 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Sony, what are you up to?
How old will i be before sony release something beefier than the a100? My 700si celebrates it's 15th birthday soon and might want to be replaced even though it still works like a charm. The real question should be how successful were Sony with that camera. That will dictate if they will move forward with new and improved DSLR's. The Canon Rebel and the Nikon D80 & D40 likely smoked the @100 in the sales department (just a guess). TJWilson skrev: > The real question should be how successful were Sony with that > camera. That will dictate if they will move forward with new and > improved DSLR's. ofcourse, just a pity the a100 didn't do it for me. Didn't like the simplified controls compared to my a100. But neither of the other cameras there did feel as good (of other brands) so I'm crossing my fingers. > The Canon Rebel and the Nikon D80 & D40 likely smoked the @100 in the > sales department (just a guess). of what i've heard it sold well for a new contender. Ofcourse not close to nikon and canon in sales, but still. doesn't help me unless they come out with something more for the serious amatours (like 7d replacement) I'll give them the year, if not i'm going nikon or canon. but i'll miss my wonderful minolta glass. On Feb 24, 11:11 am, Geir Eivind Mork <geir.eiv...@mork.no- spam.block.com> wrote: > I'll give them the year, if not i'm going nikon or canon. but i'll miss > my wonderful minolta glass. That is exactly why I looked at this camera in the first place, I have some pre-historic Minolta lenses which would have worked... but the camera itself was really lacking. The other reason I looked was the claim of forthcoming Zeiss lenses... until I found out there were not made by Zeiss, only designed by them and the Zeiss name licensed to Sony. As they say in baseball... a swing and a miss! >That is exactly why I looked at this camera in the first place, I have >some pre-historic Minolta lenses which would have worked... but the >camera itself was really lacking. The other reason I looked was the >claim of forthcoming Zeiss lenses... until I found out there were not >made by Zeiss, only designed by them and the Zeiss name licensed to >Sony. The Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax SLRs were not made by Carl Zeiss either. Yet they were superb lenses, made by Kyocera Contax to Carl Zeiss designs, under licence from Carl Zeiss, with Zeiss quality control in the Kyocera factory. The optics were outstanding. The Carl Zeiss lenses for Voigtlander rangefinder cameras are also made in Japan under licence, to Carl Zeiss designs and with Carl Zeiss quality control. They are also outstanding optics. TJWilson skrev: > camera itself was really lacking. The other reason I looked was the > claim of forthcoming Zeiss lenses... until I found out there were not > made by Zeiss, only designed by them and the Zeiss name licensed to > Sony. > > As they say in baseball... a swing and a miss! Well, I've seen shots with one of the zeiss lense and the bokeh was amazing. Even outdid the smooth trans focus lense that minolta had. No matter who makes it, I'll have one IF JUST SONY GIVE ME A 7d REPLACEMENT TO HANG IT ON! :P Because if no 7d replacement is out by 1st of jan 2008 I'll be the proud owner of a Canon Eos 5d or what's new at that time (if it's not already replaced, haven't paid that much attension) >The real question should be how successful were Sony with that >camera. That will dictate if they will move forward with new and >improved DSLR's. In Europe, the Sony A100 appears to have been a sales disaster for Sony, selling only about a quarter to a third of Sony's forecast numbers. Over the holidays, the camera was heavily discounted but sales still fell well short of Sony's target. No-one should be surprised, after all the Konica Minolta DSLR range on which the Alpha DSLRs are based was also a sales disaster. Sony will probably still make a better DSLR, because the company is committed to supplying Nikon and Pentax with he next generation of sensors. It would be sensible for Sony to take the opportunity to use those sensors in Sony Alpha models. >>The real question should be how successful were Sony with that >>camera. That will dictate if they will move forward with new and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all the Konica Minolta DSLR range on which the Alpha DSLRs are based > was also a sales disaster. It was more of a manufacturing disaster. Look how many 5Ds (the only camera actually in production when KM sold out to Sony) ended up left on shelves - hardly any. I saw their inventory on closedown, and digital SLR bodies were not something they had a surplus of. Far too many low-end film SLR kits was their marketing problem. The only digital body stock they ended up selling to the trade on closure was ex-demo, staff, catalogue returns and test review stock. There was no mountain of unsold 5Ds either in the shops or warehouse. What few there were went cheaply, but also went quickly. Sony put a factory which had been working one shift on to working three shifts to make the A100. If what you suggest is true - that in the end the A100 has sold only 1/4 to 1/3rd of projections - then that may be because Sony changed their June (launch date) forecast upwards by a factor of 2.5X on or around July 12th when Japanese execs visited Europe. I know that this happened, and it happened because of the level of advance orders. > Sony will probably still make a better DSLR, because the company is > committed to supplying Nikon and Pentax with he next generation of > sensors. It would be sensible for Sony to take the opportunity to use > those sensors in Sony Alpha models. > There's no real doubt about that. The question is whether they will revise the body to the liking of existing and potential owners. If a continuation of the A100 appears with an improved sensor, but not much other change, a lot of 'hold off and see' non-buyers will be driven away. David > If a > continuation of the A100 appears with an improved sensor, but not much > other change, a lot of 'hold off and see' non-buyers will be driven away. The upside to all of this is that I've invested money in used Hasselblad equipment and a new Nikon 9000 ED rather than in Sony. If they don't get serious, then off to Canon I'll go. Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Sony has real problems with getting the right software and control sets into their high end cameras. They never got it right with the 828 or its successor. The Alpha has the same electronic image capture innards as Nikon/Pentax just different software for jpeg processing. This is a manifestation of Sony's marketing mentality: target the lowest common denominator mass market user. Sony used to do niche marketing/design much better and one sees this all across its lines. Perhaps Sony is now just too big. Quality control has really dropped significantly across most Sony consumer brands. With regard to sales volume: in Sony's corporate statements what little references there are to camera sales do not indicate any problems they perceive in that segment of their business. Sony and investors are far more concerned about the impact of PS3, which is seriously underperforming expectations. I can find no references to the Alpha as a sales "disaster." The Alpha represents such a small volume part of Sony's manufacturing output that it simply does not register in overall bottom line impact. Development costs are virtually nill as Sony will continue to R&D the electronics for its clients and itself. I think that everything a manufacturer makes either contributes or detracts from their bottom line. Sony is a BIG company and droopy sales with one product likely will not hurt them. But Sony of late have been in real trouble in a lot of different places and it is not beyond reason that they could die the death of a thousand cuts. And who really knows what Sony's expectations were for their first venture into DSLR's? Perhaps this model was a success beyond all projections... who knows? Sony had less to do relative to R&D for the introduction of the A100 model which is a significant cost savings; but they didn't simply paste a Sony label over the Minolta name and ship it, real money had to be spent in this regard. Then there is the business of buying a product line; I don't know for sure but I doubt Minolta just handed their camera division to Sony, again there is likely real money involved here too. The A100 price has dropped since it's introduction in the Toronto market in an attempt to attract buyers, yet I've never seen one outside of a show-room while at the same time you see tons of Rebels & D80's out on the street. Sony had the right market segment targeted, but given the choice between a Canon and a Sony or a Nikon and a Sony the results are obvious. > How old will i be before sony release something beefier than the a100? > My 700si celebrates it's 15th birthday soon and might want to be > replaced even though it still works like a charm. Shouldn't Sony be releasing lenses? At this point most re-badged Minolta lenses are back ordered. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.