Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras

On 2010-04-16 18:10:32 +0100, Bruce said:


I don't know about markets other than the UK, but here Sony has priced
its entry-level Alpha models very competitively, but they still don't
sell. My friendly dealer tells me that his profit margin on an
entry-level Alpha body or kit is so low that it almost isn't worth
taking the time to demonstrate them to potential customers.

Where I live in the UK all local friendly dealers have closed so I have
to travel quite some distance to visit one: it's a small shop for a
city. I noticed that Sigma lenses have the biggest (brand) dispaly
area; Sony kit had the least, possibly because many towns and cities
have Sony shops, more probably because of the profit margin as you
said. Here, Minolta had top sales so I've no idea what happened.

--
Pete

On 2010-04-16 21:06:16 +0100, Bruce said:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:20:31 +0100, Pete
wrote:
On 2010-04-16 18:10:32 +0100, Bruce said:

I don't know about markets other than the UK, but here Sony has priced
its entry-level Alpha models very competitively, but they still don't
sell. My friendly dealer tells me that his profit margin on an
entry-level Alpha body or kit is so low that it almost isn't worth
taking the time to demonstrate them to potential customers.

Where I live in the UK all local friendly dealers have closed so I have
to travel quite some distance to visit one:

It's the same for me now: Jessops are the spawn of Satan. :-(

I was too chicken to say that. I've seen that company selling many
items below cost price. I have concluded why they would do that (I
think).

It's a small shop for a
city. I noticed that Sigma lenses have the biggest (brand) dispaly
area; Sony kit had the least, possibly because many towns and cities
have Sony shops, more probably because of the profit margin as you
said.


Sigma lenses have sky-high profit margins. They are very cheaply
made, so even with a high dealer profit the final selling price is
still low.

My friendly dealer showed me the prices he pays for Nikon and Sigma
70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, in both cases the latest versions, AF-S VR II
and HSM.

He then showed me his selling prices. He makes more profit selling
the Sigma than the Nikkor, despite the much higher selling price of
the latter. Go figure.


Here, Minolta had top sales so I've no idea what happened.


Minolta dominated the AF 35mm SLR market in the 1980s/90s with the
5000/7000/9000 and later the Dynax (US: Maxxum) SLRs. But they got
greedy, and failed to invest, and their market share tumbled as
Canon's EOS range grew

I was not aware of that.

and Nikon belatedly got their AF act together.

Nikon was very late sorting AF, but it seems to work very nicely now.

The move to digital nearly killed off Minolta. Minolta DSLRs had some
good ideas but Canon, and to a lesser extent Nikon, ran away with the
market.

By the time of the merger with Konica, Minolta's camera division was
almost bankrupt. Konica was in much the same state. Together, they
made no headway at all, and the firm deserved to be killed off.

Then along came Sony, who effectively bought a dead horse and tried to
flog it back to life. So far, without much success. Their aim was a
20% market share within two years, but they have never even approached
half of that target. The Alpha range is an embarrassment.

Thanks for your reply: educational and much appreciated.

--
Pete

On 10-04-16 16:41 , Pete wrote:
On 2010-04-16 21:06:16 +0100, Bruce said:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:20:31 +0100, Pete
wrote:
On 2010-04-16 18:10:32 +0100, Bruce said:

I don't know about markets other than the UK, but here Sony has priced
its entry-level Alpha models very competitively, but they still don't
sell. My friendly dealer tells me that his profit margin on an
entry-level Alpha body or kit is so low that it almost isn't worth
taking the time to demonstrate them to potential customers.

Where I live in the UK all local friendly dealers have closed so I have
to travel quite some distance to visit one:

It's the same for me now: Jessops are the spawn of Satan. :-(

I was too chicken to say that. I've seen that company selling many items
below cost price. I have concluded why they would do that (I think).

It's a small shop for a
city. I noticed that Sigma lenses have the biggest (brand) dispaly
area; Sony kit had the least, possibly because many towns and cities
have Sony shops, more probably because of the profit margin as you
said.


Sigma lenses have sky-high profit margins. They are very cheaply
made, so even with a high dealer profit the final selling price is
still low.

My friendly dealer showed me the prices he pays for Nikon and Sigma
70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, in both cases the latest versions, AF-S VR II
and HSM.

He then showed me his selling prices. He makes more profit selling
the Sigma than the Nikkor, despite the much higher selling price of
the latter. Go figure.


Here, Minolta had top sales so I've no idea what happened.


Minolta dominated the AF 35mm SLR market in the 1980s/90s with the
5000/7000/9000 and later the Dynax (US: Maxxum) SLRs. But they got
greedy, and failed to invest, and their market share tumbled as
Canon's EOS range grew

I was not aware of that.

and Nikon belatedly got their AF act together.

Nikon was very late sorting AF, but it seems to work very nicely now.

The move to digital nearly killed off Minolta. Minolta DSLRs had some
good ideas but Canon, and to a lesser extent Nikon, ran away with the
market.

By the time of the merger with Konica, Minolta's camera division was
almost bankrupt. Konica was in much the same state. Together, they
made no headway at all, and the firm deserved to be killed off.

Then along came Sony, who effectively bought a dead horse and tried to
flog it back to life. So far, without much success. Their aim was a
20% market share within two years, but they have never even approached
half of that target. The Alpha range is an embarrassment.

Thanks for your reply: educational and much appreciated.

If largely biased and misleading is educational and appreciable.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Pete" wrote in message
news:2010041621412350073-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
On 2010-04-16 21:06:16 +0100, Bruce said:

SNIP


Minolta dominated the AF 35mm SLR market in the 1980s/90s with the
5000/7000/9000 and later the Dynax (US: Maxxum) SLRs. But they got
greedy, and failed to invest, and their market share tumbled as
Canon's EOS range grew

Minolta let the marketing people work out how to extract maximim revenue
from the punters. The X000 chassis were pretty basic and then you bought
flash, winders, filters etc. etc. to do anything but the basics.

Suddenly the competition had a fully loaded camera that did everything for
the same price with all the expensive options thrown in, leading to the
collapse of Minolta's complex offering in the market.

They came back with Dynax, but a little too late and cut prices to gain
market share, squeeaing their own margins...


The Alpha range is an embarrassment.

Not the top end, but it is overpriced. Sony always like to price at the top
end, but usually have something worth paying the extra for...


Thanks for your reply: educational and much appreciated.

--
Pete

On 10-04-16 17:54 , R. Mark Clayton wrote:
wrote in message
news:2010041621412350073-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
On 2010-04-16 21:06:16 +0100, Bruce said:

SNIP


Minolta dominated the AF 35mm SLR market in the 1980s/90s with the
5000/7000/9000 and later the Dynax (US: Maxxum) SLRs. But they got
greedy, and failed to invest, and their market share tumbled as
Canon's EOS range grew

Minolta let the marketing people work out how to extract maximim revenue
from the punters. The X000 chassis were pretty basic and then you bought
flash, winders, filters etc. etc. to do anything but the basics.

Suddenly the competition had a fully loaded camera that did everything for
the same price with all the expensive options thrown in, leading to the
collapse of Minolta's complex offering in the market.

They came back with Dynax, but a little too late and cut prices to gain
market share, squeeaing their own margins...


The Alpha range is an embarrassment.

Not the top end, but it is overpriced. Sony always like to price at the top
end, but usually have something worth paying the extra for...

Mark, telling it like it is around here will get you nowhere.

As to "overpriced" I can't really agree. They were the first to bring
FF to under $3K and made Canon traipse along. Some lenses are
definitely over priced, to be sure.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.