A900

So I just talked to a Sony Rep that comes into my store ( I work for Best Buy) and I was asking him about the a900. He told me that the company had sent out preliminary pricing on the a900 about a month ago to the reps. He said its not nailed down yet but that they are aiming at the sub-$2000 market. Which would put it at less than half the price of the least expensive full frame camera available now (canon 5d @ $3000). Im not sure what to make of this or if I should believe this.....

That is what i told the Son rep. He said that the move to do this would be most likely to gain a larger portion of the market share and become a bigger player in the DSLR market (wouldn't suprise me although seems alittle unlike Sony).

This is some what related...

I went to two different best buys and they gave me different reasons as to why the A700 is no longer available. One mentioned that Sony has discontinued the A700. Another mentioned that if folks are spending $1,400 on a camera they gravitate towards Nikon & Canon, hence why they stopped selling the A700 (slow sales).

So maybe if Sony wants to grab your attention/more market share, a price point of around $2,000 for the A900 may be reasonable...just a thought...

I am trying really, really hard not to get too excited by this post, and I guess we'll know soon enough if it's true. If this fullframe camera is less than $2000, I am going to have a smile on my face for a long, long time.

n/t
--
Harry Lew

'Buying gear is easy. What's hard is paying for it.'
http://harryjohn.smugmug.com/

sub $2k sounds right,...
don't forget to add grip and batteries, and new flash,.... $2.9k

by the time you add the lenses,....
canon be cheaper to own,...
aka, was happy with the 85mm 1.8, for $440
on sony I need to get an 1.4 for $1360 ,....
do that a couple time,....

once it gets out, I'll probably want one,...

I may be in for two.

Being #2 in the DSLR industry doesn't seem like an impossibility for Sony if this rumor is true.

Might be time to start lining up some manual focus lenses for what I expect will be a big bright viewfinder.

Put me down for one Alpha 9 + grip.

headofdestiny wrote:

Being #2 in the DSLR industry doesn't seem like an impossibility for
Sony if this rumor is true.

i disagree. Nikon and Canon are pretty huge. I dont know who has what percentage, but sony has a lot of catching up to play. Plus you have the fact that a lot of people will got to a local big box retailer for a camera. These places usually have staff that are undereducated in the products that they are selling. They will tell people to buy one camera over another due to either their personal preference, what their friends/family own, or even by what management tells them.

Pricing is a starting point, but they also need to step up their game with instore displays, TV advertisements, internet advertisements, and also their product offering. Their first party branded accessory catalog is still limited. They need to expand this to allow more choice.

Sony is going for #2 over the next few years. I didn't mean to imply that this would be possible soon.

Can someone explain "full frame" camera please. Is my A700 or A350 a full frame camera and is it a big deal. Need to know what it means.

Thanks,

JHatha

There are no fullframe Sony DSLRs, yet. Your Sony's are known as APS-C. Fullframe means the image sensor is the same size as a 35mm frame of film, and, so far, is only available in three current DSLRs: Canon 5D, 1Ds III (and older 1Ds') and the Nikon D3.

Fullframe's advantages are many. Google it

Would a sub-$2K A900 be a breakthrough? Sure it would...to those of us "in the know," and who can see beyond the brand name. But the A100 was a similar breakthrough in its day. (Imagine! A D200 equivalent for under a grand...and with in-body stabilization to boot.) It sold decently, but scarcely made the "best-seller list" of the camera world. Similarly, the A700 compared very well to its Canikon rivals at a better price-point...and hasn't exactly been flying off the shelves, as evidenced by Best Buy and Circuit City dropping it. Meanwhile, lots of people keep buying the D300 and 40D, far more than are buying Sony's products, even when it means shelling out several hundred dollars for the same capabilities. And even more are grabbing D40s and Digital Rebel Whatevers, making it more likely that they'll go with one of those brands as they "move up."

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Sony's efforts are coming up against the "one letter too few" syndrome. No matter what the product line's capabilities, it seems that far too many camera buyers, even in the "prosumer" or "lower-cost professional" ranges, refuse to consider S-O-N-Y when they can get C-A-N-O-N or N-I-K-O-N instead. While a(nother) Sony price-performance breakthrough like a sub-$2k A900 will have some impact, I suspect it will be nothing like what would hapen if either company with those magic five letters in their name were to introduce such a model, even priced a thousand bucks higher. I'm pretty much convinced that, to be able to climb to #2 (or even a large #3 share), Sony's going to need to be in this for the long haul, with enough of a track record that DSLR buyers won't have their first mental reaction when they hear "Sony" be "camcorders and plasma TVs," and when enough people have acquired Alpha-mount "consumer-grade" DSLRs that their first inclination when they upgrade will be to stick with the same platform. Single-camera breakthroughs will certainly help, but even this one won't turn the tide quickly. IMHO.