Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A sad time for Sony/Minolta DSLR users
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Bruce
May 29, 2012, 1:42:09 PM5/29/12
to
Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
Sales of NEX mirrorless cameras were strong but have been dropping
recently because the lens range is so poor. There is only one lens
that can realise the potential of the 24 MP sensor in the NEX-7, the
Zeiss 24mm f/1.8. But that lens is eyewateringly expensive,
especially when compared with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for Micro Four
Thirds, which is optically just as good at *one third of the price*.
We will wait and see what Sony has to offer us for 2013 then make a
decision whether to continue stocking the brand. Several of our
competitors have now dropped Sony products from their ranges because
of the disastrously low sales figures. I would not be surprised if we
went the same way. We have limited display space and there are other
brands which can deliver a much better return on that space.
The forthcoming Canon mirrorless system is likely to do considerable
damage to sales of Sony NEX and Micro Four Thirds.
It is sad to see the (Konica-)Minolta brand descend to such depths.
Several years ago, we had a lot of very loyal Minolta customers who
were excited by the thought of what Sony's investment might do to help
develop the range. I doubt any of them expected Sony to kill it off,
nor quite so quickly. We still have many of those loyal customers.
but they now buy brands other than Sony.
of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
Sales of NEX mirrorless cameras were strong but have been dropping
recently because the lens range is so poor. There is only one lens
that can realise the potential of the 24 MP sensor in the NEX-7, the
Zeiss 24mm f/1.8. But that lens is eyewateringly expensive,
especially when compared with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for Micro Four
Thirds, which is optically just as good at *one third of the price*.
We will wait and see what Sony has to offer us for 2013 then make a
decision whether to continue stocking the brand. Several of our
competitors have now dropped Sony products from their ranges because
of the disastrously low sales figures. I would not be surprised if we
went the same way. We have limited display space and there are other
brands which can deliver a much better return on that space.
The forthcoming Canon mirrorless system is likely to do considerable
damage to sales of Sony NEX and Micro Four Thirds.
It is sad to see the (Konica-)Minolta brand descend to such depths.
Several years ago, we had a lot of very loyal Minolta customers who
were excited by the thought of what Sony's investment might do to help
develop the range. I doubt any of them expected Sony to kill it off,
nor quite so quickly. We still have many of those loyal customers.
but they now buy brands other than Sony.
RichA
May 29, 2012, 2:00:15 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 1:42 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
Kind of funny. I was in a store the other day and some guy was
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
lamenting that he'd owned two Sony's, both failed on him so he's
moving to Canon. I wonder how much of that is really peer-pressure
and his Canon-owing buddies made sport of him?
> Sales of NEX mirrorless cameras were strong but have been dropping
> recently because the lens range is so poor. There is only one lens
> that can realise the potential of the 24 MP sensor in the NEX-7, the
> Zeiss 24mm f/1.8. But that lens is eyewateringly expensive,
> especially when compared with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for Micro Four
> Thirds, which is optically just as good at *one third of the price*.
lenses for $300.00, ever, no matter what.
> We will wait and see what Sony has to offer us for 2013 then make a
> decision whether to continue stocking the brand. Several of our
> competitors have now dropped Sony products from their ranges because
> of the disastrously low sales figures. I would not be surprised if we
> went the same way. We have limited display space and there are other
> brands which can deliver a much better return on that space.
said, 80% of people buy white toilet seats, but they still have to
stock 18 colours or people won't buy anything. Sales psychology at
work.
> The forthcoming Canon mirrorless system is likely to do considerable
> damage to sales of Sony NEX and Micro Four Thirds.
don't believe in rewarding companies that have foisted so much flawed
product onto users.
> It is sad to see the (Konica-)Minolta brand descend to such depths.
> Several years ago, we had a lot of very loyal Minolta customers who
> were excited by the thought of what Sony's investment might do to help
> develop the range. I doubt any of them expected Sony to kill it off,
> nor quite so quickly. We still have many of those loyal customers.
> but they now buy brands other than Sony.
though they had the fantastic lens line-up.
Bruce
May 29, 2012, 3:20:05 PM5/29/12
to
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 1:42 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
>> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
>> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
>> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>>
>> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
>> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
>> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
>> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
>
>Kind of funny. I was in a store the other day and some guy was
>lamenting that he'd owned two Sony's, both failed on him so he's
>moving to Canon. I wonder how much of that is really peer-pressure
>and his Canon-owing buddies made sport of him?
I can't speak for Canada, but Sony after-sales service here is
>On May 29, 1:42 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
>> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
>> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
>> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>>
>> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
>> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
>> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
>> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
>
>Kind of funny. I was in a store the other day and some guy was
>lamenting that he'd owned two Sony's, both failed on him so he's
>moving to Canon. I wonder how much of that is really peer-pressure
>and his Canon-owing buddies made sport of him?
atrocious.
>> Sales of NEX mirrorless cameras were strong but have been dropping
>> recently because the lens range is so poor. There is only one lens
>> that can realise the potential of the 24 MP sensor in the NEX-7, the
>> Zeiss 24mm f/1.8. But that lens is eyewateringly expensive,
>> especially when compared with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for Micro Four
>> Thirds, which is optically just as good at *one third of the price*.
>
>Arbitrary comparisons don't always work. Zeiss won't be selling
>lenses for $300.00, ever, no matter what.
Apart from the CZ 24mm, the only good prime lenses available for Sony
NEX come from Sigma - the 19mm and 30mm. Of course the build quality
is the usual junk, but optically they are better than anything for NEX
sold under the Sony brand.
Sony had a very good roadmap for NEX lenses then the investment was
pulled. As a result, NEX is now struggling.
That is totally unnecessary. The camera bodies are excellent - we got
the new NEX-F3 to try this week, and it is really good. But where are
the decent lenses?
>> We will wait and see what Sony has to offer us for 2013 then make a
>> decision whether to continue stocking the brand. Several of our
>> competitors have now dropped Sony products from their ranges because
>> of the disastrously low sales figures. I would not be surprised if we
>> went the same way. We have limited display space and there are other
>> brands which can deliver a much better return on that space.
>
>I'd think hard about discontinuing them. Like the head of Walmart
>said, 80% of people buy white toilet seats, but they still have to
>stock 18 colours or people won't buy anything. Sales psychology at
>work.
(R.I.P.) and the SLTs are almost impossible to sell despite the low
prices we offer them at. They are troublesome in every way, and don't
make us anything like the profit we need from the area we have devoted
to them.
>> The forthcoming Canon mirrorless system is likely to do considerable
>> damage to sales of Sony NEX and Micro Four Thirds.
>
>Especially in Canada as many are Canondroids here. Personally, I
>don't believe in rewarding companies that have foisted so much flawed
>product onto users.
many companies, certainly not just Canon.
>> It is sad to see the (Konica-)Minolta brand descend to such depths.
>> Several years ago, we had a lot of very loyal Minolta customers who
>> were excited by the thought of what Sony's investment might do to help
>> develop the range. I doubt any of them expected Sony to kill it off,
>> nor quite so quickly. We still have many of those loyal customers.
>> but they now buy brands other than Sony.
>
>This sounds like what happened to Olympus DSLRs in Toronto, even
>though they had the fantastic lens line-up.
share of the blame for Olympus being stuck with poor sensors. If
Panasonic hadn't rescued Olympus with the excellent LiveMOS sensors,
Four Thirds would have died altogether and Micro Four Thirds would
have been a Panasonic-only format.
R. Mark Clayton
May 29, 2012, 4:03:17 PM5/29/12
to
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:j41as7tpugb18h09h...@4ax.com...
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We
sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
Damn shame - I still have plenty of Minolta glass,
but Sony keep the price of full frame DSLR's that can exploit it fully at
$$$$.
Of course they could always reduce their prices to
a level where demand would increase, but being Sony they think high prices give
cachet and people will pay for the brand.
Bad call
Sony Q4 results expected to be one of its worst sales quarters in 11 years
Electronics giant set to announce ¥73bn (£554m) operating loss for the period, Guardian analysis suggests
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/23/sony-fourth-quarter-results
A bit better this year...
Alan Browne
May 29, 2012, 5:22:40 PM5/29/12
to
On 2012-05-29 13:42 , Bruce wrote:
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
Sony decided on their SLT strategy some time ago, so it's no surprise.
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
And what I see here is people are buying them. So much for Tony "Bruce"
Polson's anti-Sony routine.
What will be a damper is if they never make a FF SLT - though the rumour
mill has it that they will.
SLT's several advantages (phase-AF, fps, etc.) are tempered by their
disadvantages such as spurious reflections and mechanical distortion of
the mirror. If Sony (have) solve(d) that, then there should not be any
real concern for Minolta glass owners.
If they remain at APS-C, then at least the high quality offerings such
as the A-77 "level" will temper disappointment.
I continue to see a lot of alpha cameras out there, so they remain
relatively popular.
--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.
Alan Browne
May 29, 2012, 5:35:01 PM5/29/12
to
On 2012-05-29 16:03 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> "Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j41as7tpugb18h09h...@4ax.com...
>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but
>> because of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have
>> always had at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today
>> that Sony no longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be
>> made.
>>
>
> Damn shame - I still have plenty of Minolta glass, but Sony keep the
> price of full frame DSLR's that can exploit it fully at $$$$.
Compared to the competition ...
>
> "Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j41as7tpugb18h09h...@4ax.com...
>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but
>> because of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have
>> always had at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today
>> that Sony no longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be
>> made.
>>
>
> Damn shame - I still have plenty of Minolta glass, but Sony keep the
> price of full frame DSLR's that can exploit it fully at $$$$.
> Of course they could always reduce their prices to a level where
> demand would increase, but being Sony they think high prices give
> cachet and people will pay for the brand.
also high end lenses seem to carry a 20 - 40% premium over comparable
lenses from the competition.
> Bad call Sony Q4 results expected to be one of its worst sales
> quarters in 11 years Electronics giant set to announce ¥73bn (£554m)
> operating loss for the period, Guardian analysis suggests
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/23/sony-fourth-quarter-results
money losing television business as well as others. The camera business
is in the noise, somewhat.
RichA
May 29, 2012, 10:45:55 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 3:20 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't speak for Canada, but Sony after-sales service here is
> atrocious.
Some of it is outsourced in Canada.
> I can't speak for Canada, but Sony after-sales service here is
> atrocious.
> >Arbitrary comparisons don't always work. Zeiss won't be selling
> >lenses for $300.00, ever, no matter what.
>
> True, but the point is that there is only one good lens in the range.
> Apart from the CZ 24mm, the only good prime lenses available for Sony
> NEX come from Sigma - the 19mm and 30mm. Of course the build quality
> is the usual junk, but optically they are better than anything for NEX
> sold under the Sony brand.
>
> Sony had a very good roadmap for NEX lenses then the investment was
> pulled. As a result, NEX is now struggling.
> >I'd think hard about discontinuing them. Like the head of Walmart
> >said, 80% of people buy white toilet seats, but they still have to
> >stock 18 colours or people won't buy anything. Sales psychology at
> >work.
>
> But people already aren't buying anything. Alpha DSLRs have just died
> (R.I.P.) and the SLTs are almost impossible to sell despite the low
> prices we offer them at. They are troublesome in every way, and don't
> make us anything like the profit we need from the area we have devoted
> to them.
sales of other brands. Who wants to shop in a store that only stocks
two brands? As odd as it sounds, people who do not yet have systems
want choices presented even if they've decided to by from the big two.
> I think that "foisted so much flawed product onto users" applies to
> many companies, certainly not just Canon.
in the last 10 years. Nikon's resurgence wasn't only because of its
sensors.
> Well, there were other reasons for that. Kodak must take a large
> share of the blame for Olympus being stuck with poor sensors. If
> Panasonic hadn't rescued Olympus with the excellent LiveMOS sensors,
> Four Thirds would have died altogether and Micro Four Thirds would
> have been a Panasonic-only format.
was definitely ignored by retailers because selling Canon and Nikon
was easier and probably more lucrative. But, reports of performance
probably hurt Olympus as well, but it had more to do with the
responsivity of the bodies and not so much the sensors, at least at
normal ISO's.
RichA
May 29, 2012, 10:51:02 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 5:35 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> Which all but ignores the "SLR" camera segment. The real issue is the
> money losing television business as well as others. The camera business
> is in the noise, somewhat.
>
Volumes sometime matter more than profits, for a while. The
smallness of the camera division makes it easy to cut.
wrote:
> Which all but ignores the "SLR" camera segment. The real issue is the
> money losing television business as well as others. The camera business
> is in the noise, somewhat.
>
smallness of the camera division makes it easy to cut.
Bruce
May 30, 2012, 6:06:10 AM5/30/12
to
percentage loss on a relatively very small turnover is not significant
compared to Sony's overall losses.
However, the disposal of Sony's TV manufacturing interests will also
mean the disposal of a large chunk of the company's losses. At some
point, the Sony board will notice just how lamentable the performance
of the photo division really is. At that time, cutting its losses
will be a no-brainer.
I should also point out that when Sony bought the (D)SLR business of
Konica Minolta, it was fully expected to grow rapidly and become a
very significant part of Sony's overall business. Their target was a
whopping 25% share of the worldwide market. <wry grin>
As we know, this was never approached, let alone achieved. The
product was never good enough. It would seem reasonable to have
expected some greater synergy between Sony's camera division and its
highly successful sensor manufacturing division.
Sony makes some outstanding sensors, but its own camera division seems
determined to make them underperform. Every Sony sensor seems to
perform better in other brands of camera than it does in a Sony
camera.
The excellent 16 MP Exmor sensor produced sparkling results in the
Pentax K-5, K-30 and K-01 and Nikon D7000 yet all the Sony cameras
using identical sensors lag way behind on image quality, especially
dynamic range.
How could Sony have got this so wrong? The Minolta DSLR designers
managed to get the very best out of Sony sensors. Results from the
Dynax/Maxxum DSLRs were at least as good as those from other brands
*using the identical Sony sensor*. So what went wrong?
How was it that Sony supplied outstanding 24 MP full frame sensors for
the superlative Nikon D3X DSLR but gave their own camera division
desperately noisy 24 MP full frame sensors for the flagship Sony A900?
The A900 (and the cheaper A850 version) were a joke. Despite their
low price - a steal compared to the only other 24 MP full frame DSLR,
Nikon's D3X - they never sold well. It took more than *two and a half
years* to sell the final batch.
As you say, while Sony has even greater problems to worry about, the
camera division is left to its own devices. But when Sony finally
gets rid of those problems over the next 12-18 months, Sony's board
will have the time to look harder at every division, not just the
worst loss makers, and the performance of the camera division will
come under the closer scrutiny it has so far escaped.
When this happens, there will be a bloodbath.
Bruce
May 30, 2012, 9:04:00 AM5/30/12
to
Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Arbitrary comparisons don't always work. Zeiss won't be selling
>>> >lenses for $300.00, ever, no matter what.
>>>
>>> True, but the point is that there is only one good lens in the range.
>>> Apart from the CZ 24mm, the only good prime lenses available for Sony
>>> NEX come from Sigma - the 19mm and 30mm. Of course the build quality
>>> is the usual junk, but optically they are better than anything for NEX
>>> sold under the Sony brand.
>>
>>I know they don't sell, but how do you think Samsung has done?
That's something of an enigma. Samsung CSCs sold very well last year,
partly due to their being able to take advantage of Japanese and Thai
supply problems following earthquake/tsunami and floods respectively.
However, sales have dropped since then and Samsung doesn't seem to be
making headway. The product is good, with great features and
performance. The prices are good. But it isn't selling as briskly as
it might. Brand image or what? I don't know, and no-one else seems
to know either.
>>> Sony had a very good roadmap for NEX lenses then the investment was
>>> pulled. As a result, NEX is now struggling.
>>
>>Stupid move on their part. Build it and then kill it by inches.
That sums it up pretty well.
>>> >I'd think hard about discontinuing them. Like the head of Walmart
>>> >said, 80% of people buy white toilet seats, but they still have to
>>> >stock 18 colours or people won't buy anything. Sales psychology at
>>> >work.
>>>
>>> But people already aren't buying anything. Alpha DSLRs have just died
>>> (R.I.P.) and the SLTs are almost impossible to sell despite the low
>>> prices we offer them at. They are troublesome in every way, and don't
>>> make us anything like the profit we need from the area we have devoted
>>> to them.
>>
>>I think part of what I meant was that getting rid of Sony might hurt
>>sales of other brands. Who wants to shop in a store that only stocks
>>two brands? As odd as it sounds, people who do not yet have systems
>>want choices presented even if they've decided to by from the big two.
In the UK, Sony tried to take advantage of short term problems at
Pentax and negotiated a major deal with Jessops (UK's major photo
store chain - think Ritz). It appears there were special terms if
Jessops stopped selling Pentax and gave Sony near-equal presence to
Canon and Nikon in stores. Sony was duly given pride of place and
Pentax was dropped for the first time for decades.
The result of this was that Sony sales were a spectacular flop. Pentax
is now back and the display cases that were formerly Sony-only are
displaying other brands.
>>> I think that "foisted so much flawed product onto users" applies to
>>> many companies, certainly not just Canon.
>>
>>Canon has no excuse really. They had more problems than other brands
>>in the last 10 years. Nikon's resurgence wasn't only because of its
>>sensors.
I'm not sure I agree about Canon having multiple problems. There have
been problems with the AF system that were inherent in the way the EOS
AF was originally designed. Canon has always had to work around this,
and the workarounds have proved ever more difficult as the number of
megapixels has increased, making focusing inaccuracies more obvious.
What other major problem do you believe Canon has had?
>>> Well, there were other reasons for that. Kodak must take a large
>>> share of the blame for Olympus being stuck with poor sensors. If
>>> Panasonic hadn't rescued Olympus with the excellent LiveMOS sensors,
>>> Four Thirds would have died altogether and Micro Four Thirds would
>>> have been a Panasonic-only format.
>>
>>I don't think I saw any shortages of Olympus cameras, but the brand
>>was definitely ignored by retailers because selling Canon and Nikon
>>was easier and probably more lucrative. But, reports of performance
>>probably hurt Olympus as well, but it had more to do with the
>>responsivity of the bodies and not so much the sensors, at least at
>>normal ISO's.
I think you are in denial. The E-1 was a good start with the 5.0 MP
Kodak sensor that competed strongly with the Canon EOS 1D's 4.0 MP.
But Canon leapt ahead with 8.0 MP and Olympus stayed at 5.0 MP. Kodak
supplied an 8.0 MP Four Thirds sensor but it was junk - I helped test
several versions and they just weren't good enough, hence no
replacement for the E-1 for *four years* when the typical DSLR product
cycle is less than half of that.
The Panasonic 7.5 MP LiveMOS sensor saved Olympus, and the later 10.0
and 12.1 MP LiveMOS sensors restored the dignity of the Four Thirds
line, but it was too late. The damage had been done and at least some
of the blame was down to Kodak.
>RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 29, 3:20 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I can't speak for Canada, but Sony after-sales service here is
>>> atrocious.
>>
>>Some of it is outsourced in Canada.
Most or is outsourced here too.
>>On May 29, 3:20 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I can't speak for Canada, but Sony after-sales service here is
>>> atrocious.
>>
>>Some of it is outsourced in Canada.
>>> >Arbitrary comparisons don't always work. Zeiss won't be selling
>>> >lenses for $300.00, ever, no matter what.
>>>
>>> True, but the point is that there is only one good lens in the range.
>>> Apart from the CZ 24mm, the only good prime lenses available for Sony
>>> NEX come from Sigma - the 19mm and 30mm. Of course the build quality
>>> is the usual junk, but optically they are better than anything for NEX
>>> sold under the Sony brand.
>>
>>I know they don't sell, but how do you think Samsung has done?
partly due to their being able to take advantage of Japanese and Thai
supply problems following earthquake/tsunami and floods respectively.
However, sales have dropped since then and Samsung doesn't seem to be
making headway. The product is good, with great features and
performance. The prices are good. But it isn't selling as briskly as
it might. Brand image or what? I don't know, and no-one else seems
to know either.
>>> Sony had a very good roadmap for NEX lenses then the investment was
>>> pulled. As a result, NEX is now struggling.
>>
>>Stupid move on their part. Build it and then kill it by inches.
>>> >I'd think hard about discontinuing them. Like the head of Walmart
>>> >said, 80% of people buy white toilet seats, but they still have to
>>> >stock 18 colours or people won't buy anything. Sales psychology at
>>> >work.
>>>
>>> But people already aren't buying anything. Alpha DSLRs have just died
>>> (R.I.P.) and the SLTs are almost impossible to sell despite the low
>>> prices we offer them at. They are troublesome in every way, and don't
>>> make us anything like the profit we need from the area we have devoted
>>> to them.
>>
>>I think part of what I meant was that getting rid of Sony might hurt
>>sales of other brands. Who wants to shop in a store that only stocks
>>two brands? As odd as it sounds, people who do not yet have systems
>>want choices presented even if they've decided to by from the big two.
Pentax and negotiated a major deal with Jessops (UK's major photo
store chain - think Ritz). It appears there were special terms if
Jessops stopped selling Pentax and gave Sony near-equal presence to
Canon and Nikon in stores. Sony was duly given pride of place and
Pentax was dropped for the first time for decades.
The result of this was that Sony sales were a spectacular flop. Pentax
is now back and the display cases that were formerly Sony-only are
displaying other brands.
>>> I think that "foisted so much flawed product onto users" applies to
>>> many companies, certainly not just Canon.
>>
>>Canon has no excuse really. They had more problems than other brands
>>in the last 10 years. Nikon's resurgence wasn't only because of its
>>sensors.
been problems with the AF system that were inherent in the way the EOS
AF was originally designed. Canon has always had to work around this,
and the workarounds have proved ever more difficult as the number of
megapixels has increased, making focusing inaccuracies more obvious.
What other major problem do you believe Canon has had?
>>> Well, there were other reasons for that. Kodak must take a large
>>> share of the blame for Olympus being stuck with poor sensors. If
>>> Panasonic hadn't rescued Olympus with the excellent LiveMOS sensors,
>>> Four Thirds would have died altogether and Micro Four Thirds would
>>> have been a Panasonic-only format.
>>
>>I don't think I saw any shortages of Olympus cameras, but the brand
>>was definitely ignored by retailers because selling Canon and Nikon
>>was easier and probably more lucrative. But, reports of performance
>>probably hurt Olympus as well, but it had more to do with the
>>responsivity of the bodies and not so much the sensors, at least at
>>normal ISO's.
Kodak sensor that competed strongly with the Canon EOS 1D's 4.0 MP.
But Canon leapt ahead with 8.0 MP and Olympus stayed at 5.0 MP. Kodak
supplied an 8.0 MP Four Thirds sensor but it was junk - I helped test
several versions and they just weren't good enough, hence no
replacement for the E-1 for *four years* when the typical DSLR product
cycle is less than half of that.
The Panasonic 7.5 MP LiveMOS sensor saved Olympus, and the later 10.0
and 12.1 MP LiveMOS sensors restored the dignity of the Four Thirds
line, but it was too late. The damage had been done and at least some
of the blame was down to Kodak.
Joe Kotroczo
May 30, 2012, 12:36:01 PM5/30/12
to
On 29/05/2012 18:42, Bruce wrote:
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
>
Bought an A77 not so long ago, and am happy with it. Don't miss the
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
> All is not lost because the Alpha SLTs are still available to take
> Minolta and Sony Alpha A mount lenses but they are extremely slow
> sellers. There is no shortage of cameras. The problem is the
> shortage of customers. No-one wants to buy them.
>
flappy mirror. Love the 16-50mm f/2.8 that came with it and which does
not deserve to be called a "kit lens".
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Bruce
May 30, 2012, 12:42:17 PM5/30/12
to
nospam
May 30, 2012, 3:46:14 PM5/30/12
to
In article <6uqbs7hbbbd6re4gg...@4ax.com>, Bruce
sony *can't* use that particular design.
<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How was it that Sony supplied outstanding 24 MP full frame sensors for
> the superlative Nikon D3X DSLR but gave their own camera division
> desperately noisy 24 MP full frame sensors for the flagship Sony A900?
because the sensors destined for nikon are made to nikon's specs and
> How was it that Sony supplied outstanding 24 MP full frame sensors for
> the superlative Nikon D3X DSLR but gave their own camera division
> desperately noisy 24 MP full frame sensors for the flagship Sony A900?
sony *can't* use that particular design.
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 5:04:34 PM5/30/12
to
At "worst" Sony could sell off the SLT/SLR camera group rather than
shutter it.
Maybe Olympus would like it. Or Pentax. Or Mamiya. Who knows. For me
as long as someone nurtures it I'm happy. Otherwise I'll have to
re-build around Nikon or Canon (I like each for different things) but
some of my lenses will be expensive to replace.
The television business at any volume was losing money with ea. sale.
Even with Sony's draconian plans for their TV business in 2012/13, it is
doubtful that it can be competitive.
Joe Kotroczo
May 30, 2012, 5:46:48 PM5/30/12
to
I'll get a 30mm or 35mm prime next... Any suggestions?
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Alan Browne
May 30, 2012, 5:52:12 PM5/30/12
to
the 135 f/2.8 [T4.5] STF. With the A77 those would work out to around a
200mm FF-FOV and provide tack sharp images.
I have the 20mm f/2.8 Minolta - but rarely use it. My 'wide' lens is
the 28-70 f/2.8 (on a FF) - about the same FOV as your 16-50 on the A77.
Bruce
May 30, 2012, 6:32:29 PM5/30/12
to
Expect to pay £120 net (after £30 cashback). That's ridiculously
cheap for a good lens, but the lens is fairly cheaply made.
If you want to shoot macro, the Sony 30mm f/2.8 is also highly
regarded but you lose more than a stop of speed in return for great
macro performance. Expect to pay £130 net (after £30 cashback).
If you want a faster lens, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a good performer.
Test it carefully to make sure you didn't get a bad one, then you have
a three year warranty from Sigma UK to cover any manufacturing issues.
Expect to pay about £350 to £380.
I hesitate to recommend Sigma because the product is inconsistent and
can be unreliable. The three year warranty helps you get a lens
repaired (or sometimes replaced) but that isn't any help if you are on
an important assignment and the lens fails.
Also, the Sigma is an expensive lens if you don't need f/1.4. The
Sony DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM is not far behind in speed at f/1.8 and is
likely to be more reliable than a Sigma lens.
So it's the Sony 35mm f/1.8 for general photography, the Sony 30mm
f/2.8 if you need the macro option, or the Sigma if you absolutely
must have f/1.4, are happy to pay three times more and can cope with
the distinct possibility that it will let you down.
Most salesmen would want to sell you the Sigma because it would
generate much more profit than selling you both Sony lenses. ;-)
Joe Kotroczo
May 31, 2012, 12:49:14 AM5/31/12
to
Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G? It's out of
my price range anyway, but just out of curiosity: how does it compare to
the other 3?
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Bruce
May 31, 2012, 6:09:08 AM5/31/12
to
best lens for digital capture. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma suits
digital sensors better because it was designed specifically to be used
with them.
The 35mm f/1.4G is also very expensive compared to the Sigma.
Another alternative; a quick eBay search revealed that the Samyang
35mm f/1.4 is now available in Sony mount. I have used this lens on
Nikon and Kodak full frame DSLRs and it is very good. At £360 it
offers exceptional value for money, but it is large and heavy. I'm
not sure I would want to carry it around all day - the Sony 35mm f/1.8
is looking better and better!
But if you really need f/1.4, the Samyang is the one to buy and the
Sigma and Sony are the ones to avoid - Sigma because of dubious
quality control and Sony because it is an old design and very
expensive for what it is. I'm sorry I didn't suggest it earlier; we
don't stock Samyang and I wasn't aware until today that it is now
available in Sony mount.
Joe Kotroczo
May 31, 2012, 6:15:07 AM5/31/12
to
(...)
>> Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G? It's out of
>> my price range anyway, but just out of curiosity: how does it compare to
>> the other 3?
>
>
> It is an old Minolta lens that was designed for film. It is not the
> best lens for digital capture. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma suits
> digital sensors better because it was designed specifically to be used
> with them.
Does that really matter all that much?
> The 35mm f/1.4G is also very expensive compared to the Sigma.
I had noticed.
> Another alternative; a quick eBay search revealed that the Samyang
> 35mm f/1.4 is now available in Sony mount. I have used this lens on
> Nikon and Kodak full frame DSLRs and it is very good. At £360 it
> offers exceptional value for money, but it is large and heavy. I'm
> not sure I would want to carry it around all day - the Sony 35mm f/1.8
> is looking better and better!
>
> But if you really need f/1.4, the Samyang is the one to buy and the
> Sigma and Sony are the ones to avoid - Sigma because of dubious
> quality control and Sony because it is an old design and very
> expensive for what it is. I'm sorry I didn't suggest it earlier; we
> don't stock Samyang and I wasn't aware until today that it is now
> available in Sony mount.
Does the Samyang do AF or is it MF only?
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
>> Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G? It's out of
>> my price range anyway, but just out of curiosity: how does it compare to
>> the other 3?
>
>
> It is an old Minolta lens that was designed for film. It is not the
> best lens for digital capture. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma suits
> digital sensors better because it was designed specifically to be used
> with them.
> The 35mm f/1.4G is also very expensive compared to the Sigma.
> Another alternative; a quick eBay search revealed that the Samyang
> 35mm f/1.4 is now available in Sony mount. I have used this lens on
> Nikon and Kodak full frame DSLRs and it is very good. At £360 it
> offers exceptional value for money, but it is large and heavy. I'm
> not sure I would want to carry it around all day - the Sony 35mm f/1.8
> is looking better and better!
>
> But if you really need f/1.4, the Samyang is the one to buy and the
> Sigma and Sony are the ones to avoid - Sigma because of dubious
> quality control and Sony because it is an old design and very
> expensive for what it is. I'm sorry I didn't suggest it earlier; we
> don't stock Samyang and I wasn't aware until today that it is now
> available in Sony mount.
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Bruce
May 31, 2012, 6:26:10 AM5/31/12
to
Joe Kotroczo <kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G?
To answer that specific question, the profit margin on camera brand
>
>Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G?
lenses is low. That is a special order lens which carries an even
lower margin than Sony lenses that are kept in stock and then there is
the hassle of ordering it. There is almost as much money to be made
selling you a Sigma lens from stock.
Bruce
May 31, 2012, 7:53:31 AM5/31/12
to
Joe Kotroczo <kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>On 31/05/2012 11:09, Bruce wrote:
>> Joe Kotroczo<kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G? It's out of
>>> my price range anyway, but just out of curiosity: how does it compare to
>>> the other 3?
>>
>>
>> It is an old Minolta lens that was designed for film. It is not the
>> best lens for digital capture. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma suits
>> digital sensors better because it was designed specifically to be used
>> with them.
>
>Does that really matter all that much?
Not if you don't mind spending time editing RAW files to remove the
>On 31/05/2012 11:09, Bruce wrote:
>> Joe Kotroczo<kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G? It's out of
>>> my price range anyway, but just out of curiosity: how does it compare to
>>> the other 3?
>>
>>
>> It is an old Minolta lens that was designed for film. It is not the
>> best lens for digital capture. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma suits
>> digital sensors better because it was designed specifically to be used
>> with them.
>
>Does that really matter all that much?
chromatic aberration and vignetting.
>> Another alternative; a quick eBay search revealed that the Samyang
>> 35mm f/1.4 is now available in Sony mount. I have used this lens on
>> Nikon and Kodak full frame DSLRs and it is very good. At £360 it
>> offers exceptional value for money, but it is large and heavy. I'm
>> not sure I would want to carry it around all day - the Sony 35mm f/1.8
>> is looking better and better!
>>
>> But if you really need f/1.4, the Samyang is the one to buy and the
>> Sigma and Sony are the ones to avoid - Sigma because of dubious
>> quality control and Sony because it is an old design and very
>> expensive for what it is. I'm sorry I didn't suggest it earlier; we
>> don't stock Samyang and I wasn't aware until today that it is now
>> available in Sony mount.
>
>Does the Samyang do AF or is it MF only?
If you prefer AF, don't need macro, and the difference between f/1.4
and f/1.8 is not important, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is the one to buy.
With the £30 cashback, it's a steal.
Chris Malcolm
May 31, 2012, 11:39:37 AM5/31/12
to
distance is so short that with suitable adapters you can mount pretty
much any SLR, DSLR, or Leica lenses on it.
--
Chris Malcolm
Joe Kotroczo
May 31, 2012, 3:14:34 PM5/31/12
to
On 31/05/2012 12:53, Bruce wrote:
> Joe Kotroczo<kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2012 11:09, Bruce wrote:
>>> Joe Kotroczo<kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G? It's out of
>>>> my price range anyway, but just out of curiosity: how does it compare to
>>>> the other 3?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is an old Minolta lens that was designed for film. It is not the
>>> best lens for digital capture. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma suits
>>> digital sensors better because it was designed specifically to be used
>>> with them.
>>
>> Does that really matter all that much?
>
> Not if you don't mind spending time editing RAW files to remove the
> chromatic aberration and vignetting.
Wouldn't you do that kind of thing in software these days, automated?
> Joe Kotroczo<kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2012 11:09, Bruce wrote:
>>> Joe Kotroczo<kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't the salesman try to sell me the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G? It's out of
>>>> my price range anyway, but just out of curiosity: how does it compare to
>>>> the other 3?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is an old Minolta lens that was designed for film. It is not the
>>> best lens for digital capture. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma suits
>>> digital sensors better because it was designed specifically to be used
>>> with them.
>>
>> Does that really matter all that much?
>
> Not if you don't mind spending time editing RAW files to remove the
> chromatic aberration and vignetting.
Assuming there's appropriate profiles for the lenses.
>>> Another alternative; a quick eBay search revealed that the Samyang
>>> 35mm f/1.4 is now available in Sony mount. I have used this lens on
>>> Nikon and Kodak full frame DSLRs and it is very good. At £360 it
>>> offers exceptional value for money, but it is large and heavy. I'm
>>> not sure I would want to carry it around all day - the Sony 35mm f/1.8
>>> is looking better and better!
>>>
>>> But if you really need f/1.4, the Samyang is the one to buy and the
>>> Sigma and Sony are the ones to avoid - Sigma because of dubious
>>> quality control and Sony because it is an old design and very
>>> expensive for what it is. I'm sorry I didn't suggest it earlier; we
>>> don't stock Samyang and I wasn't aware until today that it is now
>>> available in Sony mount.
>>
>> Does the Samyang do AF or is it MF only?
>
>
> All Samyang lenses are MF only. All the others discussed have AF.
>
> If you prefer AF, don't need macro, and the difference between f/1.4
> and f/1.8 is not important, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is the one to buy.
>
> With the £30 cashback, it's a steal.
Thanks.
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Bruce
May 31, 2012, 4:15:38 PM5/31/12
to
Joe Kotroczo <kotr...@mac.com> wrote:
>On 31/05/2012 12:53, Bruce wrote:
>> If you prefer AF, don't need macro, and the difference between f/1.4
>> and f/1.8 is not important, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is the one to buy.
>>
>> With the £30 cashback, it's a steal.
>
>It is, and it's on the shopping list.
>
>Thanks.
You're very welcome. Do let us know how you get on.
>On 31/05/2012 12:53, Bruce wrote:
>> If you prefer AF, don't need macro, and the difference between f/1.4
>> and f/1.8 is not important, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is the one to buy.
>>
>> With the £30 cashback, it's a steal.
>
>It is, and it's on the shopping list.
>
>Thanks.
Chris Malcolm
Jun 2, 2012, 4:09:53 AM6/2/12
to
> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
You were *surprised* by this?
> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
Sony look as though they've been working towards this for
years. They've specifically said this was what they were doing. They
also happen to be the camera maker whose technology skills best fit it
make the earliest successful transition away from the ancient
clockwork DSLR technology in exchangeable lens camera systems.
How come this *surprised* you?
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Jun 2, 2012, 4:41:50 AM6/2/12
to
> In the UK, Sony tried to take advantage of short term problems at
> Pentax and negotiated a major deal with Jessops (UK's major photo
> store chain - think Ritz). It appears there were special terms if
> Jessops stopped selling Pentax and gave Sony near-equal presence to
> Canon and Nikon in stores. Sony was duly given pride of place and
> Pentax was dropped for the first time for decades.
When did this happen? I've never seen much Pentax in my local Jessops,
> Pentax and negotiated a major deal with Jessops (UK's major photo
> store chain - think Ritz). It appears there were special terms if
> Jessops stopped selling Pentax and gave Sony near-equal presence to
> Canon and Nikon in stores. Sony was duly given pride of place and
> Pentax was dropped for the first time for decades.
but they've always been available in Jessops online. I just checked
Jessops online, and they still seem to be selling plenty of Pentax.
> The result of this was that Sony sales were a spectacular flop. Pentax
> is now back and the display cases that were formerly Sony-only are
> displaying other brands.
weeks ago (the astonishingly good value 35mm f1.8 which others have
already commented on) and their large Sony display section was
entirely full of Sony.
--
Chris Malcolm
Noons
Jun 2, 2012, 5:57:59 AM6/2/12
to
Chris Malcolm wrote,on my timestamp of 2/06/2012 6:41 PM:
> When did this happen? I bought a Sony lens at my local Jessops a few
> weeks ago (the astonishingly good value 35mm f1.8 which others have
> already commented on) and their large Sony display section was
> entirely full of Sony.
I'm sorry: are you giving due credit to a piece of news on the Usenet?
> When did this happen? I bought a Sony lens at my local Jessops a few
> weeks ago (the astonishingly good value 35mm f1.8 which others have
> already commented on) and their large Sony display section was
> entirely full of Sony.
Haven't you fathomed yet that NOTHING said on the Usenet can be believed?
PeterN
Jun 2, 2012, 9:51:26 AM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/2012 5:57 AM, Noons wrote:
>
> I'm sorry: are you giving due credit to a piece of news on the Usenet?
> Haven't you fathomed yet that NOTHING said on the Usenet can be believed?
>
I always speak the truth.
>
> I'm sorry: are you giving due credit to a piece of news on the Usenet?
> Haven't you fathomed yet that NOTHING said on the Usenet can be believed?
>
The above sentence is a lie.
--
Peter
Bruce
Jun 2, 2012, 10:23:52 AM6/2/12
to
Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
>> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
>> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
>> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
>You were *surprised* by this?
>
>Sony look as though they've been working towards this for
>years.
Key words "look as though". Just your personal opinion, then.
>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
>> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
>> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
>> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>
>You were *surprised* by this?
>
>Sony look as though they've been working towards this for
>years.
>They've specifically said this was what they were doing.
Alpha DSLRs would continue to be available. They have replied in
writing to questions from both dealers and users promising that the
DSLR line would not come to an end.
But it has come to an end, and Sony have done it in an underhand way.
Dealer price lists still include Alpha DSLRs, but when you try to
order some they are mysteriously not available. You cannot get a
straight answer from the sales team as to why. Eventually, our
Director spoke to a Sony Director and was told, but only unofficially,
that there won't be any more DSLRs. But there is no official
statement and the web site still lists them, although in some cases
clicking on a link to a DSLR takes you to the SLT range.
>They also happen to be the camera maker whose technology skills best fit it
>make the earliest successful transition away from the ancient
>clockwork DSLR technology in exchangeable lens camera systems.
than DSLRs is well known on here. I have no doubt that Sony's low end
products suit your skill set perfectly well. But their conspicuous
failure to maintain Konica Minolta's market share, let alone build on
it, and their continuing very high financial losses in the camera
division tell the real story.
Feel free to pursue your own personal hobby horse if you like, but
please don't try to present your own biased personal opinion as though
it was some kind of world view of the market for photographic
products. The truth is that Sony's camera division is losing market
share and losing vast amounts of money.
Not making what the market wants to buy is part of the problem. People
do not appear to want Sony's SLTs, which retain most of the
disadvantages of DSLRs but throw away most of the advantages. With
SLTs, Sony has well and truly shot itself in the foot.
Chris Malcolm
Jun 2, 2012, 8:28:57 PM6/2/12
to
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
>>> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
>>> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
>>> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>>
>>You were *surprised* by this?
>>
>>Sony look as though they've been working towards this for
>>years.
> Key words "look as though". Just your personal opinion, then.
And not uncommon among commentators on the digital photography market
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Last week we sold our last Sony DSLR. We sell very few, but because
>>> of the store's long history as a Minolta specialist we have always had
>>> at least one in stock. I was surprised to learn today that Sony no
>>> longer has any stock of DSLRs and no more will be made.
>>
>>You were *surprised* by this?
>>
>>Sony look as though they've been working towards this for
>>years.
> Key words "look as though". Just your personal opinion, then.
and DSLRs.
>>They've specifically said this was what they were doing.
> On the contrary, Sony have specifically and repeatedly stated that
> Alpha DSLRs would continue to be available. They have replied in
> writing to questions from both dealers and users promising that the
> DSLR line would not come to an end.
day. The only question is when, whether they've decided on a date, and
whether any new DSLRs will be produced before the end date. There's
also the question of whether by "not coming to an end" they mean
support will continue for the useful lifetime of the DSLR in your hand
or on your shelves. And were they referring specifically to the DSLR
line, or the DSLR/T line, or to the alpha mount?
I occasionally bump into Sony reps, and when I do I usually try to ask
a question or two about the future. Sometime I even get to have a
discussion. No, I don't get any privileged information. But over the
last five years I've not heard any answers which contradict what I
said above. And the answers I've heard them give to those who wanted
to be reassured that they weren't going to pull out of the DSLR market
sounded to me to be carefully worded so as to sound reassuring while
preserving the possibility of plausible deniability.
> But it has come to an end, and Sony have done it in an underhand
> way. Dealer price lists still include Alpha DSLRs, but when you try
> to order some they are mysteriously not available. You cannot get a
> straight answer from the sales team as to why. Eventually, our
> Director spoke to a Sony Director and was told, but only
> unofficially, that there won't be any more DSLRs. But there is no
> official statement and the web site still lists them, although in
> some cases clicking on a link to a DSLR takes you to the SLT range.
different matter. Many companies think it unwise to tell dealers that
they've decided to stop making something. Or even that they're well
advanced in the development of a new improved replacement.
>>They also happen to be the camera maker whose technology skills best fit it
>>make the earliest successful transition away from the ancient
>>clockwork DSLR technology in exchangeable lens camera systems.
> Of course your long-standing personal preference for cameras other
> than DSLRs is well known on here.
perhaps you mean I've made no secret of the fact that I've been
looking forward to new technology eventually replacing the flapping
mirror? That's true. I've been annoyed with the effects of the
flapping mirror on long focal length shots ever since I discovered
them the hard way twenty years ago. I was shooting long exposure 300mm
shots to get church mural details by available light. On an SLR which
lacked mirror lock up. Twenty years ago very few SLRs had mirror lock
up. Once you've got mirror lock up (or no moving mirror) the next
serious vibration problem is the shutter.
> I have no doubt that Sony's low end
> products suit your skill set perfectly well.
upgrade to either the A77 or one of the rumored new arrivals, such as
the A99. A NEX-8 with an alpha mount adapter might tempt me. I'll have
to wait and see what materialises later this year.
Wait a minute! Perhaps when you said I was no doubt happy with Sony's
low end products you meant Sony's best cameras were so crap they were
all low end? Including the A700, A900, A77, and NEX-7?
> But their conspicuous
> failure to maintain Konica Minolta's market share, let alone build on
> it, and their continuing very high financial losses in the camera
> division tell the real story.
several stories can be fitted. I'd be interested to find out what
the real story was.
> Feel free to pursue your own personal hobby horse if you like, but
> please don't try to present your own biased personal opinion as though
> it was some kind of world view of the market for photographic
> products.
history. It's a fact that the Sony corporation has much the greatest
amount of electronic and electromechanical expertise of any DSLR
camera maker. It's also a fact that in general Sony has been among the
market leaders in developing the electronic components which will be
needed to replace and improve on the mechanical components of the
DSLR. There's nothing magic about making the prediction that
electronics will one day replace the DSLR mechanicals with superior
performance. The technology exists to do that today, and has done for
years, just not at a price which the market would pay. And that
technology is still on a long roll of continuing price reduction for
reasons such as Moore's Law with respect to silicon real estate. It's
bound to happen. The only question is when.
Please note I'm not saying Sony make the best DSLR/Ts. I know they
don't. All I was suggesting was that Sony will probably be the first
to make whatever kind of camera ends up replacing the DSLR as the
highest quality best performing photographic tool. Their current DSLTs
and NEX cameras are simply steps along that development path. I'd also
be disappointed but not too surprised if after Sony have been the
first to do it, someone like Nikon will follow up later with a better
photographic tool using the same technology.
> The truth is that Sony's camera division is losing market
> share and losing vast amounts of money.
European company that could raise serious questions about their
continuation in that market. But Sony is a Japanese company. They have
quite different and very much longer term attitudes towards research,
development, and marketing strategy.
> Not making what the market wants to buy is part of the problem. People
> do not appear to want Sony's SLTs, which retain most of the
> disadvantages of DSLRs but throw away most of the advantages. With
> SLTs, Sony has well and truly shot itself in the foot.
technology seems to get adopted the fastest in the far east, and the
slowest in the US. In Europe eastern Europe seems faster to adopt new
camera technology than western Europe.
Maybe Sony's SLTs will prove to have been a bad mistake. So Sony might
drop them and develop the NEX line. Or it might produce new and better
SLTs which the market will like. But I don't think they'll get rattled
by short term financial failures the way US or UK companies would.
By the way, all of the above is my biased personal opinion.
--
Chris Malcolm
Noons
Jun 3, 2012, 2:07:38 AM6/3/12
to
PeterN wrote,on my timestamp of 2/06/2012 11:51 PM:
>> I'm sorry: are you giving due credit to a piece of news on the Usenet?
>> Haven't you fathomed yet that NOTHING said on the Usenet can be believed?
>>
>
>
>
> I always speak the truth.
> The above sentence is a lie.
>
>
Hehehehe! QED!
>> I'm sorry: are you giving due credit to a piece of news on the Usenet?
>> Haven't you fathomed yet that NOTHING said on the Usenet can be believed?
>>
>
>
>
> I always speak the truth.
> The above sentence is a lie.
>
>
Eric Stevens
Jun 3, 2012, 5:41:28 AM6/3/12
to
Regards,
Eric Stevens.
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class
0 new messages