Reading mode: Light Dark

Why 'Sony' not taken seriously?

Go to last post
There are different cameras for different purposes. Canon and Nikon have had so many more years of development and public exposure that you can't "blame" Sony's situation on anyone else; C/N are much better at what they do than Sony is - Sony's job is to focus on doing something else (e.g. on taking the discussion outside the arena that C/N still dominate).

As for the talk of mirrorless, it's nothing new: Sony basically stated this (without being explicit) when they first took over the Minolta assets. SLT is a stepping stone on the way, and if you're getting good images now, you'll continue to do so with your camera.

I shoot both Canon and Sony. If I'm going out for what I know will be a long, busy day with a lot of photographic activity (especially action) I'm more likely to take my Canon (1D Mk IV - you really can't blame me for that one). If I'm heading for something a bit more artistic or natural, where there's little/no hint of adverse conditions, I'll take the Sony. So the Sony's my preference for DR and for subjects that are less active; I'll use the Canon for rough weather or extended action (also for more practical "old world" photographic features).

I use my cameras for what they're good at. If I'm moved by what other people are saying about a camera that I enjoy, then I've probably got some other (neurotic, no doubt) motives - and if I've a need for the world to better recognize these products ... well, it's much the same.

--
Rich
 
Last edited:
You also realize that Sigma and Tamron could be averaging out the costs of all the mounts and charging 1 price. So that the Canon and Nikon buyers are actually subsidizing the Sony and Pentax buyers.
 
I have been following recent developments regarding Sony in the financial press. It seems a USA based investment fund is increasing it's stake in Sony and is strongly pushing to have Sony split into 2 companies: one of which is the entertainment division (movies and TV) which is profitable and then the rest (which is reported to be non-profitable). Apparently this is contrary to Japanese tradition but from what I read the USA firm is determined and its stake in Sony is too large to be ignored by senior Sony executives. Who knows how this will end up, but usually once the Wall Street cost accountat types get involved, the non-profitable part gets cut and hacked until it's fixed or else there is nothing left. Could be interesting time for those of us who like our Sony cameras.
 
Some time ago now I handed my A700 with 70-300G to my friend ,a Nikon owner, to take pictures of my R/C plane i was flying. He was genuinly impressed with the camera but probably would't have considered Sony when he purchased the Nikon. Also when I bought the camera at a local shop they were heavily pushing Nikon but I compared Canon.Nikon.Pentax models and bought the A700 which I have not regretted but I do remember the sales person being almost shocked at my choice.
 
"but I do remember the sales person being almost shocked at my choice."

I had the same experience, he almost started talking me out of buying a Sony.
 
AfzalKhanVisuals said:
ak1981 wrote:

I am Sony user from the start. in present i use A57. Sony alpha cameras are never been any issue or problem for me. I love them but don't know why in most of the camera related websites, reviews goes against Sony? Is Sony is really a useless brand in camera section? why ppl always bark about Nikon & canon? Is just a thinking of ppl or the reality is Sony is not good enough?

one think also surprise me that why Sony not advertise its brand more as others? No promotions no ads? even they change technology so frequently. like sometime DSLR, SLT now rumor about mirror-less.

Lets discuss guys?

Regards

Afzal Khan
Click to expand...
I honestly think it's because Sony don't make cameras exclusively. Kind of like Sears was in the 50s and 60s.
 
every dollar spent on advertising has to come from somewhere.
Would you be happier if the average price went up $200 for a body ?
 
How about it coming from them selling more cameras? Isn't that normally the reason for advertising? Remember all those Agassi/Rebel advertisements that put Canon where it is today?
 
So far there is no sign of them understanding marketing in the way Canon does.
That would suggest they are happy with the current business model,
which is quite high initial pricing then discounting to clear stock quickly.
Canon is similar in this, but Sony doesn't seem to discount as deeply,
the inexplicable @57 cuts notwithstanding.
Sony Camera also seems to be a 2 speed set up, with the the DSLR's constantly
being refreshed to soak up the early adopters, but the consumer cams
have quite long model runs as their buyers aren't as switched on ?
 
In my area. Sony is the evil step child of the camera world. Hardly to not even suggersted by big box sales reps. I have 2 big box retailers and a wanna be big box computer store, all selling Sony DSLRs. Big box number one has the a55 as its sole sony camera on display. Sales people no nothing of it, and pretty much ignore it. They still want $over 600 for it. Best way to keep it collecting dust. Big box number two has a huge Sony display in the middle of the store, with the nex-7 and an a77 on display. Thats it. Oh, maybe an nex-3 series and a couple of lenses. Sales people have no knowledge of the product.... only want to push nikon or canon. I cant tell you how many times the sales staff ignores what the customer wants and pushes the t-series of canon. If im in a mood, ill wait till the sales rep leaves and tell them about an equvalent sony and point them to a website to get a used one cheap. The computer store has he biggest, atleast 7 models on display from a77 down to a58 and nex-3. The problem is the sales staff is the most ignorant to the problem. I am proud to say that my son and I have sold atleast 5 Sony cameras during our visits. Wish i got the commission check!!

What needs to be done, is Sony needs to hold product knowledge classes for the retailers who carry their product Im into sales, and as a distributor I am required to hold product knowledge classes to companies that carry the products i represent. So Sony needs to step up the ball!!

-john
 
Well, Sony is finally doing some serious advertising in the USA!

The July copy of 'Popular Photography' magazine has 8 (eight) consecutive pages of Sony adds.

The 'imaging edge' adds start on the back cover and are even upside down for added affect.

Looks like Sony is finally getting it! Hope this is an indication that exciting new imaging products are on the horizon.
 
The best product isn't always the most popular. Look at Google+, it's light years ahead of Facebook in every way AND very few use it. Of the 100 odd friends I have on Facebook 4, yes 4, use Google+. We all say the same thing: IF I could get my Facebook friends to switch I would drop my Facebook account.

Tesla is another one nobody paid attention to, yet a lot of the electronics we use today he invented: remote controls, radio, wireless power, etc.

I have thought a few times recently about switching to Nikon, I have the cash to re-buy all my glass, etc. I haven't because there is a lot to like about my a77 and I am not willing to give that up for some improved low-light performance, I rarely shoot in near dark conditions so I am not really missing anything.
 
I'm a Nikon user but a couple years ago I needed a 10 FPS body for an 80-400 lens to shoot college football from the sidelines of the field. Nikons and Canons cost $6,000 for this kind of sports performance. I had been using a D300 with 80-400 which is very slow. I switched to the A57 (10 FPS with continuous autofocus) with 70-400 which is an awesome combination. I was hoping that Sony would come up with an even better SLT with higher resolution and larger buffer. What did Sony do ? They gave us an entry level A58. Nice downgrade which will be the last of the cropped frame, SLT line. What do I do now? I continue to shoot with the A57 and 70-400 until Nikon introduces a D400 which is a long shot.
 
eastbayrae said:
eastbayrae wrote:

The best product isn't always the most popular. Look at Google+, it's light years ahead of Facebook in every way AND very few use it. Of the 100 odd friends I have on Facebook 4, yes 4, use Google+. We all say the same thing: IF I could get my Facebook friends to switch I would drop my Facebook account.

Tesla is another one nobody paid attention to, yet a lot of the electronics we use today he invented: remote controls, radio, wireless power, etc.

I have thought a few times recently about switching to Nikon, I have the cash to re-buy all my glass, etc. I haven't because there is a lot to like about my a77 and I am not willing to give that up for some improved low-light performance, I rarely shoot in near dark conditions so I am not really missing anything.
Click to expand...
 
Miike Dougherty said:
Miike Dougherty wrote:

I'm a Nikon user but a couple years ago I needed a 10 FPS body for an 80-400 lens to shoot college football from the sidelines of the field. Nikons and Canons cost $6,000 for this kind of sports performance. I had been using a D300 with 80-400 which is very slow. I switched to the A57 (10 FPS with continuous autofocus) with 70-400 which is an awesome combination. I was hoping that Sony would come up with an even better SLT with higher resolution and larger buffer. What did Sony do ? They gave us an entry level A58. Nice downgrade which will be the last of the cropped frame, SLT line. What do I do now? I continue to shoot with the A57 and 70-400 until Nikon introduces a D400 which is a long shot.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the Sony A77? It is an upgrade from the A57 in many respects.

All indications are that Sony will come out with a mirror-less cropped frame 'A' mount camera in the near future that will most likely blow away the competition. Patience my friend, it will be worth the wait!
 
AfzalKhanVisuals said:
ak1981 wrote:

I am Sony user from the start. in present i use A57. Sony alpha cameras are never been any issue or problem for me. I love them but don't know why in most of the camera related websites, reviews goes against Sony? Is Sony is really a useless brand in camera section? why ppl always bark about Nikon & canon? Is just a thinking of ppl or the reality is Sony is not good enough?

one think also surprise me that why Sony not advertise its brand more as others? No promotions no ads? even they change technology so frequently. like sometime DSLR, SLT now rumor about mirror-less.
Click to expand...
I've seen plenty of Sony marketing. But it doesn't undo all the factors, fair and unfair, that lead to what you're asking about. Your last sentence is one of them - Sony's commitment to anything seems suspect. They like to dabble, and particularly in complicated solutions to simpler problems. Sometimes that leads to a home run, sometimes to a niche with passionate adoptees, and often to flops. The latter two often get cancelled out. They also have a style tendency to make products that don't look like everyone else. Sometimes this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Other times a paradigm shift is in order, but meets a lot of resistance.

Sony mishits include the obnoxious memory stick, the mindisc, DAT tape (lived longer in data backups than music, betamax, and let's not forget the cd's with a rootkit. They continue to flounder with laptops, smartphones. TVs had been a strength, but they lost their way for much of the first decade (though their 4k offerings look amazing) with lower quality. Overall, for consumer electronics I feel they lost their luster by the early 90s. They can still make good stuff, but they make a lot of cheaper crap too.

For cameras, they effectively bought their way in via Minolta. But even then, their initial work was aimed at marketing measurables like MPs and "Carl Zeiss" branded lenses rather than actual quality. Giving people fuzzy EVFs and telling them they should like it? The NEX was the first time I thought they stood out- made it seem silly to go with the MFTs. Though lenses continue to be a serious defect, and fear that the E mount won't last 5 years can't be dismissed. Sony is losing money hand over fist and few product lines are safe from an overhaul. No one has this fear with EF or Nikkor.
 
I think the idea that the problem is lack of advertising is missing the point (besides which, I see plenty of Sony ads in camera magazines!).

Sony's problem is that they have developed a reputation for producing products that contain great technology but that aren't actually focused on customer needs. As a result, rather than evolving products over time in response to feedback from customers, they simply add more and more technical innovation and rip up Roadmaps whenever they want.

SLT is a perfect example: terrifically innovative but now apparently being discarded. NEX: fantastic technology but very little commitment from Sony to producing what actual photographers need, i.e. great lenses. RX1: an amazing "photographer's" camera...without a viewfinder.

It's all technology-driven instead of customer-needs-driven. That's why they're not taken seriously - because they don't seem to take the needs of their customers seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Zoom lens recommendation
Replies
12
Views
87K
Dhomas
D
Zormpas
A57 Firmware update thrash...
Replies
2
Views
2K
Zormpas
Zormpas
Martin Ocando
Ok, this is going to be a long one...
7 8 9
Replies
166
Views
478K
ahaslett
ahaslett
Erik Kaffehr
The origins of the 16 bit myth in medium format
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
just Tony
just Tony
G
Shadow Lifting Performance: S1RII vs. Z8/Sony
Replies
8
Views
14K
georgehudetz
G

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