Rgr that, and he, as everyone prolly knows has some stunning shots which have been up awhile at Dyxum.Dr. Harout wrote:That's Gustav's shot (Ijsvogel).Birma wrote:Nice one Charlie!
However, my own 70400g awaits
Rgr that, and he, as everyone prolly knows has some stunning shots which have been up awhile at Dyxum.Dr. Harout wrote:That's Gustav's shot (Ijsvogel).Birma wrote:Nice one Charlie!
Maybe Sony have finally "hit the nail" after a lot of so-so attempts.A trusted source just told me that “the pre-ordered quantities are almost 200% bigger than expected by Sony“. That’s great news! It means they already sold triple as expected! Now imagine how much more they could sell with a rangefinder designed version (NEX-7 alike).
perhaps underrating the potential impact the A7/7r could have.These FF bodies could have impact in a few ways, but NOT for most buying into the system.
Leica M mount folks looking for a much more reasonable FF body yes it has fairly big appeal
36mp might tempt a few Canon users who want big res (but again they're not going to be buying into the system mostly re-using their EOS lenses)
Then why post so many comments?bfitzgerald wrote:I'm just not that interested in it, have to be honest.
Question asked question responded to.Wes Gibbon wrote:Then why post so many comments?bfitzgerald wrote:I'm just not that interested in it, have to be honest.
Since you're not interested in either FF or CSC's how can you speak for those who are? You've said what you think, why keep repeating yourself? And exactly who is claiming it will be a game-changer for the majority of DSLR or CSC users?bfitzgerald wrote:
The real problem isn't selling the bodies, they're not going to sell the system that's the long term problem for Sony
As most of the profits come from the other stuff (and not the bodies) I think it has some potential, but as a system not really as much as some suggest.
Wes Gibbon wrote:Since you're not interested in either FF or CSC's how can you speak for those who are? You've said what you think, why keep repeating yourself? And exactly who is claiming it will be a game-changer for the majority of DSLR or CSC users?bfitzgerald wrote:
The real problem isn't selling the bodies, they're not going to sell the system that's the long term problem for Sony
As most of the profits come from the other stuff (and not the bodies) I think it has some potential, but as a system not really as much as some suggest.
It does seem that low-end DSLRs are as cheap as the "mirrorless" ILCs, when it comes to APS-C. It seems a bit counterintuitive, but perhaps DSLRs sell in greater numbers, and there's more efficience in the production? Also, I don't think Sony takes a loss on the ILC cameras (trying to make it up on future lens sales). That could be one reason why they don't worry so much about old manual adapted lenses stealing away sales.bfitzgerald wrote:Wes Gibbon wrote:Since you're not interested in either FF or CSC's how can you speak for those who are? You've said what you think, why keep repeating yourself? And exactly who is claiming it will be a game-changer for the majority of DSLR or CSC users?bfitzgerald wrote:
The real problem isn't selling the bodies, they're not going to sell the system that's the long term problem for Sony
As most of the profits come from the other stuff (and not the bodies) I think it has some potential, but as a system not really as much as some suggest.
Why waste your own time questioning my remarks?
I have no problems with your thoughts and views and respect them..so learn to do likewise.
The "system" aspect is a problem for all the ILC models, not just Sony ones. The advantage of being able able to use other lenses via adaptors has obvious plus points (for the user) clearly it does have potential to damage native lens sales too. I'm not sure any of the ILC makers (be it FF, APS-C or micro 4/3) have really understood that part of it. I believe it's one reason CSC's have had a mixed response (I think that's a fair remark)
I would also point out, and this strikes me as quite obvious..I don't see any price incentive to look at these ILC models, bar being able to use other lenses (and save money) Less parts, small bodies, less production time has not translated into better prices for customers. I think that's the other reasons mirror less has not done as well as some suggested. It's interesting to see what happens, and I'm quite happy for a logical discussion on that
I'm sorry - I may have overstated the case. It seems to me that you are interested, even if you have no intention of buying into FF (or NEX for that matter).bfitzgerald wrote:Wes Gibbon wrote:Since you're not interested in either FF or CSC's how can you speak for those who are? You've said what you think, why keep repeating yourself? And exactly who is claiming it will be a game-changer for the majority of DSLR or CSC users?bfitzgerald wrote:
The real problem isn't selling the bodies, they're not going to sell the system that's the long term problem for Sony
As most of the profits come from the other stuff (and not the bodies) I think it has some potential, but as a system not really as much as some suggest.
Why waste your own time questioning my remarks?
I have no problems with your thoughts and views and respect them..so learn to do likewise.
Are you really sure that the likes of Canikon don't consider this? By the way, am I right in thinking that ILC stands for 'Interchangeable Lens Camera'. If so, does that include DSLR's? If not, can you enlighten me and forgive my ignorance?bfitzgerald wrote:The "system" aspect is a problem for all the ILC models, not just Sony ones. The advantage of being able able to use other lenses via adaptors has obvious plus points (for the user) clearly it does have potential to damage native lens sales too. I'm not sure any of the ILC makers (be it FF, APS-C or micro 4/3) have really understood that part of it.
I don't myself remember too many people cliaiming that the main advantage of CSC's is on price - certainly the attraction for me is that they are smaller and lighter (and less conspicuous). I recently heard of a professional photographer who has switched to a NEX system for landscape work now that his advancing years make it difficult to carry a large kit on location. and with the 16-50 zoom the NEX cameras are just about pocketable.bfitzgerald wrote:I believe it's one reason CSC's have had a mixed response (I think that's a fair remark)
I would also point out, and this strikes me as quite obvious..I don't see any price incentive to look at these ILC models, bar being able to use other lenses (and save money). Less parts, small bodies, less production time has not translated into better prices for customers. I think that's the other reasons mirror less has not done as well as some suggested.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests