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: Bruce on 17 Apr 2010 07:25 On 17 Apr 2010 10:05:12 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >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. In the last year, Sony's market share in the UK has fallen. >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? Sony started at the bottom and is working its way down.
From: Chris Malcolm on 19 Apr 2010 05:12 In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes, that's how those Carl Zeiss branded lenses are produced. The reason they bear the Zeiss name is because the licence includes Zeiss being satisfied that the lenses are being produced to a high enough standard to merit being called Carl Zeiss lenses. Zeiss are happy that those lenses being labelled "Zeiss" will not sully their reputation. Reviewers find the lenses to be of very high optical quality. Some fussy Canon owners find them of sufficiently attractive quality to convert them rather than use the corresponding Canon (or Nikon) lens. Have you something you wish to tell Zeiss about their licence conditions being broken, their name being used on lenses which do not deserve to be branded as "Zeiss"? -- Chris Malcolm
From: Chris Malcolm on 19 Apr 2010 05:22 In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 Apr 2010 10:05:12 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> > wrote: >>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. > In the last year, Sony's market share in the UK has fallen. It's been a difficult year for everyone. But do you mean that Sony's UK market share has fallen relative to Canon and Nikon? If so where do you get your figures from? >>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? > Sony started at the bottom and is working its way down. It's difficult to find a more up to date comparative graph than this one, which shows Sony as making much the largest increase in world DSLR market share between 2006 and 2008. http://www.photographyblog.com/news/dslr_market_shares_gainers_losers/ I haven't been able to find any later figures or commentary with numbers which claims Sony's rise to have gone into reverse. Where are you getting your figures from? -- Chris Malcolm
From: Bruce on 19 Apr 2010 07:39
On 19 Apr 2010 09:12:36 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > >Yes, that's how those Carl Zeiss branded lenses are produced. The >reason they bear the Zeiss name is because the licence includes Zeiss >being satisfied that the lenses are being produced to a high enough >standard to merit being called Carl Zeiss lenses. Zeiss are happy that >those lenses being labelled "Zeiss" will not sully their >reputation. Reviewers find the lenses to be of very high optical >quality. Some fussy Canon owners find them of sufficiently attractive >quality to convert them rather than use the corresponding Canon (or >Nikon) lens. > >Have you something you wish to tell Zeiss about their licence >conditions being broken, their name being used on lenses which do not >deserve to be branded as "Zeiss"? Apology accepted. |