Big Sony DSLR price changes

roweraay said:

steelhead3 said:

Minolta controls the price of the 300. Sony doesn't make lenses,
they contract them out.

Click to expand...

No, Sony bought the entire shebang. Sony bought the whole camera
business including lenses and lens factories - from KM, when KM
exited out of the market. KM has no role to play in the Alpha Camera
or lens business, other than getting paid licensing fees for
Intellectual property (IP) that Sony decided to not purchase
outright. Sony also took onto their rolls, all of the camera and
lens designers, who previously worked for KM.

The specific products that Sony did not purchase IP for, are
expensive, vis-a-vis competitive products and IMO, Sony has to either
purchase the IP for those outright or come out with replacement
products right away.

Currently, the 70-200SSM and the 300mmSSM are poster-children for the
"expensive Sony system", even thought the rest of the system are
competitively priced.

Click to expand...

This is not correct. For every lens KM designed (include 70200g), Sony has to pay licensed fee to KM. This is rhe reason why Sony has little control over prices, and try to create new lenses like DT50mm, as they can save the license fee. Some even claimed that parts of design patents of Sony CZs are belong to KM. There are some discussions for this topic in Chinese websites.

lawrencecn said:

This is not correct. For every lens KM designed (include 70200g),
Sony has to pay licensed fee to KM. This is rhe reason why Sony has
little control over prices, and try to create new lenses like DT50mm,
as they can save the license fee. Some even claimed that parts of
design patents of Sony CZs are belong to KM. There are some
discussions for this topic in Chinese websites.

Click to expand...

They have to pay a licensing fee on everything (whether lens or otherwise) that KM owned in the past, UNLESS, Sony purchased the Intellectual property rights, outright, for those things.

Sony did purchase the IP on a lot of things, from KM, at the time of KM exiting the market. They don't have to pay a dime to KM for it. For for the items that Sony decided NOT to purchase the IP, Sony does have to pay a licensing fee.

KM has nothing whatsoever to do with design patents for CZ lenses. Carl Zeiss designs those in Oberkochen, Germany. Thank goodness for that.

In fact, KM did have an almost ready 28-70 f/2.8G SSM, when they exited the market but Sony decided to not purchase that design and went with Carl Zeiss. They did the same when it came to the 85mm f/1.4G, by discarding the KM design and going with the CZ 85mm f/1.4 Planar.

The easiest way to look at it, is by examining the price of the Sony lenses, vis-a-vis the competition's lenses and if a specific Sony lens is inordinately more expensive than that of a competitor, and if it came from the KM legacy, you can bet that Sony has not purchased the IP for that particular product, and are paying a hefty licensing fee to KM.

roweraay said:

lawrencecn said:

This is not correct. For every lens KM designed (include 70200g),
Sony has to pay licensed fee to KM. This is rhe reason why Sony has
little control over prices, and try to create new lenses like DT50mm,
as they can save the license fee. Some even claimed that parts of
design patents of Sony CZs are belong to KM. There are some
discussions for this topic in Chinese websites.

Click to expand...

They have to pay a licensing fee on everything (whether lens or
otherwise) that KM owned in the past, UNLESS, Sony purchased the
Intellectual property rights, outright, for those things.

Sony did purchase the IP on a lot of things, from KM, at the time of
KM exiting the market. They don't have to pay a dime to KM for it.
For for the items that Sony decided NOT to purchase the IP, Sony does
have to pay a licensing fee.

KM has nothing whatsoever to do with design patents for CZ lenses.
Carl Zeiss designs those in Oberkochen, Germany. Thank goodness for
that.

In fact, KM did have an almost ready 28-70 f/2.8G SSM, when they
exited the market but Sony decided to not purchase that design and
went with Carl Zeiss. They did the same when it came to the 85mm
f/1.4G, by discarding the KM design and going with the CZ 85mm f/1.4
Planar.

The easiest way to look at it, is by examining the price of the Sony
lenses, vis-a-vis the competition's lenses and if a specific Sony
lens is inordinately more expensive than that of a competitor, and if
it came from the KM legacy, you can bet that Sony has not purchased
the IP for that particular product, and are paying a hefty licensing
fee to KM.

Click to expand...

Then I guess seeing Sony-branded older Minolta designs like the F/2 series (28/2, 35/2 & 100/2) is a lost cause. We'd better get them on ebay at any price

Greenspan said:

Exactly, pumping trillions of dollars into the economy via bailouts
and the like has to come from somewhere. Dollar drops in value.

Click to expand...

Apparently the thing that did it was the Federal Reserve deciding to buy 300billion of US Savings bonds.

Very little of that trillions of dollars have gotten into the economy. A lot probably never will.

Walt

ozgoldman said:

The price on http://www.sony.com.au for Aussies is AU$5,299 for body only
for the A900. Converts to US$3,704.00
Would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Who in their right mind would buy at that price in Aus?

Click to expand...

Cost aprox the same in Norway.
--

α100 - [email protected] [email protected] 24-50mm@4 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 70-210mm@4 [email protected] 2xHVL-F56AM

roweraay said:

lawrencecn said:

This is not correct. For every lens KM designed (include 70200g),
Sony has to pay licensed fee to KM. This is rhe reason why Sony has
little control over prices, and try to create new lenses like DT50mm,
as they can save the license fee. Some even claimed that parts of
design patents of Sony CZs are belong to KM. There are some
discussions for this topic in Chinese websites.

Click to expand...

They have to pay a licensing fee on everything (whether lens or
otherwise) that KM owned in the past, UNLESS, Sony purchased the
Intellectual property rights, outright, for those things.

Sony did purchase the IP on a lot of things, from KM, at the time of
KM exiting the market. They don't have to pay a dime to KM for it.
For for the items that Sony decided NOT to purchase the IP, Sony does
have to pay a licensing fee.

KM has nothing whatsoever to do with design patents for CZ lenses.
Carl Zeiss designs those in Oberkochen, Germany. Thank goodness for
that.

In fact, KM did have an almost ready 28-70 f/2.8G SSM, when they
exited the market but Sony decided to not purchase that design and
went with Carl Zeiss. They did the same when it came to the 85mm
f/1.4G, by discarding the KM design and going with the CZ 85mm f/1.4
Planar.

The easiest way to look at it, is by examining the price of the Sony
lenses, vis-a-vis the competition's lenses and if a specific Sony
lens is inordinately more expensive than that of a competitor, and if
it came from the KM legacy, you can bet that Sony has not purchased
the IP for that particular product, and are paying a hefty licensing
fee to KM.

Click to expand...

If you go back to the original press releases and information about the Sony acquisition of certain KM assets related to its photography business, you will see that Sony acquired certain assets, but that other assets remained with KM, and indeed that KM was going to still be manufacturing certain items - but none of the details were set forth. Reports about the deal included that Sony was acquiring a partial ownership interest in certain KM manufacturing facilities. All of this came about 6-8 months after KM and Sony had announced a joint venture to develop DSLR products.

There were later reports as I recall, such as from David K., that Sony had acquired a 100% ownership interest in some of the plants that it previously co-owned with KM, or planned to co-own under the terms of the original deal. But we don't know if that was all of those facilities or just some.

The fact is that none of us really know what assets Sony bought outright, and what assets it may still be licensing from KM (such as IP - intellectual property - assets), and what if any products KM might still be manufacturing for Sony. For example, did KM license to Sony or sell outright its interest in the anti-shake technology and related patents? KM may have held on to those rights so it also could license it to Pentax and Olympus who later came out with their own similar systems (or perhaps they independently developed sufficiently different technologies that did not require licensing). These sorts of deals and transactions have existed within the industry for decades.

For example, how many know that Minolta developed the original technology for TTL off-the-film flash metering, but did not initially put it in its own cameras but rather licensed it to Olympus, who was the first camera manufacturer to bring it to market (in the OM-1 or OM-2 as I recall). Or that the AF systems used by all manufacturers in their DSLRs include technology developed by US company Honeywell, which successfully sued Minolta in the early 1990s for patent infringement related to the AF system Minolta introduced in SLRs in the mid-1980's, and that all manufacturers have paid license fees to Honeywell?

The bottom line is that we don't know the details of what assets Sony bought vs. what technology or rights it still is licensing from KM. Nor do we know who is building the lenses in the Sony system - it probably is a combination of Sony (at plants acquired from KM or others), independent manufacturers (e.g., Tamron, Cosina, others?), and perhaps also KM (e.g., the 70-200/2.8 SSM and 300/2.8 SSM, and perhaps some other "legacy" Minolta lenses rebadged for Sony - such as the also overpriced (vs. the competition) 1.4x and 2x converters).

Anything that anyone writes here about who is making what, and what is owned vs. licensed, is likely engaging in speculation rather than knowing the intricacies of the Sony-KM transaction, or having inside information about where various products are made and by whom.

Having said all the above, the Sony 300/2.8 SSM lens remains ridiculously overpriced. Early reports about the 70-200/2.8 SSM and 300/2.8 SSM had them being handmade in very low numbers, which was the reason for the ultra-high prices of both (compared to the competition). The 70-200/2.8 has come down to more competitive levels, and seems to have sold in some numbers given the frequency of comments in various forums from people who bought it, suggesting that it is now made in greater numbers and at a lower cost per unit. The same obviously cannot be said of the 300/2.8, creating a bad situation - high cost leads to few sold, leading to higher costs because few are made, etc.

Too bad, because at a "reasonable" price I would consider upgrading from my 1980's era 300/2.8 to the new one, but certainly not at the price Sony is asking. Indeed, if Sigma decides to make its 120-300/2.8 HSM lens in the A-mount before Sony has a "reasonably priced" 300/2.8, that is what I would likely get. The race is on.

--
Mark Van Bergh

roweraay said:

Bryan89 said:

Link to Minolta optical:
http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/products/index.html

Click to expand...

The above link does not seem to refer to dSLR lenses, which are an
entirely different animal.

Click to expand...

It just depends on how you read it:

The web page you linked states, under "Other Lenses",

"We are developing lenses for the latest shooting and image input devices and various other systems.

• Lenses for digital still cameras

..."

I guess this could include the lenses for the Alpha cameras.

I don't know if I recall that correctly, but I think to remember that, back when Sony took over the dSLR business from Minolta, they were talking about two factories: The one in Malaysia, and one in Japan. If the lenses were manufactured in a different plant than the bodies: Minolta would still own those factories (and produce the lenses).

I personally doubt that Sony got engaged in the manufacturing of lenses for the Alpha series, I don't think it would make business sense:

A large part of the cost in lens design is for fundamental research, e. g. developing new recipes for glass (think about AD glass), development of manufacturing procedures, development of algorithms to efficiently predict the behavior of an optical system. This research can be shared between all types of lenses one manufactures, from cell phone cameras to cameras traveling in space on satellites.

With KM remaining in the manufacturing of lenses (did you see that many new camcorders by JVC now sport a "Konica Minolta" lens?) I don't think that a) Minolta gave up (or sold) part of the "secrets" involved in making good glass, and b) I don't think that Sony would shell out the money for setting up their own fundamental research group for lenses.

In fact, to avoid this, they decided many years ago to cooperate with Zeiss instead - since Zeiss has that kind of knowledge.

When it comes to the surroundings of the optical system in a lens: Yes, that I can believe is Sony now: Focusing motors, chips, electronics, interaction with the camera body: All that is probably part of the dSLR group at Sony - and they will closely cooperate with the manufacturer of the optical system to meet common goals (e. g. designing lenses that focus quickly).

Sorry for the long rant!

Georg

--

Minolta 9000, 9xi, 5D, Sony A700. 17-35mm f2.8-4, 50mm f1.4, 24-105mm, 70-300mm G, 100-300mm APO, 500mm f8 Reflex. Metz 45CL-4 digital, Sony HVL-42

roweraay said:

steelhead3 said:

Minolta controls the price of the 300. Sony doesn't make lenses,
they contract them out.

Click to expand...

No, Sony bought the entire shebang. Sony bought the whole camera
business including lenses and lens factories - from KM, when KM
exited out of the market.

Click to expand...

From everything I read about KM's sale of it's camera division to Sony this is not correct. One article in particular stated that Konica-Minolta retained the factories that still make a few of the old KM lenses for Sony, along with a wide variety of other optical lenses for cameras and other uses (like laser printers and copiers, etc).

KM's website shows that they are still makers of optics:
http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/products/index.html

--Phil

Phixel said:

roweraay said:

steelhead3 said:

Minolta controls the price of the 300. Sony doesn't make lenses,
they contract them out.

Click to expand...

No, Sony bought the entire shebang. Sony bought the whole camera
business including lenses and lens factories - from KM, when KM
exited out of the market.

Click to expand...

From everything I read about KM's sale of it's camera division to
Sony this is not correct. One article in particular stated that
Konica-Minolta retained the factories that still make a few of the
old KM lenses for Sony, along with a wide variety of other optical
lenses for cameras and other uses (like laser printers and copiers,
etc).

KM's website shows that they are still makers of optics:
http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/products/index.html

--Phil

Click to expand...

If KM does indeed make the white "G" stuff (70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, TCs) I think they should have kept them labeled as KM (and left the grips alone . This would have given the Sony Alpha a direct link to the old Minolta system.

Also KM would be taking all the attacks about the price and not Sony

--
Rick

WaltKnapp said:

Greenspan said:

Exactly, pumping trillions of dollars into the economy via bailouts
and the like has to come from somewhere. Dollar drops in value.

Click to expand...

Apparently the thing that did it was the Federal Reserve deciding to
buy 300billion of US Savings bonds.

Very little of that trillions of dollars have gotten into the
economy. A lot probably never will.

Walt

Click to expand...

Yep, they buy Savings Bonds to increase the money supply. The idea is it'll make it easier for banks to lend money to people, but it also lowers the value of the dollar.

fjbyrne said:

Phixel said:

roweraay said:

steelhead3 said:

Minolta controls the price of the 300. Sony doesn't make lenses,
they contract them out.

Click to expand...

No, Sony bought the entire shebang. Sony bought the whole camera
business including lenses and lens factories - from KM, when KM
exited out of the market.

Click to expand...

From everything I read about KM's sale of it's camera division to
Sony this is not correct. One article in particular stated that
Konica-Minolta retained the factories that still make a few of the
old KM lenses for Sony, along with a wide variety of other optical
lenses for cameras and other uses (like laser printers and copiers,
etc).

KM's website shows that they are still makers of optics:
http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/products/index.html

--Phil

Click to expand...

If KM does indeed make the white "G" stuff (70-200/2.8, 300/2.8, TCs)
I think they should have kept them labeled as KM (and left the grips
alone . This would have given the Sony Alpha a direct link to the
old Minolta system.

Also KM would be taking all the attacks about the price and not Sony
Rick

Click to expand...

I think Sony wanted to brand the "Sony - Alpha" system and that is hard to do if you sell lenses with another companies name on them. Too confusing for consumers too. IMO, Sony's price reduction on the a900 is a direct result of increased prices from their lens supplier(s) that they can not control and are attempting to offset.
-Phil

WaltKnapp said:

steelhead3 said:

Minolta controls the price of the 300. Sony doesn't make lenses,
they contract them out.

Click to expand...

Sony bought the Minolta lens factories. They are Sony now.

Walt

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for your assertion Walt? We know KM definitely kept some lens manufacturing asset for themselves at the time of the acquisition If Sony had not yet decided to build a full frame 35mm digital camera at the time, they would have thought it prudent not to buy a FF camera manufacturing facility using outdated equipment to make it. Keep in mind that at the time, Sony's main customer for their DSLR sensors was Nikon, who did not have a FF camera. Also the first Carl Zeiss lens for the Sony Alpha system was APS-C only and there has not been another APS-C Carl Zeiss since that time period. I think that is significant indicator of Sony's original plans for their DSLR cameras to be APS-C only. I believe Sony's original plan was to develop a whole new line of APS-C size sensor cameras only. With the a900 that lens road map has since changed of course.
-Phil

Did Canon or Nikon recently implement a price increase? Regardless of Sony's reasoning (value of yen, licensing fees, etc.), it makes no sense to increase prices when they are trying to increase market share, especially in this economy. When consumers are looking to purchase a DSLR, they are inundated with people telling them to buy Canon or Nikon. Having higher priced lenses than your main competitors is just another reason not to choose Sony.

Yes, I am pretty certain that Canon and Nikon have had and/or announced price increases in a number of their products. According to Thom Hogan, at least part of the Nikon price increases are due to the increased value of the yen. Absent a price increase the increased value of the yen would result in lower revenue, as the same number of dollars, Euros or whatever of revenue would translate to a lower value in yen. Thus, prices have had to go up to a certain extent.

Japanese manufacturers, when setting prices around the globe, necessarily have to take into consideration the value of the yen against the local currency in which its products are sold.

This of course comes on top of the actual cost of production, and any changes at that level (such as increases or decreases in the costs of raw materials, labor, and other manufacturing costs).

Bottom line - we simply don't have enough information to know why Sony has changed the prices of any of its products, though we can speculate to our heart's content.

--
Mark Van Bergh

But, will they lower prices if the Yen will get weak???

I doubt it, prices will most likely stay the same and it will be justified by the previous losses from a strong Yen.

KC Kennedy said:

But, will they lower prices if the Yen will get weak???
I doubt it, prices will most likely stay the same and it will be
justified by the previous losses from a strong Yen.

Click to expand...

Obviously, just as we don't know the full reasons and details behind a price increase, neither do we know them for a price decrease, but Sony has reduced the prices of various products over time, including for example the 70-200/2.8 SSM, not to mention the reductions for the A900 and CZ 24-70/2.8 noted at the beginning of this thread.

Competitive pressures should, at least to some extent, have a moderating influence on prices, including supporting price reductions when the time is right - from Sony's (or any other manufacturer's) perspective of course.

--
Mark Van Bergh

For Sony 300mm SSM version, SONY throws in the 42mm rear CPL filter & holder while KM, Canon & Nikon does not (If I remember correctly).
This cost very high for Minolta version in the 2nd hand market.

Furthermore, it also includes Lens Trunck Case (Aluminium hard-case) whereas Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED-IF VR AF lens replace with CL-L1 Ballistic Nylon Soft Lens Case.

Canon 52mm Circular Polarizer Glass Filter-Drop-In Cost $166.95
Nikon 52mm Circular Polarizer (C-PL1L) Glass Filter-Drop-In Cost $279.50

Canon MFD 2.5m; 2.550Kg - $4100+$166.95
Nikon MFD 2.2m, 2.850Kg - $5000+$279.50+Lens trunk case
Sony MFD 2m; 2.310Kg - $6000 (Now $6300)

The Sony 300/2.8 SSM lens may remain overpriced now due to low number handmade compare to the competitors, better sale quantity on simialiar lens.
But still hope SONY could bring down the price.

It is very valuable for Portrait, Sports and Wildlife (especially with a SONY TC).

fjbyrne said:

The 300/2.8 is the last lens that needed a price increase IMO.

Canon - $4100
Nikon - $5000
Sony - $6000 (now $6300)

You can buy a nice camera body for the $2200/$1300 difference. If
you are in the market for a system w/300 2.8 then Sony is pretty much
a non-starter.

--
Rick

Click to expand...

the reason for the price drop on the body, is that Sony is starting to clean house in anticipation of the new bodies expected to come out this summer? Sony may have more stock in the US and is starting in that market, but will drop prices in other countries as we get closer to the introduction of the new bodies.

As I recall, when Minolta first introduced the SSM 70-200mm and 300mm 'G' lenses, they were at the same prices as Sony had them at, when they bought out the lenses with the Sony name.

This is one reason that I never sent my Maxxum 9 in for the SSM upgrade.

Phixel said:

I think Sony wanted to brand the "Sony - Alpha" system and that is
hard to do if you sell lenses with another companies name on them.
Too confusing for consumers too. IMO, Sony's price reduction on the
a900 is a direct result of increased prices from their lens
supplier(s) that they can not control and are attempting to offset.
-Phil

Click to expand...

Maybe. Then again they add Carl Zeiss to the name because of the brand recognition. I'm just suggesting that they supposedly few KM supplied lenses in the Sony lineup could still carry the Minolta moniker to get that link to the past.

Just an idea.

--
Rick