a Sony 'fanboy' can see that I have a fairly independent perspective despite using the system!

A few parts of the original text have been slightly altered, actually in favour of Sony (I did not include the quote from Paul Genge, it was inserted by the editor to refer to a previous BJP article).

David

[Bodak]

I find this to be well written David.
Thanks for your efforts.

[Javelin]

Very nice.. I linked it on Sony's backstage .. maybe it'll make some VP's desk

[dynaxfl]

What's wrong to be a "fanboy"? No offense, but I think this word is overly used and almost abused by Sonolta. If fanboy refers as a very negative term, then i believe most people are just loyal to Minolta/Sony system. I think most photographers are loyal to the brand they've chosen. This is the way it is. The camera can become a very personal tool, somewhat like how someone love their cars, called their car as "second wife". A personal preference is important, and when someone is initially happy with their system, they usually intends to stay with that system/brand. In market term, the photography equipment market is the market for loyal customers. This makes SONY even more difficult to step into the professional market. I have used Minolta system since 1995, and was very happy with it especially on 9 and its G lens. Even though in 2003, for the needs of using digital SLRs, I had to switch to Canon 1D/1Ds series and L lens, I still feel Minolta system was a better suit for me. Canon 1D/1Ds series are extremely well designed, well made cameras, and absolutely no questions about it, but eventually I sold all of my Canon equipments, and only use Minolta (Sony) system that I didn't sell. Because of this decision, my daily shoot goes back to use the old Minolta G lens with the only exception of CZ 24-70. Yes, the old G lens are much louder to focus, the a900 doesn't have a same class built quality as Canon 1D series, but I am, very pleased with a900 and very happy with my decision to stay with Minolta/Sony system.

In terms of how I like the cameras, I think there is a gap between reviews and the real life experience. All reviews are nowadays very very precise, technical, comparison between different systems are down to the decimal points. It is understandable because numbers are measurable but feelings and experience are not. Unfortunately this is how our human society works. For people never or have very little hand on experience on any product, they very likely choose the name brand, or the product with higher decimal points. Personally I think it's silly that we have to find only one king of everything. When I had both Canon and Sony systems, I never blow up my images to 100% just to find out which one is superior. I choose which system based on the need of usage. Eventually I found my Sony system can offers 95% of Canon function that I really need for daily use, plus some features Canon doesn't have, so I decided to say good bye to Canon system. For me, numbers are important, but not critical factor to make decisions. If the numbers are similar, I am much rely on my personal feeling on how I feel about the system.

When I read through posts or reviews about Nikon D3X vs. SONY a900, I really kinda laugh about it. Seriously, these two cameras are not in the same class. Just because two cameras share the same sensor, doesn't mean they are the same class. Sony never classes a900 as a pro camera, and Nikon clearly aimed D3X at professional market. There are MANY professional photographers out there don't always need pro camera; pro-amateur camera can serve the needs just fine. At the same time, being professional does not always mean the superior quality of the images, although a lot of people like to think that way. I have seen way too many photographers out there with professional equipments and called themselves as Pros, shoot some pictures are not even better with someone with a point and shoot. Okay, I might be over exaggerate a little bit, but you got what i meant. A pro camera may make you look good, but what really earn you respect is the work you produce. So I think we really should stop trying to match a900 to D3x. Overall D3X is genuinely a better camera than a900 no matter how you can compare and match. But weather if D3X is a better camera for the cost, that's a totally different topic, and I do think sometimes people mix these topics.

On the other hand, I think it is perfectly okay for us to test between cameras to find out why similar sensor has different ouputs, such as D3X vs a900. Its perfectly okay to discuss how the numbers don't seem match the real life experience. and I think David K. has done a more than excellent job here to provide hand on, real life comparisons by his own. I have a lot of respect to David, because he is one of those few have the actual hand on experience on these brands, so for him, he knows both number and experience, not just number or the other.

So for me, I am very happy with my current SONY/Minolta system. Are there other cameras that produce better and clean images than a900? absolutely yes. Are there other cameras are better built than a900? Absolutely yes. But do i need to switch to a better camera, absolutely not. Why? because a900 serve my needs just perfectly fine.

[Dusty]

Good article, David. Hopefully Sony will look at your reasons for not quite equating it Pro status and fill in the gaps.

Dusty

[Dr. Harout]

Very nice article, indeed.

[vtube]

Very well written and professional article, thanks a lot for sharing.

--
Andrea Olivotto
http://www.andreaolivotto.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[David Kilpatrick]

I did not read many knocks on Nikon in the DK piece

You won't find me knocking Nikon much as I prefer Nikon to Canon, of the other two systems. The article was commissioned, not speculative - suggested by the BJP editor specifically for the Focus on Imaging show issue. I don't know what their relationships with Sony, Canon and Nikon are commercially but the editor has commented that he shares my experience with Paul Genge of Sony - that Paul seems not interested in the pro sector, but very keen on the amateur market. Paul has two 'Amateur Photographer' editorial staff doing a talk as part his Focus show programme, and they are the only media people doing so.

So maybe BJP is just trying to poke Sony into realising that professionals ARE interested in trying the system.

David

[Greg Beetham]

I enjoyed that article as well, it put things into perspective accurately in an influential publication, for Sony's benefit as a bonus...if they want to take any notice that is. I especially liked the Macro flash coverage, that didn't pull many punches, but will Sony listen? or just remain oblivious, going on past performances we will most likely get more of the same....slow motion torture in a vacuum.
btw David it would be good if that Editor could restrain himself from meddling with your articles, I would have liked to have seen the original.
Greg

[artington]

I read David's article in the BJP and found it an excellent and sensible piece and particularly liked the emphasis on system comparisons such as the available lens catalogue and differing drive modes. It seems to me that modern reviewers try, as dynaxfl has commented in his excellent post, to aim for too much precision in their comparisons. Often they try to dress this up with formalised marking systems which at best are subjective, or, in the case of Amateur Photographer with its laughable new points system - including as it does an arbitrary 30% weighting for "noise / resolution" - likely often as not to miss the point completely with its spurious precision. (Indeed, I rather feel that AP has lost the plot these days with its rather jejune test reports which is somewhat surprising as its editor used himself to write excellent reviews which were based more on handling and feel than whether the cameras had the latest marketing gismos to attract punters.)

I am just a recreational photographer, unlike many of your contributors, and have been a Minolta user since the mid 1970s so have never really tried out Canon or Nikon systems although I have been tempted by the latter largely because of the huge array of lenses that is available. It is in this realm that I feel that Sony has to concentrate now. The new lenses, as far as I can see, are large, heavy and expensive. In many cases their Minolta predecessors (those which have not just been re-badged by Sony) were smaller and lighter although in their time possibly as expensive in relative terms. I notice that there is a very healthy used market for well preserved examples of the "middle" range of Minolta primes and zooms with pricing now reflecting scarcity as people trade up to full frame and wish to look beyond APC D lenses. This seems to fly in the face of current economic conditions and must, therefore, represent buyers' determination to pick these up while they are still available. This should, therefore, be an attractive market segment for Sony, particularly (if DK's comments are typical) if professionals are sometimes happy to go with some of the more middle market non-G Minolta alternatives.

[bfitzgerald]

I think the question is do sony "want to attack the pro market" ??

So far, being fair..they have done pretty well in beefing up the system overall. But they seem keen to avoid using terms such as "semi pro" or "pro" model. Why is that??? Did Nikon not call the D80 a semi pro camera? I am sure they did.

Or you could argue, does it really matter?

In a few years, they might be in a position to have a go, but it will be an uphill battle..many folks just don't understand why people would want to use a camera system from a non "traditional" camera company, like Canon or Nikon

[alphaomega]

Sony and the "Pro" market?
Maybe there is some unwritten understanding between Sony and Nikon that for the time being Sony will not deliberately enter the Pro market for as long as Nikon purchase Sony's sensors. Just think of it. Sony's sensor fab division would not be able to justify the development and manufacturing costs of their 6, 10, 12 and 24 Mp APS-C and FF sensors if they have not been able to sell these to Minolta, Pentax, Nikon over the years. Pentax now seem to be switching to Samsung sensors so that leaves essentially the fab division with Sony and Nikon and guess who is taking the largest quantities? I would suggest D40, D60, D80, D90, D300 and maybe even D3X.
It would be interesting to know what exactly is going on behind the curtains with regards to various forms of Nikon - Sony DSLR market sharing understandings (if any exists that is).

[aster]

I was asked to provide an overview of the competitiveness of the Sony system against Nikon and Canon for the British Journal:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPa ... age=840375" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I trust that anyone who thinks I'm a Sony 'fanboy' can see that I have a fairly independent perspective despite using the system!

A few parts of the original text have been slightly altered, actually in favour of Sony (I did not include the quote from Paul Genge, it was inserted by the editor to refer to a previous BJP article).

David

Fine review on the mentioned cameras David! I enjoyed it and it's really good news that Getty Images finally introduces a Sony DSLR into their approved camera list: the A900!

Coincidence that news arrives just after your views are published? I suppose not...Congratulations.

Yildiz

[Dusty]

Sony and the "Pro" market?
Maybe there is some unwritten understanding between Sony and Nikon that for the time being Sony will not deliberately enter the Pro market for as long as Nikon purchase Sony's sensors. Just think of it. Sony's sensor fab division would not be able to justify the development and manufacturing costs of their 6, 10, 12 and 24 Mp APS-C and FF sensors if they have not been able to sell these to Minolta, Pentax, Nikon over the years. Pentax now seem to be switching to Samsung sensors so that leaves essentially the fab division with Sony and Nikon and guess who is taking the largest quantities? I would suggest D40, D60, D80, D90, D300 and maybe even D3X.
It would be interesting to know what exactly is going on behind the curtains with regards to various forms of Nikon - Sony DSLR market sharing understandings (if any exists that is).

Sony's sensor division is independent of it's camera division. Granted, they probably work hand in hand on things, but one reason would be that they are customer and customers often give their input on what they would like to see developed. Nikon would have to redesign their line-up around new sensors, and Sony has some of the best.

I think it more likely that Sony knows it's a big commitment to produce the products and support that Pros demand, and that it's easier to produce great 'almost pro' equipment that will sell better than the limited and more expensive Pro stuff. How much R&D would it take to redesign the 900 into a camera with better high ISO quality and fast FPS drive? How much return on investment would they get for that?

As it is, the 900 will do fine for those working pros who shoot, as the article says, "portrait, wedding, fashion, documentary, landscape, travel, studio product, medical and similar work." However, if you're a photojournalist and get sent to Israel to cover the Gaza invasion, and you have a problem with your A900, what's the chance of getting a loaner or quick fix? That's what Pro support services will get you, and it's not there.

Also, as the article points out, there's a lack of tilt and shift lenses for those whose work demands it. There you run into the chicken and egg conundrum. Do you go ahead and design and produce lenses for a segment of the market you have on hold on? How many of us would fork out the $$ for a T&S lens just for the few times we would use it? I wouldn't! I'd rather spend it on some other equipment that I'll use all the time. If I was in a field that demanded T&S lenses, I wouldn't be picking Sony because they have none. So, Sony's options are to stay away from that, and hope the few people who want T&S will buy aftermarket lenses, or fork out lots of jack to develop and market them to a non-existent clientele.

If Sony gets a lot more pros using their equipment in the fields it's most adaptable to, they may develop a true 'Pro' camera, and market it as such. But it really takes a lot more than better cameras to be a true Pro system.

Dusty

[David Kilpatrick]

You may see that dPreview has the D3X review up, and they mark their photo of the D3X sensor specially as 'Nikon designed'. However, if you go to the A900 review, grab the photo of the sensor (it's a bit small) then do the same with the Nikon review, and size them up to match, and overlay them in Photoshop, it is totally clear that the sensors are one and the same item - identical imaging area, identical infrastructure to the sensor, identical pinout arrangement. Whatever Nikon do to get 14-bit (and oversampling seems to be the answer to that question) they are using the standard connections and functions of the sensor.

I have suggested that Nikon simply get the BEST sensors - something common in IC fab where every item like this is subjected to a standard bench test. Failed sensors are rejected (something Canon got wrong with the 5D MkII if reports are reliable - rogue sensors have been found by too many new owners), those within a certain range of performance go to the A900, and the pick of the crop is assigned to Nikon - at a price. Everything else Nikon do (under-rating sensivity and applying low gain curves to an overexposed image, clipping black levels) fits with that scenario.

Of course I would be happier if all the sensors were the same, or Nikon's was genuinely 'different' not 'better grade' as that would give more hope of an improvement to the A900 via firmware.

David