From: Bruce on
On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:36:16 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>> It's the beginning of the end for DSLRs in general. But it's not going
>> to be a sudden death. They'll run in parallel until there's no longer
>> any advantage to the reflex mirror technology.
>
>Yes - they'll never quite die, they'll just occupy a smaller
>and smaller niche.


When you think of it, the digital market is maturing in very much the
same way as the 35mm film market did.

We will end up with DSLRs and mirrorless digital interchangeable-lens
cameras using the same high quality sensors - just as 35mm SLRs and
35mm rangefinder cameras used the same film and gave comparable image
quality to each other.

From: Bruce on
On 12 May 2010 13:02:56 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>Because almost all A-mount lenses require a camera body motor to drive
>the lens AF, which the NEX bodies don't have. But there are new
>A-mount lenses, and more coming, which have their own focus
>motors. Which should be able to autofocus on a NEX body via the
>A-mount adapter.


The Alpha lens to NEX body adapter is important because it will allow
Sony to stop making Alpha DSLRs while still offering ongoing support
to people with Alpha and Minolta lenses.

There has clearly been a lot of investment in NEX at a time when
investment in Alpha DSLRs and lenses has been curtailed. The writing
is on the wall.

For Alpha, the end is nigh.

From: Bowser on
On Wed, 12 May 2010 07:26:14 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ls9ju5h1ek3180qh00npobort9q2nsc34k(a)4ax.com...
>[]
>> The Four Thirds lens mount would be of no use whatsoever with an APS-C
>> size sensor. And given Sony's massive (and currently underused)
>> capacity for producing APS-C size sensors, there would be no sense in
>> opting for anything smaller.
>>
>> Indeed, the better overall IQ, lower noise and enhanced control of
>> depth of field are such strong assets of APS-C compared to Four Thirds
>> that it would be sheer madness to throw them away by going for a
>> smaller sensor.
>
>Well, it's an other Sony own-brand special I, for one, won't be
>considering. A 4/3 sensor and micro-4/3 lens mount would have much more
>sense, making the package more balanced, perhaps allowing room for an EVF,
>and allowing the customer a much greater choice of lenses. The camera
>doesn't even have a built-in flash!

Normally, I'd agree and say that Sony is once again trying to rule the
world with a proprietary item. But we're used to proprietary lens
mounts, aren't we? This camera is really interesting, for me anyway.
Smaller and lighter than a m4/3 with a larger sensor? Hmmm.....

We'll see when the tests are in. Yes, I've seen the two out now, but
they're not great tests.
From: Bruce on
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:03:19 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:120520100244498107%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>[]
>> they're not part of the 4/3rds consortium and i doubt they could be
>> even if they wanted to.
>
>That's a pity, as it could reduce Sony's development costs as well as
>lowering costs to customers, and provide them with a greater range of
>lenses at launch.


No, it would *increase* Sony's development costs. Going into an
already well-established market where they would have to invest in new
sensors *and* new lenses would be commercial madness.

Sony already has a surplus of APS-C sensor production and the lenses
can be simple adaptations of those that are already mass produced for
APS-C DSLRs - why do you think the kit zoom lens is a very familiar
18-55mm? It would make no sense whatsoever to abandon those huge
commercial advantages and go for an inferior, smaller format.


>Their loss, me thinks.


Disagree 100%. For Sony to adopt Micro Four Thirds would be suicide.

From: David J Taylor on
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0btku5dnv5eg5esh5q7sm9uivailf8prpp(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:03:19 +0100, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:120520100244498107%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>>[]
>>> they're not part of the 4/3rds consortium and i doubt they could be
>>> even if they wanted to.
>>
>>That's a pity, as it could reduce Sony's development costs as well as
>>lowering costs to customers, and provide them with a greater range of
>>lenses at launch.
>
>
> No, it would *increase* Sony's development costs. Going into an
> already well-established market where they would have to invest in new
> sensors *and* new lenses would be commercial madness.
>
> Sony already has a surplus of APS-C sensor production and the lenses
> can be simple adaptations of those that are already mass produced for
> APS-C DSLRs - why do you think the kit zoom lens is a very familiar
> 18-55mm? It would make no sense whatsoever to abandon those huge
> commercial advantages and go for an inferior, smaller format.
>
>
>>Their loss, me thinks.
>
>
> Disagree 100%. For Sony to adopt Micro Four Thirds would be suicide.


I don't agree with your points, but I do see the login in them. It will
be interesting to see what happens with time. Will these unbalanced,
flash-less, viewfinder-less, expensive(?), and proprietary cameras be more
successful than micro-4/3? Will they be any more successful than the
DSC-R1?

Cheers,
David