I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offers better technology or some definite advantages over each of those models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) and sometimes a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what? Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera by making some minor tweaks by adding or improving some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. For another example, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give provide the option of 6k footage without resampling it to 4k?. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!) and seems even less taxing on the camera since the camera's processor doesn't have to do the extra work of sub-sampling.
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offers better technology or some definite advantages over each of those models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) and sometimes a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what? Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera by making some minor tweaks by adding or improving some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. For another example, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give provide the option of 6k footage without resampling it to 4k?. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!) and seems even less taxing on the camera since the camera's processor doesn't have to do the extra work of subsampling.
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offers better technology or some definite advantages over each of those models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) and sometimes a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what? Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera by making some minor tweaks by adding or improving some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. for another example, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give the option of presenting a 6k footage to the user instead of 4k max. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!).
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offers better technology or some definite advantages over each of those models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) and sometimes a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what? Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera by making some minor tweaks by adding or improving some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. Or, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give the option of presenting a 6k footage to the user instead of 4k max. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!).
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offers better technology or some definite advantages over each of those models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) and sometimes a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what? Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera by making some minor tweaks by adding or improve some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. Or, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give the option of presenting a 6k footage to the user instead of 4k max. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!).
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offers better technology or some definite advantages over each of those models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) and sometimes a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what? Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera with some minor tweaks to add or improve some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. Or, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give the option of presenting a 6k footage to the user instead of 4k max. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!).
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offer s better technology or some definite advantages over each of these models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's the better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) or maybe a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what?Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could still be a better camera with some minor tweaks to add or improve some features that are not high-taxing on the hardware, like focus stacking. Or, if it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give the option of presenting a 6k footage to the user instead of 4k max. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!).
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
I am not sure what your argument is here. It looks to me like your examples work in favor of my argument:
A7r iii: $2800
EOS R6: $2500
Nikon Z 7: $2500
A7 iv: $2500
Why do you think A7 iv should be priced lower than these cameras? It is a newer body and offer s better technology or some definite advantages over each of these models: sometimes it's the resolution (against R6), sometimes it's the better AF (against A7r iii and Z7) or maybe a specific feature some consumers may want and may not find it in other models. The other models may have some features or better specs against A7 iv in some aspects too. So what?Some plus, some minus hence similarity in price is very well justified.
Based on my specific needs and wants, I think if I am to buy a new camera right now, A7 iv is definitely choice over the other models. R6's resolution is just too low for my preference. Z7 while a nice camera had no advantage over my A7r iii. A7r iii has ideal resolution for me but A7 iv isn't far behind and has significant advantages over A7r iii: much improved UI, much improved AF and probably a faster camera (faster startup and more responsive), better video specs, other improved tweaks, etc.. If you don't find the upgrades in the A7 iv worthy enough to justify its price tag, then buy a camera that suits you best. But in any justifiable way, you can't say it is overpriced because you don't need or want one.
By the way, I am not saying A7 iv is absolutely great. In fact, it could have still be a much better camera with sometimes with some minor tweaks or adding some features that are not high taxing on the hardware like focus stacking. If it does 4k from recorded 6k or 7k, I am wondering why Sony didn't give the option of presenting a 6k footage to the user. That would have made the camera much more exciting to the eyes of the consumer (even if they don't need the feature!).
mawz wrote: raminolta wrote:
People who complain about the price do not consider the inflation which has been quite significant during the pandemic. I am talking about my experience in Canada but I suspect it's been the same for most other countries. A7 iv is about 25% more expensive than A7 iii at its release date. A7 iii was announced nearly four years ago and I think the inflation rate is about the same or even more for compared to four years ago.
The problem is people's incomes and salaries have not increased with the pace of inflation. Indeed, for the vast majority there has been no income increase. Only the rich got richer. The rest of us are making what we were making in the past.
Inflation is not a good argument on the pricing for one simple reason.
Inflation increases costs for everyone.
The competing bodies did not get more expensive.
The A7IV's problem with pricing isn't against the A7III, it's against the A7RIII, Z7 and R6. All of which can be had for similar cost and directly compete with the A7IV in specific areas (two of them on pixels at similar speed, one on outright speed & AF)
Oct 21, 2021 at 11:33 AM
Previous versions of raminolta's message #15742080 « Pre-order: Sony Alpha a7 IV Mirrorless »
