Sony, nothing good since the A900?

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems RichA 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.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:38:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA
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.

Clues for RichA The Troll wrote:


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.


Sadly it's not server software (except for the image size - you'd need
to upres the 1600 x 1200!) it is the human QC staff and it has little to
do with bean-counting. And if you do get a news picture of that type,
the iStockphotos, Gettys and Alamys all become irrelevant as the big
problem will be stopping a newspaper, TV or agency deal depriving you of
a fortune by signing over rights before you understand the value.

If you take a sharp macro picture of your dirty carpet fibres it will
probably sell. Beautiful landscapes usually don't. That's where the real
shakedown happens - loads of Flickr mavens thinking their amazing HDR
weekend photos are going to sell well as stock because they get great
feedback and praise from the web community. Same goes for birds in
flight, air shows, and slightly nervous looking girls clearly posing for
the camera.

The most common search on Alamy a few weeks ago was for someone picking
up dog poo - probably with a model release from the person, and property
releases signed for the dog and the poo. That's what stock is about.

David

Clues for RichA The Troll wrote:

Akin to a 1,000,000 megawatt television station

Talk about clueless.