Must be a USA thing... Here in Singapore, Sony service is excellent. when I had my A700 cleaned, they picked it up from my house, the next day the technician called me up to ask if I had any other issues other than cleaning, upgraded the FW for me and delivered it to my house - all for about 8 USD. If I had dropped the camera off at the nearest SonyStyle (about 15 minutes from my house) I wouldn't have paid athing.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Jumping ship to Sony....
- Thread starter Doc Tonic
- Start date
dwill23
Senior Member
Sony has the deeper pockets, and imaging has been something they've been on the forefront of. Video cameras, TVs etc.
They are an electronic company that's mega diverse.
I don't want to go to sony, but I think i'll have to one day if i want the best.
All they have to do is pull the plug on Nikon's chip supply, and there goes nikon.
They have their eyes set on canon.
--
lenses make the image, the camera only records it. my zoom is my feet, not my fingers, don't be lazy, buy primes
They are an electronic company that's mega diverse.
I don't want to go to sony, but I think i'll have to one day if i want the best.
All they have to do is pull the plug on Nikon's chip supply, and there goes nikon.
They have their eyes set on canon.
--
lenses make the image, the camera only records it. my zoom is my feet, not my fingers, don't be lazy, buy primes
J
julienA
Guest
You guys don't know what you're missing. In-body IS lets you FORGET about image stabilization. It's when you pick up a C or N body with a 85/1.4 fitted for instance, that you realize... oh well... it's not stabilized.
J
Bernard Languillier
Senior Member
I am sure that Sony/Minolta will keep releasing great products, but both Canon and Nikon camera divisions are very healthy businesses with a lot of cash. Besides, they can get any credit line they want from any bank. Sony has zero advantage compared to them in terms of investement capability. Either way these divisions have to make a profit.
Canon and Nikon have the resources to keep releasing products that photographers will want to buy. So, although I agree that Sony will probably manage to capture some of Nikon/Canon's share with timely releases of interesting products like the A900, they will not manage to create a significant gap with Canon/Nikon, which will hurt they profitability and ability to keep investig for long.
You can always stitch for your large prints.
Cheers,
Bernard
David Hull
Veteran Member
I don't think their share is 17%. last I heard it was closer to 9%.
ouch baby that review hurts...
-- http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml
-- http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-nr.shtml
Before you make statements that Sony has such a tremendous backroll and that Canon nor Nikon have the resources to stop them, you may want to review their financial statements.......
From each companies annual reports: (years are different due to their respective differences in year end - both are their latest complete fiscal years results)
Sony (2008 annual report): net income 369.4 billion yen
Canon (2007 annual report): net income 488.3 billion yen
Nikon (2008 annual report): net income 75.4 billion yen
From each companies annual reports: (years are different due to their respective differences in year end - both are their latest complete fiscal years results)
Sony (2008 annual report): net income 369.4 billion yen
Canon (2007 annual report): net income 488.3 billion yen
Nikon (2008 annual report): net income 75.4 billion yen
PhotoTraveler
Forum Pro
Well, Sony has been in the DSLR market for a bit over 2 years. They went from nothing percent DSLR market share, to now in major markets like the EU 17% market share and rising. They have grown every month in the EU since winter, and they haven't brought out a new body since PMA, so were not talking new body spike, but continually upward growth. In countries like the Netherlands and Poland, Sony is #2 in DSLR marketshare. They don't say which is ahead, but by the way the phrased it, one country Nikon leads them, the other Canon leads them.
So if they can grow from 5% in December 07 to 17% in July 08, and have the growth build gradually long after the models have been out, it means they are doing a lot right and are much more than a walkman maker.
Note the graph goes to july, so A900 doesn't factor into it, and right now you can't get your hands on an A900 if your not in Asia.
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/09/10/alpha-900-launch-press-conference-part-1/
So if they can grow from 5% in December 07 to 17% in July 08, and have the growth build gradually long after the models have been out, it means they are doing a lot right and are much more than a walkman maker.
Note the graph goes to july, so A900 doesn't factor into it, and right now you can't get your hands on an A900 if your not in Asia.
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/09/10/alpha-900-launch-press-conference-part-1/
David Hull
Veteran Member
Not all of Nikon's sensors are made by Sony. I do not believe that the one in the D3 (for example) is a Sony part. Theere was a thread on this a while back where one of the big semiconduscor reverse engineering outfits took a look at that sensor and it was not Sony.
However, you really don't understand how this type of game works. The Camera division is quite likely, completely independent of the semiconductor division that makes the sensors and (most likely) has no influence whatsoever who they can sell them to and who they can't. You can bet that the GM of the Sensor group has gross margin and total revenue targets that he signs up for at the beginning of the year with the mother ship and he gets in trouble if falls short of his targets. If say 20% of that revenue contribution is generated by sales to Nikon, the GM of the sensor division is not likely to give it up, and the corprate guy won't be too happy not getting it either. Money is money and these guys don't care too much where it comes from.
Now that Sony is getting more serious in the DSLR game, I would expect that Nikon is actively looking for second sources and alternitives.
However, you really don't understand how this type of game works. The Camera division is quite likely, completely independent of the semiconductor division that makes the sensors and (most likely) has no influence whatsoever who they can sell them to and who they can't. You can bet that the GM of the Sensor group has gross margin and total revenue targets that he signs up for at the beginning of the year with the mother ship and he gets in trouble if falls short of his targets. If say 20% of that revenue contribution is generated by sales to Nikon, the GM of the sensor division is not likely to give it up, and the corprate guy won't be too happy not getting it either. Money is money and these guys don't care too much where it comes from.
Now that Sony is getting more serious in the DSLR game, I would expect that Nikon is actively looking for second sources and alternitives.
polansky
Leading Member
I wonder where you got these figures from.... As far as I know. Sony now has a 7 to 8% market share in the DSLR market and still only 17% market share over the TOTAL Digital camera sales, so including P&S range....
Those figures are quite different aren't they?
Alan from Sunny Isles Beach FL
Forum Enthusiast
Hate to burst your bubble, but as a former Sony fan myself (woke up around 1998), I can tell you Sony fails from time-to-time and when they do its usually in the markets they could easily thrive in if they weren't being themselves. Example, Plasma TV's. Sony doesn't make them. They did tho, between 2003 and 2005. You know what they did wrong? They decided because they were Sony and the consumers are dumb, they'd slap a hefty price tag on a "pretty" TV and that would work. The panels were pretty good. They were the first to incorporate the glass bezel/frame with floating controls. (For 2005 this was cool). The price? 60" for $20,000! You know how many sold? Fewer than any other manufacturer's model of the same size or even same price. In early 2006 most of those TV's would end up on "sale" for $7000-$9500... as Sony vowed to not make PlasmaTV panels anymore and "focus" on LCDs. They call their LCD's "BRAVIA" because their customers are morons and don't realize LCD sucks.
Not entirely accurate. Sony has been in the production side of video for a LONG time. Going back to the BetaCam and BetaCam SP's (early 90's) when they dominated the TV production scene.
What in your mind makes the A900 the perfect ANYTHING? Its HORRIBLE ISO Performance? Its vomit-inducing looks? its lack of LiveView? its not so rugged construction? What part says good to you?
-Alan
PhotoTraveler
Forum Pro
Follow the link. They are from Sony's A900 launch done by an independent group. It's not surprising, It's been known for a while that Sony was doing well in Eastern Europe, the same as Minolta did well there.
Blu-Ray was not a Sony creation, they were one of the initial supporters of it though, and yes, blu-ray won the battle largely because of the PS3.
It's not just the lenses and bodies, it's also support and PR, and Sony is lacking in that respect.
They can fill the system out with a 400, 500 and a 600, maybe through in a tilt-shift, some f/4s and deliver another full-frame with outstanding iso performance, fps, AF and modest resolution - but until people see the system in the market, supported with something akin to Canikon professional services - and with some real PR, the best they can expect is a slow trickle of Canon and Nikon crossovers. They have to rely on people upgrading from entry levels/point and shoots and die-hard Minolta shooters as things stand.
Whoever mentioned the 1dII as being the big Canon attraction has it on the money. That wasn't just Nikon shooters moving to Canon, that was the pro market moving to digital.
That's what you have to do to make people want to switch, you have to really shake the market up with something new. Nikon did that with the D3, but Sony hasn't really done anything on that scale yet. Yes, the Zeiss glass is unequalled in the 35mm AF segment. Yes, the in-body anti-shake is far more versatile than having it in individual lenses. But you have to pay for that Zeiss glass, and the in-body stabalization isn't quite as good as the lens based options (although it's supposedly improved further with the a900). And yes, they now have a solid, full frame camera with a great sensor and a truly innovative view-finder-mirror-shutter-steady shot assembly - but there's really nothing revolutionary here.
Everyone on this board knows the 5dII or whatever it's going to be called is going to compete directly with the a900 and if the rumours of the 21mp sensor are true, we all know Canon's history of utilizing excellent noise reduction, and it will produce image quality that will compete very well with the a900. The d700 is a pro camera, has unsurpassed iso performance and a fantastic AF system. If Canon users think their iso is lacking, they'll be shopping for a D700 or D3, not an a900. If Nikon users want more resolution, well the a900 with the zeiss glass is an option, but the 5dII is going to be there with it's full lens lineup, support and more sophisticated AF.
Keep it up Sony, there is room for a third player here and competition is great for the consumers. But unless you come up with something that everyone is going to make everyone take a step back, you aren't going to vault yourself to the big market share.
It's not just the lenses and bodies, it's also support and PR, and Sony is lacking in that respect.
They can fill the system out with a 400, 500 and a 600, maybe through in a tilt-shift, some f/4s and deliver another full-frame with outstanding iso performance, fps, AF and modest resolution - but until people see the system in the market, supported with something akin to Canikon professional services - and with some real PR, the best they can expect is a slow trickle of Canon and Nikon crossovers. They have to rely on people upgrading from entry levels/point and shoots and die-hard Minolta shooters as things stand.
Whoever mentioned the 1dII as being the big Canon attraction has it on the money. That wasn't just Nikon shooters moving to Canon, that was the pro market moving to digital.
That's what you have to do to make people want to switch, you have to really shake the market up with something new. Nikon did that with the D3, but Sony hasn't really done anything on that scale yet. Yes, the Zeiss glass is unequalled in the 35mm AF segment. Yes, the in-body anti-shake is far more versatile than having it in individual lenses. But you have to pay for that Zeiss glass, and the in-body stabalization isn't quite as good as the lens based options (although it's supposedly improved further with the a900). And yes, they now have a solid, full frame camera with a great sensor and a truly innovative view-finder-mirror-shutter-steady shot assembly - but there's really nothing revolutionary here.
Everyone on this board knows the 5dII or whatever it's going to be called is going to compete directly with the a900 and if the rumours of the 21mp sensor are true, we all know Canon's history of utilizing excellent noise reduction, and it will produce image quality that will compete very well with the a900. The d700 is a pro camera, has unsurpassed iso performance and a fantastic AF system. If Canon users think their iso is lacking, they'll be shopping for a D700 or D3, not an a900. If Nikon users want more resolution, well the a900 with the zeiss glass is an option, but the 5dII is going to be there with it's full lens lineup, support and more sophisticated AF.
Keep it up Sony, there is room for a third player here and competition is great for the consumers. But unless you come up with something that everyone is going to make everyone take a step back, you aren't going to vault yourself to the big market share.
- 24.6 MP FF sensor, that's good, but ... even Canon 1000D has better IQ (may be the production verion of A900 would be better, we just don't know)
- in camera IS, nice to have but no big deal, Canon has IS and Nikon has VR lenses
- ugly body build, I mean the Penta-prism, to be honest ... very ugly !!
- lens system not attractive
This is what I'm referring to with PR and marketing. Anyone with a camera in 2008 that produced jpegs that looked like the dpreview sample shots would never have let those shots out and would have sent it back to the engineers to fix it. For some reason, Sony allowed those shots to be released and must have figured that "pre-relaease shots only" would keep half the internet from laughing at them. But now, they have ground to make up and the camera isn't even available yet. The raw shots look promising, but eveyone saw those jpegs first.
if the aim is to have a compact travel cams, the 450D serves a lot better. I personally prefer my old 350D over my 40D when wanting to travel light.
I was hoping the 18-200 IS would come as a decent travel kit lens, but I'm not so optimistic towards it as I was before the spec were out.
I was hoping the 18-200 IS would come as a decent travel kit lens, but I'm not so optimistic towards it as I was before the spec were out.
Check the A900 launch. EU share is 17%.
joebloe
Senior Member
The term is "survivor." Which is pretty far from success.
P
papparazzi
Guest
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum