Sony's Downfall

[jimb100]

I upgraded a few months ago from my 7D to the A700. Now I'm sorry I did. I looked at the D40 but thought that since I had used Minolta for years, I'd stay with the A mount. Having some old Minolta lenses didn't hurt.

Now I'm sorry I did.

Not that there's anything wrong with the A700, its a fine camera.

But I decided I needed to upgrade my telephoto lens. I don't want a beercan as I've had a couple and, I'm sorry, they aren't as sharp as I'd like. Same with the old Minolta APO's.

OK, I'll buy the the new 70-300. Uh, no I won't. Out of stock and no one knows when it will be back in stock.

No problem, I'll buy the Sigma. Nope, out of stock no one knows when it will be back.

Tamron - Nope.

There's always the 70- 200 f2.8. Not at that price and that bulk.

OK, I've got the Tamron 17-50 2.8. nice lens, I'll get the Sigma 50 to 150. Great reviews, but nope, not available.

See, I don't think the dozen guys you see on the NFL sidelines are the ones who drive business. Its the working pros who shoot weddings on the weekends, product pics for ad agencies, graphic design shops, etc.

Sony wants to sell millions of A100's, 300s, 350s and superzooms to go with them. Perhaps the A900 will rival the top Canons and Nikons but that's not going to drive the advanced amateur, semi-pro, and working pro who the A700 is aimed at. But I don't think Sony cares. I think they want a Halo product that will drive point and shoot crowd to them. Us poor schnooks in the middle? Not Sony's target market.

Without the lenses in the $1000 range they'll sell lots of point and shoot upgrades and maybe they'll lure a few top pros with free equipment but all of us in the middle will be left with our tongues hanging out. Unable to afford or need the $2-3k lenses and not wanting the super zooms.

At this point I'm sorry I didn't sell off my old Minolta equipment and make the switch to Canon.

Perhaps after the dust settles on the best buy fiasco I'll get enough for the A700 to bail. If not, I guess I'll hope that perhaps next year there will be a telephoto lens I can afford and actually want to use. Almost two years after the A700's release.

 

[gil]

are not good enough for you : ). Funny, the Bigma works for me well and I can match it with the big guns out there (of course as long as one gets a good copy : )). Also a $14 Kiron 80-200mm MD lens worked as well, LOL.

Still ok to sell your old minolta lenses now as the demand is still high, unless you have the so-so stuff : ). Now, what is your problem?

cheers,
gil
--
**************
I've minimized dreaming the Mark series with the A700
I don't give opinions, just what I see : ).
Now 99.9% jpg but still 100% hand held,
No baits, calls and tricks but will use luck.

 

[Gregory King]

So, the fact that the 70-300SSM was just released, and is in high demand because it's good, is "Sony's Downfall".

Wow, and I can imagine the complaints if it weren't good enough to be sold out.

Sounds like you wanted to jump ship anyways and are fishing for a reason.

Greg

 

[RVG]

If the lenes you want are out of stock it must mean that there is a demand and many people are out there shooting away. There are other opportunities with lenses from other suppliers.

 

[jimb100]

If the lenes you want are out of stock it must mean that there is a
demand and many people are out there shooting away. There are other
opportunities with lenses from other suppliers.

I see, so the fact that Canon's and Nikon's lenses are in stock thus means no one wants them?

 

[jimb100]

So, the fact that the 70-300SSM was just released, and is in high
demand because it's good, is "Sony's Downfall".

Wow, and I can imagine the complaints if it weren't good enough to be
sold out.

Sounds like you wanted to jump ship anyways and are fishing for a
reason.

Greg

You miss the point. I don't want a point and shoot upgrade or an NFL sideline outfit. I want what the A700 promised to be. A camera for advanced amateurs, semi-pros and working pros. Sony hasn't produce or helped others to produce a lens line for this segment of the market.

I suspect there is a reason Best Buy cleared them out.

Now for all you fan boys, I'm not knocking the A700. I'm knocking Sony's marketing strategy which is obviouly geared to point and shoot upgrades and a halo product, leaving the middle without much.

Where are the better grade APS C lenses at good prices that we A700 buyers should have available?

 

[redsim74]

Hardly a fair comparison is it?

Two companies with the major market share and user bases in the millions that have been producing dSLRs for decades vs Sony with a small but respectable share after little more than 2 years of dSLR production.

I see, so the fact that Canon's and Nikon's lenses are in stock thus
means no one wants them?

 

[007peter]

Thanks for your brave candor, it is a very courageous thing to say. I am sure you will go down in FLAME, but I admire your bravery nonetheless.

However, you do realize that a $699 Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is just around the corner, so you telephoto situation should improve shortly.

In defense of sony, I would say that neither pentax, nikon, or olympus is any better in the telephoto department. Canon rules the long telephoto scene: if you shoot sports or BIF, none is better.

 

[AdamNP]

I spent about two minutes looking and found multiple places selling both the Tamron and Sigma 70-300s, in stock. I guess you're referring to one, apparently clueless, retailer? Or are you referring to the as yet unreleased 70-200s? The Sony 70-300G is in a widely known shortage situation right now, yes. It's also a single lens. Hardly a reason to give up on an entire system.

I can post endless links to the Tamron and Sigmas if you really want them.

 

[Miterman]

Two companies with the major market share and user bases in the
millions that have been producing dSLRs for decades vs Sony with a
small but respectable share after little more than 2 years of dSLR
production.

I see, so the fact that Canon's and Nikon's lenses are in stock thus
means no one wants them?

You have to ignore a WHOLE LOT of Minolta heritage to make that argument with a straight face.

I agree that Sony's lens offerings are floundering. Killing the 50/1.7 told me a lot from the get go. Other decisions since have reinforced it.

I agree with the OP. To a person who "gets it", Sony doesn't "get it" when it comes to lenses. It would seem that the third party manufacturers agree as well!!!!

--

A150: A200 w/ no mode dial, auto mode only. Has scene modes but the camera automatically selects them. Hurray for Sony making an uncomplicated DSLR for beginners.

A400: A350 w/ a circular eyecup! Getting into advanced amatuer terrotory here.

A450: A400 w/ extra range in the diopter adjustment. This may steal a700 sales though.

 

[krmuir]

There is also the multi purpose 18-250mm lens - it's not a bad piece of glass, and reasonably priced too. I am sure you will find the lenses you are after if you have a proper look around.

 

[KEITH-C]

I have some sympathy with the OP but if he thinks that the supply situation for lenses is bad in the States then he should come to the UK. I have never seen more than two Sony lenses together at the same time here & have only seen four different lenses altogether.

Keith-C

 

[Shishkejo]

I upgraded a few months ago from my 7D to the A700. Now I'm sorry I
did. I looked at the D40 but thought that since I had used Minolta
for years, I'd stay with the A mount. Having some old Minolta lenses
didn't hurt.

Now I'm sorry I did.

Not that there's anything wrong with the A700, its a fine camera.

But I decided I needed to upgrade my telephoto lens. I don't want a
beercan as I've had a couple and, I'm sorry, they aren't as sharp as
I'd like. Same with the old Minolta APO's.

OK, I'll buy the the new 70-300. Uh, no I won't. Out of stock and no
one knows when it will be back in stock.

lol, you wont buy it due to no stock? Do you think sony will let you wait few month for the lens?

No problem, I'll buy the Sigma. Nope, out of stock no one knows when
it will be back.

lol, you wont buy it due to no stock agains? Do you think sigma will let you wait few month agains?

Tamron - Nope.

There's always the 70- 200 f2.8. Not at that price and that bulk.

So you want something that good and cheap! Everyone want it, but i will say that you pay for the what you get, but agree it a bit pricy for Sony.

OK, I've got the Tamron 17-50 2.8. nice lens, I'll get the Sigma 50
to 150. Great reviews, but nope, not available.

OK, seem like you will never buy the lens if it out of stock. .

See, I don't think the dozen guys you see on the NFL sidelines are
the ones who drive business. Its the working pros who shoot weddings
on the weekends, product pics for ad agencies, graphic design shops,
etc.

Sony wants to sell millions of A100's, 300s, 350s and superzooms to
go with them. Perhaps the A900 will rival the top Canons and Nikons
but that's not going to drive the advanced amateur, semi-pro, and
working pro who the A700 is aimed at. But I don't think Sony cares. I
think they want a Halo product that will drive point and shoot crowd
to them. Us poor schnooks in the middle? Not Sony's target market.

Without the lenses in the $1000 range they'll sell lots of point and
shoot upgrades and maybe they'll lure a few top pros with free
equipment but all of us in the middle will be left with our tongues
hanging out. Unable to afford or need the $2-3k lenses and not
wanting the super zooms.

As i said, what you pay what for the what you get, you pay extra for the canon IS.

At this point I'm sorry I didn't sell off my old Minolta equipment
and make the switch to Canon.

Enjoy your new toy.

Perhaps after the dust settles on the best buy fiasco I'll get enough
for the A700 to bail. If not, I guess I'll hope that perhaps next
year there will be a telephoto lens I can afford and actually want to
use. Almost two years after the A700's release.

Canon have much more telephoto len, you got the right choice. But you will pay extra for the IS.

 

[Gregory King]

You miss the point. I don't want a point and shoot upgrade or an NFL
sideline outfit. I want what the A700 promised to be. A camera for
advanced amateurs, semi-pros and working pros. Sony hasn't produce or
helped others to produce a lens line for this segment of the market.

Jim,

I am trying to see your point. I just have a whole pile of Minolta glass, so maybe I don't appreciate your concerns as much as I should. Yes, I guess it would be frustrating that Sigma and Tamron ignore Sony. (But I don't like their options much myself).

It seemed as if you were focusing on one particular new lens. If you are alluding to a bigger picture, then I can see that point being discussed.

I suspect there is a reason Best Buy cleared them out.

I don't put much faith in BB doing anything for any reasonable reason. ;-)

Now for all you fan boys, I'm not knocking the A700. I'm knocking
Sony's marketing strategy which is obviouly geared to point and shoot
upgrades and a halo product, leaving the middle without much.

Well, they did come out with the A700 before the 200/300/350. So whether the lower end models selling more is their marketing strategy, or just what the public wants...I don't really knock Sony for that.

Where are the better grade APS C lenses at good prices that we A700
buyers should have available?

I'm sure some would consider "better grade" and "APS C" to be an oxymoron. ;-) I could as easily argue that the lack of DT lenses is a sign that they're focusing on the FF market, which is definitely not low-end.

But hey, the Tamron 55-200mm DI is available for $179. Too cheap for you?

Greg

 

[WaltKnapp]

Or how about my lens buys in just the last few months. All under $1000.

Tamron 300mm f2.8 (with the matching 1.4x & 2x TC) Adaptall II Used

Tamron 400mm f4 Adaptall II Used (takes the same TC as above and same filters)

Sony 50mm f1.4 New in box

Sony 18-250mm New in box (to replace my Minolta 18-200)

If those first two tele's are not good enough IQ, you have very high standards indeed, and won't fill them for your stated $1000 in any brand new.

That does not count a whole bunch of other lenses I already had. In the longer tele department that includes the Sigma 170-500, Tamron 200-400 and 200-500, Minolta 100-400. And the Minolta 100-300 in the medium tele.

The entire Minolta macro lineup is in my kit. 6 of them. Plus even more macro in other brands. A separate case just to hold all the macro lenses from 1:1 to 40x.

Three different series of wide angle to short tele setups. From 11mm to 300mm between them all.

A good part of what I have is readily available. Except for some of the more specialist lenses.

Yes I can think of lenses Sony should make but have not yet. But I'm too busy enjoying the new a700 instead. Nice step up from my 7D. I've still not tried a fraction of my lenses on it.

I will envy only one Canon lens, the 1x-5x macro. That I want Sony to make something even better. I already have the two Canon micro bellows lenses, they run fine on my a700.

Walt

 

[WaltKnapp]

I'm sure some would consider "better grade" and "APS C" to be an
oxymoron. ;-) I could as easily argue that the lack of DT lenses is
a sign that they're focusing on the FF market, which is definitely
not low-end.

I agree that there is a lack of effort in turning out high quality APS C lenses in a wide range of focal lengths and types. But it's not just Sony, all camera companies are doing that. APS C is capable of far better if it were just supported with more than made over film lenses. Particularily when it comes to quality optics.

I think the point is that there is a lack of mid quality lenses at mid quality prices. No where is this more evident than in mid to long tele. I agree, Sony is depending too much on that dwindling stock of Minolta lenses. Playing around with unobtainium priced lenses won't cut it.

Walt

 

[PhotoTraveler]

Right, so all those folks who use other brands are just imagining the out of stocks on those lenses?

Every brand has out of stock issues with lenses. Go to the other forums and you will see people asking "where can I find a X" , X being a brand new model of lens.

 

[PhotoTraveler]

So your issue is lens available and general not being in stock. Think you can do better other places.

Well, lets use Nikon as an example. Lets go shopping at BH for new good lenses or high end stuff that hasn't been replaced with new models.

24PCE
2.8/17-35
2.8/70-200VR
2.8/300 VR
4/600 VR
4/500 VR
2/200 VR
200-400
2.8/24-70
1.4/50 (not new but still)

All of them are out of stock.

The only new high end nikon lenses you can get right now are the 105 macro (not so new now), the 60 macro, and the 14-24.

Try switching to nikon right now, you can't buy anything because no one has their stuff in stock. And the old models the new stuff replaces is also gone.

 

[redsim74]

Heritage has nothing to do with producing new lenses. It wasn't like KM was turning lenses out by the truckload before they flicked the switch and handed over to Sony.

Think what you like but "I think" it's premature to be talking downfalls just yet.

You have to ignore a WHOLE LOT of Minolta heritage to make that
argument with a straight face.

I agree that Sony's lens offerings are floundering. Killing the
50/1.7 told me a lot from the get go. Other decisions since have
reinforced it.

I agree with the OP. To a person who "gets it", Sony doesn't "get
it" when it comes to lenses. It would seem that the third party
manufacturers agree as well!!!!

 

[Steve FStop]

Check it out on e*b_a_y...

I*tem > 350052829856

and you should be posting some pics from your new lens shortly?

Maybe things are not quite as bad as you think they are?

Regards
Steve
--
Shoot True - you only get one chance