Prime lenses and Image stabilization

[Alphoid]

Spillicus wrote:

I've heard another wild, totally unsubstantiated rumor along those lines, but slightly different, that goes like Sony are pricks and wants to charge Sigma for the information necessary to make Sigma lenses compatible for A-mount. Rather than pay, Sigma just tries to reverse engineer it, but they don't quite get it right.

This is true, but then Sony seems to goes out of their way to break compatibility...

Alternative explanation #4: Canon and Nikon have market power, and pressure Sigma and Tamron in some way.

Why would Canon and Nikon want 3rd party lenses to be cheaper? Nah.

Nikon doesn't want Tamron and Sigma lenses to be cheaper overall, but they really don't want Sony-mount Tamron lenses to be cheaper than Nikon-mount Tamron lenses. That would push people towards buying into a Sony system instead of a Nikon system. That way, Nikon makes money on cameras, and in many cases, eventually makes money on lenses. It would be very standard practice for a company like Nikon to include something like a Most Favored Customer clause for customers buying Nikon-mount lenses from Tamron as part of licensing the lens mount.

I started out photography with mostly Tamron lenses. I now shoot almost all manufacturer-brand lenses (one Tokina in the mix -- but it's rather good). Many people do transition away from Tamron and Sigma as they mature. There is a very noticeable quality difference between manufacturer-brand glass and either Tamron or classic Sigma (I haven't tried the highly-reviewed contemporary Sigma glass much). A bunch of people on dpreview told me so at the time I was buying Tamron crap, but I didn't listen. From the number of people who warned me, I doubt my story is uncommon.

 

[Spillicus]

Alphoid wrote:

Spillicus wrote:

I've heard another wild, totally unsubstantiated rumor along those lines, but slightly different, that goes like Sony are pricks and wants to charge Sigma for the information necessary to make Sigma lenses compatible for A-mount. Rather than pay, Sigma just tries to reverse engineer it, but they don't quite get it right.

This is true, but then Sony seems to goes out of their way to break compatibility...

Alternative explanation #4: Canon and Nikon have market power, and pressure Sigma and Tamron in some way.

Why would Canon and Nikon want 3rd party lenses to be cheaper? Nah.

Nikon doesn't want Tamron and Sigma lenses to be cheaper overall, but they really don't want Sony-mount Tamron lenses to be cheaper than Nikon-mount Tamron lenses. That would push people towards buying into a Sony system instead of a Nikon system. That way, Nikon makes money on cameras, and in many cases, eventually makes money on lenses. It would be very standard practice for a company like Nikon to include something like a Most Favored Customer clause for customers buying Nikon-mount lenses from Tamron as part of licensing the lens mount.

I think this would probably be illegal, at least under US law. It would be considered price fixing or an anti-competitive business practice. I doubt Nikon cares how Tamron prices their Sony lenses anyways; that's probably not figured to be a big differentiator for people choosing a system.

I started out photography with mostly Tamron lenses. I now shoot almost all manufacturer-brand lenses (one Tokina in the mix -- but it's rather good). Many people do transition away from Tamron and Sigma as they mature. There is a very noticeable quality difference between manufacturer-brand glass and either Tamron or classic Sigma (I haven't tried the highly-reviewed contemporary Sigma glass much). A bunch of people on dpreview told me so at the time I was buying Tamron crap, but I didn't listen. From the number of people who warned me, I doubt my story is uncommon.

 

[Guidenet]

Spillicus wrote:

As an example, look at the higher end F/2.8 standard zooms for APS-C cameras; you can get the very good Sony 16-50 F/2.8 (of course not stabilized) for $750, much cheaper than either the Canon or Nikon 17-55 equivalents, which are both over $1000. Removing stabilization obviously doesn't save that much, but Sony isn't penalized by lower volumes enough to drive up cost.

This is what I'm talking about. The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is a somewhat high level EF-S lens while the Nikon does not have VR at all and is a pro-grade lens all the way. All three are not comparible in any way. I don't think that lacking IS on the Sony has anything to do with the price being cheaper in this comparison.

I don't think there has ever been a real case for the idea that in-body stabilizaion saves because you're not paying for it lens by lens. The only case would be for allowing IS on older glass. That's a good case too if you care much about stabilizaion. Personally, I don't but many do.

There's one example where you might be able to make a comparison; Sony A-mount versus E-mount lenses.

I'm not sure that comparison can show economies of scale. Same company. I don't know the sales rates of either in comparison.

Take care.

 

[Guidenet]

Spillicus wrote:

Alphoid wrote:

Spillicus wrote:

I've heard another wild, totally unsubstantiated rumor along those lines, but slightly different, that goes like Sony are pricks and wants to charge Sigma for the information necessary to make Sigma lenses compatible for A-mount. Rather than pay, Sigma just tries to reverse engineer it, but they don't quite get it right.

This is true, but then Sony seems to goes out of their way to break compatibility...

Alternative explanation #4: Canon and Nikon have market power, and pressure Sigma and Tamron in some way.

Why would Canon and Nikon want 3rd party lenses to be cheaper? Nah.

Nikon doesn't want Tamron and Sigma lenses to be cheaper overall, but they really don't want Sony-mount Tamron lenses to be cheaper than Nikon-mount Tamron lenses. That would push people towards buying into a Sony system instead of a Nikon system. That way, Nikon makes money on cameras, and in many cases, eventually makes money on lenses. It would be very standard practice for a company like Nikon to include something like a Most Favored Customer clause for customers buying Nikon-mount lenses from Tamron as part of licensing the lens mount.

I think this would probably be illegal, at least under US law. It would be considered price fixing or an anti-competitive business practice. I doubt Nikon cares how Tamron prices their Sony lenses anyways; that's probably not figured to be a big differentiator for people choosing a system.

Yes, I completely agree. Sony may be on Nikon's radar, but not to much of a degree. They work too closely together. It's Canon who is perpetually on Nikon's radar and the other way around.

Besides, it's more likely that big brother Sony would pull stuff like that rather than Nikon. They're the ones with the marketing clout when they want to flex it and they are the ones with the history of flexing marketing muscle. They have never been shy.

 

[Guidenet]

Alphoid wrote:

Why would Canon and Nikon want 3rd party lenses to be cheaper? Nah.

Nikon doesn't want Tamron and Sigma lenses to be cheaper overall, but they really don't want Sony-mount Tamron lenses to be cheaper than Nikon-mount Tamron lenses.

You know, I was just thinking about this. Sony has the smallest marketshare of cameras, but otherwise Sony is huge. They are not this woebegone little orphan of Minolta. The are a super giant electonics mega-company world wide.

But, I often hear Sony camera owners acting as if Sony was the poor, small, beat up kid on the block who gets his lunch money stolen. No way guys. Ain't gonna happen. Sony is the bug guy on the block and if they choose to be the bully, they can have have done so in the past.

Their corporate behavior is the reason I quit talking or advising people to purchase Sony but time heals all and I don't blame owners or even current management for past activities. Understand though, Sony has a reputation for slam dunking competition whenever they choose in any manner they seem to want.

My point is to put this into perspective when discussing conspiracy theories. Sony is the big guy here with all the muscle and can flex it in a heartbeat. Between the three smallest in the batch would be Nikon which is just an optics and camera company. Sony dwarfs Nikon. Panasonic probably does as well. Canon is somewhere in between.

Take care, guys.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Never got over those rootkits, didya?

Me neither

 

[Guidenet]

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Never got over those rootkits, didya?

Me neither

--
Leonard Migliore

Grrrr.. exactly, my friend. I shudder inside when I hear people treating Sony like some poor innocent bystander.

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 

[rsn48]

Anything new Canon is releasing has image stabilization on it. Canon just released three new lens, the Canon 35 f2 IS and the Canon 24 and 28 f2.8 IS. At the shorter focal lengths you really don't need stabilization that much, remember stabilization doesn't keep sharp subject movement, it only keeps static subjects sharp. So if you have a lens, lets say the Canon 35mm f2 IS mk 2 lens, and you are shooting at 1/15th of a second, if you have anything living and moving in that image it will be blurred.

 

[ilysaml]

rsn48 wrote:

Anything new Canon is releasing has image stabilization on it. Canon just released three new lens, the Canon 35 f2 IS and the Canon 24 and 28 f2.8 IS. At the shorter focal lengths you really don't need stabilization that much, remember stabilization doesn't keep sharp subject movement, it only keeps static subjects sharp. So if you have a lens, lets say the Canon 35mm f2 IS mk 2 lens, and you are shooting at 1/15th of a second, if you have anything living and moving in that image it will be blurred.

--
Hindsight is better than foresight, except for lost opportunity costs.

IS mode 2 & 3 for panning doe really bring moving subjects sharp and avoid blurring.

--
Ilysaml

 

[Alphoid]

Spillicus wrote:

I think this would probably be illegal, at least under US law. It would be considered price fixing or an anti-competitive business practice. I doubt Nikon cares how Tamron prices their Sony lenses anyways; that's probably not figured to be a big differentiator for people choosing a system.

MFC clauses are standard business practice. Can you point to some law they break?

Guidenet wrote:

Besides, it's more likely that big brother Sony would pull stuff like that rather than Nikon. They're the ones with the marketing clout when they want to flex it and they are the ones with the history of flexing marketing muscle. They have never been shy.

I'm not trying to make Sony into the victim. Sony is the nastiest of the bunch. That's just the way business is done. I do not know any CEO who wouldn't include an MFC clause if it would help them. Whether there is one isn't a question of Nikon's character, but of whether there is a licensing agreement, of what Nikon and Tamron both wanted out of the negotiation, and of whom was in a position of greater strength going in.

 

[Alphoid]

Guidenet wrote:

But, I often hear Sony camera owners acting as if Sony was the poor, small, beat up kid on the block who gets his lunch money stolen. No way guys. Ain't gonna happen. Sony is the bug guy on the block and if they choose to be the bully, they can have have done so in the past.

Their corporate behavior is the reason I quit talking or advising people to purchase Sony but time heals all and I don't blame owners or even current management for past activities. Understand though, Sony has a reputation for slam dunking competition whenever they choose in any manner they seem to want.

Companies sometimes change. IBM used to be the nastiest of the nasties, and now they're quite benign. Microsoft is on the upswing. Google is on a rapid downswing (although still well ahead).

Companies don't always change. Sony was pretty nasty in the past, and as best as I can make out, is still nasty in the present.

 

[Spillicus]

Alphoid wrote:

Spillicus wrote:

I think this would probably be illegal, at least under US law. It would be considered price fixing or an anti-competitive business practice. I doubt Nikon cares how Tamron prices their Sony lenses anyways; that's probably not figured to be a big differentiator for people choosing a system.

MFC clauses are standard business practice. Can you point to some law they break?

This law; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1

If Tamron were just a supplier to Nikon and Sony and wanted to enter into favorable pricing terms or some kind of MFC clause, it would probably be fine. But because Tamron and Nikon are competitors in the lens market, they can't make any agreement related to pricing without running afoul of antitrust laws. That would be price fixing.

Guidenet wrote:

Besides, it's more likely that big brother Sony would pull stuff like that rather than Nikon. They're the ones with the marketing clout when they want to flex it and they are the ones with the history of flexing marketing muscle. They have never been shy.

I'm not trying to make Sony into the victim. Sony is the nastiest of the bunch. That's just the way business is done. I do not know any CEO who wouldn't include an MFC clause if it would help them. Whether there is one isn't a question of Nikon's character, but of whether there is a licensing agreement, of what Nikon and Tamron both wanted out of the negotiation, and of whom was in a position of greater strength going in.

I like how Guidenet thinks Sony marketing is any good; for their alpha line, it's basically non existant.

And of course they're nasty, I can't think of one corporation who isn't. The fact that Sony ownes record labels and movie companies makes them especially easy to hate.

 

[Guidenet]

Spillicus wrote:

I like how Guidenet thinks Sony marketing is any good; for their alpha line, it's basically non existant.

And of course they're nasty, I can't think of one corporation who isn't. The fact that Sony ownes record labels and movie companies makes them especially easy to hate.

I didn't say Sony's marketing department was good or bad. What I said was that if they chose to flex their marketing muscle, they're the biggest and baddest of the bunch.

As far as record labels and movie companies, I could care less. I applaud large companies when they make a profit and do the right things. My 401K depends on it. ;-)

What I don't care for is when they do the wrong thing to the public in general and their customers specifically. Google "Sony Rootkit" and read up a bit from not too long ago. Read up on how many world governments ordered Sony to stop and see what Sony did do. We still see residual effects to this day. Many of us swore to never own another Sony product of any kind.

This doesn't mean we don't like people who buy Sony products. It's just a personal view anymore. I just find it interesting that Sony Marketing has quietly and efficiently rewritten themselves up to look like the poor, little underdog in the camera world. I think they're pretty good at it. As you know, many defend them like a rabid pitbull on these forums (not you two). ;-)

There's a lot more as well, but the rootkit scandal shows what bad corporate conduct and that mindset can mean. Sony is used to a cut-throat market in televisions, computers, and other home electronics. I just don't think the other camera makers have had to play that roughly in the past. We'll just have to see. Sony, Panasonic and other large home electonic companies have moved into the interchangeable lens camera markets and you can't go back. We'll just have to see how the new playing field works itself out.

Twenty years from now, it could be only the large home electronic companies in the DSLR market. You could find Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and the other corporate giants ruling the roost and the Nikons, Pentaxes and even the Canons a footnote in history. Already Minolta and Konica are swallowed up.

Anyway, I'm just talking and my view is not going to sway anyone so I usually don't say much about it. I certainly don't hold grudges or feel the need to fight about it.

Take care.

 

[Alphoid]

Spillicus wrote:

MFC clauses are standard business practice. Can you point to some law they break?

This law; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1

If Tamron were just a supplier to Nikon and Sony and wanted to enter into favorable pricing terms or some kind of MFC clause, it would probably be fine. But because Tamron and Nikon are competitors in the lens market, they can't make any agreement related to pricing without running afoul of antitrust laws. That would be price fixing.

I am unfamiliar with any provision in 15 USC which would prohibit an MFC clause. Can you please point to a specific provision? If Tamron, Nikon, Sony, Canon, and others were to get together and agree to keep prices high, that would be price fixing. An MFC clause simply guarantees Nikon customers best pricing on Tamron goods.

 

[Spillicus]

Alphoid wrote:

Spillicus wrote:

MFC clauses are standard business practice. Can you point to some law they break?

This law; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-1

If Tamron were just a supplier to Nikon and Sony and wanted to enter into favorable pricing terms or some kind of MFC clause, it would probably be fine. But because Tamron and Nikon are competitors in the lens market, they can't make any agreement related to pricing without running afoul of antitrust laws. That would be price fixing.

I am unfamiliar with any provision in 15 USC which would prohibit an MFC clause. Can you please point to a specific provision? If Tamron, Nikon, Sony, Canon, and others were to get together and agree to keep prices high, that would be price fixing. An MFC clause simply guarantees Nikon customers best pricing on Tamron goods.

Read chapter 1, paragraph 13, which does not allow price discrimination for like goods. If an MFC clause gives Nikon customers the best price, it of course is also giving somebody else the worst price. That disadvanted party could then claim, rightlfully, that Nikon and Tamron were colluding to give an unfair disadvantage in the marketplace.

Price fixing isn't just about keeping prices high; it's also price fixing to do things that drive volume.

 

[rsn48]

Here is a very good discussion of Nikon's VR but the information is also germane to Canon as well. It also covers panning and VR and IS.

Should you turn off VR and IS, yes but many don't know this, read the article linked to below:

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

 

[ilysaml]

rsn48 wrote:

Here is a very good discussion of Nikon's VR but the information is also germane to Canon as well. It also covers panning and VR and IS.

Should you turn off VR and IS, yes but many don't know this, read the article linked to below:

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

 

[peevee1]

Guidenet wrote:

Spillicus wrote:

I like how Guidenet thinks Sony marketing is any good; for their alpha line, it's basically non existant.

And of course they're nasty, I can't think of one corporation who isn't. The fact that Sony ownes record labels and movie companies makes them especially easy to hate.

I didn't say Sony's marketing department was good or bad. What I said was that if they chose to flex their marketing muscle, they're the biggest and baddest of the bunch.

A little hint - compare market caps of Sony, Canon, Nikon. You will be surprised.

 

[Alphoid]

Spillicus wrote:

Read chapter 1, paragraph 13, which does not allow price discrimination for like goods.

This is incorrect. It prevents price discrimination only if it is anti-competitive (specifically -- emphasis mine -- "where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them").

This is a complex legal standard. It is not at all clear that this qualifies (or, specifically, I do not believe it does):

1. The standard for what substantially lessens competition is quite high. It would be difficult to prove that keeping third-party lens prices equal lessens competition.
2. The standard goes down in monopoly or near-monopoly settings. This is not the case for the dSLR market.

If an MFC clause gives Nikon customers the best price, it of course is also giving somebody else the worst price.

This is false. It is very rare that MFC clauses only applies to one company. If Nikon can negotiate an MFC clause, so can Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc. Indeed, very often, becoming an MFC of a company simply means qualifying under well-defined and non-discriminatory criteria. For example, Tamron may, as a policy, grant MFC privileges to any camera maker who gives full documentation on mechanical and electrical standards for mounts, as well as a license to related patents, loyalty-free).

It is very common for MFC status to apply to everyone or almost everyone. To give an analog, you can look up MFN (most favored nation) -- the equivalent in national economic relations. 169 countries -- out of 196 -- have MFN status with each other. This is not uncommon. In such scenarios, MFC clauses are pro-competitive. Everyone or almost everyone gets the same deal from a supplier, with no discrimination.

 

[MarkInSF]

Alphoid wrote:

Guidenet wrote:

But, I often hear Sony camera owners acting as if Sony was the poor, small, beat up kid on the block who gets his lunch money stolen. No way guys. Ain't gonna happen. Sony is the bug guy on the block and if they choose to be the bully, they can have have done so in the past.

Their corporate behavior is the reason I quit talking or advising people to purchase Sony but time heals all and I don't blame owners or even current management for past activities. Understand though, Sony has a reputation for slam dunking competition whenever they choose in any manner they seem to want.

Companies sometimes change. IBM used to be the nastiest of the nasties, and now they're quite benign. Microsoft is on the upswing. Google is on a rapid downswing (although still well ahead).

Companies don't always change. Sony was pretty nasty in the past, and as best as I can make out, is still nasty in the present.

I don't think of companies as people. They don't have fixed personalities. Sometimes there are nasty managers who make decisions that hurt the world, but those same companies have other groups that are quite benign, even wonderful. Many of my friends work for Google and are appalled by the behavior of a few managers. The corporate culture as a whole promotes goodness (really), but it has not been firm enough at kicking out a few bad apples who got pushy. Olympus makes nice products and must have some talented and committed engineers making them, but their upper management was full of crooks (until the new CEO ratted them out and was shown the door for his honesty.)

IBM and Intel historically had highly competitive internal cultures that cared more about squashing competition than they did about benefitting mankind, but both had research groups doing amazing work that very strongly benefitted all of us whether the management wanted to or not. I've known a lot of miserable Microsoft employees, too, but Bill Gates does more good in a month than Steve Jobs did in his life. Gates has put his money (and that of Warren Buffett, amongst others) into solving some of the world's worst problems. Money I send to Microsoft may well cure malaria. Google may make driving safer (or eliminate the concept outright.)