Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > All Nikon/Canon competitors only comprise 20% of the market

Reply
Thread Tools

All Nikon/Canon competitors only comprise 20% of the market

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2010
On Jul 23, 5:56*pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:40:07 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..

>
> >>> That 20% is made up of Panasonic MFT cameras, Olympus E-Series DSLRs
> >>> and Olympus MFT cameras, Sony Alpha DSLRs, Pentax DSLRs and the
> >>> Samsung NX-10.

>
> >>> Sony's target for its Alpha DSLRs was a 20% market share by 2010. They
> >>> fell a very long way short of their target.

>
> >>> What must be especially worrying for Sony UK is that they did a
> >>> complex deal with Jessops, the UK's dominant photo store chain, in
> >>> which Sony Alpha is given equal prominence in Jessops stores to Nikon
> >>> and Canon. *Each of the three brands now has equal display space
> >>> across Jesssops' 233 stores. *Pentax users are upset because Sony has
> >>> completely displaced Pentax P&S and DSLR cameras from Jessops.

>
> >>> Yet the sales figures for Sony Alpha DSLRs are *tiny*. *They are still
> >>> outsold by Pentax, even though the UK's dominant photo chain doesn't
> >>> sell Pentax any more. *And these figures come from 2009, which means
> >>> that the effect of Sony's NEX range has yet to come.

>
> >>> Sony has been spectacularly unsuccessful at persuading users of Sony
> >>> P&S compact cameras to trade up to Alpha DSLRs. *The early signs are
> >>> that the NEX range is doing very well, with many NEX buyers trading up
> >>> from Sony P&S. *But the Alpha range is suffering, with Alpha DSLR
> >>> sales having dropped significantly since NEX was introduced.

>
> >>> In the short term, Sony will probably continue with Alpha. *They will
> >>> hope that the two slightly warmed-over "new" entry level models (A290
> >>> and A390) can attract new buyers. *But the Alpha range of DSLRs has
> >>> been a huge loss-maker for Sony from the start. *Four years later, the
> >>> range has a worse market share than it had under its former owner
> >>> Konica Minolta, and *there is no sign of those losses reducing. *A
> >>> successful launch for NEX can only make things worse.

>
> >>> The Alpha range has to be killed off. *The only question is when.

>
> >>That's very interesting, and unfortunate.

>
> >>Sony seems to be in deep doo-doo all around, not just their DSLR sales.
> >>They've apparently been losing money in practically every major division,
> >>operating loss of $889M this year (slightly improved from -$900M last
> >>year),
> >>less than 9% of their shares are now held by institutions, and most
> >>analyst
> >>opinions are "sell" or "hold." SNE is now around 28, down from over 40 at
> >>the recent peak in March.

>
> > Thanks Neil, I hadn't realised that other parts of Sony were having
> > such problems.

>
> > I take a keen interest in Sony Alpha because I have a good friend who
> > owns a photo store that was a Minolta Professional Dealer for many
> > years and now sells (or rather, doesn't sell) Sony Alpha, plus several
> > friends who worked for Konica Minolta UK and lost their jobs when Sony
> > took over. *They are all still working in the photo field, but had to
> > find new jobs at short notice.

>
> > My dealer friend is also a Minolta/Alpha user but is intensely
> > frustrated with the Alpha products that he has great difficulty
> > selling. *As an enthusiast, it grieves him terribly to see a
> > lacklustre product range that just doesn't sell against Nikon, Canon
> > and Pentax.

>
> As a long-time Minolta enthusiast I certainly sympathize with your friend.. I
> had owned several brands of screw-mount SLRs before switching to Minolta
> about 1975, with their great (for that time) XE-7 model. That's what the
> U.S. model designation was, not sure what it was in the UK. I really loved
> the Minolta brand, owned quite a few MD-mount models and then started with
> Maxxum (Dynax) a year or so after they were introduced. I still have several
> Minolta 35s, and stayed with the brand when they moved into digital. My last
> was the Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D, but shortly after buying that one, after
> they sold the camera business to Sony, I switched to Nikon. Still have a
> soft spot for Minoltas though, under any brand name.
>
>
>
> > He tells me that Sony has been reduced to taking back unsold stocks of
> > several Minolta-made lenses and 'remanufacturing' them with Sony
> > badges to try to get them to sell. *This isn't just a question of
> > sticking on a Sony badge. *In some cases, things like barrels and
> > bezels have to be changed. *It must be an embarrassment that these
> > lenses haven't sold, a full four and a half years after Konica Minolta
> > called a halt to manufacture, and a whole seven and a half years since
> > Minolta and Konica merged!

>
> > An example is the "Sony" 135mm STF which is just a rebranded version
> > of a Minolta lens that didn't sell.

>
> >http://www.the135stf.net/

>
> I remember that one. Pretty much a specialty item, and very expensive as I
> recall.
>
>
>
> > The way Sony dealt with former Konica Minolta UK employees was
> > shameful. *There was a lot of expertise in supporting and servicing
> > Konica Minolta products and all that was lost.

>
> > I first found out about this when I was trying to get spare parts for
> > my Konica Hexar RF, a 35mm rangefinder camera with the M bayonet
> > mount. *It is a gem of a camera, one that is all the Leica M7 should
> > have been, but wasn't: *Robust, reliable, with a 1/4000 sec* fastest
> > shutter speed - invaluable with f/1.4 or f/1.0 (or even f/0.95 lenses)
> > in daylight - this is in my opinion the best M rangefinder body that
> > Leica never made.

>
> I remember the Konica Hexar and was very tempted to buy one back in the day.
> It was a little out of my price range at that time. I never realized there
> were such exotic lenses for it as that, though! I think it was always sold
> with the f/2 lens in the U.S. And I never knew of the Leica connection,
> either. Very interesting.
>
>
>
> > Anyway, I was horrified to find that Sony had acquired all the spare
> > parts for the Hexar RF in the Konica Minolta takeover - and just
> > dumped them! *They went to landfill, ensuring that Hexar RF owners
> > could no longer obtain spares. *Sony should have sold on the parts to
> > another company - apparently there were several offers of interest but
> > Sony just ignored them.

>
> Incredible! That is just horrible. Horrible.
>
>
>
> > *Leica M7 and MP have a claimed fastest shutter speed of 1/1000 sec
> > but, as with all Leica M bodies since the M3, most struggle to provide
> > anything faster than 1/700 sec at that shutter speed setting.


Sony is a disposable electronic's company, not a fine camera company.
Still, I don't really want to see Nikon and Canon get an even a larger
combined market share.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> Anyway, I was horrified to find that Sony had acquired all the spare
> parts for the Hexar RF in the Konica Minolta takeover - and just
> dumped them! They went to landfill, ensuring that Hexar RF owners
> could no longer obtain spares. Sony should have sold on the parts to
> another company - apparently there were several offers of interest but
> Sony just ignored them.


Verging on the criminal, that! Crazy!

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark L
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:43:31 +0100, "David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>[]
>> Anyway, I was horrified to find that Sony had acquired all the spare
>> parts for the Hexar RF in the Konica Minolta takeover - and just
>> dumped them! They went to landfill, ensuring that Hexar RF owners
>> could no longer obtain spares. Sony should have sold on the parts to
>> another company - apparently there were several offers of interest but
>> Sony just ignored them.

>
>Verging on the criminal, that! Crazy!
>
>David


How is this any different than buying up someone else's software and then
burning it into the ground with no further fixes, support, nor updates,
just so they can sell their less capable software but one they have
invested more money in producing? It's called free-enterprise, capitalism,
economics. Happens every day in every facet of business--get rid of the
competition.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010

"Mark L" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:43:31 +0100, "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>[]
>>> Anyway, I was horrified to find that Sony had acquired all the spare
>>> parts for the Hexar RF in the Konica Minolta takeover - and just
>>> dumped them! They went to landfill, ensuring that Hexar RF owners
>>> could no longer obtain spares. Sony should have sold on the parts to
>>> another company - apparently there were several offers of interest but
>>> Sony just ignored them.

>>
>>Verging on the criminal, that! Crazy!
>>
>>David

>
> How is this any different than buying up someone else's software and
> then
> burning it into the ground with no further fixes, support, nor updates,
> just so they can sell their less capable software but one they have
> invested more money in producing? It's called free-enterprise,
> capitalism,
> economics. Happens every day in every facet of business--get rid of the
> competition.


Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did on
day one, with the OS for which it originally worked.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Lichtenstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
lofi wrote:

> There is vast reservoir of consumers out there who have no concept of
> camera history and no reason to have any inherent loyalty to an
> established name brand.
> In truth, to the dismay of purists and those who cannot see the bigger
> picture, there is no effective or perceivable difference to the average
> consumer in images made with high versus medium, and often low, quality
> gear.
> The technical quality of current gear, including the new micro 4/3s, is
> actually extraordinary in both relative and absolute terms.
> Most of you out there do not have aesthetic skills anyway that match the
> technology of even a 1970's Vivitar zoom lens.
> These younger consumers also do not have any inherent loyalty to the
> ancient 35mm film SLR design paradigm. Having no lifelong experience
> with TTL viewing but having a lifetime experience with LCD viewing they
> will prefer the latter as a matter of course.
> This is called a paradigm shift. It affects not only the technology of
> image capture but also the style of images produced.
> Get used to it.
> All non Nikon/Canon manufacturers know that if and when the recession
> ends there will be a pent-up demand for new digital imaging products and
> they are wise to position themselves with these new designs.
> It is Canon and Nikon who have to play "catch-up" at this point and
> clearly they realize that.
> What you all have to realize is the days of the massive, heavy
> "professional" 35mm style dSLR are going the way of film.
> Personally I will mourn the loss of TTL viewing and all that implies
> about the philosophy/aesthetics of image capture but I am not the
> intended market for these devices.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) ---


Indeed. In fact, Olympus is betting on that shift that you describe. I
do disagree with you, as there will always be SLR's with TTL viewing,
since there will always be professionals and committed hobbyists who
have the desire to develop the necessary.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did on
> day one, with the OS for which it originally worked.


Bitrot.

It explains why there are more security patches every
month for supposedly stable software, for example.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2010
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did on
>> day one, with the OS for which it originally worked.

>
> Bitrot.
>
> It explains why there are more security patches every
> month for supposedly stable software, for example.
>



The security patches are required because there are a bunch of M-F assholes
who get their rocks off by writing malicious code to screw up other peoples
work.

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2010
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did
>> on
>> day one, with the OS for which it originally worked.

>
> Bitrot.


No.

> It explains why there are more security patches every
> month for supposedly stable software, for example.
>
> -Wolfgang


Irrelevant to my point, though.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2010
David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> David J Taylor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> Hardware fails, software (usually) continues working as well as it did
>>> on
>>> day one, with the OS for which it originally worked.


>> Bitrot.


> No.


http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/b/bitrot.html

>> It explains why there are more security patches every
>> month for supposedly stable software, for example.


> Irrelevant to my point, though.


In theory you are right, in practice however, software ages
not always gracefully.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2010
Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>> It explains why there are more security patches every
>> month for supposedly stable software, for example.


> The security patches are required because there are a bunch of M-F assholes
> who get their rocks off by writing malicious code to screw up other peoples
> work.


You obviously have no idea of either the history nor the current
reasons for exploiting security holes.

Just as a minimal pointer, there's people who write code to
exploit the holes to prove they exist (these days especially
Microsoft will deny problems otherwise) or to learn about such
code (and such code may have unwanted side effects) , there
the bot net writer who is in for the money (selling bot nets
to spammers) --- he has no intention of screwing up your work
and thus draw attention to himself ---, there are the national
spy and antispy operations, there is the police (not always in
democratic countries) tracking down supposed criminals by spying
on the computers of the suspects, there is industrial espionage,
there's people siphoning off passwords and SSNs and credit card
information, etc. Google a bit and learn.

But I am sure you don't close and lock your door because you
value privacy e.g. during intercourse or against thieves or to
shut out the world, you just lock it to foil people intent of
trashing a home.

-Wolfgang
 
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: Micoshaft market share drops to 0% for distributed OS Desktop Market overnight Simon Finnigan Computer Support 0 03-03-2010 04:51 PM
Vonage vs. Competitors in the Home VOIP market Joel VOIP 14 02-26-2004 06:50 PM
Average costs per end user station for Mitel vs competitors hal@nospam.com VOIP 2 02-25-2004 07:08 PM
Re: Canon 10D Competitors' Battery Mark M Digital Photography 2 08-19-2003 10:31 AM
minolta dimage xt vs. competitors nickay420 Digital Photography 2 08-01-2003 09:23 PM



Advertisments