This title is absurd and there is no support for it I the article. How would you even prove such a thing?
Here is the evidence suggested:
> So, Sony devised a strategy to sneak up on the market leaders.
>
> The Alpha 7 camera, the first full-frame Sony mirrorless to be released, could capture beautiful photos, but it just wasn’t very good at autofocus.
Later they go on to say that they don’t have a lot of lenses in their lineup either.
So the take away from this is that Sony deliberately crippled their camera to trick Canon and Nikon? They had the technology ready to go, they just decided to sit on it because they didn’t feel like Canon and Nikon were being competitive enough?
This sounds like a very silly spin on the basic realities of developing and launching new products.
A mirror box and pentaprism are precision optical parts that are not cheap to produce. Of course the industry is now selling you the “better” mirrorless cameras.
This is a huge accomplishment as Nikon and Canon were locked-in and formidable competitors.
I bought my Sony after I’d lost my Canon camera (and lens) so I had no more connection to Cannon and looking at reviews of full frame mirrorless cameras I saw nothing but people complaining about the autofocus on Canon and Nikon full-frames until you got to the top of the line bodies that a wedding photographer could afford. Sony has decent autofocus at the entry level so that’s what I got.
You can't beat a mirror, it's just not possible especially in low light situations. Discplay screen based digital cameras will always be worse for many users. It's fine as an option but it's not killing the shutter just yet.
I can definitely argue that mirrorless is always better for most users! Thinner bodies, modern lens selection (so faster autofocus and wider aperture, etc), real-time image previews, better low-light preview (in both rear and viewfinder screens), video recording capabilities better match professional video cameras (by removing mirror complexity) which better matches the hybrid needs of the modern camera buyer.
It had to be said, it's true. Mirrorless camera displays give off light, the screen is brighter than ambient light. It's can't get dim enough preserve night vision if you're using a telescope for instance. You can shoot in very low light with the high ISO speeds available on a modern camera but if you ruin your night vision you lose awareness of everything but what you're shown in the finder, just in general. I'm sure you can think of others.
Readit News
Here is the evidence suggested:
> So, Sony devised a strategy to sneak up on the market leaders. > > The Alpha 7 camera, the first full-frame Sony mirrorless to be released, could capture beautiful photos, but it just wasn’t very good at autofocus.
Later they go on to say that they don’t have a lot of lenses in their lineup either.
So the take away from this is that Sony deliberately crippled their camera to trick Canon and Nikon? They had the technology ready to go, they just decided to sit on it because they didn’t feel like Canon and Nikon were being competitive enough?
This sounds like a very silly spin on the basic realities of developing and launching new products.
I bought my Sony after I’d lost my Canon camera (and lens) so I had no more connection to Cannon and looking at reviews of full frame mirrorless cameras I saw nothing but people complaining about the autofocus on Canon and Nikon full-frames until you got to the top of the line bodies that a wedding photographer could afford. Sony has decent autofocus at the entry level so that’s what I got.
I can definitely argue that mirrorless is always better for most users! Thinner bodies, modern lens selection (so faster autofocus and wider aperture, etc), real-time image previews, better low-light preview (in both rear and viewfinder screens), video recording capabilities better match professional video cameras (by removing mirror complexity) which better matches the hybrid needs of the modern camera buyer.