Mark Weir, the Senior Product Manager for Digital-SLR Cameras at Sony Electronics, has kindly agreed to talk with DCI about some of the technologies, marketing strategies, and unique advantages in Sony’s iteration of the SLR form.
[page title="Marketing and Alpha Line Overview "]
DCI:
First, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to sit down with us and share some information on Sony’s first DLSR release. We, and our readers, – do appreciate it.
I thought we could start with an introduction, with Mark describing briefly to our readers what his personal involvement with the release has been and how the project itself evolved or came to fruition?
Mark Weir:
I'm the product manager for the category. Sony has been planning to get into the Digital SLR business for some time, and obviously the transferred assets from a company like Konica Minolta were under consideration for some time, but if you are asking me about my involvement in the project, it’s primarily been as a products planner. The actual negotiations to transfer the assets from Konica Minolta to Sony were conducted on the Japan side, not the U.S. side.
DCI:
Okay, that makes sense. You mentioned that the project has been considered for some time, but how long has it actually been in the works?
Mark Weir:
Oh, the initial announcement of the agreement was in July of 2005. I would not be able to speculate on how much further in the past the negotiations took place, because I am not aware of that.
DCI:
In your opinion, what do you think will make Sony's SLR attempt successful when Konica Minolta's was not?
Mark Weir:
Well I don't know that Konica Minolta’s was not. Konica Minolta had a strong and enthusiastic following for some time. To say that they were unsuccessful, probably isn't a point of view that I would espouse. I would say that they didn't have as much share as other, rivals that did, but I wouldn’t say that they did not succeed.
DCI:
Okay, well, let me rephrase the question. Do you expect Sony to garner a larger share of the SLR market than they achieved?
Mark Weir:
It has been announced that Sony's intention is to have a share position that is higher than theirs, but I would say that the timing for that certainly isn't immediate. I think I know what you're driving at and I think that Sony can bring strengths in technological areas and strengths in marketing efforts that perhaps would not be the same as what Konica Minolta did. Obviously Sony is a company that has technology in areas which Konica Minolta did not. I think that Sony as a company, from a sales and marketing standpoint, has assets which Konica Minolta did not. I think that the results will be soon seen. Keep in mind that there are assets that Konica Minolta had that Sony does not and hence the nature of a partnership. So I think to specifically answer your question--how does Sony expect to be more successful?-- I think it's the combination of those assets that really represents a capability that goes beyond what any one of those companies could have done.
DCI:
Okay, that makes sense. Do you expect all future models in the line to target the same user demographic as the A100, or at least to remain priced around a thousand dollars?
Mark Weir:
I think that we are building our first model primarily aimed at a consumer. You know, I doubt that professional photographers will find the camera that we introduce in July a model that would match the capabilities or match the requirements that they might have of a professional camera. It’s not our intention with our first model to do that.
DCI:
Do you foresee Sony ever entering the professional space?
Mark Weir:
We are not allowed to comment upon our future intentions. But our lens lineup is quite aggressive and competent and one could read into what our lens line-up can accomplish. But I would say that there’s a lot of, how should I put it, segmentation of the customer market that is not necessarily accurate all of the time. I find that there are plenty of advanced amateurs that are using mainstream SLRs and I think that there are plenty of entry or novice users who are using advanced or even in some cases higher professional SLRs. I think that the people who are learning what an aperture and shutter speed are often are carrying six or seven thousand dollars around their necks.
DCI:
Hmm, Yeah.
Mark Weir:
And that’s not unusual. There is a lot of segmentation going on that makes logical sense when you think about it, but it isn’t always the case. There are plenty of well-heeled amateurs who are buying very expensive cameras and it’s not as cut and dry as it might seem. Our camera, we feel, will provide everything that a mainstream user would want and we also believe that it will have characteristics that will be greatly valued by those who go well beyond mainstream users. I mean, there are things that it does that cameras in its class simply don’t do and there are things that it does that go beyond that which cameras that are even beyond its class can do.
DCI:
Just out of curiosity, when you say class, do you personally consider that to be more a function of price or of performance capability and styling?
Mark Weir:
Well, keep in mind that the digital SLR space doesn’t have nearly as many models as some others and, as a result, I think the classification that most in the industry utilize is actually quite common and I think that it is one that is initially based on price. But when you stratify by price, you find that it quickly describes each of the sub-categories pretty accurately; most people that I talk to stratify at about a thousand dollars and down and then from a thousand to three thousand and then three thousand and up. To a certain extent, this characterizes cameras based on what customers they appeal to. It also characterizes them, at least for now, based on their technical capabilities. And probably the criteria that matches them the most is build quality.
[page title="Technology / Specifics"]
DCI:
Absolutely. Getting into the technology a bit, can you indicate how you see the new Bionz image processor being different than the Real Image Processors, and how is it a better fit for an SLR?
Mark Weir:
If what you’re saying is the real imaging processor specifically, I would say that probably the biggest difference is operational speed and also what it’s doing. I mean if you think about it, the main CPU of a camera has similar responsibilities from model to model. But in the case of this processor, I think more effort is put into the image processing and the method by which the image processing is accomplished, then in most other processors. Specifically, part of this is aimed at maintaining very low noise levels even with higher pixel counts and slightly smaller pixel pitch. Maintaining per pixel sharpness becomes more and more difficult to realize as pixel counts go up in APS sensors. But I think that the primary difference is the dynamic range optimization. Which, as far as I know, hasn’t really been attempted in SLRs to date. Up until now, and again, I’m not aware of each and every product on the market, but up until now, it’s my opinion that most every image optimization scheme that’s been attempted to date has been done after the image has developed.
DCI:
Meaning in the software rather than in the hardware.
Mark Weir:
Well, not only in the software rather than in the hardware, but after the image has been processed, in other words, the process is not applied to the raw data coming off of the sensor. If you think of the shooting process as a sensor capturing the data, the data being processed, and then the data being recorded to media, specifically or perhaps exclusively, all of the optimization has been performed on the image after it has been processed into a JPEG and before it is written to the media. So, in other words it’s not just post-capture, it’s post processing.
DCI:
So it’s basically like applying auto levels to the RAW files?
Mark Weir:
No, it’s much more than “a” parameter, we have slides that would probably help explain it in greater detail for you, but I think that there’s at least four or five separate parameters which are evaluated and optimized in the process, and to do that on a 10 MP RAW file without negatively impacting the processing speed and therefore without negatively impacting the shooting speed is the real breakthrough.
DCI:
Is there any difference in the way it performs those tasks on the RAW file versus a JPEG?
Mark Weir:
It doesn’t perform those tasks on a JPEG at all. Dynamic Range Optimization in the camera is performed exclusively on the RAW data, never on the processed data.
DCI:
Does it boost information in shadows more than highlights or are both given equal weighting?
Mark Weir:
Depends upon the mode. As you know, there are two different selectable levels of DRO: there’s DRO standard and then there is DRO advanced. DRO standard is primarily manipulation of Gamma, it’s not exclusively manipulation of gamma but it’s primarily that. It covers the entire image, and its primary purpose is to recover or extract shadow detail. DRO advanced can extract detail from the shadowed areas, but it performs the analysis on an area by area basis and it also manipulates additional parameters so it is able to recover the shadow detail, as well as the highlight detail, without affecting the entire image. The primary reason for having separate standard and advanced is essentially the processing time, because we can’t execute the advanced process in the time necessary to maintain the three frames per second shooting rate.
DCI:
Is there any way to disengage the Dynamic Range Optimizer?
Mark Weir:
Oh, sure.
DCI:
You can disengage it completely?
Mark Weir:
Oh yeah, you can turn it off. You can et it for standard or you can set it for advanced. It’s up to you. We know that there are plenty of people who would say no, no, no, no, no, I’m not going to let my camera do that. I’m going to do that in post processing in Photoshop. Those people are going to say no, I capture everything in RAW and I process every one of my images by myself, and I perform all of that optimization on my own and we’re like, fine, no problem. But if you think about it, the time it takes to do that—I mean, that’s a very involved process.
DCI:
Absolutely, it becomes much more of a control issue at that point.
Mark Weir:
Yeah, and what we’re saying is that through the aid of this processor, we’re able to take an operation that is a minimum of, oh I would say twenty minutes, thirty minutes, and, for some people, hours and reduce it to a near instantaneous process. But we are not requiring it in any way and of course you can always capture RAW and JPEG and leave the RAW data as it is and enjoy the dynamic range optimization in the file that is ultimately processed to JPEG and written to memory. But in no way do we require that, we just think that it’s a major step forward that a camera could put forward processing at this level of sophistication and do it in the routine operation of shooting. I mean, you can literally enjoy DRO standard while blitzing along at three frames per second unlimited.
DCI:
Yeah, that’s great.
Mark Weir:
And that, I think, is the primary accomplishment of the Bionz processor. I don’t know anything that can do that.
DCI:
Fair enough. What decision was made to develop a new sensor rather than utilizing the R1’s CMOS sensor or another existing chip?
Mark Weir:
The sensor of the R1 was developed for completely different reasons. If you think about it, the R1 sensor was developed largely, not exclusively, but largely to support the R1’s key benefit, which is live preview.
DCI:
Do you live preview ever entering into this line?
Mark Weir:
Again, I have to blanket my comment with “we don’t comment on what we’re doing in the future,” but I think, based on what is necessary to afford live preview with this type of a camera, that the folks at Olympus are experiencing just how difficult that is. It’s not as easy as it sounds. It’s not easy as it sounds to realize it from the standpoint of an SLR with a mechanical mirror and focal plain shutter, and it’s not nearly as easy as it sounds to realize it in a camera like an R1. Live preview off of the sensor, not off of a secondary sensor tucked away in the penta-prism, is much more difficult than it sounds, largely because of the amount of data that needs to be processed and the speed at which that data needs to be processed.
DCI:
Yeah and to utilize the auto focus.
Mark Weir:
Right, and focusing off the sensor is much more difficult than it sounds. So realistically, I think that you know, efforts will be made. Whether they’re going to be made by us or not is another story, but efforts will be made to try to realize the benefit of live preview in an optical TTL penta-prism style camera, but it’s much harder than it sounds and I think it’s what really sets the R1 apart from SLRs.
DCI:
As a company that also manufactures video, do you see any benefit to consumers for SLR cameras to shoot video?
Mark Weir:
You know, it goes back and forth, there are some people I’ve heard who’ve said that’s the quintessential feature and there are others that I’ve heard that have said, it’s not nearly as beneficial as it sounds. Personally, my feeling is that it’s one thing to say “Yeah, I’d like that,” but it’s another thing to understand the technical obstacles in the way of doing that and believe me, it’s much more than just the mirror and the focal point shutter mechanism. There’s a lot of things that separate single lenses still capture from video capture that are still unaddressed even by point-and-shoot cameras. So, I would say that, yeah, it’s a great pursuit, but whether it will be as well received as those that are asking for it make it seem is yet to be seen. I think that, in other areas, there is plenty of headway being made with the integration of still and moving image capture and, as far as I’ve seen, those devices that are really making the great advances are not necessarily yet being aggressively embraced by consumers. I think you understand the technical obstacles that are involved in terms of compression technology and media technology—I mean, literally writing the data files onto the media.
DCI:
It’s certainly a challenge.
Mark Weir:
The sensor technology, the lens technology, you know, there’s a lot of development that’s yet to be done to really realize this holy grail of the complete integration of the two. It really has very little to do with SLRs, because the underlying technology is the part that needs to be fixed first. And then whether it’s applied to an SLR or not almost becomes academic. So my feeling is:, are there people avidly pursuing this? You bet. When it’s realized, will it be as well received as everyone would have thought that it would be? I don’t know, we’ll see.
DCI:
Yeah, fair enough. I personally see its chief benefit coming when you can utilize a continuous stream of video capture for still purposes rather than with the availability of an affordable consumer video recorder that can change lenses.
Mark Weir:
Yeah exactly, and its purpose is capturing a string of frames and capturing the best one, that’s so different. That’s capturing super high resolution: eight, ten, or twelve mega-pixel images with extraordinarily high frame rate. That’s completely different from capturing maybe a one or two megapixel interlaced or progressive frame at 30 frames per second. You know, it’s completely different. Video and still are much, much more different than people think they are and the notion of saying “Okay, let’s make them both in a single device,” is much, much more challenging than people would think because they’re really very, very different acts.
DCI:
Do you think that it’s even a noble pursuit?
Mark Weir:
I think there are plenty of noble pursuits in the world and, if you think about it, the technology to realize it may yield products that go beyond what these products would originally be intended for. So yeah, it’s always a noble pursuit.
[page title="Adapted Features from Konica Minolta"]
DCI:
Absolutely. Getting back to some of the Alpha line’s retained Konica Minolta technologies, one of the key elements seems to be the adaptation of the anti-blur mechanism, which remains fairly unique within the space and provides stabilization to focal lengths that is typically not made with more conventional optical image stabilization. Internally, what is going on to help the system recognize differences in focal length, and how does it adjust for that?
Mark Weir:
You know, I hadn’t thought about that before. I don’t know how relevant focal length is in the process. To be quite frank, I’m not versed in that. The sensor is not moving and there is no accommodation for focal length based on how the sensor is positioned. Right? So is it necessarily true that the focal length should play into the corrective signal, if the corrective signal is primarily counteracting the motion of the camera? It’s an interesting question.
DCI:
Yeah, the other thing that brings up, kind of an interesting aside, is when you have a stabilization system on a tripod. I’ve found it’s much more effective to turn the image stabilization off when the camera is on a tripod, because then you don’t have to deal with the swaying compensation when you adjust slightly.
Mark Weir:
And you can also turn the stabilization off on this camera.
DCI:
Do you think that would be as necessary as a typical image stabilization system on a tripod?
Mark Weir:
Probably not. I’d have to check.
DCI:
Okay, can you explain a little bit about the static free coating in the dust reduction system?
Mark Weir:
Indium tin oxide, ITO, not the international trade organization. Its purpose is to counter-act the fact that cameras are primarily charged devices. So it’s not just keeping dirt off them, it’s keeping them from attracting dust particles.
DCI:
How much more effective do you expect this to be than a system that may not include that?
Mark Weir:
I don’t have any specific percentages.
DCI:
Moving on to the eye start autofocus, can you disengage that function?
Mark Weir:
Sure, yeah and you might want to, because, remember, it’s not searching out your eye. It’s just a proximity sensor, so any solid object that comes in contact or is in the proximity of it is going to get the lens to begin focusing.
DCI:
And is it mode-reliant? It seems to me like it would be a good plus for continuous auto focus, but for a single shot system it would obviously drain the battery more than you want.
Mark Weir:
Yeah, battery life really isn’t a problem because we’ve put a battery of extraordinarily high energy into this camera.
DCI:
Okay.
Mark Weir:
I understand your point, but again, the purpose is not in continuous shooting, the purpose is in getting off the first shot. I see what you’re saying, but, even in casual shooting where you weren’t ready for anything, it will speed-up your getting that first shot.
DCI:
That makes sense.
Mark Weir:
But again, it’s entirely user selectable.
DCI:
Can you shoot tethered with any software accompanying?
Mark Weir:
Unfortunately not.
DCI:
What sort of RAW converter will be included?
Mark Weir:
Oh, we include the ImageData Converter version 1.1, which we supply with the R1. The RAW file format is different: it’s not SRF2 or SR2 which is used in the R1, but it’s compatible with IDC 1.1, which comes with the R1. It’s the same software and, although we can not officially state it, we are advised that it’s compatible with Adobe Camera RAW.
DCI:
Excellent. How crucial do you think WiFi compatibility is in the entry level SLR space?
Mark Weir:
Put it this way, I can very much see the advantage of direct transfer of images, while shooting, to a waiting assistant with a PC to analyze the images: it would allow the photographer to concentrate on photography. But the relevance of that for the mainstream user, I would say, would have to be less than for the professional.
DCI:
What do you expect to be the greatest impact of this camera and line on the SLR space and the transition of the medium?
Mark Weir:
Well, that’s a good question, because I think it can be answered from a variety of different points of view. I’m just going to pick out a couple of criteria—there are many. I think Sony’s point of view, from the product perspective, is not necessarily entirely the same, as that of other manufacturers. So I think that what Sony will do is not the same as what other camera manufacturers would do. It would bring technologies and capabilities that other manufacturers would not. A perfect case in point is sensor-based image stabilization as opposed to lens-based image stabilization. I don’t think most other camera manufacturers would do that. I think, from the customer standpoint, they will see an alternate choice which may better suit their requirements of an SLR. Certainly we know that there are many Sony advocates who are not buying SLRs today because they don’t have an option to do so. And we believe that this model will be of particular interest to them. The same could be said for Konica Minolta advocates, of which there are many. All you have to do is take a look at Ebay and you can see that there is a very strong trade in Konica Minolta lenses and cameras. But I think that you know that the advantage is always for the consumers.
[page title="Lenses"]
DCI:
Are the Zeiss lenses auto focus?
Mark Weir:
Yes.
DCI:
The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 lens, is that the same formulation as the one being designed for the Nikon F-mount?
Mark Weir:
Well, I can’t really speak to those lenses: I’m not really that familiar with them except that they’re not AF, which I thought was kind of humorous.
DCI:
We did as well.
Mark Weir:
I can tell you that these are all new lenses, so I would doubt that they could have anything to do with those.
DCI:
Okay. One of the major economic advantages we had discussed is the savings afforded by the in-camera anti-shake system, so consumers don’t have to go out and purchase a high-priced image stabilized lenses.
Mark Weir:
(Laughing) It isn’t always true.
DCI:
Well, the question concerned the 70 – 200mm and the 300mm f/2.8, which both have higher price tags than Nikon or Canon’s respective offerings…
Mark Weir:
Admitted.
DCI:
So what will consumers get for the extra price?
Mark Weir:
We would say the quality of those lenses, which are easy to see, are largely based on very similar predecessors, and is legendary. It’s not for me to say that our 70 – 200, f/2.8 is better than Canon’s or Nikon’s, but I can tell you, it goes without saying, that they are very much based on their based on their predecessors. And I can tell you that their predecessors are extraordinarily highly valued, by their owners. I was recently following a used, not new, used, 70-200 mm f/2.8 APOGSSM Konica Minolta lens on Ebay and it sold for $2550.
DCI:
That’s more than the list price for it new.
Mark Weir:
Exactly, that’s my point. It’s not for me to say that our lenses are better than Canons or Nikons of comparable cost or type, but I can say that in the eyes of certain consumers, they have value which perhaps transcends their direct correlative models in other people’s lines. I mean I know that our 70-200 is twenty-four hundred dollars and people may say well, wait a minute I can buy that lens IS from Canon for seventeen or eighteen hundred bucks if I go online. And yeah, we are aware of that differential, however I would say that there are enthusiasts that place very, very, very, very high value in those lenses. A 300mm f/2.8 APOGSSM used I think it was a month ago, sold for over six grand.
DCI:
That’s surprising.
Mark Weir:
So you know, there are a lot of customers that put a very high value in that glass. And if I was to say well defend yours against theirs, I would say I wouldn’t really do that, I would point to the customers who already see it in that light.
DCI:
Well again, I very much appreciate your taking the time to sit down with DCI and look forward to seeing the line materialize and evolve.
Yolanda Hunt-Boes:
All right, thank you DCI, and there’s more info to come so stayed tuned.
