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 15 Apr 2010 19:16 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.
From: R. Mark Clayton on 15 Apr 2010 19:56 "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. 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.
From: Chris Malcolm on 15 Apr 2010 21:14 In rec.photo.digital 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. > 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. This seems to be the case in the US. In many other countries Sony DSLRs are doing much better. -- Chris Malcolm
From: Ray Fischer on 16 Apr 2010 00:59 Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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". 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. People's first thought when considering spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony. 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. They're not and never will be. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: whisky-dave on 16 Apr 2010 08:47
"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> > > He despairs of Sony. I think this has happened through out Sony rather than just the camera division. I have an old (5 years) DVD recorder of theirs and it still works, but a friend who tried to buy one recently went through 3 in as many weeks having to send them back because disc wouldn't play (commercially brought) they gave up on buying Sony and went with Panasonic. |