Robert Collins

The viewfinder is the same as such cameras as the A7ii or A7rii. With the A7riii and A9 there is an upgraded viewfinder which appears larger and has many more mega-pixels. It is clearly an area that Sony decided to save some bucks in order to meet the US$2k price point. I have both an A7rii and an A7riii - I honestly dont really notice the difference but, then again, I am not often punching in focus for video...

Are you really saying that the typical pro photographer is a glamorous female earning big bucks? My comments were based on the BLS data on photographers... (the fat bit was for effect ;)) https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes274021.htm The figures show that the 'annual mean wage' of a professional photographer is US$42k and that only 10% of professional photographers in the US earn over US$76k a year. This might not seem too bad to you - it is 10% above the national mean wage. However, professional photographers are generally well educated with a high percentage holding a university degree.

I dont necessarily disagree but for instance when I state that 'Pro photogs only make up around 2% of ILC camera buyers' do you really want me to explain that... The BLS data from 2016 shows 48,000 thousand professional photogs in the US... https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes274021.htm The CIPA data for 2017 shows 2.9m shipments of ILCs to the US... http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201712_e.pdf So if you assume that every pro photog buys one camera a year, they represent 1.7% of the total ILCs sold....??

Sadly. Absolutely correct. And I totally respect those people who have managed to succeed in turning their passion into a career - it is simply a risk I am not prepared to take - in that I dont want to risk killing my passion. Back on topic. I do buy some stock footage occasionally because I am too lazy to shoot it myself. Stuff like 'smoke' or 'chalk dust'... My guess is that it is this that sells ...or say glitches, flares or flashes - rather than the sexy girl on the beach shots we take on holiday.

I think I am right in saying that the incremental video cam tax is 12% which equates to some US$200. So a better question might be 'how many people would pay an extra US$200 to be able to record longer than 30 minutes in one shot?' My guess is very few as I suspect that 90% of A7iii users dont shoot video at all.

Really? In Bangkok? I seriously doubt it? That is seriously disrespectful....

Well it was you who said that car manufacturers invested in F1 for the knock on effects of exposure. I do 100% agree that the knock-on effects of exposure isnt great in a 'bacon' advert when you are a 'pig' Honestly Ajay your logic is 'back to front'. I 100% agree that if Sony wants to 'woo' birders over to their platform they need a 400 f2.8. However I simply not convinced that birders are an economic platform. Furthermore if you happen to be a birder with a 400 2.8, I really dont think it is economically realistic to switch to Sony. And simply betting that 2 in a million is higher than 1 in a million is still a heroically optimistic business plan!!

And seriously? I 100% get why people aspire to be Cristiano Ronaldo in this photo, why people pay in millions of dollars to wear his shoes or the shirt he is wearing and I fully understand that every person involved to be in the scrum to take his photo, is being paid good money to wrestle with everyone else for that photo. BUT do you really think in 2018 that people aspire to owning a camera or lens that people like THIS use... you are hardly invoking a glamorous lifestyle...

Honestly you are entitled to your opinion that 'pro photographers' are seen as 'objects of desire' in 2018 much in the same way as F1 drivers. Personally I see 'pro photographers' as overweight, underpaid and increasingly impoverished second class citizens. Where you see professional photography as glamorous - I see 'wedding photographers' 'oap photographers' 'child sports photographers' 'funeral photogs' (in my country) etc... If Sony really thinks pro photography is glamorous, they could do better than sponsoring a fat chap with a hat....

ABSOLUTELY!!! But again you are totally missing my point.... MY POINT... is that WHY is Sony trying to enter a market for 'HIGH END SPORTS' shooters when that market is 'INCREDIBLY SMALL' - literally 'THOUSANDS' in a global population of billions. Furthermore, this market for several thousand high end sports shooters is already well catered for by Canikon. Is the total global market for photographers who use 400 2.8 lenses over 100,000 in a world of 7 billion? Even if it is, how many of those Canikon shooters are going to switch to Sony? Look I 100% get what Pro shooters are and that they need to hold their cameras for 6 hours a day. I simply dont 'GET' why Sony should 'AIM' their cameras at 'YOU' rather than the 98% of the camera buying population that are 'NOT' PRO PHOTOGRAPHERS. If you really believe that Sony should design their cameras for 'pro photographers' on the basis that every buyer of an ILC should 'aspire' to being a pro photographer with pro photographers needs and wants you are clearly both insane and a clear indicator of why camera companies have totally missed on the biggest explosion of photography in history.

Honestly I am not arguing about what 'pros' 'want' merely that mirrorless camera manufacturers are far better off ignoring such a small demographic ( which is already well catered to by the large DSLR manufacturers). I absolutely 'get' that you want 'your cake and to eat it'. For me, rather than Sony focusing on producing a 400 2.8 lens to satisfy the half dozen 'pro photogs' who might buy it 'unsponsored' they would be far better off focusing on a 'proper touch based lcd', 'usuable wifi to smartphone', 'touch based menus' - you know all those things why smartphones outsell ILCs 100:1. As Inuzuma put it .... 'Indeed I think manufacturers have to find a better approach. Perhaps minimal buttons and a much larger rear touch screen is the way forward. ' AS for your comment 'the A7iii will sell like hotcakes' - I am sure it will - luckily it hasnt fallen down the root of 'small sensor, large camera'. Meanwhile we will have to look deep into the stats to find where 'Panasonic's' market share has disappeared to....

If you look at the stock photo market, prices have totally collapsed over the past 10 years and so have photographers incomes from this source. Stock video footage is much more expensive, so there maybe a decent income to be had there at the moment. I suspect it will follow the 'stock photo' market within a few years though.

Either we are talking at cross purposes or you are missing my point completely. I think that it would be totally 'wrong' and 'incredibly inadvisable' for mirrorless camera manufacturers to design or redesign their cameras based on the 'perceived ergonomics of pro photographers'. Pro photogs only make up around 2% of ILC camera buyers and the other 98% dont have the same habits. In the same vein, you talk about 'buttons and dials' needing to be bigger while smartphone users (99% of photographers) dont actually use them at all. It seems 'pro photogs' want mirrorless companies to build cameras that closely resemble 'DSLRs'. Does this make sense? Since 2012 DSLR sales have halved in value. Since 2012 mirrorless ILC sales have increased 77% in value. So it literally makes no sense at all for 'pros' to keep telling mirrorless camera companies to go copy a failing business strategy. It should be 'pretty obvious' that mirrorless cameras are succeeding because they are 'different' from DSLRs not because they are striving to be the 'same'.

As you say, those pesky females are taking up an ever increasing percentage of ILC buyers.... I also think consumers consider camera size apart from pro ergonomics... 1. Here in Asia, at least 80% of men carry a 'manbag' - plenty of room for a mirrorless, not so good for a DSLR 2. Ergonomics is bound to rank higher for a 'pro' using his camera 4 hours a day than a consumer using his camera for 20 minutes. 3. 'Pros' talk about 'balance' with 'GM' Sony zooms or '400 2.8' primes. I seriously dont think I have seen an A7 with a GM zoom on the street in Asia. Consumers typically match these cameras up with a small prime - 28, 35, 55 - with which they balance fine - probably much better than a DSLR.

Yes of course I know those numbers. And note since the peak of ILC unit sales in 2012 - DSLRs (ie large sized ILCs) have halved from 16m units to 8m while mirrorless have increased in volume and over doubled in value. I am not confusing anything with anything. I absolutely know the numbers, I have analysed the report and accounts of the major camera manufacturers etc.. I know them pretty much like the back of my hand. So if you want to argue CIPA stats, I can argue you them to the cows come home... And please stop arguing along these lines 'A7 cameras were terrible for pro use'. I 100% realize that this argument might apply to 'YOU' and I totally understand the concept that you think that camera manufacturers should design cameras 'based on what I really want' but assuming you are a 'PRO' you are not a large demographic in even units or volume. It is an argument that is 'totally incoherent' and simply explains the mess these companies are now in.

Nope. Sorry, I simply will not accept that because you are so WRONG. The complete collapse of the global camera business in a world where photography has increased 'exponentially' is entirely due to ''pros' talking ergonomics' = 'it should work with a 400 f2.8' rather than listening to 'economists'. You can all prattle on about how an A7 series doesnt balance with a 400 2.8 lens as long as you like but you should recognize that as well as getting a smaller demographic, a more impoverished demographic you are 'literally' a 'dying demographic'. In a world whereby 99% (almost exactly) of photographers use smart phones, where are you in a position to define 'ergonomics'?

Sorry. This is an 'A7' thread' and I have bought at 7 x A7 cameras - which is probably 7 more than you - why should you tell me what is off topic? 'I’ve got small hands. We don’t need tiny flagship cameras. What we need are cameras with buttons, dials and handgrips that don’t feel cramped. And even small cameras can benefit from chunkier dials and a beefier hand grip.' This sort of comment - which sort of is 'well if you make the camera bigger I might eventually buy it' is on topic while my comments about 'why I am a multiple customer of this camera is off topic' - give me a break!

I am 100% an economist before a photographer. So on that basis have considered why exactly Sony has introduced the pricing of the A7ii at such a 'disruptive price point'. It is actually quite simple. Look at Sony's report and accounts. The sensor business has higher operating margins and much higher gross margins than the camera business. Canon, the market leader, basically has it lower end cameras with lower end margins to entice users in and then move them up the margin curve. This doesnt work for Sony that is the major sensor manufacturer (it is where its competitive advantage lies) and therefore wants to encourage as many users to higher sensor sizes. Ultimately Sony wants as much price competition in FF sensors as possible to move consumers up the 'sensor curve'.

Aaah.... But this where you are missing the big point.... Did you miss this post from earlier.... 'As someone who uses cameras mostly for travel and social occasions, I do very much appreciate the compact form of these cameras. In fact I wouldn't mind if they shrunk it down further to a6500 size. Don't forget if you want a chunkier body with pretty much the same features you can get the A99 II.' I spend 10x the amount travelling than I do on my camera equipment each year. If you havent actually noticed, inequality in the world is increasing - where pretty much the top 1% take all the cash every year. (BTW I dont think this it as 'should' be but it is what it 'is') So when you say 'pros may be declining but amateurs tend to aim more & more towards high-end..' you are totally missing the point of where the 'high end actually is now'. If you think 'declining number of pros, still represent the 'high-end' demographic of the camera market' you are simply misinformed. And to answer 'jonpais' question - I say that as a 'statistician/economist' rather than a 'photographer' because at the end of the day - you shouldnt argue with facts!!

Nope. I am totally serious. If camera manufacturers aim their products at the wrong demographic - a demographic that is declining and increasingly impoverished, they will continue to decline. I can promise you that 'Camera manufacturers are keen to lose boatloads of money, which is why they continue to release reasonably priced pro bodies for a dwindling market.' maybe a sort term phenomenon but it is not a long time survival strategy - it will inevitably lead to the replacement of the company or more likely its management. And 'large cameras balance better with longer lenses' would make some sense if the 'average demographic' actually used large longer lenses with their cameras. But as the ratio of 'lenses to ILC camera sales' has remained pretty static a 1.65 over the last 10 years, we can be 100% certain the vast majority of photographers dont actually have longer lenses... http://www.cipa.jp/stats/report_e.html (Or they are a small (but fairly affluent demographic))

Have you tried setting 'af tracking sensitivity' - menu 2 - 2 - to responsive. By default it is set to standard.

I feel that most photographers like what they are used to. So naturally a 1DX owner who picks up an A7 series camera think it feels and handles like a toy. I have only used smaller mirrorless cameras and whenever I hold a dslr it feels like holding some klunky vestige of the past. For most people who switch I suspect they get used to the new form factor fairly quickly. The A7 smaller body is one of the main attractions of the range to still shooters and I know people who switched away when Sony made them a bit bigger and especially dont get the small battery, small sensor - large body - approach of the XH-1. Didnt Olympus already try this strategy with the original 43 format and fail?

I agree with you. A lot of people consider a 'good hybrid camera' as the ability to shoot good stills and video. I think a 'really good hybrid camera' allows you to switch between 'stills and video seamlessly'. So any 'automatic crop' (that isnt a creative choice) in say 4k is a pain although most people can probably deal with 1.2x to 1.3x. I also find it important to be able to maintain isos between stills and video useful which is why I dont like a lot of log gammas.

Well spotted. Unfortunately, it was almost certainly a slip of the tongue. Panasonic launched the TZ200 in the middle of February!!