DSLR's all gear no idea!

[ernesto]

Eh! Really? Feel better?
Oh, you mean attract attention and not feel like a pleb with a compact lol

Yes, that and partly because some (most?) people are happier if they own nicer/more expensive equipment. Just the same as any other hobbies and products. It is the western way.

I happily admit that I get more enjoyment from using and owning my X100 than I did from any lesser compacts I have owned. I don't see anything wrong with that - my money and my life to enjoy.

 

[mrjames]

Lets not forget that Sony also produce DSLR cameras, very mixed message.

different strokes for different folks

I think the nex appeals to the people who have a point and shoot but want better IQ, and those who have a dslr but want something smaller and hence never take photos because their camera is always at home

DSLR has its own appeal too

 

[theraven]

It just makes for a good discussion! I think in terms of image quality a lot of compacts are better than a DSLR on auto, and the NEX certainly is! A friend of mine has a NEX and it is great for pointing and shooting, plus you can learn from it and change the settings if needs be, but on full auto it's pretty powerful.

It also shoots in RAW so if you haven't got a clue about settings but your handy with Photoshop, maybe that's why some people have DSLR's? Now they can have the NEX.

 

[POAH]

NEX is an aps-c sensor no a tiny point and shoot one

It just makes for a good discussion! I think in terms of image quality a lot of compacts are better than a DSLR on auto, and the NEX certainly is! A friend of mine has a NEX and it is great for pointing and shooting, plus you can learn from it and change the settings if needs be, but on full auto it's pretty powerful.

It also shoots in RAW so if you haven't got a clue about settings but your handy with Photoshop, maybe that's why some people have DSLR's? Now they can have the NEX.

 

[jmc41]

A DSLR on full auto will in 99% of cases produce a better image than a compact on full auto. The calculations a camera does on a modern camera are pretty close to optimal most of the time and the same applies to DSLR or compact.
Who cares if somebody is using a DSLR which is more than they really need, or uses auto on their DSLR. It will give them generally better images and make them feel better at the same time.

The concern here is that people are so lacking in independant thought that they are actually swayed by this sort of marketing stuff.

I agree with this in many aspects; while P&S cameras are getting a lot better when shooting indoors most can't match a DSLR for it's ability to cope with low light as long as you stuck a decent lens on it.

We had loads of snaps taken at work for Children in Need last week and there is a massive difference in IQ between those taken on my camera (by me and a colleague) and those taken by people with P&S; everything from bokeh (on f4!) to general clarity of image.

For situations like that we didn't need amazing images; but I don't own a compact and am much happier that I can shoot at iso1600-3200 and still produce an image that's more than acceptable. My Lumix FZ50 stuggled above 200.

I've took a ton of shots earlier this year at a show, some using auto; shots I simply couldn't have gotten without very high acceptable ISO and 5fps.

Another advantage I find with a SLR is the ability to zoom and focus with a lens; rather than W/T which is normally very slow and fairly noisy. Looks like the NEX solves at least the zoom aspect of this though.

At the end of the day it's people choice; if you're happy with the pictures you can take with a P&S or DSLR taht's all that counts. I wasn't happy with the limitations of my bridge, and have never regretted the upgrade.

(Also, my bridge would never have survived some of the weather I've been in!)

 

[Hugh Jarse]

A good discussion.

My take goes back to early days of joining a camera clun. I met one of the older members who had a lovely and very old Leica camera. It was his only camera and his technique was brilliant in the prints he showed and sometimes competed with.

We had membrs with all the latest kit and there was always someone selling good kit cheaply. (I managed to replace my Zenit B with a Pentax K1000 for less than they sell secondhand today.

What was very clear was the old guy wuth the leica did challenge at every level. Portrzits Glamour Sport etc. Made more interesting by his loading his own film. 8 frames and no more. He would join us on club trips and whilst othees would be banging away in clustees "Paul" would aander off and rarely did e see him raise his camera. At the end of the day we would travel back and others would say they had shot 10 rolls of 36 (and more). Paul would have done 1 of 8 frames.

The following week Psul would brin 8 super pictures whilst others would have a good few OK pictures technically but nothing that matched the old fella's eye.

My point is that the joy of photography should you be professional or amateur is in how you approch your trade, hobby or birthday present.

My brother in law bought my dister a Canon 500D brand new for Chridtmas. She leaves it on P and has been frustrated with it since day 1. Ususl statemrnt that she "got better pictures with her digital compact IXUS" I borrowed tbe 500 and went off for a day at and obviously got the pictures she could not.

I think that the current spate of new "feature rich" cameras are great IF users use the features.

If not big waste of cash

BUT they are keeping sales running which keeps the bssic DSLRs and Bridge camera prices lower when they get sold on and there will always be a aay for people to "find" their cameea will do more.

As a hobby I have enjoyed my photography for 50 years. In that time I have bought and sold some kit and my favourite "pro" camera was a Pentax LX which I bought off a guy at the club who had decided tbat Pentax was a rubbish brand so off he went and bought a Nikon F3 and Nikkor lenses.... His showings were still average bu HE believed they were better.

Each to their own - perceived or in the eyes of others. I will carry on enjoying my hobby. I have even made a little cash..... not a lot. Many years ago I sold 3 pictures to a guy in a hotel in Ireland. 10 years later I found he was still selling them as postcards! Was i naieve - probsbly. Did it matter - not in the least. He had credited me on them!

So I would love a Canon 7D. Will it make me a brtter phoyographer - doubtful but it should increase the range of situatoons I can shoot - faster with better metering rtc It is also better built than my 300D and 450D.

In the final consideration most users who get starter DSLRs are likrly to make use of some but not all the capabilities it brings. Maybd just maybe they will go further and really gdt into photography. A groundswelm may even bring down the codt of the lenses I would love to have.... or should I just sell up and buy an old Leica?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Hmmm. So Sony seem to be suggesting that a tiny camera that goes off like a toy machine gun is more of a 'proper' camera than a bigger body and lens?

Subtle stuff.

They're implying that anyone seen holding a big camera is a nerd, but I didn't see anything in those ads that says you still need to learn how to use the thing if you want the best results. I've never used a small Sony, so have no idea how intuitive it is to operate, but have my suspicions that it will turn out to be used on auto just as much as any other make.

I think you're missing the point. That ad is not aimed at you, or me... or indeed most people in this forum. The vast majority of people will look at anyone with a big SLR, loads of lenses, and a tripod as a nerd, yes. By lampooning such people with an ad like this, they are merely re-enforcing a stereotype to sell a product.

I've no idea how old are you, but anyone remember the Olympus Trip ads with George Cole and David Bailey? Ring any bells?

What goes around, comes around.

Nothing new here folks.. just advertising

 

[ernesto]

Good point, it does have a closeness to the Bailey ads. And that certainly didn't do the Olympus Trip any harm looking at the sales and success of the thing...

 

[Laudrup]

The Olympus PEN advert with Kevin Spacey was shorter, better and made the same point. The NEX probably would be a solution to a lot of people with DSLRs if the lenses weren't such soft turds.

 

[Moreorless]

Yes, that and partly because some (most?) people are happier if they own nicer/more expensive equipment. Just the same as any other hobbies and products. It is the western way.

I happily admit that I get more enjoyment from using and owning my X100 than I did from any lesser compacts I have owned. I don't see anything wrong with that - my money and my life to enjoy.

..and to be honiest I think phototgraphy is one of the least offencive areas for it aswell given that its something creative rather than simple consumption.

 

[TheTimeChamber]

If someone wants to use a machine gun to shoot fish in a barrel, I won't stop them.

 

[GSXR1]

That sony he has cost alot more than an entry level dslr. I found the whole thing a bit insulting.


Then I see some knob from sony with a big smirk judge folk .

Sony. Will avoid in future. I dont need a burst rate like that. Im sure it would be handy down at your local racing track. But ..... can I mount a 70-200 2.8 to the little sony??

If peeps want to use a good camera as a point and shoot then good for them. It keeps the secondhand market competitive and is cheaper than most other male hobbies .

 

[Pookeyhead]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about in this thread. So Sony are cashing on on a paradigm change in consumer electronic gear. Nothing new here. The shift from large home computers to tablets and small mobile devices has been a total cash cow for Apple, and now MS are jumping on the bandwagon with Surface and Windows 8. Hey.. let's do the same for photography.. well, newsflash, it may hoodwink the blind consumer masses, but people with specialist needs will always use specialist gear, whether it be a large, powerful desktop computer, or a large, well specified DSLR.

This ad wasn't aimed at us... unless you accept that we were the target of it's ridicule.. but so what?

Anyone remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Yo3FRPeQw

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axCVcyDF7Ms

....or how about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWlj9ZJkliA

....woah.. they keep on coming...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckSm10LZauA

Seriously... does it matter that someone pokes fun at us? Are we all that insecure we need to make some kind of response? My response is wry amusement. I'll use what gear I need to use in order to take the shots I need to take. If there are people who want to drop 2 grand on a camera they don't need, then good luck to them, as they have clearly worked hard to enjoy a disposable income. Why shouldn't they?


The Sony ads aren't even original... they're just derivatives of the Olympus ads. The Olympus trip didn't make a drop in the ocean of photography in the 70s, and the NEX will be as ineffectual now. It fills a consumer niche.

 

[theraven]

If peeps want to use a good camera as a point and shoot then good for them. It keeps the secondhand market competitive and is cheaper than most other male hobbies .

:nono:

That's insulting.

 

[ernesto]

also get's me thinking what these male only hobbies could be.

 

[FourRingCircus]

also get's me thinking what these male only hobbies could be.

Hope I don't get into trouble for this, but I'm guessing that 'MILF hunting' would be on the list.

 

[ernesto]

I was thinking more along the lines of the oldest profession

 

[theraven]

Hope I don't get into trouble for this, but I'm guessing that 'MILF hunting' would be on the list.

 

[andya700]

The Olympus PEN advert with Kevin Spacey was shorter, better and made the same point. The NEX probably would be a solution to a lot of people with DSLRs if the lenses weren't such soft turds.

You can buy adaptors for the NEX, which will allow the user to fit Minolta AF/Sony SAM lenses and maintain full functionality. You can also get an M42 screw thread adaptor for use with manual focus lenses.

 

[Southdowns]

I often want to challenge the people you see taking daylight shots, often of distant objects, with the pop up flash on, but never have done!

Strikes me this IS very clever marketing from Sony. They have a lead in the CSC market (arguably; whatever you think of the actual camera's, Sony get a good chunk of the sales), but not in the DSLR market, where people tend to buy Canon or Nikon because they think they're the only choices.

So the purpose of the ads is to move people out of the DSLR market (where Sony are likely to lose out), to the CSC market (where they have an advantage). They are marketing the concept of CSC's, not specifically their own product.

And they're right to; the people they portray would be better off with a CSC!

As a Sony DSLT user, I hope this all says nothing about Sony's commitment to DSLT's. I don't think it does, but who knows?

 

[Southdowns]

See, i must be missing something, because i see no mention of Sony what so ever

Exactly; they're not selling Sony, they're selling the idea that a CSC is a better choice than a DSLR is if you want quality but will only ever stay on auto. They're doing that because they can't win against the sheep like behaviour of people who have to buy Canikon "because they're the best", without having a clue why they might or might not actually be a good choice.

I suppose Sony must also work to the mantra "there is no such thing as bad publicity" then as all i see is a comedian taking the ****** out of amateur DSLR Togs

They're not taking the **** out of amateur DSLR togs, they're taking the **** out of the concept that a DSLR is appropriate for the people they portray in the ads. They're right to too; DSLR's are NOT the right choice for those people. A compact with a decent sensor and some creative control, i.e. a CSC, is.

 

[Laudrup]

You can buy adaptors for the NEX, which will allow the user to fit Minolta AF/Sony SAM lenses and maintain full functionality. You can also get an M42 screw thread adaptor for use with manual focus lenses.

Yeah I have the NEX5 and used it with very good Leica and Nikon lenses. It is quite nice for manual focus, but the 18-55 I find too bulky, soft and the body too small for serious use. Using the settings and menus is a bit of a pain as well. The RX1 looks more like what I'm looking for.

 

[ernesto]

They're right to too; DSLR's are NOT the right choice for those people. A compact with a decent sensor and some creative control, i.e. a CSC, is.

The right choice is what somebody wants to use not want a company selling products is suggesting you use. They are all cameras and most of them do far more than the average user actually needs it to but so what.

 

[DizMatt]

all of this can be true
but you buy a moderate DSLR with a lens for £500 maybe? hugely versatile etc.
or a really nice piece of sony, smaller, high quality....lovely...but £800?

 

[Southdowns]

The right choice is what somebody wants to use not want a company selling products is suggesting you use. They are all cameras and most of them do far more than the average user actually needs it to but so what.

No, you're confusing people's rights with what is right. People have a right to choose whatever they want to, but that doesn't make it the appropriate choice.

I have the right to cut my hedge with nail scissors, but it would NOT be the right choice, and Black and Decker would be right to point that out.

The "so what" is that the results are actually likely to be worse for those types of people with a DSLR than with a CSC, plus the weight and apparent complication of a DSLR may well put them off photography altogether. And before you ask "where's your evidence?", it's the three mates I have who bought DSLR's in the last 2 years and have left them in a drawer because they're very disappointed with them. It's my sister in law who believed that the only reason I take better pictures than her daughter does is because I have a "better camera", bought her a DSLR, and now thinks there's something wrong with it because the pictures got worse not better. She firmly believes it's the camera that takes the pictures, not me or her daughter.

I think it's pretty simple really; faced with someone who's disappointed with their compact's IQ but who isn't interested in getting creative, i.e wants to stay in auto, would you think a camera shop should recommend a DSLR or a CSC 9 times out of 10?

 

[Southdowns]

all of this can be true
but you buy a moderate DSLR with a lens for £500 maybe? hugely versatile etc.
or a really nice piece of sony, smaller, high quality....lovely...but £800?

Yes agreed, the price thing is an issue. I just think that setting that aside, many (most?) people with a DSLR would be better off with a CSC.

How about a new DSLR vs a second hand CSC? Would that solve the price issue?

 

[ernesto]

You can go lower than that. An entry level DSLR with kit lens still produces great shots and works as fast/faster than the CSC equivalent all for half the price. It may be bigger but some people may not care about that (again, they can't tell someone what is best for them!)

 

[iced_jacob]

You can go lower than that. An entry level DSLR with kit lens still produces great shots and works as fast/faster than the CSC equivalent all for half the price. It may be bigger but some people may not care about that (again, they can't tell someone what is best for them!)

Sorry but have you seen for how much the nex 5n sells lately? for someone who wants a relatively small compact camera that can shoot in low light without the need for flash it's a dream. i suggested that to a few friends of mine, they all bought it for less than 450 and they are all super happy with it

 

[Southdowns]

...(again, they can't tell someone what is best for them!)

They're not doing, they're pointing out that a CSC is an available and most likely appropriate choice.

And anyway, why would anyone expect an advert to be unbiased? The point an ad makes may be valid, but it shouldn't be expected to be balanced.

Price is not the issue; many DSLR buyers (two of the three mates I mentioned) don't start at entry level, and Sony made no attempt to suggest that a CSC was a better choice than a DSLR regardless of price. Again, for the people Sony depicted, an £800 CSC is quite likely to be a better choice than an £800 DSLR. Yes they may well not care/put up with the downsides of a DSLR if they only want to spend £400, but Sony didn't tackle that issue.

 

[ernesto]

If a person wants to use a DSLR and they are happy with the size of it then why is that a bad choice and why is a CSC a better choice?
That is why I am questioning why anyone can tell someone what is best for them, they can't possibly know.

 

[ernesto]

I think it's pretty simple really; faced with someone who's disappointed with their compact's IQ but who isn't interested in getting creative, i.e wants to stay in auto, would you think a camera shop should recommend a DSLR or a CSC 9 times out of 10?

A typical camera shop will suggest whatever gives them the most profit margin!
A DSLR in auto is just as easy to use as a CSC in auto and will give same results. However, if someone moves out of auto then the DSLR will actually make it easier than the CSC.
I would ask the person what size camera they want, whether they want a viewfinder and go from there.

 

[AJQS]

A typical camera shop will suggest whatever gives them the most profit margin!
A DSLR in auto is just as easy to use as a CSC in auto and will give same results. However, if someone moves out of auto then the DSLR will actually make it easier than the CSC.
I would ask the person what size camera they want, whether they want a viewfinder and go from there.

You sound like you've used neither DSLR or CSC in these last few replies. CSC = DSLR - R. They do the same thing, the NEX even shares it's sensor with Nikon and Pentax DSLRs. The point of them is they are beginner DSLRs but dumbed down some more and/or smaller. It's no harder to move out of auto on any camera that offers the choice of mode, DSLR or otherwise.

There are 2 things DSLRs offer that smaller cameras don't:

Decent grip for people with the hands of a grizzly bear and access to High Quality lenses. The latter is changing slowly, the former is never going to be overcome by a small camera by it's very nature.

 

[ernesto]

I have owned a number of DSLR and CSC cameras and know what both are thanks very much.

And it is harder to move out of auto on a CSC because there is generally a lack of buttons and menu diving is required. It is not technically harder as the settings are the same but it is physically harder and more hassle. A DSLR is also much easier to hold and one thing you forgot that a DSLR offers is that ALL DSLRs have viewfinders whereas not many CSCs do.

The only reason for a CSC is the size and if size is not important there is no point getting one in preference to a DSLR. That is a choice that no advertising can decide for you...

 

[Southdowns]

Why on earth do you keep insisting that the advert is trying to decide ANYTHING for anyone? It is trying to provide you with the advertisers message. It is trying to influence you. It cannot make your decisions.

As I said repeatedly, the advert is aimed at suggesting to people who want a certain thing from a camera that a CSC may be (is, in the opinion of Sony and the Pro they paid to appear in the ads), a better choice than a DSLR.

(Not sure how many times I'm going to have to say this) for the people they depicted, which included a flasher who appears to want candid shots, a pair of girls doing self portraits with a zoom lens, a guy trying to get natural shots of his mates, a (we presume) casual sports photographer, for whom the burst mode on the camera Sony are showing would be handy, and a dad wanting a nice portrait of his daughters, a CSC is certainly something that should be considered, and is probably a better choice than a DSLR.

That's not to say a CSC is the only choice, or that on further consideration a DSLR wouldn't suit them for other reasons, but it is a valid and probably better choice for the people depicted.

The two I'd question as CSC candidates are the kit geek, and the macro girl. The kit geek should buy the biggest and flashiest camera/lens he can find, because that's what he's interested in, not the photo's, and the macro girl because I enjoyed watching her trying to get a perfect position with her DSLR! (oh, and because a DSLR with a macro lens might be better if she really is interested in macro photography).

But whether or not a DSLR or a CSC is right for any particular person is not the point; Sony are trying to point out the benefits of a CSC for some people, by comparing them with what look like bad choices, and are trying to make people want one by suggesting that a DSLR makes you look like a bit of a tit, especially if you obviously don't have a clue what you're doing with it. They are not lying, and can't make you do anything you don't want to do unless you're an idiot, so their ads are perfectly valid.

You could, if you wanted to, argue that they are wrong for trying to sell the Facebooking girls on the beach a CSC when a cheap compact from Asda might do everything they want, but you'd still be missing the point, which is whether or not Sony's ads were A) valid and B) clever. The answer to both (IMHO, as if I need to state that), is yes. There ARE a lot of people who buy a DSLR for the "wrong" reasons and would be better off with a CSC or even a decent compact, and the ads do cleverly introduce the concept of a CSC to those people.

If all you're arguing is that people have a right to buy what they want to, of course they do, but if you're also arguing that manufacturers don't have a right to favour what they'd like to sell in their ads (as long as they don't lie), you're extremely naive.

 

[jmc41]

I think one of the key points to note is that one of the major reasons companys advertise, other than to sell products, is to raise brand awareness.

The fact that we're at 74 posts here and have such a lively discussion going means Sony's ad has at least partially succeeded. Although I expect everyone here is well aware that Sony do cameras!

Companies live to create 'advertising buzz', and while I disagree with what someone what told me that no advertising is bad advertising (many obvious examples in recent times) there is a thin element of truth that having a brand with 99% awareness will, automatically increase sales.

Just look at why people buy Canon and Nikon, it's not all about the massive selection of lenses - although again, I imagine they have a huge range of lenses due to their popularity. A relative of mine recently bought a Nikon one of the reasons being "everyone I saw in Iceland had one"!

 

[ernesto]

If all you're arguing is that people have a right to buy what they want to, of course they do, but if you're also arguing that manufacturers don't have a right to favour what they'd like to sell in their ads (as long as they don't lie), you're extremely naive.

advertisers can do what they want, I am just saying they are wrong in this case.

 

[ernesto]

A relative of mine recently bought a Nikon one of the reasons being "everyone I saw in Iceland had one"!

Exactly, a lot of people are easily led. Advertisers dreams.

 

[Southdowns]

advertisers can do what they want, I am just saying they are wrong in this case.

So, if the people they depict in these ads are not more suited to a CSC than a DSLR (which is Sony's message here), who is? Or do you not think CSC's have a valid market?

 

[Southdowns]

Just look at why people buy Canon and Nikon, it's not all about the massive selection of lenses - although again, I imagine they have a huge range of lenses due to their popularity. A relative of mine recently bought a Nikon one of the reasons being "everyone I saw in Iceland had one"!

Exactly my point. People, lots of people, buy DSLR's because they think they'll automatically get better pictures; they think it's the camera that takes a good photo, not the person behind it. Having made that decision, they then, like sheep, buy Canon or Nikon, because they think they are the only ones worth considering.

On the sample of people I know with DSLR's outside this forum, about 70% have bought a DSLR ONLY because they think that will automatically make them good photographers, and 100% of those people bought Canon or Nikon.

Ask them why they chose Canikon, and the most considered reply I've had is "because the salesman in Jessops told me it's what all the professionals use". It didn't occur to him to ask why professionals choose them, or whether or not that automatically makes them appropriate for his needs.

So, what are Sony, who do make good DSLR's no matter what Canikonophiles tell you, to do in such a situation? Do they A) try to gain share in a market that already has dominant players who are almost unassailable, or do they try to expand a market where they know they can get a decent share?

The answer is, they do both; they maximise their DSLT sales, while at the same time trying to persuade those who are thinking of buying a DSLR just because they think it's the only alternative, who almost by default will NOT be buying a Sony, that a CSC is a good option.

Whether or not you think a CSC or a DSLR is the best choice for a given individual, Sony's ads are extremely clever. They raise brand awareness, steer people toward a sector where Sony are strong, and make CSC's competition (DSLR's in the wrong hands), look less attractive, all at the same time. And unless someone thinks a DSLR is always a better choice than a CSC, for everyone, no matter what, then Sony's message is not wrong; there are people out there who should consider a CSC instead of buying a DSLR.

 

[ernesto]

So, if the people they depict in these ads are not more suited to a CSC than a DSLR (which is Sony's message here), who is? Or do you not think CSC's have a valid market?

Yes CSCs have a valid market. That market is users who want a smaller more compact camera (the first C is the clue )

My point is that a CSC is no harder or easier to use than a DSLR and the only real difference is size. I can't see in the ads the depiction of anyone struggling with the size of a DSLR (small hands, trying to squeeze into a handbag etc,.) so to me they make no sense.
If a DSLR is more than someone needs then so is a CSC. I can't see the difference between using a DSLR on auto or using a CSC on auto, can you?