Why don't more people like Sony?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Sony pulled out all the camera stops. It gave people compact mirrorless inthe NEX series. It gave you fixed mirror DSLR in the A series up to FF. It gave you conventional DSLRs up to FF. They released a slew of cheaper Sony and expensive Zeiss lenses for them. It provided adapters to cross-pollinate the lines with other lenses. They apparently had fewer glaring problems with their cameras than the Nikons and Canons. So why haven't they made a huge dent in Nikon and Canon sales?
     
    RichA, Nov 6, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    The cameras don't take people's existing Nikon or Canon lenses.
     
    David Taylor, Nov 6, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    From my POV they were a good company years ago but have lapsed it seems.Once sony trinatron were one of the best monitors/display/TVs on the market, but that's not teh case any more, I didn't consider their cameras as they used their own memory sticks, and they didn;t seem to offer anything more or were cheaper. I'm still using a sony DVD player which I've been very pleased with over the past 5-6 years I recommend them to a friend who 3 years ago brought one, which needed replacing within 2 weeks, and then again a weeklater and then once more. I've heard they had serious managment issues andproduct quality problems, so I've avaiod all and any of their products until I hear things change, looking around for proof........

    http://strongbrands.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/sonys-branding-problem/
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 6, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Sony has a reputation for dabbling in markets and if they don't prove
    profitable enough dumping them and orphaning the product lines. That
    alone is enough reason for anybody who makes his living with a camera to
    stay with Canon or Nikon, which are committed to the market.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 6, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Because their products tend to be proprietary and expensive - and suck.
     
    Mr. Strat, Nov 6, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    android Guest

    I liked the walkmen...
     
    android, Nov 6, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    Alan Meyer Guest

    In the past Sony engaged in some shady business practices that I didn't
    care for. The most egregious was their famous root kit virus that they
    surreptitiously distributed with their music CDs. However they've also
    attempted to make some monopolistic moves in the entertainment industry.

    Are they worse than other companies in that regard? Who knows?
    Malefactors come and go in all companies. I have no idea if the
    corporate culture is really any worse at Sony than at other companies,
    and I don't think that monopolistic business practices necessarily have
    anything much to do with engineering design.

    Alan
     
    Alan Meyer, Nov 6, 2013
    #7
  8. Per Alan Meyer:
    That one really got to me. I've had a negative feeling about Sony since
    then.

    Probably a bad rap - more like some product manager who didn't
    understand what he was approving.... but the impact remains.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Nov 6, 2013
    #8
  9. They helped pass laws in Japan to make trivial copyright violations
    punishable to extreme levels. They're lobbying to do the same in the US.

    Spammed out copyright lawsuits in violation of Fair Use laws, lawsuits
    with false evidence, and targets their own customers with baseless
    lawsuits.

    Intentional creation and distribution of malware to interfere with
    computer operations that might infringe on their copyrights - the "Sony
    Rootkit".

    Rabid defense and and isolation for their intellectual property. Would
    rather sue and attack everything in sight than make highly profitable
    cooperative deals.

    They haven't made great products since Walkmans and Trinitron TVs in the
    1980s. At best, their products work well without impressing. More
    typically,their products break quickly from poor mechanical quality.

    Sony is dying. Nobody wants to buy products like camera systems that
    need long-term support.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Nov 6, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Canon actually has a rather substantial line of mirrorless
    interchangeable-lens cameras you know. Canon just puts them in their
    pro cinema lineup instead of their consumer lineup, and charges
    accordingly.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 6, 2013
    #10
  11. There's nothing dying or burdensome about professional DSLRs. Even if
    there was breakthrough technology that made electronic viewfinders
    usable to professionals, the cameras wouldn't shrink much without the
    mirror. The laws of physics mandates those huge sensors and huge
    lenses. Professionals always willing to pay a lot of money for
    excellent equipment.

    All the major camera manufacturers have compact mirrorless cameras for
    less demanding uses. They're a different product that doesn't entirely
    compete with DSLR.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Nov 7, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Note that one Canon mirrorless is in stock at B&H for $20,000.00.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 7, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    When that's happened get back to us.
    This supposed shrinkage has not occurred in the real world. Canon has
    an SLR that is only slightly larger than the mirrorless cameras using
    the same sensor size. Canon's professional mirrorless are not smaller
    than SLRs, they are just a different shape.
    Seems you think you know something about optics that Leica doesn't.
    Instead you have slow-focus issues.
    Name one in which this allegedly superior performance has actually been
    demonstrated in the real world with the same lens and same sensor size
    and resolution on both cameras.
    Or not as the case may be.
    Yep.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 7, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    What about it? I was not aware of anyone attempting to make a compact
    full-frame SLR, so any comparison there is about choices, not about
    capabilities.
    Show us a side by side, same lens, same sensor size, same resolution
    comparison. Your saying it doesn't make it so.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 7, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    No, it doesn't. It just proves that nobody has tried to make a small
    full frame mirrorless.
    So prove it. But you won't because you can't.

    I don't know why I let you out of my killfile, but back you go.
    Religious fanatics are not worth the time of day.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 8, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Have you seen the new A7 series?

    <http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/10/sony-7r/>
     
    PeterN, Nov 8, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Yes, I've already had someone ask if their new Sony would take the old lenses.
     
    RichA, Nov 8, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Brings up another point; why is it professional videographers can use EVF's but DSLR pros can't?
     
    RichA, Nov 8, 2013
    #18

  19. The lens and the sensor can be moved closer together but that's not
    always a good thing. The sensor does best with light hitting it as
    close to perpendicular as possible. Steep angles cause a hazy blur
    mixing with the perpendicular light that appears sharp. Less expensive
    cameras electronically compensate for this at the cost of adding noise
    or losing fine textures.

    Early high-end compact cameras suffered greatly from this. They had
    large sensors, large lenses, and very close spacing. Edges of the
    picture had radial haze and poor color purity. Later models fixed this
    by adding a corrective lens to add more distance and moving circuits so
    the CCD could be on the back of the camera.


    You're not talking any sense here. The mirror has no negative impact on
    image quality because it's not in the optical path while taking a
    picture. It can even be locked so that a DSLR acts as a mirrorless
    camera. It's handy for macro and astro photography where autofocus
    isn't suitable.

    Who cares about today's tech 50 years from now? Maybe the mirror is
    replaced by a crystal with electronically controlled diffraction. Maybe
    electronic viewfinders stop sucking. It doesn't matter for anyone in
    the market for a camera now.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Nov 8, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    I like my Sony a77, but when I bought it I was fully aware there might
    be a chance of Sony dropping the entire line whenever they fancy and
    without any notice. Which is still the case, and which is why I'm
    hesitant of investing any money on A-mount lenses.

    As I said, I like the Sony a77, and luckily it works for me as is, with
    the one lens that came with it (16-50mm f/2.8) But if Canon had put GPS
    in their 70D I'd probably been very tempted to switch. And if the Canon
    7D Mark II has built in GPS, I'll be again very tempted to switch.
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Nov 8, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.