Talk w/Sony DSLR trainer

[chris_harley1]

As regards Sony coming out with a Pro level DSLR I think we have to listen to Sony. They categoricaly say they will not make one read their press releases. Hope away but they are focused on consumer low level DSLR based on price.

[ilkka]

I wonder how many budget conscious amateurs are going to buy the new rebranded Sony 2.8/300 and 2.8/70-200 lenses? Or the new fast Zeiss primes? Minolta was never a competitor to Canon and Nikon in the newsrooms, and I don't expect Sony to be either, but as has been said before, for many reasons it was important for Minolta to have a pro quality body (Dynax 9). I believe Sony will eventually make one as well. Otherwise their whole DSLR line will die. Not this year or next, but within five or ten years.

[chris_harley1]

I appreciate your sentiment but if Sony can wait 5 or 10 years to make a Pro camera why make one at all? What's different about 5 years or 10 years to now? Simply put, where's the gain in spending money making a Pro level camera that Pro's won't buy? Perhaps you're thinking prosumer ?

Why buy Sony 'G' series lens at a premium (compared to Canon) to fit a anything but a much cheaper body ? At the moment, for the price of the 70-200 ssm lens (2400 dollars) you could buy the equivalent Canon lens (1100 dollars) and have 1300 dollars in change (or a new camera body). Now the 70-200 I would hazzard as a must-have for a Pro, so any Pro body would have to offer substantial savings to make you choose it over the more accepted Canon.

[ilkka]

No, not savings, but an alternative. Alternative in the way it operates, the way it uses buttons and switches instead of menus for example to lock up a mirror before exposure. An alternative just for the sake of alternative. Leica is different. It is expensive. Not that many pros use it, at least not the newspaper and sport pros that everybody sees. Yet there is room for it in the market. Minolta and Pentax were always more of advanced amateur cameras than newspaper pro models. Yet many distinguished professionals used them, such as Gene Smith, Mary Ellen Mark and Daido Moriyama. Not because Canon or Nikon wouldn't do (and some of these used Canon as well). Sure Sony can wait 5-10 years. But I think it won't since it would not have any market left if it did. If Sony is serious about digital, it has to introduce several new bodies in different categories during the next 3-5 years. If it doesn't, it gives up the game for Canon and Nikon. It has a good lens lineup now, and the fact that it has introduced expensive pro level lenses supports the view that it is focusing not only on cheapest possible cameras but good ones as well. Good enough that serious photographers will buy them and spend another $5,000 on lenses. I seriously doubt they can sell more than a few 70-200 and 2.8/300 (or the fast Zeiss primes) to A-100 buyers. Person who spends $700 on a body, is unlikely to spend $10k on lenses. If you need lenses that will cost $10k, you won't mind spending $3-5k for a good body. To have a body like that will help Sony also in selling lenses from which it will make more profit than from a digital body that has more development costs and has to be sold cheap to match the competition.