«

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> When the new 300's were released, I knew they were going to be
> cruddy. Visually, they look like s---, functionally they aren't too
> good either. Aimed SQUARELY at soccer moms and P&S migrants, they
> dont begin to show the kind of inventiveness as the admirable A700 and
> A900. Now, Dpreview (for better or worse, the most traveled review
> site on the web by a long shot) trashed the A380. Sony needs to
> realize like Pentax, that if you are going to compete on the APS-C
> level, you have to be at least as good or better than Canon and Nikon,
> otherwise, why would anyone buy your offering?
> Apparently, Sony treated this camera like a P&S, ruining detail at
> above 200 ISO. Was that needed, with an APS-C sensor??

Sony have been rather more successful at selling their DSLRs than any
of the other minority DSLR makers. They have been very successful at
selling the A3X0 models despite their much criticised disgusting
strategy of trying to sell cameras to soccer moms etc.. Every time
they produce a new DSLR aimed at soccer moms the serious photographers
squeal in horrified disgust and serious Sony photographers start
talking about having to migrate if Sony don't stop this nonsense. I
don't know what camera review magazines soccer moms read, but I think
we can safely assume they would find plenty to criticise in the A700
and A900. All those buttons and not a single one of them pops up a
flash!

What's wrong with making money and improving market share by
identifying markets and making stuff they want? If you're a serious
photographer don't fret, Sony have shown they can make good serious
cameras. There will be more of those along soon. But they do have to
keep the pot boiling, so I'm afraid you may have to face up to the
unpleasant possibility that catering exclusively to your photographic
tastes, or indeed mine, may not be the best way of making money and
improving market share.

--
Chris Malcolm

It's not the camera. It's the bozo or the artist behind it.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > When the new 300's were released, I knew they were going to be
>> > cruddy. Visually, they look like s---, functionally they aren't too
>> > good either. Aimed SQUARELY at soccer moms and P&S migrants, they
>> > dont begin to show the kind of inventiveness as the admirable A700 and
>> > A900. Now, Dpreview (for better or worse, the most traveled review
>> > site on the web by a long shot) trashed the A380. Sony needs to
>> > realize like Pentax, that if you are going to compete on the APS-C
>> > level, you have to be at least as good or better than Canon and Nikon,
>> > otherwise, why would anyone buy your offering?
>> > Apparently, Sony treated this camera like a P&S, ruining detail at
>> > above 200 ISO. Was that needed, with an APS-C sensor??
>>
>> Sony have been rather more successful at selling their DSLRs than any
>> of the other minority DSLR makers. They have been very successful at
>> selling the A3X0 models despite their much criticised disgusting
>> strategy of trying to sell cameras to soccer moms etc.. Every time
>> they produce a new DSLR aimed at soccer moms the serious photographers
>> squeal in horrified disgust and serious Sony photographers start
>> talking about having to migrate if Sony don't stop this nonsense. I
>> don't know what camera review magazines soccer moms read, but I think
>> we can safely assume they would find plenty to criticise in the A700
>> and A900. All those buttons and not a single one of them pops up a
>> flash!
>>
>> What's wrong with making money and improving market share by
>> identifying markets and making stuff they want?

> Making money? When did they start doing that?

I don't understand your comment.

They make money every time they sell a camera. As far as I can see on
a quick google they were doing very well in terms of profits until
2008, when according to their financial reports combination of the
world financial crisis, a strong yen, and poor performance of their
games and mobile phones reduced profits severely. The latest
announcements I could find said they were making losses in the first
quarter of 2009. Since Canon has announced slashes in profits in the
90% range over the same period that doesn't suggest to me that Sony is
in special trouble compared to its competitors in the camera market.

--
Chris Malcolm

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:38:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> It's not the camera. It's the bozo or the artist behind it.
>
>Not according to professional sites that host images for sale. Take
>some old film camera or bad digital, shoot an image of impeccable
>standards as far as composition and subject go, and the image will be
>rejected, guaranteed.

These so-called "professional sites" that host images for sale are ran by
bean-counters and people who know absolutely nothing about photography
other than how much money it can make for them. They found a way to exploit
an online market and counted up their pixels. Of course they're going to
choose the highest resolutions possible for sale. Haven't you been paying
attention? It's the same way camera's are sold to the less informed
masses--the consumer masses just as misinformed and blind-following as
these "professional sites" of which you speak. People who host sites like
that are mindlessly following suit because they saw it works. Just because
people as stupid as you support the same "standards" that you support
doesn't mean that they are in any way correct. Pixel quantity = money.
That's all it means to them. They don't have one clue what constitutes
quality photography. They could care less if it's an ultra-high resolution
120 megapixel, impeccably exposed, and 20 EV dynamic range of some dog's
boogered-up nose. Nothing but a massive carrier signal with absolutely no
worthy content. Akin to a 1,000,000 megawatt television station
broadcasting an off-the-air blank screen. An impeccably huge image with
zero worthy content. Someone might want to buy an ultra-high resolution
image of a dripping dog's nose so they'll host it. It fits their
bean-counter's criteria for what might sell and that's all that matters to
them.

Don't believe me? Take a sharp macro picture of your dirty carpet fibers in
a 50 megapixel image. Submit it for approval. You'll be approved.
Guaranteed. Take a hastily exposed and slightly mis-focused 1600x1200 image
of some world leader's assassination, the only image of its kind in the
world. Submit that. Their bean-counting server software will reject it
while you are trying to upload it for approval. Guaranteed.

You're not too bright, are you.