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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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