Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
Next: Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
From: whisky-dave on 16 Apr 2010 08:58 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bc7eec2$0$1597$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > > Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company > (or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily > audio & video) company. That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people. Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors. Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they. > People's first thought when considering > spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony. True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera, the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not or produce their own. > > I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they > would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon. Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit. >They're not and > never will be. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net >
From: Ray Fischer on 16 Apr 2010 10:40 whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message > >> Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company >> (or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily >> audio & video) company. > >That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people. Not by people buying a $1000 SLR. >Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors. >Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they. Apple may maked fine computers but that doesn't mean that they can make cameras. Ditto Sony. >> People's first thought when considering >> spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony. > >True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera, Irrelevant. Market perception is what counts. >the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not >or produce their own. Suppose you're a professional photographer. You're looking at investing in a camera system to last many years which will consist of camera, several lenses, flashes, and other accessories. Are you going to take a chance that Sony will have all the needed gear, now and in the future, and isn't just playing in a possible new business, or are you going to go with a company that has been doing cameras for decades and already sells all the gear you might need? >> I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they >> would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon. > >Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit. Cheaper isn't enough. If you've wasted $10,000 on equipment that is no longer supported then it's no consolation knowing that you "saved" $2,000. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitris on 16 Apr 2010 11:43 � "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> ������ ��� ������ news:hq9mt1$gpm$1(a)qmul... > > "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message > news:4bc7eec2$0$1597$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > >> >> Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company >> (or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily >> audio & video) company. > > That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people. > Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors. > Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they. > The trinitron tvs were fine (mine bought in '95-a 20" one is still up and running). But the monitors sucked-a friend had one, and the two wires linking the mask were visible. I think that Sony is a good consumer electronic manufacturer-my 29" CRT, DVD player, boombox and camcorder are awesome. But , I have a Canon photo-printer, and a Samsung 20" LCD monitor. >> People's first thought when considering >> spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony. > > True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera, > the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or > not > or produce their own. > >> >> I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they >> would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon. > > Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit. > > > >>They're not and >> never will be. -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr
From: Bruce on 16 Apr 2010 13:10 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:56:14 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:md5fs59r10bjf4r9ilpi71j3s4d1olcgcq(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>Get to the back of the camera bus, Sony. (Dpreview). >>> >>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10041504sonydslr850review.asp >> >> >> There is no need for a full review, as it's just a dumbed-down and >> cheapened Sony A900. >> >> It has inherited the many weaknesses of the A900 and added a few more >> for cheapness. No need to say any more than that. Also, their >> combined sales are so low that they aren't worth wasting time on. >> >> About two years ago, my nearest independent camera store decided Sony >> Alpha would be its major DSLR brand, replacing Nikon. The owner >> decided that the A900 would give Sony's Alpha range the credibility it >> desperately needed, and that a brand-topping full frame DSLR would >> make people look again at the cheaper Alpha DSLRs. >> >> Unfortunately, he was wrong, and the store went into liquidation last >> month. He still offers some services working from home, and I am >> still a customer of his. When I asked him about the reasons for the >> closure of his business, he said "I wish I had stayed with Nikon". >> >> Nikon or Canon, it would have been a better decision than to back >> Sony. Stores who backed Pentax and Olympus DSLRs have also seen a >> decline in sales, although Micro Four Thirds is selling very well. >> >> The store I use most deals with all DSLR brands except Pentax, and the >> owner tells me that Sony sales have dropped off a cliff in the >> recession. His Nikon and Micro Four Thirds sales are strongly up, >> Canon sales are steady and he has dropped Pentax completely. >> >> He despairs of Sony. The company introduced the A900 with a fanfare >> but curtailed its investment in new entry-level and mid-range models >> and does very little to support the Alpha range through advertising. >> His Sony sales are now at their lowest since the takeover of Konica >> Minolta. He's given Sony twelve months to come up with a range that >> will sell, or he will cease offering the brand. >> >> He has been a Minolta enthusiast since the 1960s and a dealer since >> 1985. He had a superb Minolta outfit. But he has sold it all and >> changed to Nikon; he now uses a D700 and finds the results are >> outstanding. >> >> > >Sad story, but the real reason is that point and shoot digital cameras now >offer quality acceptable to most consumers, leaving a much smaller prosumer >segment to buy full frame DSLR's. How is it then, that sales figures for point and shoot digital cameras have gone down in the last year, while sales figures for DSLRs and Micro Four Thirds cameras have actually gone up? Unfortunately, Sony missed the boat. >Given that Minolta's A series film cameras were just a few hundred pounds, >Sony are still pricing themselves out of their own market with a DLSR >costing several times as much. I don't know about markets other than the UK, but here Sony has priced its entry-level Alpha models very competitively, but they still don't sell. My friendly dealer tells me that his profit margin on an entry-level Alpha body or kit is so low that it almost isn't worth taking the time to demonstrate them to potential customers.
From: Chris Malcolm on 16 Apr 2010 13:13
In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message > news:4bc7eec2$0$1597$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company >> (or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily >> audio & video) company. > That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people. > Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors. > Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they. >> People's first thought when considering >> spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony. > True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera, > the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not > or produce their own. They produce their own using Minolta's optical facilities which they bought. Their alpha series of DSLRs is based around Minolta's alpha mount and is fully compatible with Minolta's old alpha lenses and Minolta alpha compatibles from third party makers. Tamron, Sigma, and Samyang are among those making Sony alpha compatible lenses. They also have contractual arrangements with Tamron and Carl Zeiss. A few of the lenses in their current line up are reviewed as being unsurpassed in image quality, and a few are unique in what they offer, such as their autofocusing 500mm reflex, or their 135mm STF (selective transfer function, i.e. adjustable bokeh quality). They lack the range of current new lenses of Nikon or Canon, but they're working to address that. And being much the fastest growing DSLR maker it doesn't look like they're giving up. Especially since DSLRs are starting to move into movie compatible territory, and Sony are already a market leader in professional movie cameras. -- Chris Malcolm |