This is an industry in flux
Sony took what Minolta already had in development and marketed it. Sony benefited greatly from Minolta. I can't agree that Sony is doing anything to heavily push the market. Many of the "innovations" you see now are nothing but response to a general public that has lit the photography market on fire. Everyone is responding to public demands, demands no one ever thought meant anything to photography.
Originally Posted by Rooz
IS: this is relatively new technology and something that became first available on a consumer grade lens and migrated elsewhere. Indispensable? No. Does the public think its cool? YES, are they told constantly that they can take so much better photos because of it? YES. Should we make more of it? YES it will sell more lenses. Is it because of Sony? I think maybe it's because in body IS has made this readily available to every lens, therefore we need more lenses with it.
LV- totally a response to a non photographic public cry for a DSLR to be like their point and shoot. Everyone is trying to catch up to this. Thought it was silly on a P&S still think so. Hate seeing people compose at arms length, this takes away from proper technique and results in many bad photos. Useful for Macro work.
Hi Res screens? I really don't see any use here at all. What really can you see in your little 3" HiRes screen? Same thing you could see in your 1.5" low res screen, exposure(histogram), basic composition. The photo still needs to be uploaded to a computer to really see what's there. Again totally driven by general public P&S technology. This is how I want to compose, edit, view, show, print from, etc. etc. and everyone knows bigger is better...
Body Lifecycles? The shutter was always made to be replaced. It's a component that has to move with precision and speed. With the advent of "free" film people tend to indiscriminately fire away and throw away(95%)the bad ones. With film it was impossible to to this, it was just too expensive. The increases in shutter life for all manufacturers was a direct response to the machine gun tactic the DSLR has produced. Sony benefited from being late into the market, no one could predict a consumer body less than a month old with 5000 actuations on it...crazy, that's why pro level bodies were made that way. Nothing but sloppy and poor technique...
Lens upgrades? This market has exploded, people are clamoring for new equipment. Nikon had some holes in their lens lineup, Canon was pretty set except for UWA, and Sony had a clean slate. I am personally very pleased with the selection of lenses I have available to me from Canon. In the last 10 years I can't think of a single time I said I wish Canon would come out with a -- lens. But still they have and I don't believe for a minute Sony had a thing to do with it.
The market has exploded: there are more people out there spending vast amounts of money on camera equipment they have no idea of how to use(push this button and fire away). No idea that the lens they put in front of the "expensive" body will make much more difference than the body itself. No idea what makes a good lens, what an f/stop means, what lens speed is, etc. But we all do have one thing in common, we want good photos and will buy more things to get them. Hence more lenses being introduced. Sony is just part of this whole picture, they are in the center of the same maelstrom.
Noink's sensor performance was completely tied to Sony...Sony made their sensors. They were completely tied to Sony's technology. Canon has been making their own CMOS sensors for a long time, Sony has finally caught up. All of the manufacturers have been pushing the envelope, finding the edge. All of the manufacturers have advanced digital photography at a staggering pace. Many of the "innovations" aren't necessary for good photography, and I really can't view them as advancements. They are at the very most convenience items aimed at this huge untrained market.