Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
Next: Poor Sony. Mini review versus full reviews for warmed over Canon and Nikon APS cameras
From: R. Mark Clayton on 16 Apr 2010 17:54 "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:2010041621412350073-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > On 2010-04-16 21:06:16 +0100, Bruce said: > SNIP >> >> Minolta dominated the AF 35mm SLR market in the 1980s/90s with the >> 5000/7000/9000 and later the Dynax (US: Maxxum) SLRs. But they got >> greedy, and failed to invest, and their market share tumbled as >> Canon's EOS range grew Minolta let the marketing people work out how to extract maximim revenue from the punters. The X000 chassis were pretty basic and then you bought flash, winders, filters etc. etc. to do anything but the basics. Suddenly the competition had a fully loaded camera that did everything for the same price with all the expensive options thrown in, leading to the collapse of Minolta's complex offering in the market. They came back with Dynax, but a little too late and cut prices to gain market share, squeeaing their own margins... > >> The Alpha range is an embarrassment. Not the top end, but it is overpriced. Sony always like to price at the top end, but usually have something worth paying the extra for... > > Thanks for your reply: educational and much appreciated. > > -- > Pete >
From: Ray Fischer on 16 Apr 2010 23:34 Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>> People's first thought when considering >>> spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony. > >> True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera, >> the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not >> or produce their own. > >They produce their own using Minolta's optical facilities which they >bought. Their alpha series of DSLRs is based around Minolta's alpha >mount and is fully compatible with Minolta's old alpha lenses and >Minolta alpha compatibles from third party makers. Tamron, Sigma, and >Samyang are among those making Sony alpha compatible lenses. They >also have contractual arrangements with Tamron and Carl Zeiss. A few >of the lenses in their current line up are reviewed as being >unsurpassed in image quality, and a few are unique in what they offer, >such as their autofocusing 500mm reflex, or their 135mm STF (selective >transfer function, i.e. adjustable bokeh quality). > >They lack the range of current new lenses of Nikon or Canon, but >they're working to address that. This isn't a charity. In order to compete they have to be much better than Nikon and Canon. They're not and never will be. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Chris Malcolm on 17 Apr 2010 05:58 In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 Apr 2010 17:13:39 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> > wrote: >>A few >>of the lenses in their current line up are reviewed as being >>unsurpassed in image quality, and a few are unique in what they offer, >>such as their autofocusing 500mm reflex, or their 135mm STF (selective >>transfer function, i.e. adjustable bokeh quality). > Nikon did the adjustable bokeh thing all of 20 years ago with the AF > Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC. There is also an AF Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC for > people who don't subscribe to the mainly Japanese belief that 135mm is > a good focal length for portraits. So there is nothing "unique" about > Sony copying the idea two decades later, and nothing has ever come > close to the performance of the DC Nikkors. Sony didn't copy the idea. The lens was issued by Minolta, and AFAIK only a few years after the Nikkor DC. Sony have adapted the coatings to digital and continued its production. And it's not a copy of the Nikon design. It's an attempt to produce controllable good bokeh, but by a completely different method which produces different image characteristics. The Nikkor varies the amount of spherical aberration, and as far as I know you have to choose whether that's to be applied to foreground or background bokeh. Whereas the Sony/Minolta design uses an apodization filter. The visual effects of the two approaches are different. Comparative reviews are very hard to find. It's arguable that the Sony/Minolta approach is the more general and sophisticated approach. But of course the quality of implementation will be crucial in such high quality optics. There's also the visual differences. The Nikkor DC produces the characteristic "glow" effect of soft focus, an effect which is absent in the Sony/Minolta STF. So subjective preferences will come into it as well. If you know of a good comparative review of the two different lenses I'd be interested to see it. As far as I have been able to discover it's arguable which of the two approaches has resulted in a better lens. > Still, they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! What's interesting is that they didn't imitate. Minolta chose a different and technologically more sophisticated approach. Theoretically it could produce a better lens. The first question is whether they actually implemented it sufficiently well to realise the theoretical better performance. If so, the second question is whether in practice the difference matters. It's possible the different kind of bokeh produced by the Nikkor is subjectively preferable. > Regarding your ridiculous claim that some Sony lenses are reviewed as > "unsurpassed", the usual caveats about unreliable reviewers must be > repeated yet again. There is not a single Sony branded lens that is > not at least equalled by lenses from one or more other brands, and > they are usually well beaten. A generalisation that's pretty much true of the lens range from most of the good lens makers. They've all made duds, and nobody has consistently produced clear winners. There are various lens properties which contribute to general excellence. Suppose one lens has a sharper centre but softer edges than another. Which is the best? It may come down to preference. The one with the sharper centre would be best for products and portraits, the one with the sharper edges better for architecure and landscapes. There's plenty of room for dispute and individual taste when trying to decide which is of two good lenses is the best overall when each is better than the other in some respect. > And Sony cannot legitimately claim the credit for Carl Zeiss branded > lenses that are designed and manufactured by others. I don't get your point. They have a contract with Carl Zeiss to produce lenses for them which Zeiss will not produce for any other maker. What's wrong with that kind of approach to lenses? After all, Nikon don't make their own sensors, they get Sony to make them. Does that make Nikon an inferior camera maker to Sony who make their own sensors? > You really should learn to keep your sycophancy in check, because in > this case, it is quite hilariously misplaced. ;-) This could be an interesting discussion about matters of fact. That you have found it necessary to throw in personal insults suggests that you may have a different agenda. If you can tell me things I didn't know about Sony and Nikon lenses I'll be interested. I don't claim to be an expert and I'm willing to learn. If on the other hand you want a pissing contest count me out. -- Chris Malcolm
From: Chris Malcolm on 17 Apr 2010 06:05 In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:58:09 +0100, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>news:4bc7eec2$0$1597$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> Like it or not, the perception is that Sony is not a camera company >>> (or not a serious camera company). It's an electronics (primarily >>> audio & video) company. >> >>That's true but Cameras are seen as electronic devices by most people. >>Even I've been inpressed with their Trinitron line of TVs and monitors. >>Even Apple used them for monitors at one point didn't they. >> >>> People's first thought when considering >>> spending a $1000 on a camera is not going to be Sony. >> >>True, but there's no reason why they can;t make a good camera, >>the optics is another matter, IU'm not sure if they sub-contract out or not >>or produce their own. > Before taking over Konica Minolta, all Sony lenses were made by > subcontractors. I don't know whether the former Minolta factory > facilities were retained after the takeover, but the Carl Zeiss > branded lenses sold by Sony are made by Cosina. Indeed, all the Carl > Zeiss branded lenses on Sony cameras from before the K-M takeover were > also Cosina-made. >>> I suspect that for Sony to really do well in the camera business they >>> would have to be twice as good as Canon or Nikon. >> >>Or be significantly cheaper and still make a profit. > In the UK, the Sony Alpha DSLRs are significantly cheaper than their > nearest Canon or Nikon equivalents, but they still don't sell. Perhaps > the problem is that they took over a failed brand (Konica Minolta) > whose sales were almost non-existent? In the UK their market share is way behind Nikon and Canon. But it has kept increasing year by year. Maybe not as fast as Sony had hoped, but it's clearly going in the right direction. When you try to enter a new market where there are existing dominant players there's no other way of doing that to start at the bottom and work your way up. Sony do seem to be working their way up. What more could you expect from a new player? -- Chris Malcolm
From: Bruce on 17 Apr 2010 07:24
On 17 Apr 2010 09:58:49 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >I don't get your point. They have a contract with Carl Zeiss to >produce lenses for them which Zeiss will not produce for any other >maker. What's wrong with that kind of approach to lenses? What's wrong with it? It isn't true for a start. Carl Zeiss does not produce any lenses for (D)SLRs. They are all designed and manufactured under licence, in this case by Cosina. |