Sony's Downfall

[Phixel]

Before the A700 came out, I was ready to switch to Canon or Nikon.
What stopped me was their lack of in-body stabilization.

Looks to me like they'll never have it.

A deal breaker for me.

I agree, if not for SSS, I would have probably gone with Canon. I believe that if one has a camera with in-body IS, it is unlikely they would want to give it up and move to a system without it. It's that good.
-Phil

 

[Phixel]

Flat on my back in shock... I bow to your desire to be fair even
after all you "my canon doesn't have this problem.. my Canon is fine
without IS posts"

At least you get that just because Sony wasn't where YOU needed them
to be it doesn't mean they are screwing up or doomed..

Thank you James.. I will have hold my toung for a few more "I love my
canon" posts in the future to say thanks for a solid fair post.
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Oops sorry, I'll try not to do this again, LOL. Seriously though, I
may not say it but when I point out my percieved advantages to a
Canon systems I only mean it in context to shooters with needs like
me. I see advantages and disadvanteges to all brands and don't
consider any my favorite. Canon has issues in QA and in there lens
lineup also. The variances of thier 5Ds are highly noted and cause
problems for shooters like me that use alternative lenses on them. A
lens that works on my 5D may very well hit the mirror on another 5D,
now that's sloppy tolerances in my book.

It was a long and hard decision for me to switch brands for many
reasons and I don't believe it's something another user should take
lightly. Unless that is, they have a lot of money. With enough
money you can make anything work for your needs right?

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

No doubt you were attracted to this threads subject line "Sony's Downfall" like a moth to a flame James! Wishful thinking??
-Phil

 

[jamesdak]

Before the A700 came out, I was ready to switch to Canon or Nikon.
What stopped me was their lack of in-body stabilization.

Looks to me like they'll never have it.

A deal breaker for me.

I agree, if not for SSS, I would have probably gone with Canon. I
believe that if one has a camera with in-body IS, it is unlikely they
would want to give it up and move to a system without it. It's that
good.
-Phil

I gave it up with no heart ache. But I'm old fashioned and some would say just plain ignorant, LOL! Stabilization is a useful tool and I think in body IS can easily be a great selling point for a system, all things considered. But do remember that the majority of the world's photographers are still shooting without it and somehow can still produce sharp images.

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

 

[esco]

Hilarious because sony no longer meets the op's required needs even though others may very well be alright with the system? What may work for you may not work for another. Thier's no denial about the lack of bright zooms in the system. I was on the verge of buying the a700 if it wasn't for that deal breaker. I.S. while nice doesn't freeze action.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

 

[jamesdak]

No doubt you were attracted to this threads subject line "Sony's
Downfall" like a moth to a flame James! Wishful thinking??
-Phil

Meaning what?? For me no Sony means no support for the various A-mount bodies I still own. It means less market competition which bodes poorly for all. It means one less option for me to pick from for my kid's camera. Heck, one of my funds is a heavy investor in Sony, does that surprise you a bit??

Oh and don't forget the entertainment value from posts like yours, LOL!! I'd sure miss that!
--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

 

[tompower53]

You make a point about Alpha mount lens's having some major holes in the line up as far as new lenses go. I think many of thoses holes will be filled in the next few months as third party manufacturers gear up for all the Sony cameras that have and are being sold.

Yes it would have been nice if all lenses and cameras had hit the market at the same time but it just does not work that way.

In another year or two Sony will have the best selection of lenses if canikon does not go to in body stabilization as all their lenses will be stabilized and the holes will be filled in the lineup.

I guess you have to be patient or switch to canikon for now but I would just wait a few months.

--
tom power

 

[tompower53]

How about the Sony 50 1.4, Zeiss 16-80, new Sony 70-300G, Sony 11-18, Sony 100 macro?

Would those not be samples of lens for medium to high end amateurs at medium price? Not sure exactly what you expect but they are working on filling in the lineup and have some pretty good stuff now I think.
--
tom power

 

[ronaldj]

It may be white.
But it is a awsome lens.

Indeed , expensive. i sold a couple minolta's that were in that range.
Did not regret it one moment.
ofcourse, I hold the best minolta lenses still and use them quite often.
The 28-75 2,8 is my standard walkaround lens. still amazing good.

 

[tompower53]

Look if you want a Sony advanced amateur model you buy an A700.

A200,300 and 350 are geared for people who are beginners or need/want liveview. These are fine cameras but are not Sony's advanced amateur model - that is the A700.

Don't try to remarket Sony cameras with your ideas. They are in charge of marketing their cameras, and seem to be doing pretty well in carving out there niche.
--
tom power

 

[Tim Q]

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.

Sounds to me that the problem with your post is that it's not about Sony you are complaining, it's about the popularity of Sony and the fact that the other non-Sony lens manufacturers are not keeping up with production in the types of lenses you are looking for.

And yes, you are correct that the top CZ lenses in the Sony line are very expensive and they are out of reach for now to the vast majority of photogs who would like to own one but can't.

But I just came from using Canon for my DSLR system and frankly, the L-glass is overpriced, the color palette is dull and muted and without IS in the bodies, they are a cash cow when it comes to having to buying into the IS-lenses series at the tele range or for their ultra-wide zooms to get to a decent W/A range.

I get very close to the same performance with the current line of the Sony bodies using less expensive optics, whether it's older Minolta lenses or their current new line of Sony lenses and the build-in IS system.

It all depends on what you are willing to afford and where you are willing to compromise with your equipment and at what level you are as a photog.

And as far as Sony having to drive sales with their consumer and pro-sumer lines to make the more expensive lines exist, that's the way with all companies.

If you think the Sony lines of still photography are expensive and unaffordable, you should try to buy some of their pro-line video equipment. They are the standard by which all others are measured and they are off-the-chart when it comes to costs.

And Canon and Nikon don't even try to compete with that market as Sony is light-years ahead there.

So be unhappy if you want to about your A-700 and your decisions.

But I think you are missing the whole point about the problems you are complaining about and maybe you should go back to Canon and dump $5000-7,000 into Canon and then feel better with your photography.

Not me.

Tim Quigley



http://www.newvisionsphoto.cc
Be sure to check out the VIDICOMP gallery

 

[Ken_5D]

No doubt you were attracted to this threads subject line "Sony's
Downfall" like a moth to a flame James! Wishful thinking??
-Phil

Meaning what?? For me no Sony means no support for the various
A-mount bodies I still own. It means less market competition which
bodes poorly for all. It means one less option for me to pick from
for my kid's camera. Heck, one of my funds is a heavy investor in
Sony, does that surprise you a bit??

Sony means support for KM 5D and 7D owners. KM means no support for any film bodies. Sony didn't close down KM's camera support... the saved part of it.

Sony also means MORE market competition.. Sony has released twice as many bodies in under two years as KM did in the previous three.

It means a company that has the size, background in pro imaging, and desire to be in the top 3...

So while I get you love you Canon and one IS lens and a steady hand is all you need. This last post about Sony is so far of the mark about what is going in it is silly.

A-mount would be dead now if not for Sony.

Oh and don't forget the entertainment value from posts like yours,
LOL!! I'd sure miss that!
--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Ken_5D]

...the anger of the brand defenders (which all brands have) is
disappointing.

How exactly is it a surprise that Sony is more profits conscious than
Minolta? Isn't that why legenday items like the Beercan are
legendary (i.e. their quality far exceeds their price)? Isn't that
why Minolta stopped making it (i.e. its manufacturing cost exceeded
its price)? Moreover, isn't the increased corporate mindedness of
many camera companies (be it Minolta, Pentax, or whomever)
problematic? Isn't that what so many people have said with respect
to Minolta (both for Konica and Sony), Pentax (Hoya), etc...?

Utopian Hogwash.. Good Business creates profits that feed R&D and grow market share that create a 3rd party ecosystem that makes a product line have vitality. Building great stuff for a loss or so small a profit you can't grow just creates failure.

And it isn't exactly a surprise that there remain very large holes in
the Sony lens lineup? And when exactly did most 3rd party lens
makers make a full range of Sony/Minolta lenses - much less actually
have them in stock?

In the last 6 months we have seen the first HSM announcements from Sigma for the Sony A-mount. Tamron and Sigma are both offering 70-200 2.8 lenses later this year

And is it not Sony's reputation in a wide range

of products to sell them at higher price points than their
competition (not that there is anything wrong with such a strategy)?

the key is this is a manufactured impression. (might be true in some regions still)

In the US a Sony system and lenses costs about the same if not less than a Canon except for those old white G lenses
Nikon on average costs more..
http://www.fogfire.com/dphotos/lenslist/Sony_Lens.pdf
I even built a starter system off UK sites and Sony was the same or cheaper
450 Starter Kit
http://www.fogfire.com/dphotos/UKShoppingtest/Canon%20450%20-%20Jessops.pdf
D60
http://www.fogfire.com/dphotos/UKShoppingtest/D60UKAmazon.pdf
A200
http://www.fogfire.com/dphotos/UKShoppingtest/SonyA200AmazonUK.pdf

Sometimes a brand's flaws become important for camera system's users.
They may not have been initially. They may have been overlooked for
a while. This decision to leave doesn't mean that there is anything
wrong with the OP's or anyone else's decision to move on.
Additionally, that decision to leave remains important for the
remaining users. If lots of people leave because they dislike lens
offerings (or whatever), that datum is important to the jilted
camera company as well as its remaining users.

My personal preference may differ from the OP's problems, but in some
ways they are not dissimilar. Why precisely should I have kept many
older Minolta lenses if Sony isn't going to repair them? I
understand Sony's decision but there are consequences to that
decision (especially when Sony trumpted the existence of all those
older lenses upon competion of the asset transfer agreement). This
is not to say that the A700 and other Sony products are not
phenomenol products - they are. That does not mean they are not
useful for all potential users. While the brand defenders may simply
reply to this or similar messages and say "Begone", the reasons
people leave may nevertheless shape how Sony approaches the future -
Sony certainly appears to have listened in the past. And this
remains the appropriate forum to voice these misgivings.
--
http://jcharding.zenfolio.com/

The main problem I have with the OPs post is he needs to create some impression for himself that Sony is doomed because he is not happy than share it with the world including people who are now looking for a camera and come here.. vs just saying he is not happy or he is moving because he can't find a lens he wants right now and has no strategy to get it.

Sony isn't doomed and this year has made it clear they are putting real skin in the game to become a strong #3 this year and maybe even go after #2 in the next few years.
--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[lonewolf69]

I gave it up with no heart ache. But I'm old fashioned and some
would say just plain ignorant, LOL! Stabilization is a useful tool
and I think in body IS can easily be a great selling point for a
system, all things considered. But do remember that the majority of
the world's photographers are still shooting without it and somehow
can still produce sharp images.

James,

Totally agreed! Most of the pros already have the "steady" grip and after years of practice can shoot straight and stead without the use of gimmicks like IS on body or in the lens!

As far as I can tell, from your portfolio, you're in the same category! Kudos! But for us mere mortals, I can personally tell you that without SSS my pictures are much less sharp and more blurry than with the system turned on.

I guess, you might say it's like training wheels for some.. LOL!

--
-Alex

From the minds of Minolta to the imagination of Sony, Alpha, like no other.

http://www.pbase.com/lonewolf69

 

[jimb100]

jcharding wrote:
The main problem I have with the OPs post is he needs to create some
impression for himself that Sony is doomed because he is not happy
than share it with the world including people who are now looking for
a camera and come here.. vs just saying he is not happy or he is
moving because he can't find a lens he wants right now and has no
strategy to get it.

Sony isn't doomed and this year has made it clear they are putting
real skin in the game to become a strong #3 this year and maybe even
go after #2 in the next few years.
--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

You miss the point.

Its not a matter of who sells the most cameras.

If that were the criteria, Nokia would be #1 as they sell more cameras than anyone else.

Its not who sells the most entry level DSLR's than anyone else. I've already stated I don't care how many mega mega pixel, noise ridden entry level cameras a company sells.

Selfishly, all I care about is a quality camera and lens set for advance amateurs, semi-pros and local pros.

Sony will not have the stature of Canon and Nikon until they accomplish this and I'm tire of waiting for them to take more than baby steps.

 

[jimb100]

I get very close to the same performance with the current line of the
Sony bodies using less expensive optics, whether it's older Minolta
lenses or their current new line of Sony lenses and the build-in IS
system.

Tim Quigley

If you think spending top dollar on an A700 then using an old Minolta 28-75 or a new Sony 70-300 or 16-105 gives satisfactory then good for you.

I don't agree and I don't think anyone who values sharpness in their photo would agree.

 

[cgarrard]

no
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Get out there and paint some light.

 

[Ken_5D]

jcharding wrote:
The main problem I have with the OPs post is he needs to create some
impression for himself that Sony is doomed because he is not happy
than share it with the world including people who are now looking for
a camera and come here.. vs just saying he is not happy or he is
moving because he can't find a lens he wants right now and has no
strategy to get it.

Sony isn't doomed and this year has made it clear they are putting
real skin in the game to become a strong #3 this year and maybe even
go after #2 in the next few years.
--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

You miss the point.

Its not a matter of who sells the most cameras.

If that were the criteria, Nokia would be #1 as they sell more
cameras than anyone else.

Its not who sells the most entry level DSLR's than anyone else. I've
already stated I don't care how many mega mega pixel, noise ridden
entry level cameras a company sells.

Selfishly, all I care about is a quality camera and lens set for
advance amateurs, semi-pros and local pros.

Sony will not have the stature of Canon and Nikon until they
accomplish this and I'm tire of waiting for them to take more than
baby steps.

You miss mine... Sony best strategy for success is not to meet your personal timeline. It has to do with building a line that sustains growth.

You had better care how many entry level cameras Sony sells.. that is what justifies and probably pays for them to build into the smaller markets at the top.

So when you post a RANT to this board about how Sony is doomoed and scare off an A200/A300/A350 buyer.. you slow down the development of what you care about.. its that simple.

So you are impatient, or you have a real need now for what Sony is not ready to meet because they are working on building a line, not filling our short order lens needs. fine.. Share that.. with out tying the doom of Sony to serving you...

And the main point of the RANT seemed to be.. So many people are buying the 70-300G I can't find one, if I can't find one, Sony must be doomed. If that were true every band with soldout concerts would be failures, Toyota's Prius line is a a failure

I am not saying you don't have a right to feel frustraighted when you can't a lens you ready to buy.. I am saying your frustration is not a sign of Sony's demise as you would lilke it to be.. none of us are that important..

As a matter of fact the lens selling beyound thier expetactions which I would assume it is based on how even thier site can't keep them in stock.. and the strong emotion you felt not being one of the happy owners.. says just the opposite... if you didn't care about the offering you wouldn't be made.

------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Gregory King]

If you think spending top dollar on an A700 then using an old Minolta
28-75 or a new Sony 70-300 or 16-105 gives satisfactory then good for
you.

Yeah, teh 28-75 was useless on film, or on the 7D, which cost more originally. And now you're saying the 70-300 isn't GOOD ENOUGH for the A700?????????Whatever.

The A700 is now "top dollar"??? Not for a lot of us.

I don't agree and I don't think anyone who values sharpness in their
photo would agree.

I guess you're right, I don't value that much sharpness.

But I'll leave it to the others to refute this silly comment.

Still wondering what a "halo product" is. Google was no help. I'm starting to thing it's the product that you want, but it's too expensive. Everything else is the right price, but not good enough?

How's that saying go? Caviar taste but tuna budget?

Greg

Greg

 

[Ken_5D]

I get very close to the same performance with the current line of the
Sony bodies using less expensive optics, whether it's older Minolta
lenses or their current new line of Sony lenses and the build-in IS
system.

Tim Quigley

If you think spending top dollar on an A700 then using an old Minolta
28-75 or a new Sony 70-300 or 16-105 gives satisfactory then good for
you.

I don't agree and I don't think anyone who values sharpness in their
photo would agree.

And if you think the only way to take good photos is with espensive lenses you are mistaken.. it adds.. but I have seen a lot of ho hum images taken with White lenses.
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Ken_5D]

Hilarious because sony no longer meets the op's required needs even
though others may very well be alright with the system? What may work
for you may not work for another. Thier's no denial about the lack of
bright zooms in the system. I was on the verge of buying the a700 if
it wasn't for that deal breaker. I.S. while nice doesn't freeze
action.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

Hilarius because the system as it is had even fewer options when the A700 was released.. because the OP wants Sony to start with expensive lenses before they they have developed the market for them, which would mean the price would be higher.. which I have no doubt the OP would then complain about.

The entire list of Sony lenses was listed when he bought his A700 is has not gotten smaller since then.. yet it is Sony's fault.

That is why it is funny.
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com