Jump to content
GreekBeast

Sony a7 III discussion

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mokara said:

Well, I have small hands, and pretty much all of Canon's cameras larger than a Rebel are uncomfortable for me to hold, since I can't get a solid grip on them due to their size. A camera should be an extension of your primary arm, you should be able to do everything with it using one hand (short of whatever you might do with lens controls). Ergonomically the best camera I have used personally in terms of hand fit has been the NX1. Not saying that most MILCs are better, since they often have little or no grip at all, and that makes things equally awkward, just on the other end of the scale.

Canon/Nikon's cameras appear to be designed with alpha males in mind. I don't think that is accurate representation of the overall population though. In the days when these design concepts originated it might well have been true that the ILC market was dominated by alpha males (in the old days ILCs were mockingly referred to as "male jewelry" due to the sorts of people who typically would carry them), but that is no longer the case and today in the modern egalitarian and equitable world the average hand size using cameras is smaller (all those pesky females are skewing the average down).

Body size has to accommodate the average user, not just whatever happens to suit you in particular. Irrespective of what size a manufacturer chooses, it is probably going to be a good size for someone. Alpha males are probably going to gravitate to Canikon due to the bulky design paradigm they use, while females and average males will gravitate towards the smaller MILCs. The latter is the growth market in the industry, and my guess is that is the reason why cameras like the a7 are the size they are. They are the right size for market growth potential, all that remains for Sony to do is make tweaks to the more subtle aspects of shape.

As you say, those pesky females are taking up an ever increasing percentage of ILC buyers....

5a9f426a59971_ClipboardImage(76).thumb.jpg.9abd68a1163ee3681d3d31453c39384d.jpg

I also think consumers consider camera size apart from pro ergonomics...

1. Here in Asia, at least 80% of men carry a 'manbag' - plenty of room for a mirrorless, not so good for a DSLR

2. Ergonomics is bound to rank higher for a 'pro' using his camera 4 hours a day than a consumer using his camera for 20 minutes.

3. 'Pros' talk about 'balance' with 'GM' Sony zooms or '400 2.8' primes. I seriously dont think I have seen an A7 with a GM zoom on the street in Asia. Consumers typically match these cameras up with a small prime - 28, 35, 55 - with which they balance fine - probably much better than a DSLR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I’ve lived in Vietnam for over 5 years (which incidentally is part of Asia), and men don’t carry ‘manbags’. Also, you can go on all you like about camera size, but you fail to address my main point, which is that the dials, buttons and handgrip could be chunkier. And since we’re talking anecdotal evidence, on the streets of Saigon, I see many men and women with large lenses. So what? But since you think it’s just alpha males that gravitate toward larger cameras, an assertion without any basis in fact, there’s no point in discussing this with you any longer. It appears that you feel threatened by, or are overtly hostile toward working photographers, otherwise why would you keep using quotation marks around the word ‘pro’. Evidently, it’s a personal issue of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I’ve lived in Vietnam for over 5 years (which incidentally is part of Asia), and men don’t carry ‘manbags’. Also, you can go on all you like about camera size, but you fail to address my main point, which is that the dials, buttons and handgrip could be chunkier. And since we’re talking anecdotal evidence, on the streets of Saigon, I see many men and women with large lenses. So what?

Either we are talking at cross purposes or you are missing my point completely.

I think that it would be totally 'wrong' and 'incredibly inadvisable' for mirrorless camera manufacturers to design or redesign their cameras based on the 'perceived ergonomics of pro photographers'. Pro photogs only make up around 2% of ILC camera buyers and the other 98% dont have the same habits. In the same vein, you talk about 'buttons and dials' needing to be bigger while smartphone users (99% of photographers) dont actually use them at all.

It seems 'pro photogs' want mirrorless companies to build cameras that closely resemble 'DSLRs'. Does this make sense? Since 2012 DSLR sales have halved in value. Since 2012 mirrorless ILC sales have increased 77% in value. So it literally makes no sense at all for 'pros' to keep telling mirrorless camera companies to go copy a failing business strategy. It should be 'pretty obvious' that mirrorless cameras are succeeding because they are 'different' from DSLRs not because they are striving to be the 'same'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smartphone users take snapshots.. as do point & shoot camera users. chances are people investing in a FF A7 series are serious about photography (wether enthusiasts or pro) hence indeed buttons & overall ergonomics being of importance. touch screens are cool and a welcome addition, but when you're eye is on the EVF/OVF, nothing beats dials, wheels & buttons imo. especially when shooting manual.

6 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

It seems 'pro photogs' want mirrorless companies to build cameras that closely resemble 'DSLRs'. Does this make sense? Since 2012 DSLR sales have halved in value. Since 2012 mirrorless ILC sales have increased 77% in value. So it literally makes no sense at all for 'pros' to keep telling mirrorless camera companies to go copy a failing business strategy. It should be 'pretty obvious' that mirrorless cameras are succeeding because they are 'different' from DSLRs not because they are striving to be the 'same'.

 

wrong again pal. Pros want best of both worlds, they want the performance & ergonomics of DSLRs along with the advantages of mirrorless (EVF, IBIS, no mirror slap, no AA, more AF points/spread, adapting lenses, better video etc) with the added benefit of weight/size usually still being inferior to flagship DSLRs. And with every body generation going in this direction, more pro photogs (or simply DSLR advocates) are switching over. That being said the majority of pros are still clinging on to DSLRs for performance, durability & ergonomic reasons.

In any case I welcome this direction from Sony/Fuji and predict A7iii will sell like hot cakes, in fact it is currently already the number one best selling mirrorless camera a week only after it's announcement: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011

Seems like they're not off to a bad strategy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Django said:

smartphone users take snapshots.. as do point & shoot camera users. chances are people investing in a FF A7 series are serious about photography (wether enthusiasts or pro) hence indeed buttons & overall ergonomics being of importance. touch screens are cool and a welcome addition, but when you're eye is on the EVF/OVF, nothing beats dials, wheels & buttons imo. especially when shooting manual.

wrong again pal. Pros want best of both worlds, they want the performance & ergonomics of DSLRs along with the advantages of mirrorless (EVF, IBIS, no mirror slap, no AA, more AF points/spread, adapting lenses, better video etc) with the added benefit of weight/size usually still being inferior to flagship DSLRs. And with every body generation going in this direction, more pro photogs (or simply DSLR advocates) are switching over. That being said the majority of pros are still clinging on to DSLRs for performance, durability & ergonomic reasons.

In any case I welcome this direction from Sony/Fuji and predict A7iii will sell like hot cakes, in fact it is currently already the number one best selling mirrorless camera a week only after it's announcement: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011

Seems like they're not off to a bad strategy..

Honestly I am not arguing about what 'pros' 'want' merely that mirrorless camera manufacturers are far better off ignoring such a small demographic ( which is already well catered to by the large DSLR manufacturers). I absolutely 'get' that you want 'your cake and to eat it'.

For me, rather than Sony focusing on producing a 400 2.8 lens to satisfy the half dozen 'pro photogs' who might buy it 'unsponsored' they would be far better off focusing on a 'proper touch based lcd', 'usuable wifi to smartphone', 'touch based menus' - you know all those things why smartphones outsell ILCs 100:1.

As Inuzuma put it ....

'Indeed I think manufacturers have to find a better approach.  Perhaps minimal buttons and a much larger rear touch screen is the way forward. '

AS for your comment 'the A7iii will sell like hotcakes' - I am sure it will - luckily it hasnt fallen down the root of 'small sensor, large camera'. Meanwhile we will have to look deep into the stats to find where 'Panasonic's' market share has disappeared to....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

Honestly I am not arguing about what 'pros' 'want' merely that mirrorless camera manufacturers are far better off ignoring such a small demographic ( which is already well catered to by the large DSLR manufacturers). I absolutely 'get' that you want 'your cake and to eat it'.

For me, rather than Sony focusing on producing a 400 2.8 lens to satisfy the half dozen 'pro photogs' who might buy it 'unsponsored' they would be far better off focusing on a 'proper touch based lcd', 'usuable wifi to smartphone', 'touch based menus' - you know all those things why smartphones outsell ILCs 100:1.

With all due respect, this is very wrong.

The 400 f2.8 issue which you continue to reference and described as prattle earlier on was actually my prattle about the A9 rather than the A7 but I thought I'd reply anyway.

Sony have produced a camera which they push as a professional sports camera and to say it has made little to zero impact in the field that they claim it will revolutionise would be an understatement. 

Why?

Well, lenses firstly and, once they've resolve that, ergonomics.

Unfortunately, whilst professional sports photographers would love to just be able to sashay around with all our gear in a man bag, we need fast long lenses not for some "alpha male" bullshit but because we have to photograph things at distance, in low light and with good separation against often busy backgrounds. 

We don't use 400 f2.8 lenses because we like having to pay for, carry and wrestle with them but because we need to.

To, you know, do our job.

So, if Sony want to actually make any headway in the market they push that camera to then who else should they have listened to other than the people that actually work in it?

Where did you source your data for the 'half dozen' photographers that might buy it 'unsponsored' ?

I'll be shooting a Champions League match tonight along with 50-60 other members of the "shrinking, impoverished and literally dying" demographic that Sony are trying to appeal to with this camera. There'll be roughly £15-20K of equipment being used per metre, none of which will be sponsored and none of which will be Sony, but all those kits will include a 400 f2.8

The total spend on the equipment contained in our oversized weather resistant man bags will be about £1.8m and we will expect to replenish that every 24 months.

Thats from this one game in one city.

Go and have a look at the sporting calendar and see how many more events the alpha males with the big hands are covering tonight. 

Even so, we are still small potatoes perhaps financially against the masses but we bring something to the party that is far more important to Sony than the immediacy of getting a few quid off us.

I'm in this picture somewhere

epa_italy_soccer_uefa_champions_league_final_2016_82231526.jpg.3aad9b1de0bf41f12330a42fbd1b014a.jpg

The worldwide TV audience for this game was around 350 million people.

That is 350 million people getting glimpses of Nikon and Canon cameras for 90 minutes.

If someone wanted to convince you to buy a camera that the pros use, there really is no more effective means at getting the point across than that is there?

Where else are consumers going to see professional cameras being used in those sort of numbers?

The English Premier League has an annual TV audience of 4.2 billion people, all of whom are getting regular glimpses of working professional photographers using Canon and Nikon cameras every time the ball goes out of play behind the goal.

It is a massive calling card for those two companies and that is why Sony want to be involved.

They're not in it to sell a few thousand A9s, they're in it to sell a few hundred thousand of their other ones.

So they have to produce a 400 f2.8 and they have to make it ergonomically viable to get real professional sports photographers to use it. 

And they have completely failed in that respect.

That picture is from the 2017 Champions League final, just after the A9 was launched. You'd think a company like Sony would've been able to persuade a few people to shoot with it wouldn't you? Even by paying us to do it? 

Can't see one can you?

And its got nothing to do with the specs, its all about it not being good enough for the job (and that is what it is, a job) that they were devising it for.

 Hence your dismissal of the balance issue and general body size as wittering is utterly ridiculous in that context.

Try balancing that lens with that camera on a monopod and switching it rapidly from eye back to reverse over your shoulder while you use your other body with a 70-200 f2.8 and tell me balance doesn't matter. 

Try using cameras continuously in that scenario for hours at a time and tell me the camera being too thin doesn't actually hurt your hands, let alone before we get on to button placement and button size.

As an economist, you will be able to speculate on numerous possible factors why the A9 has made more or less zero impact on the market Sony intended for it. 

As the actual intended customer of it, I can offer a completely non-speculative reason for it which is that it didn't have a 400 f2.8 from the get go and its ergonomics and overall performance are not good enough.

The Sony A7iii looks like a great camera though even for someone with small hands like me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2018 at 12:36 PM, Robert Collins said:

 

No pros are people like me  who have to spend 4 to 12 hours holding a camera. Believe me it can get quite painful if you don't have a good grip to hold your camera, more so that you will at least have a 24-70 most of the time on your camera. Secondly is we are actual human beings and muscle memory is going to be always faster than looking into endless menus, until someday we have brain controlled cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

So, if Sony want to actually make any headway in the market they push that camera to then who else should they be listening to than the people that actually work in it?

 

ABSOLUTELY!!!

But again you are totally missing my point....

MY POINT... is that WHY is Sony trying to enter a market for 'HIGH END SPORTS' shooters when that market is 'INCREDIBLY SMALL' - literally 'THOUSANDS' in a global population of billions.

Furthermore, this market for several thousand high end sports shooters is already well catered for by Canikon.

Is the total global market for photographers who use 400 2.8 lenses over 100,000 in a world of 7 billion? Even if it is, how many of those Canikon shooters are going to switch to Sony?

Look I 100% get what Pro shooters are and that they need to hold their cameras for 6 hours a day. I simply dont 'GET' why Sony should 'AIM' their cameras at 'YOU' rather than the 98% of the camera buying population that are 'NOT' PRO PHOTOGRAPHERS.

If you really believe that Sony should design their cameras for 'pro photographers' on the basis that every buyer of an ILC should 'aspire' to being a pro photographer with pro photographers needs and wants you are clearly both insane and a clear indicator of why camera companies have totally missed on the biggest explosion of photography in history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TIL that you are a professional photographer (the one's that matter, anyway) if you shoot meaningless sports spectacles, where you basically spray and pray for two hours and then brag about the cost of your telephoto lenses.

Maybe we should ask some wedding photographers that might even like a lighter, smaller body, since they handle their cams for many more hours per working day. Or maybe there are different tools for different jobs? Sports photographers already have "the perfect tools", so why are you complaining about a product that could be heaven-sent for most and just not big enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

ABSOLUTELY!!!

But again you are totally missing my point....

MY POINT... is that WHY is Sony trying to enter a market for 'HIGH END SPORTS' shooters when that market is 'INCREDIBLY SMALL' - literally 'THOUSANDS' in a global population of billions.

Furthermore, this market for several thousand high end sports shooters is already well catered for by Canikon.

Is the total global market for photographers who use 400 2.8 lenses over 100,000 in a world of 7 billion? Even if it is, how many of those Canikon shooters are going to switch to Sony?

Look I 100% get what Pro shooters are and that they need to hold their cameras for 6 hours a day. I simply dont 'GET' why Sony should 'AIM' their cameras at 'YOU' rather than the 98% of the camera buying population are 'NOT' PRO PHOTOGRAPHERS.

 

The market is catered for at the moment purely because no one else has seriously tried to challenge it.

I'm someone who has been trialling using mirrorless cameras for sport. In that picture, I'm actually using one. The only mirrorless one being used by the way!

Its not about us not wanting to change, its about no one offering a serious coherent alternative to Canon and Nikon.

And this is where I've found a manufacturer talking a good fight (Fuji) and then not following it through and Sony are now repeating the trick.

Sony want to be in that market for the exposure, if you pardon the pun, and the trickle down not the direct revenue from it.

Just like Mercedes aren't in F1 to sell F1 cars, Range Rover's ads feature a lot of off roading to sell vehicles that will live their whole life on tarmac etc.

Like I say, Sony wants a few thousand actual A9 sales to inspire a few hundred thousand sales of their other cameras by virtue of the "this is what the pros use" routine.

To do that, it needs them to be used in a high visibility professional scenario and they don't come any higher visibility than high end sports.

Unfortunately for Sony, its difficult to say "this is the one the pros use" when, well, it isn't and as quirky or unpleasant or weird or neanderthal or cantankerous the requirements of this dwindling group of seemingly statistically irrelevant bunch of big handed prattlers may be, we do kind of hold the keys to that particular kingdom.

Up the workers!! ;)

 

1 hour ago, JurijTurnsek said:

TIL that you are a professional photographer (the one's that matter, anyway) if you shoot meaningless sports spectacles, where you basically spray and pray for two hours and then brag about the cost of your telephoto lenses.

Maybe we should ask some wedding photographers that might even like a lighter, smaller body, since they handle their cams for many more hours per working day. Or maybe there are different tools for different jobs? Sports photographers already have "the perfect tools", so why are you complaining about a product that could be heaven-sent for most and just not big enough for you?

Don't forget the autograph hunting and the selfies with the players that we also manage to fit in while mindlessly holding our finger on the shutter button.

When we are getting ever diminishing returns on our investment, the last thing we are doing is bragging about the price of memory cards let alone anything else. The point I was trying and failing to make about the equipment cost was in response to the global market for sports photographers being 6 x 400mm f2.8 lenses. Or about £60K

And the response was about the A9, a camera that Sony are primarily touting as a camera for professional sports photography.

I'm not complaining about the A7 at all.

You are absolutely right that there are different tools for different jobs but when someone tells you that their tool is right for your job when they don't actually do that job then I think its fair comment to respond.

We don't have perfect tools for the job by the way, we have just have ones that are more adequate than other companies new offerings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly it is the consumer base dslr that have had the most difficulty since 2012 because of the advent of the mobile phone, the prosumer and pro cameras market has mostly remained the same. Secondly why do all the chevrolet, honda, renault, peugeot or even mercedes  and a plethora of consumer based car manufacturers are investing billions in sport racing. Because they know the image impact that it projects to the consumer who will never drive some indy car or Formula 1 performance car. It is the same for photography and a lot of other domain like sport, who needs some costly Kobe or Jordan shoes or that super light carbon fiber tennis racket used by Federer. It a perception that brand use by pro's are better because they are used in difficult situation or environment. You cannot go wrong with the camera brand that went to space or war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

12 minutes ago, Danyyyel said:

Firstly it is the consumer base dslr that have had the most difficulty since 2012 because of the advent of the mobile phone, the prosumer and pro cameras market has mostly remained the same. Secondly why do all the chevrolet, honda, renault, peugeot or even mercedes  and a plethora of consumer based car manufacturers are investing billions in sport racing. Because they know the image impact that it projects to the consumer who will never drive some indy car or Formula 1 performance car. It is the same for photography and a lot of other domain like sport, who needs some costly Kobe or Jordan shoes or that super light carbon fiber tennis racket used by Federer. It a perception that brand use by pro's are better because they are used in difficult situation or environment. You cannot go wrong with the camera brand that went to space or war.

Honestly you are entitled to your opinion that 'pro photographers' are seen as 'objects of desire' in 2018 much in the same way as F1 drivers. Personally I see 'pro photographers' as overweight, underpaid and increasingly impoverished second class citizens. Where you see professional photography as glamorous - I see 'wedding photographers' 'oap photographers' 'child sports photographers' 'funeral photogs' (in my country) etc...

If Sony really thinks pro photography is glamorous, they could do better than sponsoring a fat chap with a hat....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

OK.... now you onto something...

I 100% believe that Sony 'are CHASING the pro market' in a belief that if they somehow 'capture the pro market' then the other 98% of the market will follow suit....

BUT the reality is that the world does not 'revolve around 1970s marketing strategies' in 2018.

Not only do I believe that nobody actually cares what camera anyone is using at the Olympics in 2020, but by Olympics 2024 everyone is far more likely to be taking stills from video cameras....

I think the 'pros dont use flippy screens' 'pros dont need wifi' 'pros dont use touch screens' is the exactly the sort of 'thinking' that will lead to all camera companies extinction....

I dunno, I'm not an economist.

I'd say that more people are concerned with brand names than ever before though and I suspect that Sony are still more synonymous with things like Walkman and Playstation than cameras as a brand name to the average person in the street than they are cameras.

If the consumer world is moving to only taking pictures on phones then if I made phones, I think I might still be trying to get some association going with the professional world so it will be relevant for a while yet.

They never really leveraged the Walkman and the Playstation heritage with their smartphones so maybe thats influencing them to be at the vanguard when cameras actually do finally go the way of calculators and alarm clocks and more or less only exist as a function of a phone.

With regard to wifi and touch screens, I use wifi and touch screen on my D5 and D500 continuously. The IT aspect of getting the picture away as quickly as possible is huge for us so I'd probably say we use that more than most people. Ditto that the picture has to be QCd instantly before you send it so the pinch zoom is a big win to check subject focus.

The D5 may not have one but flip screen on the D500 is a boon for setting up low level remote shots or shooting over the heads of other photographers if you find yourself in a scrum as in the picture I posted.

So we're maybe not quite as much in the dark ages as people might suspect.

Its just that we might want to have screens that are a bit more robust and wifi that can ftp rather than just transfer to a smart phone etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm in this picture somewhere

epa_italy_soccer_uefa_champions_league_final_2016_82231526.jpg.3aad9b1de0bf41f12330a42fbd1b014a.jpg

 

And seriously?

I 100% get why people aspire to be Cristiano Ronaldo in this photo, why people pay in millions of dollars to wear his shoes or the shirt he is wearing and I fully understand that every person involved to be in the scrum to take his photo, is being paid good money to wrestle with everyone else for that photo. BUT do you really think in 2018 that people aspire to owning a camera or lens that people like THIS use... you are hardly invoking a glamorous lifestyle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

And seriously?

I 100% get why people aspire to be Cristiano Ronaldo in this photo, why people pay in millions of dollars to wear his shoes or the shirt he is wearing and I fully understand that every person involved to be in the scrum to take his photo, is being paid good money to wrestle with everyone else for that photo. BUT do you really think in 2018 that people aspire to owning a camera or lens that people like THIS use... you are hardly invoking a glamorous lifestyle...

Where on earth have I tried to advocate it as a glamorous lifestyle???

Its not in the least bit glamourous. 

That image was used purely to illustrate the fact that those cameras are being used at events with literally hundreds of millions of eyeballs on them and that if I was in the business of raising the awareness of my camera brand then it might be beneficial for me to have my cameras being seen by those people too at that and similar events.

Glamorous.......fuck me.

I'm out of this thread now because its become ridiculous but, for the record, I probably will buy an A7iii and definitely not put a 400mm f2.8 on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet there are more wildlife/bird enthusiasts than professional sports photographers who are considering moving over to Sony. Sony's 400mm 2.8 lens is critical if Sony plans to woo over that crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:
7 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Where on earth have I tried to advocate it as a glamorous lifestyle???

Its not in the least bit glamourous. 

It is used to illustrate the fact that those cameras are being used at events with literally hundreds of millions of eyeballs on them and that if I was in the business of raising the awareness of my camera brand then it might be beneficial for me to have my cameras being seen by those people too.

Glamorous lifestyle.......Jesus

Well it was you who said that car manufacturers invested in F1 for the knock on effects of exposure.

I do 100% agree that the knock-on effects of exposure isnt great in a 'bacon' advert when you are a 'pig'

 

9 minutes ago, ajay said:

I'll bet there are more wildlife/bird enthusiasts than professional sports photographers who are considering moving over to Sony. Sony's 400mm 2.8 lens is critical if Sony plans to woo over that crowd.

Honestly Ajay your logic is 'back to front'. I 100% agree that if Sony wants to 'woo' birders over to their platform they need a 400 f2.8. However I simply not convinced that birders are an economic platform. Furthermore if you happen to be a birder with a 400 2.8, I really dont think it is economically realistic to switch to Sony.

And simply betting that 2 in a million is higher than 1 in a million is still a heroically optimistic business plan!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are seriously disrespectful. ‘Fat man in a hat’ has got a ton more nice shots than you’ll ever get in a lifetime I’ll bet. I’ll also bet he’s more fun at a party than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robert Collins said:

Well it was you who said that car manufacturers invested in F1 for the knock on effects of exposure.

I do 100% agree that the knock-on effects of exposure isnt great in a 'bacon' advert when you are a 'pig'

I said that Mercedes aren't involved in F1 to sell F1 cars.

The exposure of the brand name to hundreds of millions of people and the trickle down technology etc is what I said. Trickle down like the AF in the A9 finding its way to the A7iii for example if we want to drag this thing back on topic. 

Where did I say the word glamour?

I didn't did I?

I'd ask you to clarify the pig reference but honestly I can't be arsed engaging any more about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...