Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony, When r u going to drop ur ridicolous lens price?

Go to last post
ab012_KM7D said:
ok then you might need to do a bit of research (dont have the links
with me)
Click to expand...
Maybe so. I am going by what I have read and my experience using friend's 20D and D200 with USM/AFS. Seemed to focus and track much better than my screw-drive lenses.
ab012_KM7D said:
re To get a taste of the 2nd and 3rd quesitons, here is a comment
from Klaus from photozone:

"An ultrasonic motor doesn't necessarily translate to faster AF -
this is design-dependent. In fact the Minolta APO HS lenses were
supposed to focus pretty fast despite being screw-mount variants
(driven by the camera). Several non-SWM Nikkors also focus very
fast on the D200.
Click to expand...
Does he have numbers or just general impressions? How new are these USM lenses? My Nikonian friend said that some of their screw drive lenses are pretty good but none compare with the AFS lenses.
ab012_KM7D said:
It is a slightly different topic in EOS (and 4/3) land where you
only have in-lens AF motors - either ultrasonic or via a
conventional micro-motor of some kind. "

If you look up the popphoto AF tests you will also see that the
KM/a100 AF is almost always faster than the others - (note this is
fully lens dependent.)
Click to expand...
Are you sure of this. I get PopPhoto and they recently said of the A100 compared to the 400D: "A100 focuses faster at lower light levels" and "the Rebel...has more sensitive AF". So that doesn't seem to indicate the A100 is all-around faster. I'll go back and compare the reviews though. But I think the problem with the PopPhoto tests is that they don't have a common lens that they test them with AFAIR.
ab012_KM7D said:
I do believe that there is significant differences (esp tracking)
in the big long teles but your catergorical statement raises doubts
about what you tout everyday on this forum as 'facts'.
Click to expand...
Facts in what regard. Most people have reported that USM/AFS lense are faster than screw-drive. Why would they track better if they weren't focusing faster? They are also much quieter. Have you ever tried USM or AFS? They seem much more "professional".

One last thing: Why would Canon and Nikon be going completely USM/AFS if it wasn't better? Why would Sigma develop HSM? Why would Pentax? Why would Sony?

---
fjbyrne
 
what can i say? your answers fully demonstrate your understanding of these issues.
fjbyrne said:
ab012_KM7D said:
ok then you might need to do a bit of research (dont have the links
with me)
Click to expand...
Maybe so. I am going by what I have read and my experience using
friend's 20D and D200 with USM/AFS. Seemed to focus and track much
better than my screw-drive lenses.
fjbyrne said:
re To get a taste of the 2nd and 3rd quesitons, here is a comment
from Klaus from photozone:

"An ultrasonic motor doesn't necessarily translate to faster AF -
this is design-dependent. In fact the Minolta APO HS lenses were
supposed to focus pretty fast despite being screw-mount variants
(driven by the camera). Several non-SWM Nikkors also focus very
fast on the D200.
Click to expand...
Does he have numbers or just general impressions? How new are
these USM lenses? My Nikonian friend said that some of their screw
drive lenses are pretty good but none compare with the AFS lenses.
fjbyrne said:
It is a slightly different topic in EOS (and 4/3) land where you
only have in-lens AF motors - either ultrasonic or via a
conventional micro-motor of some kind. "

If you look up the popphoto AF tests you will also see that the
KM/a100 AF is almost always faster than the others - (note this is
fully lens dependent.)
Click to expand...
Are you sure of this. I get PopPhoto and they recently said of the
A100 compared to the 400D: "A100 focuses faster at lower light
levels" and "the Rebel...has more sensitive AF". So that doesn't
seem to indicate the A100 is all-around faster. I'll go back and
compare the reviews though. But I think the problem with the
PopPhoto tests is that they don't have a common lens that they test
them with AFAIR.
fjbyrne said:
I do believe that there is significant differences (esp tracking)
in the big long teles but your catergorical statement raises doubts
about what you tout everyday on this forum as 'facts'.
Click to expand...
Facts in what regard. Most people have reported that USM/AFS lense
are faster than screw-drive. Why would they track better if they
weren't focusing faster? They are also much quieter. Have you
ever tried USM or AFS? They seem much more "professional".

One last thing: Why would Canon and Nikon be going completely
USM/AFS if it wasn't better? Why would Sigma develop HSM? Why
would Pentax? Why would Sony?

---
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
--
Bernard

a100+28/2... yee~ha!~
7D+STF135... yee~ha!~
AS/SSS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!
 
Other lens such as STF is now $1200. It was around $1000 with KM. Sony after u take over, you just CANT increase all the prices! Be reasonable if you want to get market share. People need to trust you!! I trust KM but not u!!
 
fjbyrne said:
fjbyrne said:
--
Click to expand...
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
If you are comparing lens to lens yes, but if you are comparing cross brand, then you have to pick the stabilized version, because Nikon and Canon bodies are not stabilized you would have to purchase the stabilized lenses to get the same performance as the SSM on Alpha.

Prices for Sony is indeed on the high side, as any other Sony products are.

But how high varies per country. What I find is that you should never buy in official Sony stores or big electronic stores, they sell MSRP.

You should find a reputable camera retailer, usually you can find the lens at a much cheaper price... but then again the small retailers are also affected by supply and demand pricing. So wait till all the craze is gone for the lens you want, then get it from the small retailers.
 
fjbyrne said:
Sony was right buying KM's assets. It gives them a great head
start. I just don't want to see them waste it.

--
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
You want to criticize something, consider criticizing Sony's telling many of Minolta's smaller dealers that they were "too small" to continue doing business with. Now I have to go to the clueless mall dealers like Ritz, Tall's, and (god forbid) Best Buy.

If Sony really wanted use Konica's momentum they would have coupled their distribution abilities to Konica's long-time dealer base.
 
ab012_KM7D said:
what can i say? your answers fully demonstrate your understanding
of these issues.
Click to expand...
Well apparently you have all the answers so would you care to enlighten some of us less fortunate folks like myself?

Please answer the following questions:

Why are Canon and Nikon going exclusively USM/AFS for their new lenses?

Why did Sigma, Pentax and KM also develop SuperSonic Focusing systems like USM/AFS?

Do you think Sony will be at a disadvantage if it only has a few very expensive lenses with SSM?

Thanks

--
fjbyrne
 
codethought said:
fjbyrne said:
Sony was right buying KM's assets. It gives them a great head
start. I just don't want to see them waste it.

--
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
You want to criticize something, consider criticizing Sony's
telling many of Minolta's smaller dealers that they were "too
small" to continue doing business with. Now I have to go to the
clueless mall dealers like Ritz, Tall's, and (god forbid) Best Buy.
Click to expand...
I don't really "want" to criticize. I wish they did everything the way I think they should :)
codethought said:
If Sony really wanted use Konica's momentum they would have coupled
their distribution abilities to Konica's long-time dealer base.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is kind of interesting. There were a couple of local shops that used to carry KM gear but they don't have Sony. I asked if they had the A100 and they said "We don't carry Sony". Not sure whose choice it was.

--
fjbyrne
 
People have been buying the 70-200 from BH for about a month now. They keep going out of stock, along with a lot of other lenses. Which shows sony's price is fine.

People are buying them, and they probably don't have massive supplies of them, so it's best for them to keep it high until all those who will pay it stop, and they build up an inventory.

It will drop, but companies don't drop prices just for the heck of it. The price is based on the supply they have to feed the demand they are getting. Drop the price and they could get even higher demand, but they wouldn't have any more units to sell, so they wouldn't gain anything.
 
I never said USM is a bad thing, (quite the opposite, especially for the big teles and pro zooms) and I definitely agree that the 70-200 is overpriced.

The question mark is the following. Since you comment daily and loudly about the price and SSM, it surprises me that you seem to not have even done the basic research about what it really is about. Hence your views and "discussions" are significantly biased by misinformation, (as illustrated by your comments in this thread).

Hence IMO it is pointless and imporssible to discuss this issue and so all I can conclude is that I agree to disagree.
fjbyrne said:
ab012_KM7D said:
what can i say? your answers fully demonstrate your understanding
of these issues.
Click to expand...
Well apparently you have all the answers so would you care to
enlighten some of us less fortunate folks like myself?

Please answer the following questions:

Why are Canon and Nikon going exclusively USM/AFS for their new
lenses?

Why did Sigma, Pentax and KM also develop SuperSonic Focusing
systems like USM/AFS?

Do you think Sony will be at a disadvantage if it only has a few
very expensive lenses with SSM?

Thanks

--
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
--
Bernard

a100+28/2... yee~ha!~
7D+STF135... yee~ha!~
AS/SSS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!
 
The 70-200 shows in stock (as I type) at B&H, but we have seen very few "I got one!" threads. (And don't look at the left over KM lenses if you don't want to see how silly the Sony prices look.)

I think the demand is going to fall faster than the supply can be ramped up if the price stays up.

The 30D is $1169.95 before rebates, the 70-200/2.8 IS is $1600 (with code) before rebates = $2769.95 - $300 in rebates = $2469. Hmmh.

The D200/70-200/2.8 VR (with code) is $2870, with $225 in rebates, is $2645.

Against a $2399 70-200 Sony lens.

If Sony is judging sophisticated demand/supply from big box electronics and consumers, it could get ugly. For example, I just bought a D200. My demand for both a Sony 70-200 and a follow on to the 7D just went to zero. Actually, with the $2400 on the lens and the prospect of needing an unannounced unavailable $xxxx camera (to get to comparable focus and fps performances) as well, realisitically, it was already zero.

If Sony is going to live by the big boxes, they could die by them too.
 
true. If sony dropped the price below the demand point, all that would happen is the lucky few would buy them, and re-sell them on ebay. Which is what happened with the nikon 18-200 VR lens.
 
ab012_KM7D said:
I never said USM is a bad thing, (quite the opposite, especially
for the big teles and pro zooms) and I definitely agree that the
70-200 is overpriced.
Click to expand...
OK we agree here.
ab012_KM7D said:
The question mark is the following. Since you comment daily and
loudly about the price and SSM, it surprises me that you seem to
not have even done the basic research about what it really is
about. Hence your views and "discussions" are significantly biased
by misinformation, (as illustrated by your comments in this thread).
Click to expand...
Well I do comment often on things I think Sony needs to fix/improve to make a better system and more effectively compete with Canon & Nikon.

Please elaborate on which comments are based on misinformation so I can correct my understanding (BTW I am serious and this is not a snide remark). I know you posted a snipet of an article but it didn't provide any context or data (or I'm just a little slow :).

Maybe you could answer the following questions:
  • Is there some reason a WELL designed SSM-type focusing mechanism would not be at least as fast as a screw-type focusing mechanism? When I say well designed it could mean designed specifically for the lens on which it is being used.
  • Are SSM focusing mechanisms always quieter than their screw-type counterparts?
  • What is SSM's power consumption compared to screw-type?
  • Is there much of a weight penalty over screw-type?
I will stop saying Sony needs to consider putting it on all their lenses depending on the answers to the above questions. But given the current market I think Sony should seriously consider making SSM standard on as many lenses as practical (i.e. don't raise the price of the 18-70 kit $50)

Also I realize that the rebadged lenses needed to get out in a hurry so I don't really expect that they would be SSM. My question is should Sony be considering SSM when the upgrade cycle rolls around (or should SSM even force an upgrade?)
ab012_KM7D said:
Hence IMO it is pointless and imporssible to discuss this issue and
so all I can conclude is that I agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I agree it is pointless without information. I go by what I have read (books, magazines, web), people I have talked to (live and on forums), and personal experience (trying the various systems). If you could provide me with good reading pointers it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for any help.

--
fjbyrne
 
Han76 said:
fjbyrne said:
Han76 said:
--
Click to expand...
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
If you are comparing lens to lens yes, but if you are comparing
cross brand, then you have to pick the stabilized version, because
Nikon and Canon bodies are not stabilized you would have to
purchase the stabilized lenses to get the same performance as the
SSM on Alpha.
Click to expand...
So, add the cost of stabilization to each lens, even though it is in the body?
I thought the idea was to pay for it in the body, making lenses cheaper.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
 
Patco said:
Han76 said:
fjbyrne said:
Member said:
--
Click to expand...
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
If you are comparing lens to lens yes, but if you are comparing
cross brand, then you have to pick the stabilized version, because
Nikon and Canon bodies are not stabilized you would have to
purchase the stabilized lenses to get the same performance as the
SSM on Alpha.
Click to expand...
So, add the cost of stabilization to each lens, even though it is
in the body?
I thought the idea was to pay for it in the body, making lenses
cheaper.
Click to expand...
That is what I would expect and why I refuse to compare prices between IS/VR lenses and the Sony lenses.

The overall system cost may still favor Sony but I don't think I should pay an additional cost for my AS/SSS for every lens I buy.
Member said:
--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
Click to expand...
--
fjbyrne
 
Hey all, i live in Brasil and maybe my english is very poor.

I work on a digicam dslr and notebooks store here in Brasil. And look what sony is doing here.

If my boss buy to ressel 10 A100, the price is about U$600, but when my i sell the camera to the final user, sony pay for the sel worker U$15 and for the boss U$50 but you can't give this discount to the final user, and the price that you sell de A100 must be U$750 and no one dollar less. In my contry this is an ilegal practice, but who cares?
With the lens and all acessories, the same history.

So whats sony is doing?? Forcing you to acomodate with the price and forcing (with money) the sotores to focus on sell sony products over another brands. If i sell a c*non or n*kon i don't receive any money, but if i sell sony products i (the balconist, sell worker) i win U$10 for acessories, U$15 for the A100

Here, in Brasil, U$10 dollars means R$25 and we receive R$300 for week. So, if i sell 10 sony a100 in a week i win R$250. This is great. But in my IMHO this is not a honest way to trade.
 
fjbyrne said:
codethought said:
fjbyrne said:
Sony was right buying KM's assets. It gives them a great head
start. I just don't want to see them waste it.

--
fjbyrne
Click to expand...
You want to criticize something, consider criticizing Sony's
telling many of Minolta's smaller dealers that they were "too
small" to continue doing business with. Now I have to go to the
clueless mall dealers like Ritz, Tall's, and (god forbid) Best Buy.
Click to expand...
I don't really "want" to criticize. I wish they did everything the
way I think they should :)
fjbyrne said:
If Sony really wanted use Konica's momentum they would have coupled
their distribution abilities to Konica's long-time dealer base.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is kind of interesting. There were a couple of local
shops that used to carry KM gear but they don't have Sony. I asked
if they had the A100 and they said "We don't carry Sony". Not sure
whose choice it was.
Click to expand...
It was Sony's. They really don't understand the photographer market at all. And that's a shame..
 
alex904 said:
alex904 said:
Good question. But then I blame Sony for the ridiculous MSRP.
Click to expand...
Did you look at Nikon and Canon MSRPs? ;)

--
http://www.pictures2.com
Click to expand...
Yes they also have ridiculous MSRPs. Did the Canon/Nikon lenses ever sell at that and if so for how long? The problem with Sony having a similarly high MSRP is that it allows the dealers to sell it at that price which is currently much higher than the Canon or Nikon street price. This puts them at a disadvantage IMO since they won't price out well in this segment. I don't want them to lose sales.

--
fjbyrne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top