If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
"Bruce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
In rec.photo.digital R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canonand Nikon APS cameras
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
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. Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800 and below. Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong). The a700 is a fine camera as well, in APS-C. Thence the lower levels 500 series and lower for more casual DSLR users or those on tighter budgets. It's not a bad lineup at all. The dpreview report was right to be brief. There are only a few differences between the a900 and a850, the important one being the slightly cropped viewfinder. By cropping the VF they cut out a time consuming mask alignment procedure that lowers production cost. The sole incentive to get the a900 is the slightly faster frame rate or for die-hard 100% VF users. Had the a850 come out first, I would have been entirely happy with it. I may get one as a backup but there are lenses I would rather get first. People are quick to bash Sony, often for good reason, but as one who has carefully built his kit I know what superb cameras they are. I just wish Pentax would step up to FF and that Oly hadn't painted themselves into a corner with 4/3. The more competition, the better. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canonand Nikon APS cameras
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote: 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. Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800 and below. Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong). Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now). The a700 is a fine camera as well, in APS-C. Thence the lower levels 500 series and lower for more casual DSLR users or those on tighter budgets. It's not a bad lineup at all. The dpreview report was right to be brief. There are only a few differences between the a900 and a850, the important one being the slightly cropped viewfinder. By cropping the VF they cut out a time consuming mask alignment procedure that lowers production cost. The sole incentive to get the a900 is the slightly faster frame rate or for die-hard 100% VF users. Had the a850 come out first, I would have been entirely happy with it. I may get one as a backup but there are lenses I would rather get first. People are quick to bash Sony, often for good reason, but as one who has carefully built his kit I know what superb cameras they are. I just wish Pentax would step up to FF and that Oly hadn't painted themselves into a corner with 4/3. The more competition, the better. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canonand Nikon APS cameras
On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote: 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. Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800 and below. Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong). Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now). I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne
said: On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote: Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote: 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. Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800 and below. Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong). Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now). I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx. See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony. Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50 Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95 Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95 Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99 Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99 Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95 Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95 -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed overCanon and Nikon APS cameras
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:06:17 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote: Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote: 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. Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800 and below. Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong). Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now). I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx. See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony. Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50 Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95 Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95 Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99 Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99 Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95 Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95 The Canon 1D MkIV is not FF. And you missed the 5D MkII. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canonand Nikon APS cameras
On 10-04-24 17:06 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote: Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote: 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. Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800 and below. Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong). Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now). I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx. See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony. Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50 Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95 Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95 Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99 Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99 Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95 Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95 Nothing worth worrying about. It's not like I'd want to replace: 135 f/1.8 80-200 f/2.8 28-70 f/2.8 100 f/2.8 macro 20 f/2.8 -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed overCanon and Nikon APS cameras
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:40:22 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Really? What did Sony have to offer at the time of the Canon EOS 5D? -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
On 2010-04-24 14:08:58 -0700, Robert Spanjaard said:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:06:17 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2010-04-24 12:43:48 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 10-04-24 15:26 , Paul Furman wrote: Alan Browne wrote: On 10-04-15 19:56 , R. Mark Clayton wrote: 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. Nonsense, they have DSLR's for every budget just as Minolta did. The a900/a850 are outstanding cameras with fine build and output at ISO 800 and below. Don't forget which company came out with the lowest price FF camera first. Sony. Canon scrambled to follow and Nikon remain out of that game (as far as I know Nikon have no FF below $5k, I may be wrong). Nikon D700 FF is $3k (probably a bit less now). I didn't realize the D700 was FF. Thx. See what you have been missing with your lock into Sony. Nikon D700 @ B&H $2469.50 Nikon D3s @B&H $5199.95 Nikon D3x @ B&H $7469.95 Sony Alpha A900 @ B&H $2699.99 Sony Alpha A850 @ B&H $1999.99 Canon 1DMkIV @B&H @ $4999.95 Canon 1DsMkIII @B&H $6299.95 The Canon 1D MkIV is not FF. And you missed the 5D MkII. As one of the unwashed Nikon masses, what could I know about the subtleties of Canon offerings? -- Regards, Savageduck |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Resolution: Sony Alpha versus Canon 1DsMkII, 5D & Nikon D2X | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | January 2nd 07 06:22 AM |
Where are the Canon 400D full reviews? | default | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | September 29th 06 07:08 PM |
Canon A610 mini review | JohnR66 | Digital Photography | 2 | November 28th 05 02:19 AM |
Sony DSC-T3 mini review and samples | AWolf | Digital Photography | 7 | October 17th 04 08:27 AM |
Canon PowerShot G6 mini review & samples | AWolf | Digital Photography | 1 | October 11th 04 07:36 PM |