Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon andNikon APS cameras

Reply
Thread Tools

Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon andNikon APS cameras

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2010
Get to the back of the camera bus, Sony. (Dpreview).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...r850review.asp

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2010
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>Get to the back of the camera bus, Sony. (Dpreview).
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...r850review.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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2010
On Apr 15, 7:16*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Get to the back of the camera bus, Sony. *(Dpreview).

>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...r850review.asp

>
> There is no need for a full review, as it's just a dumbed-down and
> cheapened Sony A900.


It is by far the least expensive high resolution FF DSLR, it deserved
its own review, especially if they feel they have to review every
cookie-cutter entry-level camera that comes along.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2010
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:20:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Apr 15, 7:16*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Get to the back of the camera bus, Sony. *(Dpreview).

>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...r850review.asp

>>
>> There is no need for a full review, as it's just a dumbed-down and
>> cheapened Sony A900.

>
>It is by far the least expensive high resolution FF DSLR, it deserved
>its own review, especially if they feel they have to review every
>cookie-cutter entry-level camera that comes along.



Nonsense.

Its sensor performance is almost identical to that of the A900,
because it has the same sensor. No need to test that all over again.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2010
On Apr 15, 7:58*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:20:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 15, 7:16 pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >Get to the back of the camera bus, Sony. (Dpreview).

>
> >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...r850review.asp

>
> >> There is no need for a full review, as it's just a dumbed-down and
> >> cheapened Sony A900.

>
> >It is by far the least expensive high resolution FF DSLR, it deserved
> >its own review, especially if they feel they have to review every
> >cookie-cutter entry-level camera that comes along.

>
> Nonsense. *
>
> Its sensor performance is almost identical to that of the A900,
> because it has the same sensor. *No need to test that all over again.


Unlike this one:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2010
In rec.photo.digital R. Mark Clayton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Get to the back of the camera bus, Sony. (Dpreview).
>>>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/10...r850review.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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2010
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2010

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>


>
> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2010

"Ray Fischer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4bc7eec2$0$1597$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> 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
> (E-Mail Removed)
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-16-2010
whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo Firefox 0 05-08-2008 12:56 PM
equal? versus eql? versus == versus === verus <=> Paul Butcher Ruby 12 11-28-2007 06:06 AM
Best site for buyers of Digital cameras!!! over 200 cameras reviews :) chrisstian.b@gmail.com Digital Photography 4 08-07-2006 12:23 AM
APS Canon IXUS versus digital Canon IXUS ( a question for the pros ) Davidgilmour2003@hotmail.com Digital Photography 4 07-20-2003 05:48 AM



Advertisments