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: Bruce on 16 Apr 2010 13:19 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:58:09 +0100, "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. Before taking over Konica Minolta, all Sony lenses were made by subcontractors. I don't know whether the former Minolta factory facilities were retained after the takeover, but the Carl Zeiss branded lenses sold by Sony are made by Cosina. Indeed, all the Carl Zeiss branded lenses on Sony cameras from before the K-M takeover were also Cosina-made. >> 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. In the UK, the Sony Alpha DSLRs are significantly cheaper than their nearest Canon or Nikon equivalents, but they still don't sell. Perhaps the problem is that they took over a failed brand (Konica Minolta) whose sales were almost non-existent?
From: Bruce on 16 Apr 2010 13:23 On 16 Apr 2010 14:40:00 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >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? There are so many gaping holes in Sony's current and planned range that no professional would even consider the brand. The issue of whether Sony will still be around five or ten years now is almost irrelevant, because the Alpha range is inadequate now. So Sony's appeal has to be to the mass market and, to some extent, the "prosumer" market. And that's the market they are having great difficulty selling to. In other words, Sony Alpha has no appeal.
From: Bruce on 16 Apr 2010 13:35 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:43:56 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitris" <noone(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >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. But that was true of any aperture grille CRT monitor, regardless of brand. Yet aperture grille CRT monitors were in strong demand, especially at the high end of the market. Sony's Trinitron CRT tube was very good indeed, but I think the high end monitors from Eizo and LaCie used Mitsubishi Diamond Pro or Plus tubes. The best CRT monitors still outperform most LCD monitors by quite a margin. The barely visible wires supporting the aperture grille were a small price to pay for the overall excellence of these monitors.
From: Bruce on 16 Apr 2010 15:03 On 16 Apr 2010 17:13:39 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >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). Nikon did the adjustable bokeh thing all of 20 years ago with the AF Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC. There is also an AF Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC for people who don't subscribe to the mainly Japanese belief that 135mm is a good focal length for portraits. So there is nothing "unique" about Sony copying the idea two decades later, and nothing has ever come close to the performance of the DC Nikkors. Still, they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! Regarding your ridiculous claim that some Sony lenses are reviewed as "unsurpassed", the usual caveats about unreliable reviewers must be repeated yet again. There is not a single Sony branded lens that is not at least equalled by lenses from one or more other brands, and they are usually well beaten. And Sony cannot legitimately claim the credit for Carl Zeiss branded lenses that are designed and manufactured by others. You really should learn to keep your sycophancy in check, because in this case, it is quite hilariously misplaced. ;-)
From: Pete on 16 Apr 2010 15:20
On 2010-04-16 18:10:32 +0100, Bruce said: > <> > 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. Where I live in the UK all local friendly dealers have closed so I have to travel quite some distance to visit one: it's a small shop for a city. I noticed that Sigma lenses have the biggest (brand) dispaly area; Sony kit had the least, possibly because many towns and cities have Sony shops, more probably because of the profit margin as you said. Here, Minolta had top sales so I've no idea what happened. -- Pete |