Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Interesting Comment from President of Sony Electronics

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: oh FFS enough already
CDSINUK
CDSINUK  2223 forum posts England
8 Nov 2012 - 7:13 PM

management today magazine MT had a pretty pessimistic view of the companies future and that of the japanese econonemy,I was surprised to read they had not made a profit from their TV sales for over 8 years, thats not a good business model
earlier in this thread i was shouting Sony's praises for their technology, but after reading the report, they may not be around for much longer ??

Last Modified By CDSINUK at 8 Nov 2012 - 7:17 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
8 Nov 2012 - 7:13 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mdpontin
mdpontin  106016 forum posts Scotland
8 Nov 2012 - 10:28 PM


Quote: No. Obviously the technology is new but, in attempting to make it look almost exactly like the old OM series they've included an SLR pentaprism dome which makes the camera less pocketable.

As for any product, design is a matter of compromise. You decide what is important and what can be left out. In the case of the OM-D, pocketability wasn't a primary design objective. The PEN range is more suited to that.

If pocketability is important to you when choosing a camera, then the OM-D is not really for you, is it? But you only have to read a few reviews, or see what a few users are saying, to see that that's not something that matters for everybody. What I infer from your comment is that you feel that Olympus set out to make a retro-style camera, and as result the camera's practicality has suffered. In fact it's an excellent design if you value the way that particular camera handles, and what it's capable of. I'm pretty sure we've been over this before, too. Yes, the retro design is nice, but I doubt if most of us bought it simply, or even primarily, because it's pretty. We chose it because it's an excellent photographic tool, and the aesthetic qualities are simply a bonus.

Put it another way, if I had bought a PEN, I'd probably have bought an add-on EVF to use with it. Lo and behold...a pentaprism-like bulge. Sure, I could always remove the EVF and pocket the camera, but why would I want to keep detaching and re-attaching the EVF? It wastes time and increases the risk of damage. So for me, the OM-D is the better design, retro or not.

Last Modified By mdpontin at 8 Nov 2012 - 10:30 PM
strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
8 Nov 2012 - 11:00 PM

The NEX-6 beautifully illustrates the problem I have with sony cameras. Going for a new shape why not? sometimes retro fused with modern design creates an interesting product, sometimes going for the new helps. So I can see advantages in the basic layout you mention. Packaging, well now that Sony have copied the Panasonic style of kit lens it is getting better. And sony will have thrown in a good sensor as well, But I ask you, have you picked one up and tried to use it?

Sadly Sony forgot to give it to photographers and study how people want to handle and use cameras., its user interface and ergonomics fail in startlingly clumsy ways. You wonder if any of them at Sony design HQ take pictures or are they all on a techno dream. Lets take the video button. Lets not make it easy to press by accident, in fact why not go all the way and make it hard to press full stop. It turns what should be a simple task into a difficult one.

Next the rotational controls, good it has two, but what's that Sony forgot to think that photographers might want to have two independent controls so have another glaring user interface problem. It would be reasonable in aperture priority mode to have aperture on one and exposure control on the other. But that is beyond the comprehension of whoever set up the user interface. The rear dial in that mode does nothing??????? Come on Sony get the firmware fix out for that. Its obvious just go pick up one of the competitor cameras and get a photographer to show you.

Touch screen,hello who forgot the touch screen pretty handy in small camera body for making menus etc easy to use.

And then here is the lens range, with m4/3 having a good range of lenses.

So I find if I pick up the NEX I think the underlying technology is good, they just forgot to design it to be easy to use, and they are stupid drop off's. The OMD yes its retro, but also you feel it was designed to be a compact camera that would be easy to use creatively. Its like Olympus set out to make a clever compact camera, Sony set out to play with the technology. So the Sony may have some technical advantages, but is not the better camera. If you use them for a while you can see the difference.

Its like the brightest guy in the class, who just cannot be bothered. So the harder working less gifted kid gets better exam results. as for the NEX6 Sony get the software bods working on fixing the obvious user controls and interface issues. Could they have put a ring control around the lens mount, I think they could have done something there.

mdpontin
mdpontin  106016 forum posts Scotland
8 Nov 2012 - 11:17 PM


Quote: The OMD yes its retro, but also you feel it was designed to be a compact camera that would be easy to use creatively.

Well put. It took me three paragraphs to say pretty much the same thing! Tongue Smile

paulcookphotography

Sony have certainly been 'disruptive' with their designs, such as the twisty body bridge cameras of a few years ago. These designs though proved to be pretty much failures. Nikon (for example) had their versions which were adopted by dental surgeons, digiscopists and the like to much more success. I cant really remember or see other areas that they have brought something new to the table.

Yeah, sensors get better, and more presets get added, but really, has there been anything totally disruptive added to the camera market with the exception of the addition of HD filming (not a sony creation, as far as i know)?

lemmy
lemmy  71948 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Nov 2012 - 12:17 AM

If you leave out the addition of video, I think that stills photography has been little changed in principle by the digtial camera.

The method of recording and transmission has changed, yes but image making itself, not really. The last real game changer was the SLR camera with its range of interchangeable lenses.

Since then the images have been much of a muchness.

As a lifelong professional myself, the advent of workeable digital when I was in my fifties seemed to me no more than a change of method, technical changes easily learned, no more than that.

When I see a new Sony camera or micro 43 and people saying it is innovative....well mildly, yes but no more than mildly.

paulcookphotography

i agree Lemmy

I use CSC now as a fun side project to my professional work (and sometimes intertwines), and yeah, its Nikon and olympus i use in that respect, but sony have to realise they are the realitive newcomers to an already successful and developed market. Not knocking them on quality and especially in bringing more people into photography, but them claiming they are groundbreakers in a stagnant market and industry is a bit of a cheek

I still use my cameras more or less like i did with my first SLRs. Manual. Sometimes MF, sometimes without

Last Modified By paulcookphotography at 9 Nov 2012 - 12:49 AM
Steppenwolf
9 Nov 2012 - 9:21 AM


Quote:

I use CSC now as a fun side project to my professional work (and sometimes intertwines), and yeah, its Nikon and olympus i use in that respect, but sony have to realise they are the realitive newcomers to an already successful and developed market. Not knocking them on quality and especially in bringing more people into photography, but them claiming they are groundbreakers in a stagnant market and industry is a bit of a cheek


The bottom line is that the Sony offerings are different - which is what the Sony exec meant I think. The traditional camera manufacturers (i.e. Canon, Nikon and Olympus) are still making cameras that are (in the case of Canon and Nikon) basically SLRs with a digital sensor. The Sony SLTs are different in that they use the fixed mirror, which I know has been around for a long time but it was a brave move for Sony to abandon their DSLRs. I can't see Canon or Nikon doing that. Of course they have lost some users by doing this because some people prefer what they're familiar with.

In the case of the mirrorless offerings, Nikon and Olympus seem to have two designs. You get a small one without an EVF or, if you want a viewfinder, you get an imitation DSLR. OLympus even name their mirrorless cameras after SLRs they made 40 or 50 years ago. The NEX system doesn't follow this path. Both the versions with or without the EVF follow the same pattern of offering the smallest camera they can possibly make.

These are not huge differences but they are indicative that Sony has a different, less traditional approach which some people prefer and some people (as can be seen above) hate. I just think it's a pity that the "usual suspects" react to this different approach by suggesting that maybe Sony should concentrate on making sensors or just rubbishing everything that's different - probably without ever having properly used any of the cameras that they're rubbishing.

I reckon it's a good thing that Sony is brave (or foolish) enough to make these cameras. There's a place for the traditional, of course, but it's nice to have different options. I was a bit disappointed when the new Jaguar F-type was announced and there was not even a token nod to the E-type - one of the most iconic cars ever made. It's just another identikit modern car which will get crucified by the Boxster. A massive opportunity to cash in on their heritage completely missed.

Last Modified By Steppenwolf at 9 Nov 2012 - 9:24 AM
mikehit
mikehit  56741 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2012 - 9:59 AM


Quote: The bottom line is that the Sony offerings are different

not much in my view


Quote: The Sony SLTs are different in that they use the fixed mirror,

Big deal. They use a mirror. Yes, the pellicular mirror allows live view with real-time visibility of what is on the sensor and allows a higher frame rate but those are not aspects that everyone is bothered about. They have developed a niche.


Quote: Nikon and Olympus seem to have two designs. You get a small one without an EVF or, if you want a viewfinder, you get an imitation DSLR

That is about design as to where you put the EVF. Not particularly innovative as rangefinders have had viewfinder in that position since whenever.


Quote: These are not huge differences but they are indicative that Sony has a different, less traditional approach which some people prefer and some people (as can be seen above) hate.

It is not about hating, for God's sake.
If you read strawman's critique (which mirrors my own thoughts) the disavantages are nothing to do with form or the minor cosmetics you praise so loudly. It is about usability and functionality, not where the EVF is located. If they get the interface sorted out, maybe, just maybe they will be onto something.


Quote: I reckon it's a good thing that Sony is brave

I still fail to see much 'brave' about Sony's design. The brave thing if anything is contunuing to put APS-C sensor in a mirrorless body in competitoin to so many superb MFT cameras.
The NEX came out at a time when APS-C was the best option for a small high-qality sensor and before MFT reached the image quality they have now. If Sony were just entering the compact mirrorless market now, I have real doubts as to whether they would go for APS-C.

Last Modified By mikehit at 9 Nov 2012 - 10:00 AM
lemmy
lemmy  71948 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Nov 2012 - 11:28 AM


Quote: If Sony were just entering the compact mirrorless market now, I have real doubts as to whether they would go for APS-C.

I agree, almost certainly they wouldn't. The penalty in lens size is what holds the Sony cameras back. When I was getting rid of my DSLR stuff, I looked at the Sony cameras and liked them a lot. But put even the standard zoom lens on and you have a camera little different in overall size from my old Pentax K5.

The Panasonic and Olympus cameras were more innovative in that they used the smaller sensor rather than the traditional digital size that Sony stayed with. I don't know all the Sony lenses but I'm sure that if you were to compare the Panasonic 7-14 with the Sony 12-24 f4 or the Sony 60mm f1.8 with the Olympus 45mm f1.l8 o even the Sony 35mm f1.4 with the Summilux f1.4 25mm, you 'd find the Sony lenses much bigger (might be cheaper, though!).

Sony has chosen the more staid path and I expect it has taken some DSLR owners with it. But as the quality of the M43 sensor has improved to a point where there is little need for better quality (not to say WISH for better quality), the Sony is inevitably left behind.

Nikon have taken a more innovative road with their small sensor equipment, though I don't fancy it myself. Sony's problem is that they need to talk big about 'disruptive products'. If they had the hardware to be 'disruptive' (innovative for those for whom English is their first language) they wouldn't need to fall into management speak, their products would speak for themselves.

I seem to remember Canon had a pellicle mirror camera decades ago but it had too few advantages and too many disadvantages to be worthwhile. Is that where Sony got the idea, I wonder? No Canon patent, presumably.

paulcookphotography


Quote:

These are not huge differences but they are indicative that Sony has a different, less traditional approach which some people prefer and some people (as can be seen above) hate.

Um, can you please direct me to the part in my comment where i stated i hate Sony and their approach? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth!

strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2012 - 1:58 PM

It was probably aimed at me. The points I raise are about how the decisions taken by Sony in their products may not be the best and the examples I gave here are about how the camera is to use. You look to have a problem with that and get upset about retro etc, but the point being made to you is not about new V's retro but about how the product is to use.

In fact I like the fact that the Sony NEX range look different and from a looks point of view I prefer that to the OMD, but when I pick the cameras up and start to use them I find the OMD has controls that make the camera easier to use and so handle better. And when I look to the lens range I find the m4/3 range is better.

So it is not about tradition or the Sony brand as there are quite a few Sony items I have in the house. It is about how the product is to use and how it performs. As I have said to you more than once the problem is I expect better from Sony and they are capable of better. So while I like many sony products I am not blind to their foibles. And sorry in my eyes their camera products fall short of their other products. When I bought a tablet I bought the sony one because I liked its design , it was not a flat rectangle they created their own shape and they modified the user interface in a way I liked etc etc.

On balance their cameras are far from disruptive and I have not found one I think top of class (though the A900 was once). So compact mirror less camera I would buy Olympus in preference, for a top end APS/sports camera I would have a Canon 7D, as much for the lenses as the camera, for a general purpose all round camera a Nikon D7000, or the Olympus OMD or the Canon 60D will it would take me a long time to choose. For a do everything tough camera a canon 5D MKIII, for a landscape camera the D800..... Its not a love of one brand or a hatred of a brand, its just the Sony cameras are not strong enough in my eyes. In the past rather than the D800 I would have picked the A900 or its lower cost A850 brother. I remember you hated me for saying I would have one of them over the A77 and then threw a strop when I used some test images to show why.

And the annoying thing, Sony could be top of the list, if they just put some effort into it.

Last Modified By strawman at 9 Nov 2012 - 1:58 PM
lemmy
lemmy  71948 forum posts United Kingdom
9 Nov 2012 - 2:03 PM


Quote: Um, can you please direct me to the part in my comment where i stated i hate Sony and their approach? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth!

You didn't, nor did strawman. The 'j'accuse' from the gentleman concerned reminds me of those Apple fans who have an emotional attachment to an arrangement of transistors connected to battery and glass.

To make any argument running contrary to theirs is 'hate' because if you could only share their faith, you would see that their 'love' is right.

It's quite like a religious argument when you think of it.

Steppenwolf
9 Nov 2012 - 2:35 PM


Quote: It was probably aimed at me. The points I raise are about how the decisions taken by Sony in their products may not be the best and the examples I gave here are about how the camera is to use.

I think it's a little more than that SM. As I've said to you before, you seem to trawl the reviews of Sony products and make a note of the negative features and then regurgitate them when given the opportunity - while completely ignoring the positive features. The points you make about the NEX's interface are largely subjective and some of them (e.g. the irritation about the movie button positioning) have been addressed by firmware updates (which disables the button until movie mode is selected) - on the NEX-6 they've moved it anyway. The OM-D is more conventional admittedly and easier to learn.

However your sniping at Sony goes back a long way. You didn't like the in-body IS because a) you said it didn't work with long lenses and b) you said it wouldn't work for movies. Now that Olympus have proved that it does work for both you seem to have gone a bit quiet on that. You objected to the A77 having 24Mp for too many reasons to list - all pretty spurious. Now that Nikon have brought out the 36Mp D800 you probably think that that's OK now. You rubbished the SLT mirror as a half-baked solution which was badly designed and wasted light unnecessarily, while ignoring the fact that it allows the SLT to achieve very fast frame rates (which you also called unnecessary) and excellent video, which the DSLR can't match. You rubbished the EVF (again for spurious reasons too numerous to mention). Et cetera. I could go on but you get the point.

As for the A900/850 being better than the A77, possibly - provided they manage to focus correctly on what you want. As I've said before one of the major reasons why I decided never to buy another DSLR was the inaccurate focus (BF/FF) which doesn't seem to afflict the SLTs - at least the focus on the A77 is fine. I did consider going M4/3 but they don't have a decent selection of long lenses (especially primes) and they don't (yet) have decent tracking focus.

I agree that NEX would be better with a smaller sensor, but they seem to have managed to make the NEX-6/16-50 smaller (or at least no larger) than the M4/3 equivalents so maybe Sony didn't get it so far out.

mikehit
mikehit  56741 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
9 Nov 2012 - 3:02 PM


Quote: while completely ignoring the positive features.

Whereas you seem to think the Sony cameras have no negatives. Is that any different?
When looking at a new camera, I cna read countless advertisements, threads and reviews about the functions and the benefits of a certain design. But what interests me are the 'negatives' - why someone chose one camera over another. Ican then decide which compromises I want to make. I think Strawman's comments on the NEX-6 were well reasoned and showed why he rejected it as an option.



Quote: The points you make about the NEX's interface are largely subjective

Isn't that what camera choice is all about?


Quote: SLT mirror ...wasted light unnecessarily

it does


Quote: ignoring the fact that it allows the SLT to achieve very fast frame rates

personal choice on compromises inherent in any design. You like it, I (and others) don't think it is that important


Quote: and excellent video, which the DSLR can't match

Ditto - I don't shoot video so why would that be selling point for me


Quote:
You rubbished the EVF

Did he rubbish it or just say why he preferred optical VF?

You use words like ' you rubbish...' and 'you hate...' which does not exactly show a reasoned understanding of someone's POV.


Quote: I did consider going M4/3 but they don't have a decent selection of long lenses (especially primes)and they don't (yet) have decent tracking focus

The first part is their main drawback at the moment, and I think Brian's examples with the OM-D are showing that experience can overcome focus limitations.

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: oh FFS enough already